Toggle search
Toggle menu
113.9K
73.8K
24.2K
3.7M
Tardis Wiki
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I

More actions
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive
Revision as of 06:35, 6 May 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\{\{retitle\|User:\{\{PAGENAME\}\}\}\} +{{retitle|User:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117184


Shortcut:
CzechOut

Hey everyone :) A different new forum, a different welcome message.

As it turns out, there aren't too many active discussions going on right now at the old Forum:Panopticon. As of today, the only threads that are really hoppin' are Doctor Who prefix in titles and Where do all TARDIS Index File articles lead to?

Our best approach is not to try to import old threads here. Just start 'em over and point to the old forum thread as needed. Thanks :)

00:25, 2 December 2012
Edited 00:29, 2 December 2012
Edited 00:29, 2 December 2012
Edited 00:29, 2 December 2012
Edited 00:30, 2 December 2012
Edited 02:37, 2 December 2012
Edited by Amorkuz 11:53, 27 May 2017
  • Mini-mitch
    First off, wow. These new forums are a vast improvement over our last ones.

    Question: When can we start using the new forums? Judging by New forums coming soon you need 48 hours to figure out styling etc. Just have discussion to bring up, but it can wait till whenever you, and the forums, are ready.

    00:58, 2 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    Well, gimme at least a day to sorta style this thing. It's quite rough at the moment, since there are some CSS conflicts around. Also, there are any number of new MediaWiki messages that have to be redesigned — or at least looked at.
    02:36, 2 December 2012
  • 452
    testing
    07:02, 5 December 2012

Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117218


Shortcut:
CzechOut
Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Doctor Who prefix in titles" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Welcome to the brand new Panopticon".

Now, where were we? Oh yes, I remember. We'd agreed in principle back in May 2012 to get rid of prepending instances of "Doctor Who:" or "Doctor Who -" from most titles. Tybort had reactivated interest in the thread. Tangerineduel had promised action this week, with a change date of something like the 4th December. Then I said I was preparing a master list of the changes that needed to be made, since a list was a necessary precondition of an easy bot fix.

The question on the table was whether we wanted to keep the old names around as redirects or if it was necessary to run a bot script on every single changed title to get rid of links to the old name. I had argued to keep the redirects around and the links in place as is.

And now, our story continues ...

15:54, 2 December 2012
Edited 22:47, 5 December 2012
Edited 01:57, 11 March 2013
CzechOut
Oh, I suppose the Doctor Who Battle in Time stuff still hasn't been resolved, but that should likely be in its own thread.
07:06, 25 December 2012

Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117229


Shortcut:
Mini-mitch
Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Rename the Continuity and Reference sections" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Doctor Who prefix in titles".

A previous discussion debated the continuity and reference section on story pages, and whether we should rename and/or merge them. The discussion did not come to a resolution.

At the time of archiving, there were several ideas floating about. It is best Users read through this discussion to understand and get a general idea of where the discussion was going and what ideas came up.

I would like to reopen this discussion and hopefully reach a conclusion. I am in favour of adopting User:CzechOut's idea - where we merge the two have general continuity (bulleted) and under that a table with information that is currently in references. MM/Want to talk? 17:08, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

17:08, 2 December 2012
Edited by CzechOut 17:21, 2 December 2012
Edited by Mini-mitch 00:54, 17 December 2012
Edited by Mini-mitch 17:49, 12 May 2014
Edited by Shambala108 03:36, 2 September 2018
  • CzechOut
    Well, I obviously back up MM on this one. :)
    23:04, 2 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch
    I think, if we do go a table for what currently are references, then it is best to reduce them from the currently format, where they are written out in a sentence, to just the word(s). E.g:

    "When someone joins the Church, they are given Sacred Names"

    will be reduced to

    Sacred Names

    00:38, 3 December 2012
  • OttselSpy25
    That's sounds like a pretty good idea. After all, things in the "References. Section usually should go in the "Continuity" section.
    21:29, 3 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    I don't have much issue with conflating the two sections.

    I am against the reduction that MM suggests, as I just find the lists of stuff somewhat boring. The more detailed References section adds colour to the article. While I admit much info covered in the References can be covered on other articles, some are specific to those stories and might be minor enough not to be able to be covered on other articles.

    If there's a provision in the new references to not just list with subheadings (or a table) but also have (short) sentences then I'd support this.

    What I don't want is for us to go down the MemoryAlpha where all their references are just shoved into a list like this

    05:09, 4 December 2012
  • Shambala108
    I prefer keeping the two sections separate, as they are now. I don't like bulleted lists and tables; complete sentences are more encyclopediac. I like the renamed ideas given in the original thread:
    • "Continuity" becomes >> "Canon and continuity"
    • "References" becomes >> "DWU references"

    Personally I am against the "dumbing down" of the wiki. Every new user starts out not knowing the rules, and with enough editing can learn. And there are plenty of editors that check recent changes to correct mistakes. There's nothing wrong with the current system and no need to change it so drastically.

    In the earlier thread someone stated that "continuity" and "references" were the same thing. They're not. I recently added many things to the reference sections of pages, trying to link to orphaned pages, and some of them are just one-off mentions that don't appear in other stories. Therefore they are not the same as continuity.

    Finally, I agree with Tangerineduel that the MemoryAlpha list is awful. I think we don't want something like that.

    05:22, 4 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    I've got an open mind about this stuff. I very much take on board Tangerineduel and Shambala108's point that a Memory Alpha-like bullet-pointing of simple links will not be sufficient. TD has stood firm on this point since at least 2008. Solutions would have to involve some sort of compromise in which things start in a collapsed state, but then pop up into true, full sentences. There's a middle ground between what exists now and something that has a little design flare and SMW practicality.

    However I gotta draw a line in the sand about something Shambala just mentioned.

    Under no circumstances — ever — will the word "canon" appear as a section title.

    We've been trying for years to get rid of that damned word, and we're not turning back now. Our canon policy is that there is no canon. With that in mind, we can't very well go adding a section called "canon and continuity" to pages.

    I'd also point out that there is no meaningful syntactical difference between "DWU references" and "continuity". That denotational truth has always been at the root of the problem with having two sections.

    05:55, 4 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    Just to expand a little bit on that last paragraph, the number of times that a thing is referenced is completely irrelevant, and essentially unprovable, given the thousands of Doctor Who stories we cover.

    You might think, for instance, that the Gubbage Cones only appeared in The Chase, so therefore you put them in a section called "references". But that's only because you've not considered the writing of Craig Hinton, where they reappear. You might believe the Varga plant is exclusive to Mission to the Unknown, but that's only cause you're editing Mission to the Unknown in 2009 and City of the Daleks hasn't been published yet.

    Trying to make a distinction between these two sections on the basis of number of appearances is a fool's errand. There are about a hundred new Doctor Who stories every year. One of them could easily prove you wrong. And no one can really say that they've experienced every single story that already exists.

    We just don't know whether [insert thing here] has only appeared in [insert story name here]. And that's really why there's no semantic difference between "references" and "DWU continuity".

    06:13, 4 December 2012
    Edited 06:14, 4 December 2012
    Edited 06:15, 4 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    It's been the root cause for some people CzechOut, although, I have seen more people adding Continuity information to References in the past year, which was what partly contributed to my lack of argument on combining the sections.

    But we will still need to be clear what information goes where when/if we combine the two.

    If we could, as CzechOut suggests have have a table, template or something which allows us to grab all the links within a reference section and display it in a table/list and also with a click of a show/hide display them with their contextual sentences, then that would be a good compromise. Though I'm not sure how workable that would be or if it would be practical to implement.

    In some ways, and musing on what CzechOut has already said, References is in fact simpler to define than Continuity.

    References is basically everything significant in the story, broken down and presented. References are simple, it's everything in the text that's significant in the DWU.

    But Continuity means we have to make narrative judgements about the story, and we have to decide what is a link and what is…stories happening to take place in similar places or mention similar things but not actually have any links. Take for example the Continuity sections on An Unearthly Child (TV story)#Continuity (second last bullet point), Dalek (TV story)#Continuity (last 2 bullet points) and The Ghosts of N-Space (audio story)#Continuity (bullet points 2 and 3). All of this information is notable, yes, but none of it is really a direct link between that story and any of those linked to in the Continuity section.

    Just because stories happen to take place in the same year or happen to mention the same thing doesn't mean they're linked.

    Continuity would possibly be better renamed "Connections" as it's the connections between the stories we're really concerned with.

    On the flip side of things, we could just get rid of Continuity entirely. If we say each story page represents information about that story, then References makes sense as it's all DWU information from within that story. But Continuity is based in part on defining the connections between it and another story, yes some of it comes from within that story, but some comes from outside of it. I would argue on the other side (of this flip side) that those connections are what makes it part of a large group of stories, that it is those connections that help to frame the story.

    14:04, 4 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch
    I would like to bring up the point that some 'references' will need to be in sentences. It makes them a lot clearer than they would if they were just a single word and also, when they are sentences, it does help to create pages for them.

    The Empty Child has a good list of references. As you will see, some of them would be fine as a single word (Champagne) while others, will need to be a sentence (mouse and lion)

    00:58, 17 December 2012
    Edited 21:02, 17 December 2012
  • Rowan Earthwood
    "References" is broader than continuity. As I think Tangerineduel indicated, a story may have references to another without being considered "in-continuity" for this wiki's purposes. Putting everything under continuity would mean deleting a vast amount of notable information.
    05:51, 18 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch

    Rowan Earthwood wrote: Putting everything under continuity would mean deleting a vast amount of notable information.

    Why would we delete information? We are talking about merging the two, not deleting one if favour of another. No information would get delete - apart from some sentences being reduced to a single word (if we go down that route).

    13:45, 18 December 2012
  • Rowan Earthwood
    To give a concrete example, Death Comes to Time has a short references section. If the section was relabeled continuity, would that section have to be deleted (perhaps hidden in the talk page)?
    14:55, 18 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch

    Rowan Earthwood wrote: To give a concrete example, Death Comes to Time has a short references section. If the section was relabeled continuity, would that section have to be deleted (perhaps hidden in the talk page)?

    Why would it be renamed 'continuity'? The section would probably be renamed 'References and continuity' but in the case of DCTT, it would just be 'references'.

    15:04, 18 December 2012
  • Rowan Earthwood
    That's the sort of question you created this thread to discuss, isn't it? I'm just trying to game out the likely results of each label change. So your current position is that the section should be renamed "references and continuity" in most cases? I don't have a problem with that; is that okay with everyone else?
    15:46, 18 December 2012
  • CzechOut

    Rowan Earthwood wrote: To give a concrete example, Death Comes to Time has a short references section. If the section was relabeled continuity, would that section have to be deleted (perhaps hidden in the talk page)?

    Dirty pool, me ol' son. Don't derail this thread by bringing over your gripes from another thread. Or, put another way, please read T:POINT. Or to put it a third way, the format seen on thousands of stories will not be determined by the 20-odd stories that are like Death Comes to Time.

    This proposal actually has nothing to do with those stories flying the {{notdwu}} flag. So let's not discuss those any further in this thread. There is another discussion ongoing about the continuity section on those type of story pages; please keep that conversation there, and there alone. Thanks :)

    This discussion is not solely about a simple name change of the section head. Despite the simplistic thread title, it's about a total refactoring of these sections such that they strike a balance between readable and overly verbose, and such that the section head actually describes the material beneath in a way that's not confusing to the first-time visitor.

    For this reason, I do not support Rowan's proposal that the section be called "references and continuity", because — as is evidenced by the fact that our newest editors are constantly confused about what to put into "continuity" and what to put into "references" — people simply don't connect with those words. We need something else entirely.

    17:38, 18 December 2012
  • Quest?on
    I don't think that the references list idea is a good one, because if I had never read a book or comic strip, how would I be able to understand what the references were without going through and clicking them all? The little description shows what the references are referring to.
    13:08, 24 December 2012
  • Josiah Rowe
    Just popping in for a moment — I like Tangerineduel's suggestion of "Connections". That gets rid of the problems with both "continuity" (which might mean things like Ace wearing Flowerchild's earring on her jacket before she finds it) and "references" (which might mean citations, or references to the real world or other fictional works). "Connections" allows for all of what I think we're trying to cover in such a section: the connections between different Doctor Who stories which make up this imaginary thing we call the DWU.
    04:06, 26 December 2012
  • OttselSpy25
    That would also sol've the proplem at the other thread.
    05:07, 26 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    Ignoring OS25's point as a violation of T:POINT for the moment, I'll third Tangerineduel's "connections" as a good word for the combination of these two sections. Might I suggest that for the next week we concentrate debate in this thread over whether that name, and the general concept of combining the two sections, seems appropriate to everyone?

    Once those two issues are decided, we can start a new thread for how to operationalise any changes to the way we convey information in the new, combined section.

    23:20, 26 December 2012
  • Imamadmad
    Connections is good with me.
    15:11, 29 December 2012
  • Shambala108
    I have to say I still don't see any good reason to separate the two, but if it has to happen, I am definitely opposed to bulleted lists. Aside from the awful look of a bulleted list, anyone using a tablet or mobile phone would find it tedious to have to click on a reference link from a story page and then go back to the story page to click on the next reference link.
    17:16, 29 December 2012
  • Shambala108
    OK, the first sentence should actually say, "I have to say I still don't see any good reason to combine the two,"

    Sorry for the mistake, I didn't get much sleep last night.

    17:21, 29 December 2012
  • Imamadmad
    I'm against a bulleted list or table of words as well. Much more interesting and informative to have a little sentence to go with the connections. Also, if it's just a list of linked words people are going to find it boring and just not read that section, let alone click all the links. Well, I wouldn't anyway if put in that situation.
    18:13, 29 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    I'm a little confused over what Imamadmad and Shambala are saying. These sections are already bulleted lists and already hard as heck to read on a mobile device because wikiamobile strips off bullets. What exactly are you opposing? Simply that the list be comprised only of single words and phrases? If so, that idea has long ago been nixed.

    I know that at least Imamadmad is primarily a mobile user, and I'm afraid that whatever solution we come up with will probably not display well on mobile. Wikia's current state of development of that skin just doesn't offer a great way to display lists of anything.

    23:02, 29 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch
    Connections seems good to me. The only thing I have concerns about is how we are going to differentiate between what is currently references and what is currently continuity.
    23:08, 29 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    I thought the point is that we didn't want to differentiate anymore because there was never clear differentiation between the two. By using "connections", the notes in the section can be about any kind of connection.
    23:17, 29 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    It is the combination of the two that I too am concerned with.

    Will the continuity section just form another sub-heading of the References section? So we'd have Story connections and Universe connections.

    Or, as I suggested above we could just abolish continuity and keep references and rename it as connections.

    CzechOut, I think Imamadmad is opposing the MemoryAlpha style list of words or even bullet pointed words. We want to keep the sentence structures of the References sections.

    05:33, 30 December 2012
  • Imamadmad

    CzechOut wrote: I know that at least Imamadmad is primarily a mobile user, and I'm afraid that whatever solution we come up with will probably not display well on mobile.

    Please don't assume Czechout. You know what they say about people who assume. I'm only mostly mobile editing for this and next month for travel reasons and even on my phone I only use the wikia skin because the mobile site is rubbish. Doesn't let me edit at all and can't even access the new forums. But that's a different issue. What I was saying about the words by themselves is that it makes for a rather boring section of page and the majority of people probably won't be bothered clicking on the links to gather more information, especially if they have a slow internet connection or are editing on a slow device such as an old computer. Or even just lazy (cough like me cough). Using only words would change a currently interesting section of page in my opinion into something which I know I probably won't be bothered reading. So, I say keep the phrases to keep the context and keep it interesting.

    20:17, 30 December 2012
    Edited 20:18, 30 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch

    Tangerineduel wrote: It is the combination of the two that I too am concerned with.

    Will the continuity section just form another sub-heading of the References section? So we'd have Story connections and Universe connections.

    This seems go to me, although we will need to be stricter on what exactly 'continuity' is. At the moment:

    • Amy mentions the Daleks. (TV: Victory of the Daleks etc)

    That is not continuity, that just a reference. Continuity would be if she went:

    • Amy mentions the first time she encountered the Daleks.

    Continuity should a direct link to another story. Anything else should be references. So the first example here, with Amy and the Daleks, would go into references, since she is only mentioning the Daleks.

    The second example, again with Amy and the Daleks, would go under continuity, as she is directly mention another story (Victory), and would go under continuity.

    20:25, 30 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel

    Mini-mitch wrote:

    Tangerineduel wrote: It is the combination of the two that I too am concerned with.

    Will the continuity section just form another sub-heading of the References section? So we'd have Story connections and Universe connections.

    This seems go to me, although we will need to be stricter on what exactly 'continuity' is. At the moment:

    • Amy mentions the Daleks. (TV: Victory of the Daleks etc)

    That is not continuity, that just a reference. Continuity would be if she went:

    • Amy mentions the first time she encountered the Daleks.

    Continuity should a direct link to another story. Anything else should be references. So the first example here, with Amy and the Daleks, would go into references, since she is only mentioning the Daleks.

    The second example, again with Amy and the Daleks, would go under continuity, as she is directly mention another story (Victory), and would go under continuity.

    This is what lead me to suggest we just get rid of Continuity entirely. As for much of continuity we have to make a judgement to find the connections between stories.

    As I demonstrated above many points in the continuity sections aren't links between stories, but someone's just added that "this story takes place in France, the Doctor also visited France in these stories".

    06:04, 31 December 2012
  • CzechOut

    Tangerineduel wrote: As I demonstrated above many points in the continuity sections aren't links between stories, but someone's just added that "this story takes place in France, the Doctor also visited France in these stories".

    But surely that is continuity. New Earth is a continuous element between the episode of the same name and Gridlock. What's wrong with mentioning that?

    I'm now even more confused what you're wanting than I've ever been, Tangerineduel — and I've never particularly understood your views on this part of story pages.

    At this stage in the conversation, it would really help me if you went to a televised story page, cut the continuity and references sections, pasted them here, replaced the asterisks with hashtags, and then made notes for each number. That way I could see in a practical example what you wanted to keep and what you wanted to throw away.

    22:31, 31 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    As CzechOut has requested here is the Continuity section from a story; Dalek. I have only done the Continuity as I don't think I've said anything about modifying the References.

    Going through this I think, as MM suggests if we are to go forward we need a criteria for Continuity.


    1. This story was adapted by writer Robert Shearman from his Big Finish Audio Drama Jubilee. This was the first time that a licenced Doctor Who story from the "expanded franchise" had been adapted in this way. Later, TV: Boom Town would reference a novel, and TV: Human Nature/The Family of Blood, Blink, and The Lodger would be based upon a previously published novel, a short story, and a comic strip respectively.
    2. This is the second story to feature Daleks (on screen) rising up stairs, the first being TV: Remembrance of the Daleks where an Imperial Dalek "climbs" stairs.
    3. The Cyberman head displayed in van Statten's museum is of a style from TV: Revenge of the Cybermen. This is the first time a Mondas Cyberman from the old series appeared in the revival series. This is not the first story in which both Cybermen and Daleks have appeared, however; discounting flashbacks, that honour goes to The Five Doctors.
    4. Adam Mitchell becomes the first on screen male companion of the Doctor since Vislor Turlough departed in the 1984 story TV: Planet of Fire.
    5. The Doctor tries to convince the Dalek that it no longer has any purpose, perhaps trying to use the same tactic as he did in TV: Remembrance of the Daleks, which resulted in a Dalek self-destructing.
    6. The Dalek was an unknown creature due to the Battle of the Medusa Cascade being unwritten, or simply "time got rewritten" due to following events.
    7. Van Satten says, "In-Tru-Der Window." A similar line would later be said by the Tenth Doctor in TV: The Sontaran Stratagem.
    8. This is the first televised Dalek story not to feature Davros since TV: Death to the Daleks in 1974.
    9. The Dalek tells Rose, "I feel your fear", to which she responds, "What do you expect?", mirroring a conversation between Victoria Waterfield and a Dalek in TV: The Evil of the Daleks.
    10. The Dalek developing emotions is like the ones in TV: The Evil of the Daleks.
    11. The Doctor previously visited 2012 on at least one occasion during or prior to his sixth incarnation (AUDIO: The Raincloud Man) as well as during his seventh (AUDIO: Frozen Time) and eighth incarnations (PROSE: The Shadows of Avalon). He would later do so again during his tenth (TV: Fear Her) and eleventh incarnations (TV: Good as Gold).
    12. Van Statten claims that his scientists discovered the cure from the common cold from alien bacteria in "the Russian crater." This presumably refers to the crater created by the Tunguska Event on 30 June 1908. After her defection from the Soviet Union to the United Kingdom in 1958, the Czech scientist Dr. Nadia Červenka provided the Sen-Gen Facility with a neuro-chemical hallucinogen developed using a yellow fungus which was discovered in the Tunguska crater. It was believed to be extraterrestial in origin. (AUDIO: Artificial Intelligence)

    Notes

    1. More of an introduction note or for the story notes.
    2. Is fine, it's a connection to a previous story.
    3. It's a stylistic connection.
    4. It is a connection to another story, but it's not a link exactly, there have been other male companions, it just needs clarifying to be TV companions.
    5. The use of "perhaps" seems more to be guess work than any actual link.
    6. No links present.
    7. This is a link that belongs more on The Sontaran Stratagem than this article, it is that story that is linking to this one.
    8. It's relevant information, but does it connect these two stories?
    9. Is a good connection.
    10. As above.
    11. If we take continuity as any link between stories then that's fine, they all take place in 2012. But there's nothing in any of these stories aside form the year that links them together. So my question would be; do these stories broaden your understanding of this story in the greater DW universe by knowing which stories take place in that year? For instance The Eleventh Hour's Continuity section does not mention the numerous stories that take place in 2008. The 2008 article does a better job to communicate that information.
    12. Like 5. another vague statement this time "presumedly". Information best suited on the common cold page or the Tunguska Event page.
    13:49, 2 January 2013
  • Digifiend
    Re: point 4, it says "on screen", I think that eliminates novels and audios, don't you? It already does clarify TV.
    02:08, 3 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel

    Digifiend wrote: Re: point 4, it says "on screen", I think that eliminates novels and audios, don't you? It already does clarify TV.

    Yes, I seem to have made a mistake with that one.

    12:05, 3 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I'm still wildly confused, as I have been for years about this. Why did you only do the continuity section? I thought the point was that we were collapsing everything into a single section called "connections". So are you alleging that the references section is 100% good?
    23:07, 3 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    Going to step in here and do the 'Reference' section for Dalek.
    1. Rose states that there is a piece of Slitheen on display.
    2. Bad Wolf is mentioned as van Statten's helicopter lands: "Bad Wolf One descending..." This is one of the only known occasions in which a Bad Wolf reference is made in such a context that it is not seen or heard by either Rose or the Doctor.
    3. Van Statten calls Adam "Little Lord Fauntleroy".
    4. The Doctor mutters the line, "I win, how 'bout that" near the end of the story. The Master utters a similar line near his death in Last of the Time Lords, "How 'bout that, I win".
    5. Van Statten's mention of "the Russian crater" could be a reference to the Tunguska event.
    6. The Doctor recognises the mileometer from the spacecraft that famously crashed at Roswell New Mexico in 1947 (seen in TV: Dreamland, TV: Prisoner of the Judoon). Van Statten later indicates that he developed broadband Internet from technology salvaged from the vessel.
    7. The Time War is mentioned and elaborated on by the Doctor and the Dalek.
    8. One of the "weapons" in Adam's workshop is a hairdryer.
    9. Van Statten suggests leaving Polkowski in Minneapolis or Memphis.
    10. Diana suggests leaving van Statten in Seattle, San Diego or Sacramento.

    I have, I'm not sure if any one else has, sat through an episode of Doctor Who or Torchwood etc and edited the reference section as I went along. So I do have a idea of what I would, currently, find to be acceptable to be in reference.

    1. Yes, this is fine a reference.
    2. Might move it to continuity, but is also fine in references.
    3. See point 1.
    4. Move to continuity of Last of the Time Lords.
    5. Reword, it is a possibility, so Tunguska Event would be removed, ending the sentence after 'crater'.
    6. Keep in references, but move it to the continuity of Dreamland and Judoon.
    7. See point 2.
    8. See point 1.
    9. See point 1.
    10. See point 1.

    Let take points 7 and 8 - say we has 'Connection' set up - how would we display these?

    Like this? Where have 'source', like the continuity section now.

    • The Doctor mention the Time War. (<inset stories that refered the Time War here>)
    • Adam has a hairdryer as one of his 'weapons'. (<insert stories where hairdryers appeared)

    Or do we go with out 'source', like the reference section is now:

    • The Doctor mention the Time War.
    • Adam has a hairdryer as one of his 'weapons'.
    23:39, 3 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    Also, The Empty Child has a good reference list. In my opinion anyway.
    23:41, 3 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Can someone who's a big fan of these sections please explain to me why they're not done in the WP:DW style? I mean, Dalek (Doctor Who episode)#Continuity seems far superior to anything we're doing.

    Not only that, but the WP:DW style of sentences within paragraphs would actually display normally on wikiamobile skin. It's important for us to notice, I think, how badly bulleted lists fare on that skin, since 20% of our users do use the skin at some point:

    I haven't clipped out the bullets; they just don't exist in wikiamobile.
    00:22, 4 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    I don't think there's any reason exactly why they're done in the style we currently have. I'd guess it was because they were just mimicking other sections of the story page which were also bullet pointed.

    I think the full sentences are a good idea. I do have some reservations in copying WP:DW's style, but as long as we maintain our own style and voice for these sections it may be the best way forward.

    Some Continuity sections would need rewriting to make them flow better as paragraphs and sentences rather than bullet points which force a certain style.

    15:23, 4 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    This is a rough mock up for a direction we could go in.

    I have moved continuity up under references, and both of these are a subheading of 'Connections'.

    I have taken up CzechOut's idea of having continuity in sentences and taken away the points, under continuity, that Tangerineduel suggested.

    Obviously, this still needs work, but gives us a rough idea how what it could look like.

    14:33, 10 January 2013
    Edited 14:34, 10 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    I'm not a big fan of the "No bullets and barely any info" look there...
    14:37, 10 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    OttselSpy25 wrote: I'm not a big fan of the "No bullets and barely any info" look there...

    The majority of the info is not a connection, as mentioned above, hence it's removal. That's half the point we're doing this, to remove any info that shouldn't be in these sections.

    As for bullets, I would suggest you read CzechOut's point above...

    14:43, 10 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    The only thing I'm against is the removal of the sub-headings as when you start to get into long lists of references the subheadings help. Even with short lists it's still helpful.
    14:56, 10 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    Tangerineduel wrote: The only thing I'm against is the removal of the sub-headings as when you start to get into long lists of references the subheadings help. Even with short lists it's still helpful.

    I agree, but at the moment Dalek has no subheadings under 'references'. This can be easilt changed if we want to.

    15:01, 10 January 2013
  • Shambala108
    I like it. A lot. Really a lot. Especially if we can keep the reference subheadings like Tangerineduel suggested.

    I never did understand why "references" and "continuity" were separated by "story notes". This way it's easier to notice if something needs to be corrected or switched.

    15:12, 10 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I'm totally confused. I thought we were collapsing the two sections into one thing called "connections". All you've done is introduced a new parent section, while retaining the same confusing section heads. Also, why would the references section have bullets, but the continuity section not?

    I really don't like it. Though I think the format of the continuity section alone is an improvement, the overall notion of retaining the references and continuity sections is as confusing as ever. For instance, there's no real reason why "Rose states that there is a piece of Slitheen on display" couldn't be included in the "continuity" section. It is continuous with Slitheen usage in the rest of series 1, right?

    Overally, this is a completely different design to what I thought we were working towards.

    15:22, 10 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    I think I dislike most that the Continuity section is 100% TV info. Is this how we had wanted it to go from the beginning? Or does this episode just happen to have nothing but that?
    17:10, 10 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    The version I created in the sandbox was just a suggestion, and a way of trying to show would it could be like - one of the many possibilities.

    I'm just wondering CzechOut, just so it is clear: what do you think of the use of headings? Not 'references' and 'continuity' but the headings myself and Tagerineduel are talking about - the subheadings that are currently used in the reference section.

    I am 100% in agree with you on the continuity. As I stated earlier, I removed all the somes suggested by Tangerinduel. I then grouped what was left - in this case by Dalek and Cyberman.

    What do you suggest we do with the information, which is not exactly continuity but more references - speaking as they are now - such as the hairdryer reference, Russian crater and Little Lord Fauntleroy references? Where would they come? Just as a sentence on their own under 'connections'? Or are we planing to have subheadings - like references at the moment?

    Once this has been decided - the sandbox can be formatted to this so we know what the layout will be like.

    00:05, 11 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    Here's my mock up, I've made some adjustments to MM's design adding the sub-headings I mentioned above were missing from the References section.

    I've placed "story connections" at the bottom of the "Connections" section and added sidebar boxes to explain what the two sections do. I've also expanded the Story connections section. It includes more information than the current article has at the moment, but does include non-TV info as OS25 has mentioned. The Jubilee and story adaption information has been moved into story notes.

    14:56, 11 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    I prefer this form much more.
    17:34, 11 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I'm still not getting it. The objective of this thread was, I thought, to combine the two sections. Yet in both MM and TD's attempts, the two sections still remain.

    The division between the two sections is false. TD's sidebar notes offer this distinction:

    1. Connections = elements of the DWU present in the story
    2. Story connections = links to other stories

    That's the same thing.

    It's a long-held convention of this wiki that the DWU is solely created by narratives. Therefore a link to an "element of the DWU" is by definition a link to a story.

    One of TD's "connections" points is "Rose states that there is a piece of Slitheen on display."

    Well, that could just as easily be written as a story connection:

    The appearance of the Slitheen in van Statten's museum serves to remind viewers of the two-parter they'd just finished in World War Three, and to foreshadow the return of Margaret Blaine in Boom Town.

    See? Same information, slightly re-contextualised.

    So instead of having two sections that are basically the same thing from marginally different perspectives, we really should have just one section, period.

    If the information doesn't rise to notability in that section — such as "One of the weapons in Adam's workshop is a hairdryer" — then it simply doesn't make the cut. In TD's Connections section, the following links just don't deserve full sentences: Little Lord Fauntleroy, Minneapolis, Memphis, Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, hairdryer.

    They should either be honestly listed as a "real life concept mentioned in the episode" or not at all. I'd be okay with the final sentence of "Story connections" being:

    The following real-life concepts were mentioned in this episode: Little Lord Fauntleroy, Minneapolis, Memphis, Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, and hairdryers.

    That way, you get a full sentence, you get the links, but you don't take up a 300px high "block of bulleted nothingness" in the middle of the page.

    21:45, 11 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    CzechOut wrote: If the information doesn't rise to notability in that section — such as "One of the weapons in Adam's workshop is a hairdryer" — then it simply doesn't make the cut. In TD's Connections section, the following links just don't deserve full sentences: Little Lord Fauntleroy, Minneapolis, Memphis, Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, hairdryer.

    I am 100% against the idea of information, of any kind, being cut. Hardly any information is not notable. I'm fine with loosing bullets and subheadings, but I'm not okay with information being cut because someone does not find it noteworthy - everyone finds different information more noteworthy than others.

    What I would be happy with is a sentence somewhere saying:

    Other concepts/idea in this episode are: Hairdryer, blah, blah, blah.

    Or even your suggestion, CzechOut, I would be fine with.

    I just don't think that any information should be cut. I think, reducing it to one of sentences (for some? for all?) for the current 'references' will bring Users to other parts of the Data Core, and allow them to discover knew information.

    Imagine (I don't know why I'm trying to sell you the idea, when you are already behind it) a User looking through Dalek. They see hairdryer - and instead of reading it like they do know, it encourages them to click on the link - find out new information and about other stories and also might encourage them to edit elsewhere.

    22:03, 11 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I don't want to derail the conversation, especially since we seem to be able to find some common ground here. But I do feel compelled to note that we are editors. It is our job to note what information is appropriate for an article. Definitionally, we do cut information, all the time.

    I'm not advocating we delete the article hairdryer. I'm just saying that of all the things one might have noted about Dalek, that little bit is towards the irrelevant end of the scale.

    So that's why I say I support the inclusion of "hairdryer" at Dalek only in an inline list. And if that inline list isn't available, then it certainly doesn't deserve the space afforded by a bulleted list.

    22:19, 11 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    I'm not okay with losing the subheadings or the sentences.

    The path I do not want to take is the MemoryAlpha path of it all in a seemingly nonsensical list at the bottom of the page.

    Thinking on CzechOut's confusion over these two sections I returned to the "Story connections / Continuity", which I did propose just getting rid of but now propose separating or doing something else with.

    The "References/Connections" section I have always considered to be "in-universe" observations. It's everything observed within the narrative.

    But Continuity is deliberate links to other stories. With Continuity/Story connections as it is now it's much more contextual. It makes more sense within the greater DW narratives.

    But the References/Connections it exists as an observation of everything within the story.

    So I don't think they are the same thing.

    • Continuity/Story connections are about placing the story within the larger narratives that exist.
    • References/Connections are about observations of the "stuff" of the DWU in that story.
    06:00, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Again, the DWU is created by narrative. Therefore, a reference to the DWU is by definition a reference to a narrative or a series of narratives.
    06:17, 14 January 2013
  • Shambala108
    I agree with everything Tangerineduel said above. There is a clear difference between the two. Yes, it may be confusing to new users, but so are the category tree and the idea of in-universe perspective. Those who stick around long enough learn how to use the wiki properly.
    06:19, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    So why am I confused then, Shambala? I've been questioning the need for both a continuity and references section for years and years.
    06:26, 14 January 2013
    Edited 06:28, 14 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    I kinda agree with everything T said above... Yeah, they're kinda the same thing, being "references" to "things" in the "DWU", but they're also very different; one being "references" to "things" in the "DWU" and one being "references" to "stories" in the "DWU"...
    12:23, 14 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    Yes, CzechOut the DWU is a creation of narratives.

    However the roles that the two sections fulfil are different.

    The References is about that creation. It's concerned only with the that story and only the DWU elements that are present in that story. Nothing else should be there.

    Continuity is wider, it's about the narratives themselves and how that story is present and interacts with other stories. It takes into account its existence in relation to the other stories, but it's behind the scenes / real world perspective. It can concern itself with things outside of the in-universe that the References confines itself to.

    15:06, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I don't buy that explanation. The sections don't have different "roles"; they merely have different perspectives. In my mind the references are "continuity references" — they are references which establish the things that are in DWU. All of them could be rewritten in the style your demonstration uses for "story connections". The fact that one is in "Section1" and another is in "Section2" is merely a matter of authorial choice. It's not because the dividing line is especially bright.

    And, from a format standpoint, I don't understand why one section would be bulleted and the other would not.

    16:05, 14 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    As I noted in a previous discussion, for these sections, you need to look past the words used. Yes, one is "Continuity references", and yes, one is "references", but they are entirely different. One is about what is told specifically within this one story. The other is about how the story connects to other stories. Are they similar? Yes. Should we put them in one section? Perhaps... But they should at least be seperated in sub-sections, as T has done above...

    In my mind anyways...

    16:51, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    A thing cannot be both "similar" and "entirely different".
    21:38, 14 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25

    CzechOut wrote: A thing cannot be both "similar" and "entirely different".

    Yeah, except it can. They're similar in some respects, but they're also different.

    They're not "the same".

    22:13, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Nah. If things are similar, they should be in the same section. Again, anything you could possibly put into the "references" section could be easily rewritten to fit into the "continuity" section and convey the same information.

    Basically, the "references" section is written from an in-universe perspective, while the "continuity" section is written from an out-of-universe perspective.

    All story articles fly the {{real world}} banner, so therefore the "references" section has an inappropriate perspective.

    22:18, 14 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    Alright, could you perhaps construct your own "model" of what a connections section should be? I'm fining it hard to see your point of veiw here...

    I understand you're buisy, and will be for the next seven days at least, so whenever you can.

    23:35, 14 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I already have suggested that the way forward is simply to:
    • combine both sections under the name "connections" (this was, I thought, already agreed until people started pulling this two-section model outta the past)
    • write full paragraphs, as suggested by TD's second section
    • write from a real world perspective
    • anything new to the episode can be in sentence which reads "Making their first appearances in the DWU this episode were: x, y, z."
    • any thing from the real world can appear in a sentence of this format: "The following things from the real world were featured in this episode: x, y, z."
    00:07, 15 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    I know myself and others wants the headings for the 'references' kept, but can we go with some like this:
    The following pieces of technology appeared/were mentioned in the episode.

    or

    We learn the follow things about technology in the episode.

    Obviously, 'technology; would change to whatever the sentence is going to talk about - individuals, the Doctor, conflicts etc.

    I see this as a way of being about to removing the headings, but each section is easily identifiable as to what it is talking about - changing the headings to introductory sentences.

    All be it, the section might be long, but not as long as bullet pointed lists.

    00:35, 15 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    Os OS25 has said, just because they're similar doesn't mean they're the same. They share similar connections but different purposes. One is an dissection of the story's elements the other is to frame the story in relation to others.

    The references section isn't in-universe exactly, it only concerns itself with information from the story. Much like the Plot section.

    The information could be rewritten to be in the "references" section, but it would lose some of its directness. This is my problem somewhat with MM's suggestion. If we rewrite everything out of the sub-headings to say "This story featured the following spacecraft…" it will become a somewhat tedious collection of information. Or in order to include these sentences some of the information would have to be cut from the article because some things are just too minor than this format would allow.

    14:06, 16 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Things need to be decidedly unlike in order to justify a new section head. It's not enough to be "similar but somewhat different".
    14:19, 16 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    They're not. They're "different but barely similar".
    14:21, 16 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    They're obviously similar. I can take any information currently in a references section and rewrite it so that it makes sense in the continuity section. The choice to put it in one section over the other is an entirely arbitrary one that is made by the whim of the editor at the moment of writing.
    14:23, 16 January 2013
    Edited 14:24, 16 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Let's cut to the chase here. People use "references" for things they believe occurred solely in that one story. People use "continuity" for things they believe are relevant across stories.

    But everyone's knowledge about the totality of licensed Doctor Who fiction is incomplete. And since about a hundred news stories are published every year, our knowledge of DW fiction is quickly obsolete as well.

    If we were a TV-only wiki, then I'd be more willing to support the notion of a section for one-off references versus a section for continuous elements.

    But we're not. We believe that all forms of DW fiction are equal. Combining the sections into one, paragraph-formatted section:

    • futureproofs us
    • is more more intellectually honest, since it doesn't suggest in any way that we've found all the connections
    • forces people to obey T:FULL SENT
    • gets rid of those awful, linked subsection heads, which are a violation of T:HEAD
    • works on wikiamobile in a way the current bulleted lists really don't
    • forces people to write, not just create lists
    14:42, 16 January 2013
    Edited 14:43, 16 January 2013
    Edited 14:44, 16 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    Yeah, but you would really have to force it to do so.
    14:55, 16 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    here is another mock up I made.

    It uses full sentences and has not headings or bulletpoints. The stuff, like 'hairdryer' etc are all in sentence which begins 'There are several references to technology' or 'real world locations'.

    Having 'technology' or 'real world locations' in the sentences does exactly what the headings in 'references' do. They can also be link to the categories as the headings currently do.

    If there is a connection to another story, then the stories are link - as CzechOut stated above with the Slitheen.

    The only thing I would change would be my use of the word 'references' in the sentences... I justed used that to save time so I could get it done quickly.

    15:03, 16 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    References should be used for things that appear in that story, regardless of whether they appear in another story or not.

    "References" are easier to quantify than "Continuity", they don't, as I've said require anyone to make a judgement or find a connection between stories and aren't affected by the growing pool of stories as they're restricted to that single story.

    I concede that the bulletpoints may have to go considering their lack of appearance on wikiamobile.

    Subheadings do still work though on wikimobile and help to break up the large sections of text that will occur when we combine the two sections. Currently the linked section headings aren't in violation of T:HEAD. The wording of the policy is avoid, that's not a proclamation forbidding the use of them.

    On wikimobile especially the subheadings help to break the large chunks of text into manageable chunks. With the subheadings in place it lets you skip either via scrolling or via the contents to the relevant section - this is especially useful on wikiamobile.

    Having the subheadings also removes the need to have the still awkward sentences that MM's example uses. It doesn't remove the need to write full sentences, but it does allow framing of the information. The linked subheadings also allow us to link off to the categories, something which is useful in broadening a user's experience of the wiki.

    Finally here's my mockup, like MM I've used full sentences and combined the two sections into one. I have continued to use the subheadings as I really believe across both desktop and mobile platforms they provide a better experience for the organisation of information. I've also removed some information like the Little Lord Fauntleroy just because there's just not enough info to justify a sentence for it.

    The only thing I'm not sure of is whether Connections should where I and MM have been placing it above story notes in the area that "References" was or if it should be down under story notes where "Continuity" was.

    13:42, 19 January 2013
  • CzechOut

    Tangerineduel wrote: "References" are easier to quantify than "Continuity", they don't, as I've said require anyone to make a judgement or find a connection between stories and aren't affected by the growing pool of stories as they're restricted to that single story.

    This is really at the heart of the problem I'm having, and have always had. If one is making the distinction between "references" and "continuity" on the basis of number of appearances, one is on a very slippery slope. One can imagine that a particular thing appears in only one story, but that's a judgment based on one's own knowledge of the DWU. In fact, a lot of these "references" are simply part of a "continuity" of which one is unaware.

    If the basis of distinction between "references" and "continuity" is number of appearances in the DWU, then we're clearly not future proofing ourselves. Can one really be prepared to swear that the only appearance of hairdryers or Seattle is in Dalek? One can't argue that the only reference to Slitheen is in Dalek? With more than 100 new stories every year, we cannot reasonably assert that any one reference appears only in one story.

    That kinda goes against the whole spirit of the wiki — which, to my mind, is to make note of individual references and gradually assemble a more complete idea of that topic's overall place in the DWU. Having an entire section of an article declaring "these things only appear in this story" is just ... wrong. Not to mention arrogant.

    15:40, 19 January 2013
  • CzechOut

    Tangerineduel wrote: Subheadings do still work though on wikimobile ...

    Not really. Or at least, not the way they're currently deployed. Because, for some reason, T:HEAD has been blissfully ignored in these sections, the subheads are wikified, which makes them work differently than subheads usually do on iOS. Typically, an iOS subhead is supposed to let you touch anywhere on the subhead line to open the section. But since these things are all wikified, contrary to our rules, touching on the subhead line takes you to another page, wasting bandwidth.

    15:47, 19 January 2013
    Edited 15:48, 19 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel

    CzechOut wrote: This is really at the heart of the problem I'm having, and have always had. If one is making the distinction between "references" and "continuity" on the basis of number of appearances, one is on a very slippery slope. One can imagine that a particular thing appears in only one story, but that's a judgment based on one's own knowledge of the DWU. In fact, a lot of these "references" are simply part of a "continuity" of which one is unaware.

    I've continued to be somewhat confused by how you're confused by these concepts.

    Are you saying that references are bad because they assume (or suggest to the reader) that with your example hairdryers appear in Dalek and that is their only appearance in DW?

    That's not what Reference is about. It lists only what appears in the story. It doesn't, at all concern itself with other stories. No other stories are mentioned or presumed to exist within the References section. You link to the stuff that exists within the story. Sometimes you get a good link and sometimes you get a red link.

    This process of noting these references doesn't go against the spirit of the wiki, it actually helps us create the wiki by providing red links (or adding to the what links here) of articles.

    References don't need futureproofing because they're an observation of that story. You can write the References for any single story having not seen any other DW story. Writing the References is based purely on your observation of the "stuff" the elements, the universe of that story, but you don't actually need any other knowledge in order to write it.

    Someone who's only seen Torchwood could watch The Keys of Marinus for the first time, having never seen any DW and write the References for it, because the References are isolated to that story and that page. They are like an extension of the Plot.

    To return to Continuity, I will again propose removing it as that is something that is hard to futureproof as it is based on relationships to other stories. Continuity is something we can't futureproof.

    Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    14:37, 21 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel

    CzechOut wrote:

    Tangerineduel wrote: Subheadings do still work though on wikimobile ...

    Not really. Or at least, not the way they're currently deployed. Because, for some reason, T:HEAD has been blissfully ignored in these sections, the subheads are wikified, which makes them work differently than subheads usually do on iOS. Typically, an iOS subhead is supposed to let you touch anywhere on the subhead line to open the section. But since these things are all wikified, contrary to our rules, touching on the subhead line takes you to another page, wasting bandwidth.

    Can it not be a mark of difference for the references section? Tapping the References subheadings from the pulldown Contents doesn't link to the categories, it just takes you to the subheading on the page.

    Subheadings within subheadings don't function as you describe. Looking at Remembrance of the Daleks on iOS all the second level subheadings appear, if you go to Ratings on the Remem mobile page it takes you to that.

    There's no way I've found to display the second level subheadings separate from the first level. So anything with three = is locked within the two = subheadings until you open it or follow it from the contents page.

    Tapping the subheading link to take you to another page would only occur once you're within the References section, and only then if you touched it, and then you would know it's a link because it's blue as all the other (third level) subheadings are black.

    As to T:HEAD the rule to link the References section subheadings has been around longer than the policy of T:HEAD.

    14:50, 21 January 2013
  • CzechOut

    Tangerineduel wrote: As to T:HEAD the rule to link the References section subheadings has been around longer than the policy of T:HEAD.

    Could you please point me in the direction of this rule? I can't seem to find it. I've looked for a while now, and I can't find it. It's not in the format guides, and I'm not seeing it in early revisions of the MOS.

    Why would we deliberately invite links in section heads? It just doesn't make sense, especially since our section head color has been the same as our link color for years now. It does no real good to link in a section head.

    As for mobile, there's something weird going on, and I can't quite run it to ground. Go to the mobile version of The Snowmen, click on any of the major — i.e. h2, or == — subheads. They're blue, but if you click on the blue word "Cast" or "Crew", the section merely reveals itself.

    Now go to "References" and open that one. You'll note it reveals "Culural references", "Communication technology", "The Doctor", etc. But what happens if you click on these blue section heads? You get taken to another page. That's visually confusing. All section heads which are h3 or below should be black in wikiamobile.

    And the weird thing is, linked section heads are usually disregarded by mobile, as you'll find at the mobile version of Eleventh Doctor. The "Post-Regeneration" section there is linked in a very confusing way if you view it on the desktop. But it's not at all linked in mobile.

    I can't figure out the technical difference between Eleventh Doctor and The Snowmen (TV story)#References, but in any case it's a bad idea to be linking from section heads because either through our link coloring on desktop versions, or generally on mobile, the links don't show up anyway.

    Except in References section. So, no, the references section shouldn't be allowed as an "exception" in mobile. What's the point of it? You can't use section heads to create a table. If you want a table, make a table.

    16:18, 21 January 2013
    Edited 16:19, 21 January 2013
    Edited 16:19, 21 January 2013
    Edited 16:20, 21 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25

    Tangerineduel wrote: Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    That's the worst idea I have ever heard. No offence to you, just this idea.

    Once more, this would be removing things that should be there for no reason other than "it's hard to look over pages"

    I'm kinda leaning more towards Czech's points right now. Looking at most Hartnell pages (Which are not very well kept, btw) I agree that at least 98.99% of references could be put into continuity sections.

    18:49, 21 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel

    OttselSpy25 wrote:

    Tangerineduel wrote: Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    That's the worst idea I have ever heard. No offence to you, just this idea.

    Once more, this would be removing things that should be there for no reason other than "it's hard to look over pages"

    I'm kinda leaning more towards Czech's points right now. Looking at most Hartnell pages (Which are not very well kept, btw) I agree that at least 98.99% of references could be put into continuity sections.

    That is a huge assumption. Practically everything in the Hartnell era can go in Continuity because practically everything from the Hartnell era has been linked to in a later work.

    It doesn't work so well when you look at later works.

    12:31, 22 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25

    Tangerineduel wrote:

    OttselSpy25 wrote:

    Tangerineduel wrote: Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    That's the worst idea I have ever heard. No offence to you, just this idea.

    Once more, this would be removing things that should be there for no reason other than "it's hard to look over pages"

    I'm kinda leaning more towards Czech's points right now. Looking at most Hartnell pages (Which are not very well kept, btw) I agree that at least 98.99% of references could be put into continuity sections.

    That is a huge assumption. Practically everything in the Hartnell era can go in Continuity because practically everything from the Hartnell era has been linked to in a later work.

    It doesn't work so well when you look at later works.

    Fair enough.

    Still, I can see Czech's points here.

    12:58, 22 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel

    CzechOut wrote: Could you please point me in the direction of this rule? I can't seem to find it. I've looked for a while now, and I can't find it. It's not in the format guides, and I'm not seeing it in early revisions of the MOS.

    Why would we deliberately invite links in section heads? It just doesn't make sense, especially since our section head color has been the same as our link color for years now. It does no real good to link in a section head.

    As for mobile, there's something weird going on, and I can't quite run it to ground. Go to the mobile version of The Snowmen, click on any of the major — i.e. h2, or == — subheads. They're blue, but if you click on the blue word "Cast" or "Crew", the section merely reveals itself.

    Now go to "References" and open that one. You'll note it reveals "Culural references", "Communication technology", "The Doctor", etc. But what happens if you click on these blue section heads? You get taken to another page. That's visually confusing. All section heads which are h3 or below should be black in wikiamobile.

    It doesn't say it explicitly, because our policies were written somewhat haphazardly but on the Tardis:Format for novels#References it does say "The list should be divided into categories". Much of the wiki's early "policy" was a 'here's how the articles look, copy that' sort of thing.

    Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that the process of linking the subheadings has been in force a longer time than the policy that was recently written.

    Why not link the subheadings? Why shouldn't the subheadings be linked?

    What about the little v that and the box around the subheadings visually indicates far, far more than the colour.

    I didn't mention a table...why are you? I'm confused again.

    As far as the Eleventh Doctor, that is weird, as I just recreated the page on my sandbox and the link shows up.

    Mobile also ignores our templates, so each article that has an update tag like the Eleventh Doctor starts with saying it needs to be updated. Which is a little odd.

    13:03, 22 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    Tangerineduel wrote: To return to Continuity, I will again propose removing it as that is something that is hard to futureproof as it is based on relationships to other stories. Continuity is something we can't futureproof.

    Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    I tried this once, last year. I removed all the continuity to adventures that had not happened yet. The reactions were a mix of angry and confusion.

    The mere handful or pages I did this too (three of them) were reverted and added to, so the work was essentially undone.

    It is a way I would be happy to go. I believe that, in the case of Dalek the continuity for 'intru-da-window' reference should be The Poison Sky page, not the Dalek one. It should only be on the Dalek if it has happened before Dalek.

    The one problem with doing this is we have stories that we do not know were they come in the Doctor Who timeline, so it would be difficult to do so.

    23:59, 22 January 2013
  • CzechOut

    Tangerineduel wrote: Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that the process of linking the subheadings has been in force a longer time than the policy that was recently written.

    Recently written? No. The words "avoid links within headings" are in the very first revision of the Manual of Style, long before I edited here under the name CzechOut. The guidance to not link in section headings has been with us since we first started writing down rules. They weren't written by me or you, but by OncomingStorm, who was an admin here before either of us.

    This business of adding links to section heads is something that's only arisen in the last year or two. That's why you won't find it much in any articles about pre-Matt Smith stories. More story pages don't have these linked section heads than those that do.

    Why shouldn't the subheadings be linked?

    • Because it's been the rule since 19 September 2006.
    • Because it's illogical to create a link, when the link color won't necessarily be different from the heading color. It is hard damned work trying to come up with three colors that are distinguishable from one another. It's unnecessarily hard to come up with a link color that will be distinguished from both the normal and the headline text colors. In other words, it's not just illogical, it's technically very difficult.
    • Because it's against standard Wikipedia practice
    • Because it leads to people making ridiculous links, like is present at Eleventh Doctor#Post-Regeneration, where Post links to The End of Time and Regeneration links to The Eleventh Hour. (EDIT: Okay, that's how it was. I just couldn't stand it anymore, so I've changed it within the past few hours.)

    What about the little v that and the box around the subheadings visually indicates far, far more than the colour.

    I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

    I didn't mention a table...why are you? I'm confused again.

    We've been talking about a table since this discussion was on the old forums. If you prefer, we've been talking about making a template that presents this information in a uniform, tabular format.

    01:22, 23 January 2013
    Edited 01:23, 23 January 2013
    Edited 04:28, 23 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    A table would be good - if we had a large quantity of information and was easily collapsible. Have a table/section that is collapsible means that stories which lot of references/continuity/connections can be easily added without making the page too long.
    01:34, 23 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25

    Mini-mitch wrote:

    Tangerineduel wrote: To return to Continuity, I will again propose removing it as that is something that is hard to futureproof as it is based on relationships to other stories. Continuity is something we can't futureproof.

    Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

    I tried this once, last year. I removed all the continuity to adventures that had not happened yet. The reactions were a mix of angry and confusion.

    The mere handful or pages I did this too (three of them) were reverted and added to, so the work was essentially undone.

    It is a way I would be happy to go. I believe that, in the case of Dalek the continuity for 'intru-da-window' reference should be The Poison Sky page, not the Dalek one. It should only be on the Dalek if it has happened before Dalek.

    The one problem with doing this is we have stories that we do not know were they come in the Doctor Who timeline, so it would be difficult to do so.

    Minaly because that's annoying and pointless. The idea that 'this info should be removed because the definition of continuity is blah-blah-blah" is silly. Once more, it's removing info that belongs on the page for no reason other than "hard to work with" when it's not.

    There have been quite a few sections that have been dropped over the years, most for good reason. The "Timeline" section was filled with speculation. That's a good reason for a section to go, not "...", which is basically all I've seen for why this section should go. I'm baffled by the fact that mini is upset by the prospect about removing info on hairdryers from Pages but wants to enforce continuity.

    And, yes, it would be hard to enforce. Because no one wants to do that. There is no reason that 'The Ice Warriors' should not reference it's sequels, or 'The Abominable Snowmen' for that matter. Continuity comes in the past and the future, as was noted on 'the Five Doctors' dvd.

    03:03, 23 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    I'm compelled to narrowly agree with OttselSpy25's third paragraph. The notion that continuity flows in only one direction is both unenforceable and unhelpful. If something happens in Story A, but then recurs in Story B, we obviously must leave a note about it on both pages — or we might as well just delete the section altogether.

    However, his first and second paragraphs are a bit more debatable. I think we can and should define what the contents of any section should include. It helps our readers if we work to a common standard. That's the major point of this thread. We're attempting to find an easy-to-understand, easy-to-uphold definition for these two sections.

    04:23, 23 January 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    Fair enough.
    05:18, 23 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    I apologise about the link questions, I was getting the MoS mixed up with the Layout guide.

    But thank you, I merely wanted to know why, not just because it was against Wikipedia's policy (whose own policy wasn't very enlightening on the why).

    See here, the section headers on wikiamobile have a little V on the right and are within a boxed outline to indicate they're openable.

    Again, thank you for clarifying CzechOut, on the table front.

    A table is an option, though I don't think we should be using a table only collapse the information. Does the length of an article matter?

    To re-summarise what I think needs to be in this section of Connections/Continuity/References as we seem to have strayed somewhat with discussions of the wikiamobile and other things:

    • Subheadings/Categories under which the connections are broken down. As CzechOut has made me aware of the linking issues I'm willing to compromise on that front. No links in the sub-headings, but I would ideally like to be able to link back to those headings/categories.
    • No lists of references. They need to be sentences to allow us to frame the info. I don't want the list of references to become like MemoryAlpha or Wookipedia.

    If I had to define where I stood in the matter of the Continuity and/vs References I am more of a supporter of the References.

    Continuity is something else. As I've said References can exist in isolation, they're closer in terms of theme and style to the Plot section.

    But Continuity is something we still have to make a judgement on.

    Going back to CzechOut's most recent reply "We're attempting to find an easy-to-understand, easy-to-uphold definition for these two sections.".

    I am fairly confident that I could do this for References, but am less certain for Continuity.

    06:33, 23 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    OttselSpy25 wrote: I'm baffled by the fact that mini is upset by the prospect about removing info on hairdryers from Pages but wants to enforce continuity.

    I have a love for references and will fight for all the info currently in that section to stay - I don't mind sentences, as long as the same information is till there.

    Clearly you never read my whole post. I said I tried to link continuity solely to the past, and it failed. I then said it would be difficult to enforce - thus saying, we cannot do it.

    The one thing I like about suheadings is that is breaks up huge chunks of information into easily manageable, readable sections. If some stories have a large 'Connections' section, which some will - especially with 'references' (because every story, IMO, is littered with them).

    Under each subheading, there is only need for two sentences. Say the heading was 'Individuals'. We would have one sentence saying:

    • There are many references to individuals in the episode:

    and then say:

    • There are many connections to other stories regarding individuals:

    The first sentence, would mainly be about:

    1. Information gained in the episode that gives us additional information about a character, place, event etc
    2. Information that is bogged standard references, and poses no real connections to other stories (as some references currently do)

    The second sentence would be about:

    1. Connections to other stories. Whether it be thought direct mention about another adventure, or a reference which can be linked to another adventure (such as the Slitheen arm)

    It could also just be merged into the one sentence, if we don't want to get too bogged down on trying to separate them. The Slitheen arm can be both a reference to the Slitheen and a connection to Aliens of London.

    13:59, 23 January 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    I've had another go at this references/continuity thing; see here.

    I've done something of a restructure of the article. Moving "Story elements" (a renamed "References" and placed it under the Synopsis. The logic here being that all the story elements are covered in the three subheadings before the Cast/Crew sections and everything for the rest of the article is more about the background information of the article (excluding the intro).

    I've also re-written the "Story notes" section, removing "Ratings" and "Filming locations" and throwing them into a {{sidebar}} box on the side of the "Story notes" section. These two sections are usually just a list and don't really need to be buried all the way down into the "Story notes".

    Story connections now sits within "Story notes" thereby collecting all the similar information about the story in one place.

    I know this isn't what we were originally setting out to do – merge the two sections, but we've also been discussing how to define these sections. As I've continued to return to I still consider them separate elements of the article, with separate information to present. I think by subtly restructuring the article's layout we can illustrate this better.

    16:08, 28 January 2013
  • Mini-mitch

    Tangerineduel wrote: I've had another go at this references/continuity thing; see here.

    I've done something of a restructure of the article. Moving "Story elements" (a renamed "References" and placed it under the Synopsis. The logic here being that all the story elements are covered in the three subheadings before the Cast/Crew sections and everything for the rest of the article is more about the background information of the article (excluding the intro).

    I've also re-written the "Story notes" section, removing "Ratings" and "Filming locations" and throwing them into a {{sidebar}} box on the side of the "Story notes" section. These two sections are usually just a list and don't really need to be buried all the way down into the "Story notes".

    Story connections now sits within "Story notes" thereby collecting all the similar information about the story in one place.

    I know this isn't what we were originally setting out to do – merge the two sections, but we've also been discussing how to define these sections. As I've continued to return to I still consider them separate elements of the article, with separate information to present. I think by subtly restructuring the article's layout we can illustrate this better.

    I like this. Although I am in two minds about 'Story elements' and 'story connections' being separate, since we have discussed, at length to merge them. However, it is not something I object to completely.

    As for story notes, I feel that 'filming locations' should be as you have put them - in the side box. I also think that 'ratings' should be merged into the infobox - it is just one piece of information in a bullet point. It would be better displayed in the infobox.

    Also, staying with story notes, I feel that if we were to go and make them all full sentences, instead of bullet points, we would have to do the same with 'production errors' - which I am willing to do, as I feel it would stop people trying to give an "answer" to them.

    17:55, 28 January 2013
  • CzechOut
    Where are we with this one?
    02:01, 11 March 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    Ummm... Tanguindel thinks that the Coninuity and References sections are different enough to get their own seperate sub-sections and you disagree... I think...
    03:24, 11 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    I like combining Continuity and References sections. It removes potential for duplicate references.

    I think they should stay bullet pointed. Without bullet points, the section either becomes too long with double spaces between information, or separate points melt together. It's not very readable. Bullet points are easy for a new editor to pick up and are one of the few reliable ways to provide a clear visual break without requiring a double space. The other options presented here either don't give enough information or the section visually melts together.

    I like the header name "Connections" as it's descriptive, distinctive, and short. "Story Elements" is inaccurate, as sometimes observations made are not and should not be restricted to parts of the actual plot of the story.

    I like splitting the section into Subheaders, but I think that we need to be far more restrictive on what is permissible as a subheader. Currently, there are over a hundred used in the reference sections of the television stories alone. (Literally. I've compiled them.)

    I do like having a stripped down and paragraph form of "Continuity".

    19:27, 11 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    To reiterate, I feel very strongly about bullet points. The simple, short entries were engaging, and mostly why I kept coming back here. "Oh, man, that's cool!" and "Can't believe nobody noticed that!" Tables would be too short, and narrative entries too long. Lack of a strong visual element would make them look too narrative in a quick scan of the entry.

    Also, with proper subheaders, a bullet pointed list on each story could potentially be extracted into a database or spreadsheet for information manipulation, which can yield some neat results. (I've had that idea in the back of my head for a month or so.) You could compile the information under subheadings on a delineated list of references then reorganise it into lists under the subheadings. With sentence formatted references rather than one word references, the circumstance of the reference is clear.

    20:30, 11 March 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    I think it is clear, from the discussion above, that for the sake of mobile users, it is nest to get rid of bullet points in these sections.

    CzechOut wrote: Where are we with this one?

    As far as I am concerned - TD's suggest - as linked to above, is a possible route we could down - and one I would gladdy support.

    However, as I stated above, I think separating story connections and elements is against what we have been discussing - but not something I am against.

    I also brought up 'Story notes' should also be stripped on bullet points if we do take up TD's suggestion as well as keeping 'filming locations' as a side box and I still feel ratings should be moved into the infobox...

    But apart from that, there are still a few discussion going on:

    1. we seen to have discussed and agreed the removal of bullet points and links in the section headings - although there is reasoning to keep the headings or remove them.

    2. There is also discussion on what should be included - some points ('majorish stuff') or all of it.

    3. Also, there is some discussion about how the information should be displayed. Sentences, yes. But how the sentences should be written is still being debated

    23:54, 12 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess

    Mini-mitch wrote: I think it is clear, from the discussion above, that for the sake of mobile users, it is nest to get rid of bullet points in these sections.

    References List on mobile screen

    I'm sorry that I'm late to the discussion, but it's not closed. So far I had been made to feel included and valued for opinions. Forgive me for speaking up when you're talking about changing one of the things that made me stay and start editing.

    I am a mobile user, and I have no problem with the display at right... Is it possible this has changed since you were discussing it in January? Please tell me what problem we're supposed to be fixing?

    Edit-> Actually, even going back to reread, it seems like the agreement was definitely not bulleted lists of non-sentences. Czech has that one capture, and that really does look bad, but I have no idea where it displays like that - definitely not in my mobile.

    02:13, 13 March 2013
    Edited 03:53, 13 March 2013
  • OttselSpy25
    I'm a mobile user as ell, and I've never had issues w/bullets.
    03:17, 13 March 2013
  • Shambala108
    ComicBookGoddess, I don't know if your mobile screen gives you the option of making a webpage look like its computer version, but I can do that on my iPad. The problem with bullets is that they, and sometimes their words, blend into pictures that are nearby. That's what the bullet problems are referring to.
    04:07, 13 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    You could solve that problem by not allowing pictures in sections that use bullet lists. Pictures are already a rarity in these sections.

    On the other topics: It would be a mistake to change these sections to prose paragraphs like WP:DW entries.

    Throwaway references are sometimes the only way we get to compile information about the Doctor and others in his universe. Because they're throwaways, they don't have to fit together with anything else... Yet. If they have the power of a one or two sentence note, they're easier to join up with the other pieces of their puzzle later on.

    That's a strength of this place.

    If you make the one-to-two sentence lines into prose, that will make them less valuable. We'll lose references that can't be connected immediately by the person who noticed them. The person who come along later, who can put in the second part of the connection, may not have access to the first part, or didn't notice it, or didn't realise there was significance to it.

    04:32, 13 March 2013
  • CzechOut
    Hold the phone a minute people. Natural bullets in wikiamobile are essentially brand new, and postdate much of this discussion. One of the reasons that I punched this discussion to the top of the pile again was because bullets that did not depend on any fancy settings had arrived.

    Mini-mitch was acting in good faith above when he gave the answer that has been true for years: bullets have long been a problem in mobile. For a very long while they did not show up at all — something I've noted to the mobile engineering team.

    Now that they are possible and show up in iOS from 4.2.1 onwards, the nature of our discussion can shift. No longer is the question one between whether they show up or not, but rather, whether they're good English.

    But there's no reason for people in this thread to get mad at other people in this thread. Everyone has been correct in their assessment of whether bullets work in mobile.

    Again, it is only recently that bullets have properly shown up to everyone using the wikiamobile skin. ComicBookGoddess is therefore reporting a changed condition that has not been true of this site for most of the time this thread has existed.

    06:23, 13 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    So, everybody needs to re-chime in, now, somehow right? It seems most or all are in agreement on this: We want at least full sentences. Given that mobile is now not an issue, here are the next logical questions:
    1. Regardless of name, what sections do we want to end up with?
      1. References, Story Notes, Continuity
      2. References/Continuity, Story Notes
      3. References, Story Notes/Continuity
    2. What names?
      1. Current Names
      2. "References"
      3. "Story Elements"
      4. "Connections"
      5. Some other name - "Links", "Mentions", etc.
    3. What Formats?
      1. One section as bullet items, the other(s) as prose.
      2. All as one or two sentence bullet items.
      3. All as unrestricted prose bullet items.
      4. All as prose entries.
    4. Do we want subheadings? If so, should the list of allowable subheadings be restricted?
    5. Should other elements of these sections, like the locations list, be addressed in this discussion?
    16:12, 15 March 2013
  • CzechOut
    You're misinterpreting the virtue of bullets appearing in wikiamobile. It doesn't mean, "Oh, okay, bullets are okay, now." It only means, "People can actually see the breaks between thoughts in Wikiamobile now."

    It does not mean that bullets are a good idea.

    I still think WP:DW's way of presenting information is superior to ours. I much prefer wikipedia:The Girl in the Fireplace to The Girl in the Fireplace.

    A wall of bullet points, even if they are full sentences, is not always a great way of writing. It's often, but not always, lazy. I am swayed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Embedded lists and firmly believe that we are way overusing bullets.

    18:30, 16 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    And I think you're misinterpreting my defense of bullet points. I agree they're overused. I just think they have their place, and we shouldn't get rid of them entirely.

    For a well-written paragraph, you must make the concepts flow together with other concepts. A bunch of single sentence paragraphs about disparate things will just be a bullet list without bullets, and that doesn't look very good, either. We should leave a place for bullet points, and keep it small by making sure if it links up in any way, it goes into a prose section.

    I don't want to lose the throwaway references. These are things that would break the flow of the plot section and aren't part of clusters of information, like Ten mentioning the causal nexus in The End of Time or Lance mentioning the Atkins Diet.

    For example, The Girl in the Fireplace and banana daiquiri. Off the top of his head Joe Editor can't think of a connection to other episodes. Joy Editor only likes Eleven, so she saw the banana in Let's Kill Hitler but missed the banana in the Girl in the Fireplace. Neither saw The Doctor Dances. Neither of them thinks to go to the banana page, because there isn't a link to it on either story at this point... And now maybe there won't be, because Joe doesn't know where to put it so he gives up. And the great Banana Theory of the Doctor's Past goes up in a puff of... Well, silliness.

    01:37, 17 March 2013
  • CzechOut
    Theories should go up in smoke. Speculation is disallowed. You're undervaluing the place of the topic page itself. These are articles about stories; they aren't meant to replace or even do anything remotely similar to topic pages. You want info about banana, go to banana. Don't list it all at The Girl in the Fireplace. That's a total misuse of the page.

    This is a wiki. There's a search bar. And because we're not Wikipedia, we can indulge in articles about minor nouns.

    Thinning down these typically bloated sections in no way deprives our readers of info. It merely shows that we've got some kind of editorial self-restraint.

    Bullet point sections encourage people to put anything they want on an article without even attempting to integrate their thoughts into a larger whole.

    It's perfectly acceptable for Joe Editor to give up on placing a piece of minutiae on an article because — ya know what? — it doesn't actually fit.

    When it comes to those tiny, throw-away references, I'm still in favour of having a single piece of prose that says, "Amongst the things mentioned in this article were: bananas, kronkburgers and Yorkshire pudding" — and call it a day.

    Oh and I think you're wrong in your second paragraph. The thing that binds these sentences together is "continuity" in general. You can write a paragraph that has sentences that appear disparate because they're all about continuity. Remember, we're talking real world articles here, so the tie that binds is the fact that we're talking continuity — not necessarily that one sentence is related to the other as topics within the DWU. What relates them is that they are all aspects of TGITF that weave into the broader continuity of DW.

    20:37, 17 March 2013
    Edited 20:40, 17 March 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    I'm going to say this:

    1) We should drop bullet points from these sections - in fact from story pages completely.

    2) Keep subheadings, as they are. Unlinked of course.

    3) Merge the sections, although TD's suggestion of keeping seperated is good, is goes against what we have discussed and I can't see it moving the discussion on wards any more (sorry!).

    4) Keep proper sentences and paragraphs for 'continuity'. Keep all the Dalek related continuity together, keep all Cyberman continuity together.

    5) Keep all minor references as one words - as was suggested by CzechOut in the previous discussion. Just have a lead sentence and then list them off. For example, "There are several references to food and beverages: bananas, Yorkshire puddings, milk."

    21:03, 17 March 2013
  • Tangerineduel
    I agree with MM's earlier comment that Ratings would be better in the infobox under "Premier broadcast" and "Premier network" we could have "Premier ratings".

    Location information could be in a sidebox as I placed in my example above.

    That would along with MM's suggestion of rewriting Production errors remove many of the bullet points.

    I'd like to reference two New Adventure book pages, just to illustrate that removing the bullet points would probably help both pages in different ways. White Darkness (novel) and No Future (novel) have the most different References sections to one another. White Darkness is mostly bullet points and No Future is all sentences.

    Removing the bullet points from White Darkness and replacing them with sentences that CO and MM have suggested would help, for example from the Minerals subheading the info would become; "The minerals argot, bauxite and scopalamine are referred to." this would quite likely help the flow and readability of the article which is very bullet point heavy at the moment.

    With No Future with its longer sentences removing the bullet points wouldn't really affect the page very much. Though as CO suggests some thinning or combining of information could occur to decrease the amount of subheadings or information below them.

    I agree with MM we should still keep the subheadings as they are.

    I disagree, though understand about not keeping them separate. Though I would still like a separate "Continuity" for specific paragraphs of continuity information (though we do need to rename it to something not "Continuity") it can be within whatever we eventually name this section but for some information concerning continuity it needs to be separate from the other subheadings as it crosses several subjects.

    14:52, 25 March 2013
  • SOTO
    If they're all full sentences, I find that bullet points make sections look more readable and visually pleasing. It's always more appealing to read information from a well-organised list than from a giant block on paragraphs.

    Looking at your example of White Darkness, though, I find that the bullet points there can give you a headache, and much of the information does not make coherent sense. The reason for this is the lack of full sentences.

    The problem here is the mix of things like, in species, "The Doctor can read Eocene," and simply "Daleks." What about Daleks? They were mentioned they appeared? What? As someone who's not read the story, I can tell you that I haven't the foggiest how Daleks and all the other species mentioned interconnect with the story. I know there's zombies and Cthulhu. So how to the Daleks come into play?

    Here's my suggestion: in bullet point full-sentence format, we say things like "The Doctor references facing the Daleks," but not include any additional information — just a link to Dalek where the reader can find all the information they can possibly want. Look at A Town Called Mercy for a better example:

    And not just:

    Even better yet might be:

    • The Doctor feels responsible for the deaths of the many victims of the Master and the Daleks, since he always tries to negotiate with the enemy.

    This gives us specific information that can be gathered from only this episode, and we can click on the Master and read through the long list of his victims for more info.

    16:47, 25 March 2013
    Edited 16:48, 25 March 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    Ok. Discussion has kind of petered out. Are we ready to try answering the questions?

    From what I'm reading, most of us want full sentences.

    Most of us want to combine References and Continuity into one set.

    We agree that bullet points are way overused. Personally, I really don't want to get rid of them totally, but with subheadings, perhaps it won't be so bad.

    Not sure about the consensus on subheadings. Personally, I like them, but I think we need to develop a list of specific categories that are okay for subheadings. As I mentioned above, we're currently using hundreds.

    If we can verify that we agree on at least a few of these, we can move on...

    16:41, 3 April 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    Bump. Where are we with this?
    20:50, 16 May 2013
  • Anoted
    I had to skim parts because this is a really super long thread but, quickly, here's my opinion. I think we should model this on The Empty Child example. We use full sentences but a bullet point format because it's much cleaner. I don't like continuity as it's own section but I think it fits much better in story notes than it does references, especially because production errors often mention continuity. I'd love to see these both in the story notes section.

    I agree with CBG that we should come up with an acceptable list (and order!) of subheadings. I'm playing around in a sandbox with creating a proper list in case anyone is interested.

    09:31, 17 May 2013
    Edited 09:53, 17 May 2013
  • ComicBookGoddess
    • points above*

    This. :)

    01:41, 14 June 2013
  • HarveyWallbanger
    What a pity this thread was interrupted. Any chances to resume it?

    I am among those who agree about merging the References and Continuity sections, keeping the subheading and the bullet points.

    09:53, 24 August 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    Right. It's been a while since we talked about this, and it is something that should be brought to light again.

    I'll reread this forum and try and draw out a list of the main points discussed here (or if someone can do quicker, that's fine).

    I think we are best trying to get this discussion resolved as soon as possible, because it has been something we have talked about for awhile, and should be done sooner rather than later

    18:33, 28 November 2013
  • Mini-mitch
    Bump. Again (sorry!)
    17:49, 12 May 2014
  • GusF
    I don't really see the point in renaming or merging them. They're fine the way that they are.
    17:51, 12 May 2014
  • CzechOut
    They're pretty confusing. I've been here forever and i still cannot tell you the difference between the two. And it's not for lack of trying, or being deliberately obtuse. I really don't understand what's a "reference" and what's "continuity".
    00:58, 13 May 2014
  • Mini-mitch
    I'm trying t avoid going in circles here, as this thread had been active for way over a year, and I would like to get to a conclusion.

    From my understanding, they are practically the same. There is little difference between Amy mentioning the first time she met the Daleks to the the Doctor mentioning he like oranges.

    And that's exactly the reason they should be merged. They are the same. I suggest we:

    1. Merge the section, separate each section as we do now (i.e food and beverages, Daleks, references to the real world).
    2. Write in full sentences. Don't use bullet points
    3. All the direct story connections should be first (i.e, what is current continuity) and then all the other odd bits of references (such as, in the Empty Child, the Doctor saying "If I was Hitler, I would be scared of Britain) can come after in a single sentence (like what was mention earlier) for example: Other references to food and beverages include: milk, bananas, water and Eggs.
    14:55, 13 May 2014
    Edited 14:56, 13 May 2014
  • HarveyWallbanger
    Totally agree with 1 and 3, not so sure about 2 (especially for the re-writing required) but I wouldn't fight it if it takes to go forward with the proposal.---HarveyWallbanger ☎
    21:19, 13 May 2014
  • Mini-mitch

    HarveyWallbanger wrote: Totally agree with 1 and 3, not so sure about 2 (especially for the re-writing required) but I wouldn't fight it if it takes to go forward with the proposal.---HarveyWallbanger ☎

    So was I at first, but if you look through the conversation from earlier, there should be links to a couple of examples of how pages will look with full sentences. This will give you a feel of what it will look like.

    21:22, 13 May 2014
  • 76.108.57.197

    Imamadmad wrote:

    CzechOut wrote: I know that at least Imamadmad is primarily a mobile user, and I'm afraid that whatever solution we come up with will probably not display well on mobile.

    Please don't assume Czechout. You know what they say about people who assume. I'm only mostly mobile editing for this and next month for travel reasons and even on my phone I only use the wikia skin because the mobile site is rubbish. Doesn't let me edit at all and can't even access the new forums. But that's a different issue. What I was saying about the words by themselves is that it makes for a rather boring section of page and the majority of people probably won't be bothered clicking on the links to gather more information, especially if they have a slow internet connection or are editing on a slow device such as an old computer. Or even just lazy (cough like me cough). Using only words would change a currently interesting section of page in my opinion into something which I know I probably won't be bothered reading. So, I say keep the phrases to keep the context and keep it interesting.

    00:16, 14 May 2014
  • Shambala108

    CzechOut wrote: They're pretty confusing. I've been here forever and i still cannot tell you the difference between the two.

    Actually, it's pretty clear to me. (And yet, if you start speaking in wiki markup, to me it's like a foreign language.)

    I've been working on continuity and reference sections, and I don't see how they could possibly be merged together without a big mess. Continuity items require citations, and references don't; if they're combined, any attempt at consistency goes out the window.

    I don't think that occasional confusion over these two sections justifies merging them together. I am absolutely opposed to merging the two sections.

    02:50, 14 May 2014
  • Mewiet
    I've always struggled with the difference between References and Continuity, so I'd be happy to have them merged.

    I'm confused about the bullet points though. We already have bullet points in those sections and I like them. If we didn't have them, I would cringe at the thought of trying to get through those sections. But I am completely opposed to changing everything to single words.

    06:43, 14 May 2014
  • OttselSpy25
    Reference and Continuity are completely seperate things and I still fail to see how anyone would A) want to combine them or B) think that it would go well.

    Continuity: The Doctor says "are you my mummy," a reference to The Empty Child.

    Reference: The Doctor says that egg-beaters are grimy.

    Sure, they have a similar structure, but Continuity has more to do with references to other episodes, while references are all about references to things in the DWU. Trying to combine them would be insanity.

    21:58, 14 May 2014
  • GusF
    I agree with Ottselspy25. They're very different things.
    22:09, 14 May 2014
  • Shambala108
    I forgot to mention that I've been working on a policy page that explains these two sections a little more extensively than what's currently at Tardis:Format for television stories. If we keep them separate I'll finish it up and post it.
    23:02, 14 May 2014
  • SOTO

    OttselSpy25 wrote: Continuity: The Doctor says "are you my mummy," a reference to The Empty Child.

    Funny you should use the word "reference". I do sort of see where you're coming from, but consider this — references to things in the DWU are inherently references to other stories. Even if no other story talks about egg-beaters, a future story might reference that one by having the Doctor repeat this opinion, or maybe have him say the opposite to emphasise how different his new regeneration is.

    And "continuity", references to other stories as you put it, are references to things in the DWU. They're not references to stories in a meta-textual fourth-wall-breaking sort of way. The Tenth Doctor saying "Are you my mummy" is him remembering this past adventure, the Fifth Doctor telling Peri about the events of State of Decay in AUDIO: Son of the Dragon is not really substantially different to, say, the Doctor saying he once had an android boyfriend in Time. That's not a reference to any specific story from a real-world perspective, but it's still a reference to something in the DWU, and in fact is almost just like the things you're classifying as "continuity" — a past event in the Doctor's life.

    Here's another example. Does the actual appearance of Mrs van Gysegham in The Reaping, and new information drawn from it, go into continuity as a reference to Planet of Fire, where she was first briefly mentioned, or does it go under references, as a "reference to things in the DWU"?

    These two sections essentially do cover the same subject matter, with a very fine line in between them that's not really properly defined.

    23:05, 14 May 2014
    Edited 23:06, 14 May 2014
  • OttselSpy25
    Simple. Her appearing and any similarities about her and her description go under "Continuity." Any new info goes under "References."

    Im just making things up at this point, because I hardly remember/saw either story, but examples:

    Continuity: Van Gysegham appears. She was first mentioned in Planet of Fire. ____ and ___ are the same as described in that story.

    Reference: Van Gysegham has three cats and one eye (I know that's likely not true, but let's pretend that the audio story said that and that the story did not.)

    23:33, 14 May 2014
  • GusF
    Many of my contributions concern references and continuity and I always go about it in exactly the manner as OttselSpy25 describes.
    23:50, 14 May 2014
  • SOTO
    So what you're saying is continuity is mostly listing what other stories have to say about this story's subject matter (locations, objects, people)?

    Also, on a slightly-to-the-side-but-mostly-centred note, how far can "continuity" go? If the Doctor's talking about airplanes, should we be mentioning some completely unrelated incident where he's driving one (or trying to, lol), or where he's talking about them in a different context? Should we be talking about that time when an airplane appeared in Torchwood and Jack nearly got poisoned? I see lots of very out-there points in continuity now and again that I feel are going a bit too far.

    To the point, how much do we need, to be able to say that this line or this scene is referencing another story, or if it's just a coincidence that similar situations appear?

    00:13, 15 May 2014
    Edited 00:14, 15 May 2014
    Edited 23:44, 17 May 2014
  • OttselSpy25
    I'm saying that continuity is for drawing comparisons between stories, weather it be characters or references.

    As for your second point, I have no idea. I never have tried to go as far as the "random object appearing in different stories" continuity points, as Czech is suggesting we do. I think that if two stories have very similar scenes or events, it does need a reference tho.

    19:45, 17 May 2014
  • Cult_Of_Skaro
    How about we do what SimpsonsWiki does, and have a separate tab for references? Example.
    04:34, 18 May 2014

Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117238


Shortcut:
CzechOut
Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/What to do about the discontinuity index and timey-wimey detector" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Rename the Continuity and Reference sections".

Contrary to what I originally thought was happening, Forum:Discontinuity index and Forum:Timey-wimey detector can't be edited by normal users. The entirety of the old Forum namespace is actually off limits, even though it doesn't appear that way to admins.

This means that we're going to have to Lifeboat those threads to a newly-created namespace. So here's the question:

What short name can we come up with to label this new namespace?

Here are some possibilities:

  • Idea
  • Thesis
  • Study (oooh, I think I like this one: nice and short and it has multiple meanings depending on whether you take it as a verb or a noun)
  • Enquiry

I'm thinking we need a name that stops short of fact, but suggests something more solid than just a "notion" or a "hunch". Feel free to comment on these or add your own.

17:40, 2 December 2012
Edited 21:38, 11 December 2012
Edited 21:38, 11 December 2012
Edited 01:12, 17 December 2012
  • Quest?on
    How about "Theory"?
    18:05, 2 December 2012
  • Shambala108
    I liked "thesis" so I looked up some synonyms and came up with "theme". Related to "enquiry" are "research" and "quest". I kind of like "research" as it can relate to both the discontinuity and the timeline forums. Shambala108 ☎ 18:48, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
    18:48, 2 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    I like "Thesis" or "Theory" both have similar definitions and both fit what actually goes on in the forums in question.

    "Research" I think is too far over to the investigation side of things. Those forums are more of a discussion, research and organisation combined. Research also suggests facts.

    Similarly I don't think "Study" is a good fit, while I can see the appeal CzechOut sees in it, it doesn't seem to gel well with what it'd be containing.

    13:10, 3 December 2012
  • SnorlaxMonster
    I think "Theory" really fits much better than "Thesis", partly due to the fact that "Thesis" has a much more strict definition that not every page that would be in the namespace would fit, and partly because "Theory" probably better fits the level of certainty that we have regarding pages in that namespace.
    02:20, 4 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    I kinda like Shambala108's suggestion of Research, because it's sort of a compromise between Study and Theory. Theory connotes to me the scientific method. You have a notion and then you set out to prove that thesis.

    I should never really have suggested Thesis, because that's not really what's going on in these two old forums. They're much more collaborative, unfocussed, efforts. Discon Index in particular is a free-for-all, with one person offering a point and other people objecting. In software development terms, the Discon Index is the definition of "open source".

    Likewise, Timey-Wimey strikes me as a mathematician's chalkboard. One person puts up their order, and then the next person comes by, wipes the slate clean, and reorders things. Meanwhile, dozens of stories languish at the bottom of these pages, unplaced until someone actually reads them, with each of these unplaced stories having the potential to completely upset the existing order.

    Ultimately, both of these forums do produce results, but it's the very opposite of the scientific method that's implied by Theory. It's just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Research seems closer to what it is.

    And, happily, doctors do a lot of research, so it's thematically rather neat, as well. :)

    06:37, 4 December 2012
  • Mgailp
    How does hypothesis sound? It isn't a theory yet, but some research has been done to work out the order so far.
    03:30, 6 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    It sounds ... long. One of the goals of any good namespace name is that it be short. This is the main reason that I squeed a li'l bit over Study. five letters: yum!

    Also, in many contexts, there's no meaningful syntactical difference between hypothesis' and thesis, so why bother with the prefix hypo-?

    03:35, 6 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    We need to get this settled by Friday, or else we won't have a Discontinuity Index open and ready for business for the transmission of the Christmas Special. It takes Wikia Staff involvement to make this change, and I'm pretty sure they're all packing up for the Christmas holiday already. I know this is the last week they'll be doing code updates until 2013.

    Please submit your suggestions within the next 48 hours.

    21:37, 11 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    It would seem that of those who have responded so far, the notion of Research or Study has fallen flat. Most so far seem to be leaning towards words that connote the idea of opinion/essays/theses rather than a virtual study session.

    So lemme float a couple more that are in that vein, cause I'm still lukewarm to "theory". What do we think of:

    • View
    • Viewpoint
    • Opinion
    01:11, 12 December 2012
    Edited 01:21, 12 December 2012
    Edited 01:21, 12 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    Opinion is too singular, likewise are view and viewpoint.

    I still support Theory.

    But I thought I'd also throw another idea for a word: Query.

    This is something of a step away from the research/theory/knowledge sort of theme we've been going towards and is more in the question field.

    05:03, 12 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    Query doesn't quite cut the mustard with me. Dunno about anyone else. What about Question itself, though? It's a bit longer than I'd like, but you gotta admit it has a certain Doctor Who frisson about it, and it's both verb and noun.
    05:20, 12 December 2012
  • Tangerineduel
    I did consider Question but like you thought it was a little too long, which was why I suggested Query.

    Questions are at the heart of the discontinuity/timey-wimey forums, so it's a good fit. Though somewhat long, though does that matter, aside from the title names we don't often link to either of the forums other than through templates.

    13:23, 12 December 2012
  • CzechOut
    While you're right that most links to Discon and Timey-Wimey are accomplished through templates, all searches aren't. You've got to get all the way through the namespace name, a colon, and at least one character before auto-suggest even kicks in.
    16:34, 12 December 2012
  • Mini-mitch
    It is not something I am over concerned with, hence I have not spoken in the discussion, but reading through the discussion: Either 'Theory' or 'Research' seem to be grand...

    If I was to choose, I would go with Theory.

    01:06, 17 December 2012
CzechOut
Okay, we've gone about 48 hours beyond the cutoff date. In order to get these threads moved over into a new namespace in time to reopen for the Christmas special, I'm closing in favour of what appears to be the name with the most support: Theory.

I'm counting 4 people who outright supported this exact word, an additional 2 people who liked a word with the same Greek root — and then me, with the persuasive powers of a gnat.

Provided that Wikia Staff are still available in this last week before Christmas, it should be possible to reopen the Discontinuity Index in time for the airing of the Christmas special.

01:11, 17 December 2012
Edited 01:26, 17 December 2012

Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117348


Shortcut:
CzechOut
Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Aliens templates removed from most pages" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/What to do about the discontinuity index and timey-wimey detector".

The elimination of aliens and enemies templates from most pages was one of the last things agreed in the old forums and I didn't want it to slip through the cracks.

Accordingly, all templates in Category:Navigation by season have now been stripped from every page but the approrpriate page in Category:Seasons. As agreed in the earlier forum, {{Season 21 aliens}} belongs only on Season 21, and so forth.

This will reduce the massive clutter that had accumulated on pages like Dalek and the Master, which resulted in the stack of nav templates being as much as a literal foot long. It'll also help out a heck of a lot with caching issues since a lot of pages were being unnecessarily linked together, creating caching delays when the templates got changed.

Please do not reinsert these templates. They are only allowed on the corresponding season/series page.
07:24, 4 December 2012
Edited 21:39, 11 December 2012

    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117364


    Shortcut:
    OttselSpy25
    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Doctor Who (1996) to Doctor Who (TV story)" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Aliens templates removed from most pages".

    Prior to the move to the new forum, we were discussing whether or not we should move Doctor Who (1996) to Doctor Who (TV story). Where are we with that?

    I am for the idea, as (1996) really is no longer needed, as (TV story) would dismag it well. It is the only story, after all, that has the title "Doctor Who".

    18:26, 4 December 2012
    Edited by CzechOut 19:47, 4 December 2012
    Edited by CzechOut 20:04, 4 December 2012
    Edited by CzechOut 20:05, 4 December 2012
    Edited by Bubblecamera 00:44, 5 December 2012
    Edited by CzechOut 20:57, 11 December 2012
    Edited by CzechOut 20:57, 11 December 2012
    • OttselSpy25
      I meant Forum:Should Doctor Who (1996) be Doctor Who (TV story)?
      18:28, 4 December 2012
    • CzechOut
      By way of reminder we were at the following place:
      Person TV story 1996 Something else
      OttselSpy25 X
      Digifiend X (apparently)
      Imamadmad X also proposed TV Movie, film
      Tangerineduel X
      CzechOut X
      Rowan Earthwood X
      GusF X

      This discussion has been open since 29 September and it's essentially an arbitrary choice about one page. We really need to go ahead and put this one to rest.

      However, in view of the fact that a new forum structure was emplaced while this thread was technically still open, I'm gonna highlight this thread so that others can be notified about it, and then allow one more week of discussion.

      Anyone who posts to this thread whose name does not appear in the chart above should make sure they have thoroughly read the preceding discussion before adding their comments below.

      20:02, 4 December 2012
    • Bubblecamera
      I vote for the change!
      22:52, 4 December 2012
    • Quest?on
      I vote to change it!
      23:13, 4 December 2012
    • Doctorfaith99
      standing in the of fame
      05:15, 5 December 2012
    • OttselSpy25
      @Doctorfaith

      ...What?

      16:41, 5 December 2012
    • Cult_Of_Skaro
      I vote to keep it at 1996.
      19:33, 5 December 2012
    • DoctorWhooves1
      1996. Just to make the distinction from the show.
      01:10, 6 December 2012
    • CzechOut

      DoctorWhooves1 wrote: 1996. Just to make the distinction from the show.

      Why do you think that "TV story" would not adequately distinguish from the show? The issue — and I don't know if you've read the entirety of the earlier part of this discussion — is that this is the only televised episode which is not disambiguated with the dab term (TV story).

      So the question really is, why should this episode be disambiguated differently than every other one? And lest you say, "Well it was a movie", remember that it's the same length as The Five Doctors — or, rather, The Five Doctors (TV story). And almost every serial was longer than the TVM.

      03:00, 6 December 2012
    • Shambala108
      Hmm, I thought I had already posted on this topic but I guess not...Anyway, I'm good with (TV story) because that's what it is.
      04:06, 6 December 2012
    • Nickpearson87
      I, for one, have absolutely no qualms in the title change for the Doctor Who Television Movie of 1996. It is, after all, as others have noted, the only televised story to be simply titled 'Doctor Who'. (TV Story) would make much more sense for newcomers to the wiki and in the classification system of the wiki itself.
      15:41, 7 December 2012
    • OttselSpy25
      So... Is this enough to reach a verdict, or should we discuss a bit more?
      03:32, 11 December 2012
    • Shambala108
      If I counted correctly, we have 9 votes for the change and 4 votes to keep it as it is. The original forum has several reasons for changing it; maybe the 4 who are against the change could give their reasons.
      04:14, 11 December 2012
    • CzechOut
      A week is seven days, guys. It's only been six.
      04:32, 11 December 2012
    • OttselSpy25
      We're calling this a week from some date? Didn't knoe that. I was just trying to stop this discussion from sinking into an unrecoverable void...
      04:41, 11 December 2012
    • CzechOut

      CzechOut wrote in post #3:

      However, in view of the fact that a new forum structure was emplaced while this thread was technically still open, I'm gonna highlight this thread so that others can be notified about it, and then allow one more week of discussion.
      05:03, 11 December 2012
      Edited 05:03, 11 December 2012
    • OttselSpy25
      Okay, fair enough.
      12:08, 11 December 2012
    CzechOut
    It's now been 7 days and a few odd minutes since the allowance of one more week of discussion was made last Tuesday. As Shambala108 has already counted, we've got a 9:4 vote in favour of changing to (TV story). This discussion has lasted more than long enough to allow people to give their rationales, so this thread is now closed, with the following effects:
    Doctor Who (1996) will be retained as a redirect, and no effort will be made to change the current references to it. If you want to continue linking to Doctor Who (1996), you certainly may. The only thing that's actually changing is that the formal name of the page will now be Doctor Who (TV story). This has the consequent effect that only the (TV story) variant pops up in search/auto-suggest.
    Doctor Who (1996)/Production has also moved to Doctor Who (TV story)/Production with redirects retained.
    Additionally, the topic to this thread will now be removed, since this discussion is no longer active. Furthermore, the following infoboxes/templates have been changed in order to facilitate smoother operation:

    If you encounter other templates that need to be changed for technical reasons, and you are unable to make the change yourself, please contact an admin.

    Thanks to all who participated in this and the preceding discussion.

    20:56, 11 December 2012
    Edited 21:08, 11 December 2012

    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117433


    Shortcut:
    2.103.48.89
    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/David Fynn" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Doctor Who (1996) to Doctor Who (TV story)".

    I didn't like dr who until I watched the episode "The Pandorica Opens" and saw the exquisite acting of the character Marcellus (played by David fynn). I now own all the box sets. Hoping he makes a return! :)

    01:27, 6 December 2012
    Edited 03:28, 6 December 2012
    Edited 03:29, 6 December 2012
      CzechOut
      Hi there 2.103! Thanks for trying out our new forum system. We hope you'll continue joining in with us :)

      However, please note that the forums are not for the expression of simple likes and dislikes. Ultimately, all of our forums are to be used to in some way improve the wiki. This particular board — The Panopticon — is where we discuss the wiki's policies.

      If you want to have a general chat, please head over to The Howling. Note, however, that the Howling is the one part of the wiki where spoilers are allowed.

      This thread will now be closed and archived — but please don't think for a moment that we don't want you here!

      03:28, 6 December 2012

      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117468


      Shortcut:
      CzechOut
      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Let's drop "index file" from our name" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/David Fynn".

      I recently came across a 2005 question from one of our original admin that never got answered. It left me curious enough to rewatch Castrovalva very closely. The truth is that our article at TARDIS Index File is wrong, and therefore our name is, too. At no point do Nyssa and Tegan ever use the complete phrase "TARDIS Index File". They're merely looking for the not-proper-noun "index file" for the TARDIS information system.

      Admin note: Since this discussion began, the in-universe article TARDIS Index File has been deleted in the move to TARDIS information system.

      And that's what the name of the article should be, as there is no such thing as the "TARDIS Index File". An index file is just a gateway, a thing like Forum:Index, or a home page. It's not some specialised or independent part of the TARDIS. Most significantly, it is not the database onboard the TARDIS — which is what I think Freethinker1of1 maintained in the early years of this wiki. It would be most proper to call it the "index file of the TARDIS Information System".

      Because there is no such thing as the "TARDIS Index File", I propose that we just call ourselves the Tardis Wiki, and that we switch to this simpler logo:

      2013TardisLogo.png

      This would have the added advantage of being in harmony with our Twitter handle, email address, and the way that everyone in the broader wiki community generally thinks of us. In other words, "Index File" is already generally truncated, so let's just kill it in the logo, which is really one of the few places where the term remains.

      09:22, 7 December 2012
      Edited 01:20, 5 January 2013
      Edited 01:24, 5 January 2013
      Edited 01:25, 5 January 2013
      Edited 01:55, 5 January 2013
      Edited 13:51, 8 January 2013
      Edited 00:20, 10 January 2013
      • Tangerineduel
        Noooooo.

        Okay then. What we have at the moment is a bit of a mouthful and a bit to type. So I'm all for it.

        09:44, 7 December 2012
      • Imamadmad
        I'm against it. I like the name. However, I'm usually resistant to changes like this. But TARDIS Index Files just sounds so much better than just TARDIS. Sounds more complete.
        11:26, 7 December 2012
      • Eladkse
        Regardless of it's background/origin, I like the name 'TARDIS Index File'. It shows originality in the naming of the wiki. Compare to Memory Alpha (which ironically in this case, is named after something in-universe).

        Calling the wiki 'TARDIS Wiki' makes little sense in my opinion. Is it a wiki about TARDISes? If one were to change the title to include 'wiki', it would in my opinion need to be 'Doctor Who Wiki' - which is rather boring and generic.

        On a separate note, what about the international versions? What are they called at the moment?

        11:55, 7 December 2012
      • SirBanstead
        TARDIS Index File is a name that has grown on me, although it is a bit long, it is a good name and the name of this wiki should stay the same.
        12:31, 7 December 2012
      • Imamadmad
        Looking at some of the interwiki links:
        • the French version is just "Doctor Who"
        • German is "Doctor Who Wiki"
        • the logo on the Spanish site says "Doctor Wikipedia Who"
        • the one from the Netherlands is "Doctor Who Wiki"
        • the one which I believe is Romanian uses the same "TARDIS Index File" logo as this wiki
        • Italian="Doctor Who Wiki"
        • Polish="Doctor Who Wiki"
        • the Turkish one is "Doctor Who Turkey Wiki"

        And I can't even read, much less retype, the non-latin scripts of the other wikis linked on the front page (sorry and no offence to people from those countries). So there doesn't seem to be any standard title on the foreign wikis, although the rather boring "Doctor Who Wiki" seems to be the most popular option. Please please please can we not change our name to "Doctor Who Wiki".

        12:38, 7 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel

        Eladkse wrote: Regardless of it's background/origin, I like the name 'TARDIS Index File'. It shows originality in the naming of the wiki. Compare to Memory Alpha (which ironically in this case, is named after something in-universe).

        Calling the wiki 'TARDIS Wiki' makes little sense in my opinion. Is it a wiki about TARDISes? If one were to change the title to include 'wiki', it would in my opinion need to be 'Doctor Who Wiki' - which is rather boring and generic.

        On a separate note, what about the international versions? What are they called at the moment?

        TARDIS as a noun does make some sense for the wiki. "A building or container that is larger inside than it appears to be from the outside" is the dictionary definition.

        I do however agree with Imamadmad, I do not support changing the wiki's name to "Doctor Who Wiki".

        13:41, 7 December 2012
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        I am 100% sticking with TARDIS index file. Whether they call it that or not in the show, I don't want this to be just aother the (insert subject here) wiki.
        13:47, 7 December 2012
      • Eladkse
        Just to clarify my position, I do not support 'Doctor Who Wiki' - I was using it as an example of why I think we should stick to 'TARDIS Index File'.
        13:47, 7 December 2012
      • OttselSpy25
        I would prefer to keep it as "Tardis index file." It's fun continuity and is also original.
        14:31, 7 December 2012
      • Shambala108
        I too like the full name, Tardis Index File.
        14:38, 7 December 2012
      • GusF
        I think that the existing name should be kept as it's a great name and it's very well established at this stage.
        15:20, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        OttselSpy25 wrote: I would prefer to keep it as "Tardis index file." It's fun continuity and is also original.

        Just to clarify, it's not continuous at all. My whole point is that it does not exist within continuity. The thing that exists within continuity is the Tardis Information System. It makes little sense for a place advertising itself as an encyclopaedia of Doctor Who knowledge should get something so basic as its name wrong.

        17:15, 7 December 2012
        Edited 17:16, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Eladkse wrote: On a separate note, what about the international versions? What are they called at the moment?

        We are — all of us — called "the Doctor Who Wiki" at some level, because we all can be reached by typing w:c:languagecode.doctorwho. Even this wiki is actually w:c:doctorwho.

        17:18, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Imamadmad wrote: TARDIS Index Files just sounds so much better than just TARDIS. Sounds more complete.

        Look again at the logo. It doesn't just say "Tardis Wiki". It says Tardis DW Wiki. The point of the new logo is that it incorporates both urls that reach this site: w:c:tardis and w:c:doctorwho.

        17:22, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        GusF wrote: [Tardis Index File is] very well established at this stage.

        This is what we look like on Wikia's front page — nary an index or file in sight.

        With whom? It's certainly not established very strongly in the minds of other Wikians. Go to w:c:community and you'll never hear "index file" there: it's always just "tardis".

        Worse, Wikia Staff never call it that. So when we get a spotlight or other promotion within the Wikia network, we're always, always, always referred to as "Tardis". Look at the picture at right. The name given in the lower left-hand corner is not changeable by local admin. Staff thinks of us as "Tardis", so that's how we're portrayed in any Wikia-wide advertising. Other Wikians — that is, the ones who don't regularly contribute here — doubtlessly remember "Tardis" as our name, because we're one of the only wikis who can make links without the w:c: bit. If you want to link to iCarly, you have to type w:c:iCarly:iCarly. If you want to link to TARDIS, you only have to type tardis:TARDIS. That distinction is something that admin and active users right the way across Wikia notice and remember.

        This proposal is thus merely bowing the reality of the power of our elegant, five-letter URL. It is not an attempt to practically change the name.

        17:42, 7 December 2012
      • OttselSpy25

        ...Worse, Wikia Staff never call it that. So when we get a spotlight or other promotion within the Wikia network, we're always, always, always referred to as "Tardis". Look at the picture at right. The name given in the lower left-hand corner is not changeable by local admin. Staff thinks of us as "Tardis", so that's how we're portrayed in any Wikia-wide advertising. Other Wikians — that is, the ones who don't regularly contribute here — doubtlessly remember "Tardis" as our name, because we're one of the only wikis who can make links without the w:c: bit. If you want to link to iCarly, you have to type w:c:iCarly:iCarly. If you want to link to TARDIS, you only have to type tardis:TARDIS. That distinction is something that admin and active users right the way across Wikia notice and remember.

        Czech is an Icarly fan? Who would have thought. But besides that, Czech, we're "TARDIS" and you have to type out such because whoever made this wikia put the word "tardis" before the ".wikia.com". To get to the "Robotech Saga Wikia", you have to type w:c:robotoech:Robotech. Does that mean that that wikia is called "Robotech wikia"? Well, that's certainly a nickname, but technically our name is fully "Robotech Saga Wiki". Wikia's with names different from their url or even what people refer to them as is not uncommon, or bad really.

        18:07, 7 December 2012
        Edited 18:11, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        I think you've slightly missed my point You can't get to Robotech by typing robotech:Robotech. Add the w:c: and it begins to look like a URL. Take away the w:c: and it seems like the name — in the same way that Wikipedia is unmistakably the wiki name conveyed by wikipedia:Supergirl.

        And, actually, no, the wiki was started as doctorwho.wikia.com and then later changed to tardis. That's why doctorwho is the base of the whole global family of Doctor Who wikis on Wikia, and not tardis.

        From a technical standpoint, we're doubly unique in the Wikia community because we have two shortform ways to link. Whether you type tardis:TARDIS or doctorwho:TARDIS you end up at our page, TARDIS. I'm not aware of any other Wikia wiki that can do that: startrek:Spock and wookieepedia:Yoda are nonstarters; they can only do memoryalpha:Spock and starwars:Yoda. And, here's the salient point: We can't do indexfile:Eleventh Doctor or tif:Eleventh Doctor or tardisindexfile:Eleventh Doctor.

        From a practical standpoint:

        • Wikia markets us as "Tardis"
        • We uniquely can link to our pages by two different names, neither of which contain "index file"
        • The proposed logo implies both of these link names
        • There is no such thing as a "Tardis Index File" within any DW narrative, so our name perpetuates a lie
        • From a design standpoint, it's massively easier to to deal with two words totalling 10 letters than three words totalling 15 — particularly when you're talking about the very confined space of the wordmark in the upper left-hand corner. Five letters may not seem like much, but it's obviously a third of the total width, meaning that the shortened logo will appear bigger, bolder and clearer.
        18:58, 7 December 2012
      • Eladkse
        "There is no such thing as a "Tardis Index File" within any DW narrative, so our name perpetuates a lie"
        Is this really important in the grand scheme of things? Just because it isn't in the narrative doesn't mean it can't be used as the wiki's name. It's been used for the past years without any complaint.


        "Wikia markets us as 'Tardis'" "We uniquely can link to our pages by two different names, neither of which contain 'index file'"

        That's perfectly fine. I can't see how this has any bearing on the wiki being 'Tardis Index File'


        "The proposed logo implies both of these link names"

        So does the current one, so this is also a null point.


        "From a design standpoint, it's massively easier to to deal with two words totalling 10 letters than three words totalling 15 — particularly when you're talking about the very confined space of the wordmark in the upper left-hand corner. Five letters may not seem like much, but it's obviously a third of the total width, meaning that the shortened logo will appear bigger, bolder and clearer."

        I concede to your view on this point. Wordmark design is easier with less characters. However, this does not change my overall opinion.


        Now if I may address CzechOut directly, I think you need to be a little less critical of the other comments here and allow the community to make the decision.

        19:10, 7 December 2012
        Edited 19:11, 7 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Eladkse wrote: Now if I may address CzechOut directly, I think you need to be a little less critical of the other comments here and allow the community to make the decision.

        I know what you're saying. There's a risk that I'm putting people off. But in my mind, there is a huge difference between active defence of an idea and an unwillingness to be governed by consensus.

        Fighting a spirited campaign means that various assumptions are thoroughly vetted. I think it shows respect for the other participants, because I'm taking their ideas seriously enough to argue against them.

        And it often yields fruit.

        For instance, it was good that I broached the idea of the new design incorporating "tardis" and "doctorwho" because it allowed you to point out that the current design already does this — something I hadn't actually considered. Consequently, the weakness of that particular aspect of my argument is revealed, and it can now be dismissed.

        This is a huge decision, so if the community decides to stick where we are, I want to make sure that they're doing so after having fully considered the facts. That way, if people 2 years from now say, "Why is this place called the "Tardis Index File?", we can just point them to Thread:117468 and be reasonably assured that they'll see their questions addressed somewhere in here.

        I am always reminded in these counter-intuitive decisions of the long discussion, Italics or Quotation marks? I lost that battle, but at least it had the virtue of being thoroughly argued. Now, the fact that we counter-intuitively use italics to indicate episode names – like A Good Man Goes to War — can at least be said to be the will of the community, even though it goes against virtually every English-language manual of style.

        In the same way, if we're going to keep this logo, we need to be very clear that we do so despite a number of facts that argue against it.

        19:42, 7 December 2012
      • Imamadmad
        Well, when you said that nobody calls the wiki by the Index Files bit outside this wiki, well, when I refer to it outside this wiki, especially on the answers wiki because people will know what I'm talking about I prefer to say the Index Files. It just fits in conversation. Also, proof that at least one person uses it!

        Anyway, as someone above pointed out, I don't see the difference between the name and the URL to be significant as the URL (and linking name) is just a shortening of the name, not a new name. Not a big enough problem for a name change over, surely.

        Also, with the logo, I think it looks perfect the size it is. The longest part of the DW bit is about equal in height (and positioning) to the nav bar beside it and the shorter heights are about the same size as the text giving the name. The logo fits perfectly into that space, and it looks good. Bigger isn't always better. If anything, I think the proposed new logo looks a bit too big and chunky, (although that might be because of the magnification. Could you put in that version in the size it would actually appear beside the nav bar?)

        Another point, I really don't want the Index Files to turn into just another of those "... Wiki" wikis. It looks better, more professional in a way (ok, professional might be the wrong word here, but you get my point), to not have it say wiki. I would be almost fine with any name change as long as it doesn't incorporate the word wiki!

        00:39, 8 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        I feel you on the word "wiki". You've well explained why that word doesn't work.

        I wanna ask this question — not specifically of you, Imamadmad, but sort of anyone in the thread. If Tardis Wiki doesn't work, should we attempt to go for the item which has the strength of being within continuity? It's longer and it's a design nightmare in the wordmark, but is there any traction for the name Tardis Information System?  

        02:32, 8 December 2012
        Edited 02:33, 8 December 2012
      • Shambala108
        I like it better than just plain "Tardis".
        02:35, 8 December 2012
      • Imamadmad
        Agreed with Shambala108. Better than TARDIS Wiki. If we have to change, that would be my preference. But I would prefer we stayed the same as everyone already knows this as TARDIS Index Files. However, if we had to change, I wouldn't object to TARDIS Information System.
        03:07, 8 December 2012
      • Tardis1963
        I quite dislike just being 'TARDIS Wiki'. I like 'Doctor Who Wiki', but it is kinda boring, so I understand why people are against it. 'TARDIS Information System' works for me.
        07:06, 8 December 2012
      • SirBanstead
        there is no good reason it should change, and many good reasons to stay the same. Although as the doctor once said, ' The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don't always soften the bad things, but vice versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things or make them unimportant.'
        08:34, 8 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel
        I think if we do anything we should change the name to what actually exists in the DWU.

        I know we've got our own sometimes quirky ways of doing things here. But calling our wiki after something that doesn't exist in the DWU is a little bit odd.

        So I support Tardis Information System.

        14:54, 8 December 2012
      • GusF
        If it was a straight choice between TARDIS Information System and TARDIS Wiki, I'd definitely choose the latter as the former seems a bit boring.

        But personally I don't really see it as a big issue that the Wiki is named after something that doesn't exist in the Whoniverse.

        15:01, 8 December 2012
        Edited 15:02, 8 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel

        GusF wrote: If it was a straight choice between TARDIS Information System and TARDIS Wiki, I'd definitely choose the latter as the former seems a bit boring.

        But personally I don't really see it as a big issue that the Wiki is named after something that doesn't exist in the Whoniverse.

        How so? Shouldn't we be able to justify why the wiki is names the way it's named?

        That it's named after a mistake in watching Castrovalva is somewhat odd.

        15:05, 8 December 2012
      • Sichamousacoricothingmabob
        STRONG STRONG OPPOSE

        As it has been said many a times above, who cares what it was on the show, this isn't that, this is a Wikia about Doctor Who, we can call it what we like. I like the name. It doesn't matter if somepeople call it the 'TARDIS wikia', because that's just a colloquial name, even I use it to call it shorthand, but officially, it should stay 'TARDIS index file Wikia'.

        21:55, 8 December 2012
      • OttselSpy25

        Sichamousacoricothingmabob wrote: STRONG STRONG OPPOSE

        As it has been said many a times above, who cares what it was on the show, this isn't that, this is a Wikia about Doctor Who, we can call it what we like. I like the name. It doesn't matter if somepeople call it the 'TARDIS wikia', because that's just a colloquial name, even I use it to call it shorthand, but officially, it should stay 'TARDIS index file Wikia'.

        Agreed. The point just doesn't stand much ground; so what if it wasn't used in a narrative? What's the problem with that? Basically you should just drop that argument now...

        03:11, 9 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel

        OttselSpy25 wrote:

        Sichamousacoricothingmabob wrote: STRONG STRONG OPPOSE

        As it has been said many a times above, who cares what it was on the show, this isn't that, this is a Wikia about Doctor Who, we can call it what we like. I like the name. It doesn't matter if somepeople call it the 'TARDIS wikia', because that's just a colloquial name, even I use it to call it shorthand, but officially, it should stay 'TARDIS index file Wikia'.

        Agreed. The point just doesn't stand much ground; so what if it wasn't used in a narrative? What's the problem with that? Basically you should just drop that argument now...

        To Sichamousacoricothingmabob, I would just point out that that isn't what the name of the wiki is at the moment. It is the TARDIS Index File, the Doctor Who Wiki. Wikia is the company/organisation that hosts all the wikis.

        To OttselSpy25, this is a discussion not an argument. The problem is that we should be internally consistent and be able to explain to new users why things are the way they are, either through internal show logic or as this discussion may show through community discussion.

        03:54, 9 December 2012
      • Jastennant4
        Maybe you could call it Tardis Doctor Who Wiki
        08:11, 9 December 2012
      • Imamadmad

        Jastennant4 wrote: Maybe you could call it Tardis Doctor Who Wiki

        No offence or anything, but that's even worse! A no from me on that one

        08:58, 9 December 2012
      • Jastennant4
        No offence taken, came up with that name randomly :)
        09:05, 9 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        Here's a possibility for what the logo might look like if we went with the more accurate name "Tardis Information System":
        TardisInformationSystem.png

        This is a really rough mock up, more or less done to test the tremendous expansion in number of letters from the current Very Odd Name.

        In actual implementation, though, I think we'd have to go with a two part logo. This would be the actual wordmark:

        TardisWithTARDIS.png

        Then, we'd get rid of the Gallifreyan script background and replace it with a background that had the words "Information System". That way, everything would be much clearer.

        16:15, 9 December 2012
        Edited 16:22, 9 December 2012
      • Shambala108
        There's something I'd like to address about "Index File". From Castrovalva:
        TEGAN: Tardis Information System. Ready For Entry.
        NYSSA: A databank!
        TEGAN: Will it tell us how to fly the Tardis?
        NYSSA: I'm sure that's in here somewhere, once we find the index file.
        TEGAN: How do we find the index file? Of course, if we had an index file, we could look it up in the index file, under index file. What am I saying? I'm talking nonsense.
        NYSSA: Recursion isn't nonsense.
        TEGAN: Eh?
        NYSSA: That's an example of recursion, when procedures fold back on themselves. If you had an index file, you could look it up in the index file.
        TEGAN: If. My Dad used to say that if was the most powerful word in the English language.
        NYSSA: Recursion's a powerful mathematical concept, but I don't see how it can help us now.
        TEGAN: If. I F! Stands for index file!

        While it may not be called "index file", the use of the name appears in the story more than "information system" does. Also, Tegan's use of "index file" leads to the revelation of recursion, which is what Castrovalva (the place) is all about and is important to the resolution of the story. So it's not an error and it is important.

        16:38, 9 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Shambala108 wrote: While it may not be called "index file", the use of the name appears in the story more than "information system" does. Also, Tegan's use of "index file" leads to the revelation of recursion, which is what Castrovalva (the place) is all about and is important to the resolution of the story. So it's not an error and it is important.

        I would say that if it's not called an "index file" then it *is* an error to call it one. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia. It's the central job of an encyclopaedia to be a repository of facts — not near facts. And as the script quotation proves, the index file is merely a part of the TARDIS Information System — or, really, that it's just a general computing term that Nyssa is pulling from her own scientific background. That is, it's a standard part of any computing system that she imagines must be present in the Tardis Information System as well.

        How do we know that the thing is actually called the "TARDIS Information System"? Because we have art. Below is the very first picture ever uploaded to this site, which makes it doubly confusing why the founders called this the "TARDIS Index File".

        TardisInformationSystem.jpg
        17:13, 9 December 2012
        Edited 17:14, 9 December 2012
        Edited 17:17, 9 December 2012
        Edited 18:13, 5 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        In case it's a little hard to imagine the proposed new logo in situ, here's what it would look like if you took the background element ("Information System") and threw it against the actual wordmark (TARDIS):
        TardisInformationSystemIntegrated.png
        17:28, 9 December 2012
        Edited 17:30, 9 December 2012
        Edited 17:33, 9 December 2012
      • Digifiend

        CzechOut wrote:

        GusF wrote: [Tardis Index File is] very well established at this stage.

        This is what we look like on Wikia's front page — nary an index or file in sight.

        With whom? It's certainly not established very strongly in the minds of other Wikians. Go to w:c:community and you'll never hear "index file" there: it's always just "tardis".

        Worse, Wikia Staff never call it that. So when we get a spotlight or other promotion within the Wikia network, we're always, always, always referred to as "Tardis". Look at the picture at right. The name given in the lower left-hand corner is not changeable by local admin. Staff thinks of us as "Tardis", so that's how we're portrayed in any Wikia-wide advertising. Other Wikians — that is, the ones who don't regularly contribute here — doubtlessly remember "Tardis" as our name, because we're one of the only wikis who can make links without the w:c: bit. If you want to link to iCarly, you have to type w:c:iCarly:iCarly. If you want to link to TARDIS, you only have to type tardis:TARDIS. That distinction is something that admin and active users right the way across Wikia notice and remember.

        This proposal is thus merely bowing the reality of the power of our elegant, five-letter URL. It is not an attempt to practically change the name.

        I'm an admin on one of the other wikis with that same privilege - The Morphin Grid, which has the primary domain of powerrangers.wikia.com, and can be accessed by typing powerrangers:. Just as tardis is a redirect of doctorwho, supersentai is a redirect for powerrangers (although the supersentai one does require the w:c:, as we adopted the domain later after the wiki originally in that namespace was abandoned). The name was originally Power Ranger Universe, but there was another website called that and we also cover the Japanese version, Super Sentai, so I had it changed to The Morphin Grid upon my promotion to admin. It's named after something mentioned in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Since this wiki also covers other shows (spin-offs), a generic franchise term like Tardis is definitely better than the bland Doctor Who Wiki. You're right though that Tardis Information System is rather too long for the wordmark - Tardis Index File looks squashed as it is. If you go with that name, the background thing is definitely the way to go.

        Oh, and CzechOut, is that Tardis Information System screen using Ceefax tech? lol

        02:42, 12 December 2012
      • Quest?on
        I like the TARDIS Information System idea. It has continuity, and doesn't make us end up with another boring wiki title.
        13:38, 24 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        Okay, we've set with this proposal for a few weeks now. Let's try to move to some sort of closure. With the exception of Quest?on, who's essentially just voted, please indicate your preference from the choices below:
        • Tardis
        • Tardis Index File
        • Tardis Information System
        13:48, 24 December 2012
      • SirBanstead
        Tardis Index File
        13:51, 24 December 2012
      • Imamadmad
        I would prefer TARDIS Index File, but I wouldn't complain too much about TARDIS Information System. I would complain about just TARDIS though.
        15:23, 24 December 2012
      • Tardis1963
        TARDIS Information System.
        05:19, 25 December 2012
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        TARDIS index file.
        17:55, 25 December 2012
      • Toa of Gallifrey
        TARDIS Index File.
        21:12, 25 December 2012
      • OttselSpy25
        TARDIS index file
        00:01, 26 December 2012
      • Mini-mitch
        TARDIS information system
        00:04, 26 December 2012
      • Shambala108
        Tardis Index File
        04:10, 26 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel
        TARDIS Information System
        06:07, 27 December 2012
      • SOTO
        TARDIS Index File
        04:02, 29 December 2012
      • King Henney VII
        TARDIS Index File
        04:11, 29 December 2012
      • Silent Hunter UK
        TARDIS Index File
        12:28, 30 December 2012
      • Skittles the hog
        I'm probably a tad late to voice myself and I haven't read the entire discussion, but from what I understand TARDIS Index File is not a element of the DWU, in which case it seems to be a non-option, unless we're inventing it for our own purposes. I often forget 'Index File' is the full title as it finds little propagation... anywhere. I can't imagine anyone has any sentimental bearing upon this, so I don't see why it can't be changed.

        Basically,

        Tardis Wiki.
        15:19, 4 January 2013
      • Shambala108
        The index file was mentioned in Castrovalva and played an important part in resolving the mystery of the place Castrovalva (I posted a series of quotes from the story above). So it is part of the DWU.
        15:25, 4 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        TARDIS Index File
        15:26, 4 January 2013
      • Skittles the hog
        I see... then the case for changing is to conform to the url...?
        15:28, 4 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Shambala108 wrote: The index file was mentioned in Castrovalva and played an important part in resolving the mystery of the place Castrovalva (I posted a series of quotes from the story above). So it is part of the DWU.

        Again, this is absolutely untrue, as your earlier transcript proves. There is no such thing as a "Tardis Index File". There is an index file (generic computing term) of the Tardis Information System.

        19:20, 4 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Skittles the hog wrote: I see... then the case for changing is to conform to the url...?

        No, the case is that there is no such thing as a "Tardis Index File". Let's look at exactly what Tegan and Nyssa say. Note the first two lines, because they're really the most relevant:

        TEGAN: Tardis Information System. Ready For Entry.
        NYSSA: A databank!

        It couldn't be more explicit that the name of the "databank" is "Tardis Information System". And the picture, which I've posted upthread, confirms this visually. So both what we hear and what we see says that the name of the whole database is "Tardis Information System". It's not "Tardis Index File", which three words are never said consecutively, nor even intimated, in the script of Castrovalva. According to Nyssa, the index file is just a part of the TIS:

        TEGAN: Will it tell us how to fly the Tardis?
        NYSSA: I'm sure that's in here somewhere, once we find the index file.
        TEGAN: How do we find the index file? Of course, if we had an index file, we could look it up in the index file, under index file. What am I saying? I'm talking nonsense.

        Clearly, the index file is merely a navigation aid through the database. It is not the database itself. And the phrase "Tardis Index File" is in itself ambiguous because you could have index files on several systems in the TARDIS. There could be a navigational computer index file. The food machine almost certainly has some kind of index file. The chameleon circuit could have an index file. An index file is, in more modern computing parlance, simply a directory. That's it. So every system on the ship would, at some level, have an index file.

        Thus, "Tardis Information System" is the closest narrative analogue to what this wiki is, though just Tardis is what most people who don't edit here think the name is.

        21:04, 4 January 2013
      • SOTO
        So far TARDIS Index File is winning 10:3. It obviously has some sentimental value in some of us, including myself. It also sounds much better, in my opinion. We've had this name for a long time and I don't think it should change. But if it really really has to be changed, then Information System. But I'm really quite attached to our present name and logo.
        22:38, 4 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Well, your math is wrong, consensus isn't really about math anyway, and the logo is definitely going to be changed, regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

        I will say, however, that at the moment it doesn't look like there's a consensus to change the name. On the other hand there's consensus amongst admin to change the name, which is a complicating factor.

        23:20, 4 January 2013
        Edited 23:27, 4 January 2013
      • Tardis1963
        Think about an index at the back of a book. And then think about a computer file (eg. Word document). All an 'index file' is is an index from the back of the book but on a computer.

        This wiki is not just an index; it is the whole database.

        Having it pointed out to me makes it obvious now that TIF is not a very good name at all...

        09:39, 5 January 2013
      • Eladkse

        CzechOut wrote: I will say, however, that at the moment it doesn't look like there's a consensus to change the name. On the other hand there's consensus amongst admin to change the name, which is a complicating factor.

        It isn't a complicating factor at all. You've opened this discussion to the community, hence it is a community decision. Admin views are no more important.

        When this voting process closes (whenever that is - I assume 24 Jan?) any changes should be based on the community decision, not what the admins think is best. If otherwise, there's no point in us voting.

        10:10, 5 January 2013
      • SirBanstead
        I agree with smallerontheoutside, the name is more popular due to sentiment. Although Tardis Information System is a really good name if the current one needs replacing and has relevance in the DWU, it isn't wanted dramatically or needed sufficiently.

        And admin votes shouldn't count more or less towards decisions like these. Changes should be made with the support of the community, not just the people that run it.

        11:50, 5 January 2013
      • Skittles the hog

        CzechOut wrote: No, the case is that there is no such thing as a "Tardis Index File".

        Right, that's what I originally thought.

        I think you'll (that's the community, not you Czech) find that on the whole, consensus is not defined by numbers anyway, but rather discussion. I fail to see any outstanding reasons why Tardis Index File should stand, which suggests it's tipping in favour of a name change. I really don't think it's a good idea to use the name of something that's not even in the DWU. I'm personally also against Tardis Information System as, while it does have foundation, there's simply no need for it. Tardis Wiki is helpfully concise; I doubt the "outside world" gives a damn about some superfluous reference anyway.

        12:54, 5 January 2013
      • Imamadmad
        And I don't give a damn about what the "outside world" thinks. If the "outside world" thought we were a wiki that covered Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, that wouldn't make it true. And we don't want to sound like just every other wiki. That's boring, and then we wouldn't stand out as much. TARDIS Wiki is about the most boring, standard name that could be thought of apart from Doctor Who Wiki, which would be wrong anyway seeing as we cover more than just DW. And this is one of the few times when consensus is more important than discussion. This is a name, not some thoroughly thought through policy. Names are one of the few kinds of things where sentiment and preference play a large part.
        14:18, 5 January 2013
      • Skittles the hog
        Surely you acknowledge the necessity of appealing to people beyond the wiki? After all, we need to grow the community. And no, I thoroughly dispute the notion that numbers and personal preference are more important here than logic. We are not known as Tardis Index File beyond our own page header, so we're not original as it is, not that that even matters. Tardis Information System does have some credence, so I'd be willing to compromise on that.
        14:27, 5 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Eladkse wrote: ... any changes should be based on the community decision, not what the admins think is best. If otherwise, there's no point in us voting.

        I'm a little bit sensitive to this idea that you seem to be repeating that I'm not playing fair with this discussion. I feel obliged to point out that this is a far broader and longer-lasting discussion than what happened to get us to "Tardis Index File" in the first place. That original process was one that was largely done by administrative fiat, so this process is a step up from that for the community.

        Let's be very clear about our past: the original name of the wiki was "Tardis Information System", as you can see by reading this early 2005 post from Freethinker1of1 to Josiah Rowe. Obviously, Freethinker1of1 was aware of the proper, in-universe name, because he was the original uploader of file:TardisInformationSystem.jpg, the very first image ever uploaded to this wiki.

        However, he simply decided to go in another direction and that was that. Note this fascinating exchange from Talk:Doctor Who Wiki/Archive 1:

        Hey! I just noticed: on the front page and the Manual of Style, the site is referred to as TARDIS Index File, but on the main Help page and Help:Editing it's called TARDIS Information System. Which is the site's name? --Josiah Rowe 05:51, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

        From the deletion log:
        21:30, 21 Feb 2005 Freethinker1of1 deleted "TARDIS Information System" (Incorrect title for this article. Created new one with correct title.)
        So, it looks like the title should now be TARDIS Index File. Angela 07:25, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)


        Founder here. When I posted announcements about the site to some of the Doctor Who newsgroups and discussion forums, a few people asked if the correct name for the database shouldn't be "Index File," since that's what Tegan and Nyssa were looking for when they got the screen reading, "TARDIS Information System - Ready for Entry" to come up. I decided either term would be correct, but "TARDIS Index File" would be a much less cumbersome one. My apologies for not announcing this change beforehand. So, yes, the name is now TARDIS Index File. That said, if you come across a page I missed, which still gives the site name as TARDIS Information System, please feel free to change it. Thanks. --Freethinker1of1 12:34, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

        Fair enough! --Josiah Rowe 17:23, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

        So what we see is that Freethinker1of1 — who incidentally was not the wiki's founder despite his claim — gave the wiki the name "Tardis Index File":

        • after having called the wiki, properly, the "Tardis Information System"
        • based on the mistaken notion that "Tardis Information System" was a synonym for "Tardis Index File"
        • capriciously, and without even telling his own admin
        • unilaterally
        • well prior to the 2007 DVD release of Castrovalva, which obviously allows for a more careful understanding of the script
        • despite the objection that he must have seen at the talk page of the in-universe "not-quite-namesake", by someone he later made an admin

        In other words, there is precedence on this wiki for admins just makin' the name up and moving on. It's important to understand that this is the first time that we've ever discussed the appropriateness of the name in what might be considered "the full light of day".

        Now let's fast forward to 2008, where other practical parts of the name were decided.

        The "SEO name" (which actually is "Doctor Who Wiki" or doctorwho.wikia.com) was actually decided by Toughpigs. He notified us of the change, but basically it was Wikia-imposed for good technical reasons.

        Similarly, nothing abut our MediaWiki:Pagetitle was really up for significant discussion. It was directly changed by both Kirkburn and Toughpigs and stood that way until 2010. It was only then that it was revised by Tangerineduel following any sort of genuine community discussion. In other words, there was direct Wikia intervention to incorporate the phrase "Doctor Who Wiki" — the very name that some in this thread regard as mundane — onto our pages, resulting in the unwieldy "Tardis Index File, the Doctor Who Wiki".

        Thus, Freethinker1of1's original reason for changing to "Tardis Index File" — that it would be "less cumbersome" than "Tardis Information System" — was shot. Obviously, if we want to go less cumbersome, but still have a high Google ranking, what we want is, as I originally argued, Tardis, the Doctor Who Wiki. But there is no significant degree of svelteness to "Tardis Index File" over "Tardis Information System", which, to my mind, would mean that we should prefer the thing which is actually in Castrovalva, as opposed to the thing which some people on Usenet back in 2005 thought was in Castrovalva.

        So clearly there is a tension between administrative will and community decision-making. A discussion which results in all responding admin being firmly on one side, while most other users aren't, is somewhat tricky. Admin have a responsibility to consider the wiki's best interests, while community members can sometimes be swayed by simply what seems cool. I'm not saying that's what's happening in this case necessarily. I'm just pointing out that what might be uppermost in the administrative mindset (for example, SEO rankings, perception of our name in the wider Wikia community, and the fact that a logo that just says "TARDIS" is easier to make and to read than one that says "Tardis Index File") is different to that of the average user who simply "likes" the current name.

        That's why I agree with SirBanstead when he says, "admin votes shouldn't count more or less towards decisions like these" — but I also swiftly have to point out that completely disregarding the unanimous opinion of (current) administrators is a non-starter, too.

        What I think I've not heard so far from this discussion is a solid reason to keep Tardis Index File — despite Shambala108's best attempt. The principle arguments have seemingly been based on nostalgia.

        The way I see it, there is no consensus to change in this discussion, but neither is there a consensus to keep. There is simply no consensus. In wiki discussions, that generally results in no change, but it also results in dissatisfaction and subsequent debates.

        What I'm looking for are good, solid, practical reasons why:

        • we need more than just "Tardis"
        • should it be something which is not only unsupported by narrative but also makes no literal sense (i.e., this is a databank, not merely the index file of the databank)
        • it has to be based on something seen in Castrovalva

        What I want is a clear victory for a name, so that we can say, "this name has been decided by the community", and for that statement to be unambiguously true. The current state of this discussion does not allow for that eventuality.

        17:43, 5 January 2013
        Edited 17:47, 5 January 2013
        Edited 18:27, 5 January 2013
        Edited 18:30, 5 January 2013
        Edited 18:32, 5 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        Hmmm...Based off that post, if I'm allowed, I change my vote to Tardis Information System.
        18:12, 5 January 2013
      • GusF
        Given that keeping the Wiki's title as it is doesn't seem to be on the cards, I think that plain, simple "Tardis" is the best option. Barring that, "Tardis, the Doctor Who Wiki" would be my next choice.
        19:18, 5 January 2013
        Edited 19:20, 5 January 2013
        Edited 19:23, 5 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25

        Eladkse wrote:

        CzechOut wrote: I will say, however, that at the moment it doesn't look like there's a consensus to change the name. On the other hand there's consensus amongst admin to change the name, which is a complicating factor.

        It isn't a complicating factor at all. You've opened this discussion to the community, hence it is a community decision. Admin views are no more important.

        When this voting process closes (whenever that is - I assume 24 Jan?) any changes should be based on the community decision, not what the admins think is best. If otherwise, there's no point in us voting.

        My thoughts exactly. If we are to have a forum "discussion" on the name, I think we should count all voters as the same.

        What it boils down to, in my opinion that is, is that Tardis Information System is too silly a name for high popularity, and Tardis Index File is too sentimental for a large group to want to change. "tardis" also is simply not good enough.

        In my opinion "Tardis Index File" is simply the best name of the choices, despite continuity. Also "The Index File" is cannon, just as a description, not a name of the Information System itself. Thus it is a fine name.

        Also, welcome back Skittles.

        22:26, 5 January 2013
      • Skittles the hog
        Thanks. In the festive spirit, I decided to resume my role as the ghost of Christmas past. Anyway, I don't think it was ever suggested that admin are democratically superior.

        I do agree that Tardis Information System is quite a silly name, but Index File has obviously outstayed its welcome - it's not in the DWU and simply inventing it ourselves is, at least to my mind, ironic when we ruthlessly jettison such things elsewhere.

        I can defeat my own point by saying it's just a header and hasn't proved a problem thus far, but that also goes to show how much of a non-issue changing it to something more canonically acceptable would/should be. And no, I don't want to debate canon.

        22:48, 5 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25

        Skittles the hog wrote: Thanks. In the festive spirit, I decided to resume my role as the ghost of Christmas past. Anyway, I don't think it was ever suggested that admin are democratically superior.

        I do agree that Tardis Information System is quite a silly name, but Index File has obviously outstayed its welcome - it's not in the DWU and simply inventing it ourselves is, at least to my mind, ironic when we ruthlessly jettison such things elsewhere.

        I can defeat my own point by saying it's just a header and hasn't proved a problem thus far, but that also goes to show how much of a non-issue changing it to something more canonically acceptable would/should be. And no, I don't want to debate canon.

        Okay, I do this a lot, so if I say Cannon, it either means "valid source" or "valid ___", i.e. "This episode is canon" -> "This episode is a valid source" and "This is a cannon description" -> "This is a valid description". I mean, they're basically the same thing.

        Back on subject, if "Tardis Index File" has "worn out it's welcome", (and I don't think it particularly has, but I'm wrong a lot) then we need better names suggested. "Tardis Information System" is bad as per was why it was rejected in the first pace; it's "cumbersome" and unattractive. It's not a good name. And "Tardis" is just too damn simple. If we truly should gain a new name, then we need to think of one that is actually good. Otherwise, no one will back this plan up.

        23:45, 5 January 2013
        Edited 23:46, 5 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro

        OttselSpy25 wrote: If we truly should gain a new name, then we need to think of one that is actually good. Otherwise, no one will back this plan up.

        Anyone have any other ideas?

        00:26, 6 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        OttselSpy25 wrote:

        What it boils down to, in my opinion that is, is that Tardis Information System is too silly a name for high popularity,

        Why? Or, more elaborately, why is it less silly than our misunderstanding of the script that brought us the "index file"? I'd almost wager money that if Christopher H. Bidmead has ever heard of our little wiki, he's probably raised an eyebrow over our name.

        "tardis" also is simply not good enough.

        Elaborate, please. It's what we are commonly called throughout the Wikia network. It's our URL and our interwiki link name. How is it not good enough?

        Also "The Index File" is cannon

        Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Stop it with the the conflation of "canon"and "valid source" already.

        Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that you can just sort of assemble a name from whatever parts happen to be lying around. And while that might be true, that's not how this name was chosen, as the above evidence clearly shows. "Tardis Index File" was born of a mistake, not an intentional mashup. For years, TARDIS Index File was linked not to a page in the Tardis namespace which explained what the wiki was about. Instead it was the name of what is, as of today, the TARDIS information system article. Freethinker1of1 wrongly believed that the phrases "Tardis Index File" and "Tardis Information System" were synonyms, so he went for the shorter one.

        I'm not saying that we can't take two phrases and mash them together to create something which is not actually present in a narrative. I'm saying that "Tardis Index File" feels like an obvious mistake to anyone who has actually seen Castrovalva lately.

        01:23, 6 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Cult Of Skaro wrote:

        OttselSpy25 wrote: If we truly should gain a new name, then we need to think of one that is actually good. Otherwise, no one will back this plan up.

        Anyone have any other ideas?

        Yeah, at this point, we probably do need to just move on and look for a new horse we all can ride.

        Let's try:

        Tardis Data Core

        It comes from State of Decay, where the Fourth Doctor tells K9 to look for the Record of Rassilon buried deep in the TARDIS' data core.

        Even better, data cores are somewhat common in the DWU. There was famously the Data Core of The Library and also data cores related to Trion civilisation in Planet of Fire. It's a nicely generic term used across DWU civilisations

        Administratively, I love this possibility because it's 8 letters and a space in addition to the word TARDIS. The logo derived from it will be clear, simple, and easy-to-read at the wordmark dimensions.

        02:18, 6 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        By the way, you might be thinking, "well, data core is only one letter less than index file, but it very much matters what those letters are. In "index file", the presence of three thin letters together — fil — creates a practical ligature, which means that it can be hard to distinguish between those letters — especially if you have to decrease the kern, or "smash the letters together".

        Effectively, we really can't do a lower case version of the logo because of this pseudo-ligature.

        With "data core", you've got nice, rounded letters bumping up against each other that will be distinct even if you decrease the kern to the point that the letters actually overlap.

        I know it may seem silly and nitpicky, but data core opens up so many graphical possibilities that index file precludes.

        02:43, 6 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and can I say that a few more times? It sounds, er, well, as Clyde would say, "Cool", it's not boring, and it's in canon! My vote goes to TARDIS data core.
        05:45, 6 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        Well I don't know about-
        • Stops to say it out loud. *

        ...

        Oh yeah, that's it.

        05:47, 6 January 2013
      • Tardis1963
        I like data core. TARDIS Data Core sounds good to me.
        09:29, 6 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        TARDIS Data Core sounds good. As short Index File, and just as descriptive.
        09:40, 6 January 2013
      • SirBanstead
        I'm all for TARDIS Data Core.
        10:06, 6 January 2013
      • Tangerineduel
        It would need to be TARDIS Data Core as everyone is writing it, not Tardis Data Core, as CzechOut wrote it.

        Small difference that I'm probably being particular about but the case difference is notable and is partially the difference between Dr.Who's Tardis and the Doctor's TARDIS.

        I think TARDIS Data Core is better as a reflection of something in the narrative than what we have at the moment. TARDIS Information System though, while long does provide us with a graphic to point to. TARDIS Data Core does not, though that's not a reason to count it out.

        I was and continue to be in favour of anything that is derived from narrative valid sources. As for actually liking TARDIS Data Core, I'm a little indifferent, I don't like it any less than TARDIS Information System.

        13:10, 6 January 2013
        Edited 13:12, 6 January 2013
      • GusF
        I, for one, love TARDIS Data Core. It's much better than the very, very boring sounding TARDIS Information System.
        13:33, 6 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Tangerineduel wrote: It would need to be TARDIS Data Core as everyone is writing it, not Tardis Data Core, as CzechOut wrote it.

        Small difference that I'm probably being particular about but the case difference is notable and is partially the difference between Dr.Who's Tardis and the Doctor's TARDIS.

        Well, that goes explicitly against T:TARDIS. The wiki is Tardis, the craft is TARDIS. The distinction is of course arbitrary, but it's necessary to have a clear rule, given the fact that the Doctor's TARDIS was capitalised "Tardis" for about the first 30 years of the print franchise, and that capitalisation remains the most common in the 21st century press. The presence of Tardis in the Dalek movies is by far the minority usage of that capitalisation. Many Doctor Who writers seem to feel that it's somewhat like the situation with radar, another lower-case acronym.

        18:56, 6 January 2013
        Edited 18:58, 6 January 2013
        Edited 19:01, 6 January 2013
        Edited 19:02, 6 January 2013
      • Tardis1963
        If we're going with DC or IS to avoid the non-narrative IF, then we have to go with the proper TARDIS, too. Wikia can call it what they like, but the logo etc. needs to be TARDIS Data Core.

        "The term radar has since entered English and other languages as the common noun radar, losing all capitalization." Radar is a word in it's own right, whereas TARDIS, I believe, is not - it is only an acronym.

        00:46, 7 January 2013
      • CzechOut

        Tardis1963 wrote: If we're going with DC or IS to avoid the non-narrative IF, then we have to go with the proper TARDIS, too. Wikia can call it what they like, but the logo etc. needs to be TARDIS Data Core.

        "The term radar has since entered English and other languages as the common noun radar, losing all capitalization." Radar is a word in it's own right, whereas TARDIS, I believe, is not - it is only an acronym.

        Yeah, this is a common belief by a lot of fans, but even a tiny bit of research shows it to be wrong.

        RADAR is an acronym (RAdio Detection And Ranging) which has passed into general English as a common noun (radar), but the acronymic meaning is still understood by those familiar with the underlying science. Similarly, Tardis is an acronym that is generally styled with (mostly) lowercase letters — unless you're a fan (of a certain age).

        There's perhaps no easier proof for the "common" capitalisation than the Oxford Dictionary definition:

        Tardis |ˈtɑːdɪs|

        noun
        1. a time machine.
        2. a building or container that is larger inside than it appears to be from outside.
        ORIGIN the name (said to be an acronym of time and relative dimensions in space) of a time machine which had the exterior of a police telephone box in the British TV science-fiction series Doctor Who, first broadcast in 1963.

        This is why the British press almost always use that form of the word. It's also what the Radio Times have done since 1963.

        Moreover, there are hundreds of officially licensed Doctor Who stories in which "Tardis" is the correct and invariable capitalisation. Tardis was the house style of World Distributors Doctor Who annuals, for instance.

        So the truth is that either TARDIS or Tardis is defensibly "correct", which is why the arbitrary stylistic rule of T:TARDIS is required.

        Note that the logo may well contain an uppercase TARDIS, just as it currently does. But the name given in ordinary text as at MediaWiki:Pagetitle should be Tardis. This incidentally, but not insignificantly, helps our SEO. And, of course, it reaches out to the not-so-hardcore fan, who see our name repeatedly in Google searches.

        04:28, 7 January 2013
      • Tardis1963
        Is that Tardis above actually in the dictionary? If it is, then I guess I can't really say that Tardis is incorrect.

        I still prefer TARDIS myself, though, and will continue to refer to it with all caps.

        08:07, 7 January 2013
      • Tangerineduel
        I was under the mistaken belief it seems that the T:TARDIS related to technical limitations with the namespace.

        As we are proposing to rename the wiki for thing that exists in the DWU should we not preserve the casing of that thing? If we're dropping the case on TARDIS Data Core are we not, to a much less extent, but still, going back to TARDIS Index File, which is a fiction, much like Tardis Data Core would be?

        The common usage of "tardis" is uncapitalised, but we aren't using it in it as a common noun.

        As for the usage of tardis in the "World Distributors Doctor Who annuals etc" I think you would find that the overwhelming usage style would be an uppercase TARDIS.

        13:46, 7 January 2013
      • GusF
        Wasn't it also the house style of the World Distributors annuals to refer to the Doctor as "Dr Who" in the text of the stories, at least during the early years? Not really sure if that's the best source to be citing.
        13:59, 7 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        I don't really mind the capitalization as long as it's TARDIS in the logo.
        14:20, 7 January 2013
      • SirBanstead
        I don't think it is right having it Tardis instead of TARDIS.
        15:59, 7 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        I really don't want this conversation derailed on the subject of capitalisation. The logo will definitely contain the word styled as TARDIS, just as it currently does. We can debate T:TARDIS elsewhere, and at another time. I would, however, point people in the direction of TARDIS#Behind the scenes for an extensively annotated examination of this issue.

        Are there any objections to the name Tardis Data Core, other than the capitalisation issue?

        21:33, 7 January 2013
        Edited 21:33, 7 January 2013
        Edited 21:34, 7 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        Absolutely not. See my above explanation of my love for the name. :D
        21:56, 7 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Tangerineduel seemed to be requesting a graphic for the TDC idea, so here's an initial stab:
        Colours subject to change
        05:48, 8 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        1. Please let that not be the final TARDIS image
        2. Mostly like the text, I would maybe capitalize data and core. The lowercase looks fine in an article name, but a bit odd on the logo.
        06:47, 8 January 2013
        Edited 06:47, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        1. Please, of please let that not be the final TARDIS image.
        2. I feel as if the text could use a change.
        12:02, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Okay, guys: specifics. It's not enough in a creative process to just say "that sucks". What about the TARDIS image do you not like? And could you be a little more specific than, "I feel as if the text could use a change"?
        13:53, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        The TARDIS image is snowy and I'm not fond of it. I'd prefera higher quality image, maybe from a diffrent angle.

        I dislike the lower casing on the second row.

        And I'm not a big fan of those triangle bits in the word 'TARDIS'. But, as I would like to point out, this may be just a negative first reaction. It's entirely possible that in a week I'll love it.

        Except for that TARDIS image. I dislike that entirely.

        14:31, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        It's "snowy" because it's dematerialising. And it's a very high quality image with a pixellation effect deliberately overlaid. Do try to remember that this won't be seen at these dimensions. THe actual logo is mainly seen at a much smaller size.
        This is closer to actual size

        If you're clicking this image to go through and look at it at the file:TardisDataCore1.png page, you're seeing it at a much larger size than intended.

        Also, remember that I can't just use any old font off the internet. For legal reasons, it's gotta be something that's free/public domain/CC-BY-SA.

        I'll provide a few more variations, but please be mindful of the limitations when trying to assess these logos.

        14:55, 8 January 2013
      • GusF
        I don't think that it's obvious that the TARDIS is supposed to be materialising though.
        15:00, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        I quite like the font for 'TARDIS', but I don't like the serif font used for 'data core'. I'd also like to see it in uppercase. I know you are limited in font choice, but I'm sure there are some sans-serif fonts you can use.

        As for the materialisation effect - even at 250x65px - it still looks to me like a poor-quality image. Perhaps you could render one without the noise for comparison?

        15:01, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        I like it much more at that size I suppose, but the words "Data Core" could still be capitalised.
        15:08, 8 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro

        GusF wrote: I don't think that it's obvious that the TARDIS is supposed to be materialising though.

        Yeah, it looks more like someone tried to take a good snap of the TARDIS from the Pertwee era.

        16:44, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25

        Cult Of Skaro wrote:

        GusF wrote: I don't think that it's obvious that the TARDIS is supposed to be materialising though.

        Yeah, it looks more like someone tried to take a good snap of the TARDIS from the Pertwee era.

        Maybe you could set it at an interesting opacity setting. Also the light on the top should be on if we're trying to make that affect.

        17:37, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Well, I'm opposed to the notion of "data core" being capitalised. To me, the appeal of the words is that you can use uncapitalised words. After looking at it more, I basically do agree that the TARDIS itself is a little too busy. Here's another design, this time representing the TARDIS more symbolically than not.

        And before you guys pounce on me, the word "TARDIS" is in fact in upper case. That's just how this font represents uppercase.

        TardisDataCore2.png
        17:59, 8 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        Hmmm...The TARDIS is improved, I don't like the font. Uppercase or not, the fact is it looks lowercase.
        You've redecorated...Hmmm, I don't like it.
        18:24, 8 January 2013
        Edited 18:24, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        I like this one. The image TARDIS works well with the text. As for capitalisation, I think it works fine with everything "not-capitalised" like this. The font for 'data core' is much better.

        Quick comment on the image - you probably need to clean up the windows and lamp outlines.

        18:26, 8 January 2013
      • GusF
        I have to agree with Cult of Skaro.
        18:27, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse

        Cult Of Skaro wrote: Hmmm...The TARDIS is improved, I don't like the font. Uppercase or not, the fact is it looks lowercase.

        I'd say the lowercase is a nice stylistic choice combined with 'data core', and also quite nicely resolves the discussion we had earlier about Tardis vs TARDIS. In this lowercase form, it can be interpreted both ways.

        18:33, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        That's a little better. I like the phont for "Data Core", but again the "TARDIS" phont is to be to be desired. I like the first font for the word "TARDIS" much better,
        18:43, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Try on this one for size:
        TardisDataCore3.png
        18:44, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        Readability wise, I don't think the fade/gradient/lens-flare works well.
        18:47, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Agreed, but I still wanna have some dynamism there. Let's give this variant a stroll:
        TardisDataCore4.png
        19:01, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        I think that works better. TARDIS is certainly more readable, and the contrasting colours of the text works well.

        Again, just a minor note in case you missed it above, I think the TARDIS windows need redrawing - just to straighten them out.

        19:07, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Well, the whole TARDIS graphic is deliberately skewed off square. Naturally, the windows then move with that skew. Though I really wonder whether you can tell any of that from the normal, 195px width.
        19:46, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        Sorry, I think you misunderstood my point. The window silhouette have very rough edges - not straight (or curved) like the rest of the edges on the graphic. It's not terribly noticeable at wordmark size, but if you plan to use a larger version on the mainpage or any welcome message, you'll probably want to clean it up.
        19:55, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        No, I understood you. That's deliberate. Haven't really decided whether this exact logo will be used at a larger size. The TARDIS device would almost certainly have to be cleaned up if used outside the wordmark itself.

        Here's probably the final variant of this series (though maybe not the last idea ever on this logo). The o in core was a little unsatisfactory as a dark colour, so I made it white:

        TardisDataCore5.png

        I lied. Just wanted to hide a bit of the "o" device:

        TardisDataCore6.png
        20:10, 8 January 2013
        Edited 20:16, 8 January 2013
      • OttselSpy25
        I like the first in the post above... Although I would put the + in the o of "Core" on the outside of the letter.
        20:35, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        The "+" is not a separate element. That o is in a different font which has the cross as an integrated feature.
        22:01, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Okay, seriously, this is the last one in this series. Changed the base blue to the BBC official colour for the TARDIS.
        TardisDataCore7.png

        The observant will already have noted that this new logo will require us to change the colours site wide. Thanks, BBC, for telling us after 50 years exactly what colour of blue the TARDIS is.

        22:25, 8 January 2013
      • Eladkse
        I definitely like it. Out of interest - is there any purpose to the 'crosshair', apart from stylistic choice?
        22:31, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Well, I could give you some genuine reasons. It balances the TARDIS graphic, and does so with a free font :) I think it also implies searching, looking for something, sights on a microscope.

        But, to be honest with you, I'm just so happy to finally have a nice, rounded letter in the logo, I kinda had to emphasise it.

        22:37, 8 January 2013
        Edited 22:37, 8 January 2013
      • CzechOut
        Okay, guys, we've had 48 hours of debate on the name "Tardis Data Core". No one seems unhappy with it as yet. I'm gonna make a few personal appeals for earlier respondents to return to the thread, but seeing as the name has quickly gained traction, debate will close in 24 hours. There's gonna be an awful lot of work involved in making this transition, so the sooner it can be started, the better.

        Quibbles with the logo itself or the colours or the capitalisation will be taken up in another thread once this one is closed.

        22:43, 8 January 2013
      • Sichamousacoricothingmabob
        Pfff ... well ... I think I might still prefer TIF ... but that might just be because it's what I've always known it as ... and to be fair, TARDIS Data Core is growing on me, and if I did decide to continue to oppose it in favour of TARDIS Index Files, I'm probably going to be the only one. And, as I just said, TARDIS Date Core is growing on me. I do have issues with the logo and the capitalisation (you might've noticed I have capitalised 'TARDIS' in all mentions in my reply), but as Czechout said, that will be taken up in another thread.
        23:33, 8 January 2013
      • Cult_Of_Skaro
        Love the last one.
        00:07, 9 January 2013
      • SirBanstead
        I think TARDIS data core is a great name, and the logo looks really good.
        03:23, 9 January 2013
      • Imamadmad
        TARDIS Data Core. It's growing on me. It's nice to have something shorter than information system, which comparatively takes forever to type. And since index file must go, this is a good alternative. PS, I would suggest giving more than 24 hours warning for the end of a discussion as some people don't edit every day.
        07:07, 9 January 2013
      • Tangerineduel
        Logo wise:

        The fattness of the font used for the TARDIS portion means that the "A" and "R" actually look quite similar.

        As the "t" of data core is covering a portion of the "A" it makes it even harder to actually tell what the word says.

        If you know what it's meant to say it's alright, but I try to look at these things and imagine not knowing what it's meant to say.

        So to me, it could say "trrdis" or "taadis".

        The "date core" portion is fine if a bit 90s gaming magazine retro.

        Name wise:

        I have no issue with the name, only the capitalisation of TARDIS, which can be left to another discussion, as long as it is understood that moving forward with the name/logo is not approval to change the capitalisation on the MediaWiki pagetitle or elsewhere on the wiki.

        14:22, 9 January 2013
      CzechOut
      Hearing no objection, this thread is now closed in favour of changing the name to Tardis Data Core.
      00:19, 10 January 2013

      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117545


      Shortcut:
      Tangerineduel
      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Inclusion debate:Señor 105 continued" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Let's drop "index file" from our name".

      An inclusion debate concerning the Señor 105 began in the old forums.

      This is the continuation.

      As I've noted on that page I've been contacted twice by the author of the "By the Time I Get to Venus" who cites his site for verification that he has Paul Leonard's permission to use the concepts and settings of Venus that were presented in Venusian Lullaby.

      I am convinced of the truthfulness of the information provided me by the author.

      Is a setting enough to bring this series of novellas into the DWU fold?

      As I noted in the previous discussion Senor 105 appears up in one of the 3 novellas collected in Ms Wildthyme and Friends Investigate.

      So if we think of as Iris' adventures as the first level spin-off, she started in the BBC Books books and then spun-off into her own adventures. Senor 105 is a spin-off from those adventures. Making him and his adventures a second level spin-off, or a spin-off of a spin-off.

      So the question; is Señor 105's connection via Iris Wildthyme and the setting of Venus from Venusian Lullaby enough for us to cover the stories on this wiki and therefore within Doctor Who universe?

      14:37, 8 December 2012
      Edited 14:39, 8 December 2012
      Edited by CzechOut 01:46, 11 March 2013
      Edited 12:50, 10 January 2017
      Edited 20:49, 10 August 2017
      • CzechOut
        Well, hold on. It's not a question of whether we believe this author. As you say, he's backing up his information by citing his own site. This violates one of the more basic rules of sourcing, as explained at WP:SELFPUBLISH. I'm sure the author is telling the truth, but his own website is not a valid source for that information.

        We need independent confirmation of his webstite's claims about this situation — particularly because the website is making critical claims about another living person — namely, the author of Venusian Lullaby.

        15:10, 8 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        You and I are the only ones who appear to be talking about this subject, and we both have the ability to resurrect deleted articles. Therefore, because the author of this one story seems to be offended by the presence of even the discussion about validity, I'm deleting the original conversation. Hopefully this discussion will now drop off Google's radar.
        15:56, 19 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel
        Hopefully.

        For now I'm going to rule the Señor 105 books outside of our coverage.

        As a spin-off of a spin-off there's just not enough information around for us to confirm how it's connected to the DWU.

        We'll just cover the information that appears in Iris Wildthyme stories.

        16:34, 19 December 2012
      • CzechOut
        Personally, I think they're miffed because that the top three entries on on Google's search list for the term "Senor 105" are our pages — two of which are discussion pages, not actual content.

        So let me help 'em out. I'm deleting all three pages, full stop. There's long been a note atop Talk:Señor 105 flatly stating that it was created by Cody Quijano-Schell — so all these edits are his —  but that meant nothing to me, until Blair Bidmead pointed out on my talk page that he is the editor of the whole Señor 105 range. In fact, CQS is the creator of Señor 105.

        In other words, he started a page about his own creation, which is one of the fundamental "no-no"s of wiki editing. I'm deleting and locking recreation. If anyone wants to recreate the page, they'll have to apply through admin, and thus we can verify it's not being written by people quite so close to it. In Wikipedia terms, the current state of the article exhibits clear conflict of interest, which necessitates its deletion.

        16:35, 19 December 2012
      • Tangerineduel
        Do we need to delete this discussion to prevent this from showing up in a Google search as well?
        08:35, 20 December 2012
      • Revanvolatrelundar
        Senor 105 also appears in a short story in Obverse's first Iris anthology, and also has a cameo in the latest series of Iris Wildthyme audios. I do recall Schell and Stuart Douglas mentioning on GallifreyBase that they had the blessing of Paul Leonard in using "his" Venus for the book.

        The way I see it, Senor 105 is set within the Iris universe, which is also set within the larger DWU. But whether this is a spin off too far for us is another question, and one I need to think about where I stand.

        12:40, 20 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Tangerineduel wrote: Do we need to delete this discussion to prevent this from showing up in a Google search as well?

        I don't think so. These Thread discussions are more hidden from Google. Not to say that they won't show up somewhere on the list, but the fact that the title is actually Thread:xxxxx makes them much less likely to show up in a search for "Senor 105".

        13:49, 20 December 2012
      • CzechOut

        Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Senor 105 also appears in a short story in Obverse's first Iris anthology, and also has a cameo in the latest series of Iris Wildthyme audios. I do recall Schell and Stuart Douglas mentioning on GallifreyBase that they had the blessing of Paul Leonard in using "his" Venus for the book. The way I see it, Senor 105 is set within the Iris universe, which is also set within the larger DWU. But whether this is a spin off too far for us is another question, and one I need to think about where I stand.

        Well, yah. That's the thing, really. We do have to run to ground a better source than GallifreyBase or Blair's insistnece on our talk pages. It's not that we don't believe him; it's that such "evidence" would set a horrible precedence if we were to allow it. And Blair's only offered that we contact other individuals in the chain.

        And I'm not real comfortable with that. I prefer it simple — an interview in DWM, a quote by Paul Leonard in a press release, something more substantial than a personal e-mail or a message at a forum. I mean, I don't think an e-mail to, say, Obverse would be of much help, because my guess is that they'd just forward it to Cody and we'd be back to where we were: Cody telling us that of course his own creation is legally using elements from another author.

        14:05, 20 December 2012
      • Pluto2
        If I were to ask Paul Leonard on Twitter, would his response be enough to determine whether or not to include Señor 105?

        (I don't know if he even has a Twitter, this is just a hypothetical)

        01:17, 18 December 2016
      • AeD
        "A tweet" probably doesn't cover CzechOut's request for "something more substantial than a personal e-mail or a message at a forum."
        13:24, 18 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL
        When has this level of proof been required to prove something's licensed before? Has anyone seen proof that Big Finish had Bob Baker's permission to use K9 in Zagreus? It's just grasping at straws. Furthermore, that reasoning only applies to By the Time I Get to Venus, not the other books in the series.

        However, I think the entire thing is academic. Unless there's someone here who has actually read these books, not including Cody Quijano Schell himself, nothing definitive can be stated about their content.

        17:39, 18 December 2016
      • Poseidome
        Shouldn't Senor 105's appearance in the Iris Wildthyme stories already be enough of a reason to cover him? He first showed up in Iris Wildthyme and the Celestial Omnibus in the short story "Iris Wildthyme y Señor Cientocinco contra Los Monstruos del Fiesta" (which literally translates to Iris Wildthyme and Senor 105 against the Party Monsters), and he's also featured in Ms Wildthyme & Friends Investigate. As a matter of fact he's right there on the cover. I've read quite a few of the the Senor 105 novellas and the range itself isn't shy about the connection either, in Senor 105 and the Secret Santa for example the Senor remembers Iris visiting him one Christmas and how impressed she was by the Christmas decorations of Quixano's Department Store, admitting that she never saw anything like that before, not even on Hyspero.

        It's very much a Manleigh Halt Irregulars situation in my opinion, a group of characters who also first showed up in two Iris Wildtyme-stories before being given their own release. If their spin-off is covered then the same should in my opinion apply to Senor 105 as well.

        20:03, 18 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Finally, someone who's read them other than the author himself. So now that we've separated the issue of its validity from the conflict of interest of the author himself being the sole editor of its pages, let us please consider the four little rules of validity, and ensure this series passes all of them.
        20:10, 18 December 2016
      • 90.216.134.198
        Senor 105 also appears in the Iris Wildthyme short story, 'Party Fears Two' in the anthology, FIFTEEN.
        09:04, 19 December 2016
      • Bwburke94
        Rule 1: Only stories count.
        By the Time... is clearly a story.

        Rule 2: A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.

        More debate is necessary. Keep in mind that T:NO SELF REF only applies to statements the author gave about himself, not about his stories. It can certainly be argued that the statement given on the website is about himself.

        Rule 3: A story must be officially released to be valid.

        It certainly appears that By The Time... was officially released.

        Rule 4: If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed.

        By The Time... was set inside the Iris universe, which is an unambiguous part of the DWU.
        19:05, 19 December 2016
        Edited 19:05, 19 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        Bwburke94 wrote: Rule 2: A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.

        More debate is necessary. Keep in mind that T:NO SELF REF only applies to statements the author gave about himself, not about his stories. It can certainly be argued that the statement given on the website is about himself.

        Again, since when is independent confirmation required for proof that something's licensed? The creator says that it was written with permission from Paul Leonard. That's actually more of an indication (as far as I know) than we have that, say, Grace Holloway was licensed in The Fallen, or Nyssa in The Land of the Dead.

        19:18, 19 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Sure, but Big Finish and DWM have some credibility. You tend to assume they've got all their licenses unless we know otherwise. We only have this one writer's word that his own story was properly licensed. That blog post's our only source. And, hey, I don't think he's lying. Wikipedia also claims that Paul Leonard licensed it, but offers no source.

        Cody Quijano-Schell asserts the same thing in this interview on Paul Magrs' blog, and Schell wrote Iris Wildthyme y Señor Cientocinco contra Los Monstruos del Fiesta. Specifically he says:

        Oh no, he’s an Obverse Books original character, like the Manleigh Halt Irregulars or Theo Possible. But I love Doctor Who books and Paul Leonard was kind enough to allow Blair Bidmead the use of his literary property in his Senor 105 novella "By the Time I Get to Venus".

        (No mention of a continuing license on further stories, but those "Periodic Adventures" are mentioned, and covers displayed, in the article.)

        He also says:

        Yes, when 105 crosses over with Iris, [the Clockworks have] been mentioned. But generally, 105’s universe is his universe, and hers is hers. They meet up occasionally.
        19:33, 19 December 2016
        Edited 19:37, 19 December 2016
        Edited 19:37, 19 December 2016
        Edited 19:40, 19 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        SOTO wrote: Sure, but Big Finish and DWM have some credibility. You tend to assume they've got all their licenses unless we know otherwise. We only have this one writer's word that his own story was properly licensed. That blog post's our only source. And, hey, I don't think he's lying. Wikipedia also claims that Paul Leonard licensed it, but offers no source.

        Cody Quijano-Schell asserts the same thing in this interview on Paul Magrs' blog, and Schell wrote Iris Wildthyme y Señor Cientocinco contra Los Monstruos del Fiesta. Specifically he says:

        Oh no, he’s an Obverse Books original character, like the Manleigh Halt Irregulars or Theo Possible. But I love Doctor Who books and Paul Leonard was kind enough to allow Blair Bidmead the use of his literary property in his Senor 105 novella "By the Time I Get to Venus".

        (No mention of a continuing license on further stories.)

        It doesn't seem like anyone here disbelieves Obverse, and nobody disbelieves Big Finish or DWM, but Big Finish and DWM still have an unquantifiable credibility that isn't defined by any policy and Obverse doesn't have?

        SOTO wrote: He also says:

        Yes, when 105 crosses over with Iris, [the Clockworks have] been mentioned. But generally, 105’s universe is his universe, and hers is hers. They meet up occasionally.

        Are you saying that's evidence it doesn't pass Rule 4? Because it isn't. All it means is that Señor 105 and Iris Wildthyme have different series with different characteristics and characters. Iris's "universe" would have to consist of the entire multiverse. The fact that they're able to "meet up" proves that by the definition of universe used in the term "DWU," they're in the same universe.

        19:45, 19 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Wellll I just lost my whole response. Presumably I accidentally hit quote. I hate that.
        19:56, 19 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        SOTO wrote: Wellll I just lost my whole response. Presumably I accidentally hit quote. I hate that.

        That's unfortunate :(

        19:56, 19 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Actually, I haven't stated a position here. I'm simply presenting all the facts and evidence I could find online. And in fact, that first quote by Cody Schell on Paul Magrs' blog is the most substantial piece of evidence we have for inclusion at this point.

        Now not only is Blair Bidmead asserting this, but so too Cody Quijano-Schell, the creator and editor of Señor 105, and also (at least sort of) by extension, Paul Magrs, who conducted this interview under the guise of his cat.

        20:00, 19 December 2016
        Edited 20:04, 19 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        SOTO wrote: Actually, I haven't stated a position here. I'm simply presenting all the facts and evidence I could find online. And in fact, that first quote by Cody Schell on Paul Magrs' blog is the most substantial piece of evidence we have for inclusion at this point.

        Now not only is Blair Bidmead asserting this, but so too Cody Quijano-Schell, who created the character and is the editor of the range, and also (at least sort of) by extension, Paul Magrs, who conducted this interview under the guise of his cat.

        Sorry for misinterpreting you. The terminology around the word "universe" seems to be misused frequently — people assume that every time someone says "universe" it means in the same "fictional universe" sense as "Doctor Who universe," rather than in the (much more common) metaphorical sense, or in the "parallel universe" sense.

        You've mentioned Bidmean, Schell, and Magrs, but I think what's most important is Obverse itself — the company has implicitly supported its licensed-ness just by selling it for profit.

        20:06, 19 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Of course, yes; it would be rather problematic otherwise.

        So it seems like Señor 105 is currently up to book 9. We've focused mainly on one book in particular. Is there anything else we should know about?

        20:11, 19 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        SOTO wrote: Of course, yes; it would be rather problematic otherwise.

        So it seems like Señor 105 is currently up to book 9. We've focused mainly on one book in particular. Is there anything else we should know about?

        The series has other characters (like a weretiger and a balloon) who first appeared in Ms Wildthyme and Friends Investigate. And there's Blair Bidmead's character Theo Possible, who's in Obverse's Tales of the City. I think the series is over now.

        20:23, 19 December 2016
      • Obverse

        SOTO wrote: Sure, but Big Finish and DWM have some credibility.


        And there was me just saying that it was good to see courteous and measured discussion on a Wiki forum! Which it has been until now, but I must say that I object to Obverse Books being characterised as having no credibility :(

        Just for the record, every single licensed character or setting ever used in an Obverse book has been properly licensed and, where appropriate, paid for.

        12:04, 20 December 2016
      • NateBumber
        I'm siding with pro-inclusion on this one. I think especially given the prior actions of the authors on this wiki, Fwhiffahder's interpretation of the quote is correct: 105 is clearly meant to be set in the Doctor Who universe right alongside Iris Wildthyme, and the numerous crossovers just confirm that. As for credibility, I don't know why we'd just "take their word for it" concerning appearances of the Forge and the Naxians etc in Obverse's Iris Wildthyme series, but so heavily doubt the Venus licensing (in the face of repeated confirmation, nonetheless).
        16:01, 20 December 2016
        Edited 16:11, 20 December 2016
        Edited 16:14, 20 December 2016
      • Pluto2
        I'm in favor of inclusion, too.
        16:24, 20 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Just to note, when I initially wrote that sentence, I briefly thought it was self-published. Frankly, since I then contradicted myself in the second part of the same message, I should have gone back and edited.
        18:03, 20 December 2016
      • PicassoAndPringles
        I would like to draw attention to a Facebook comment by Cody Schell, in which he states:

        While some promotion and visibility would have been nice, especially for "by the time I get to Venus", but 105 really doesn't belong on a Who wiki.

        Then, in a following comment:

        I love the comments in the next to last paragraph of this review https://thefifteenth.wordpress.com/tag/senor-105/

        The paragraph in question:

        The story builds on an altered version of Doctor Who history involving the lost twin planet of Earth, but instead of providing thinly disguised Whoniverse worlds and cultures, it puts a spin on them. It distances Señor 105’s world a bit farther from the Doctor’s reality.

        That's a direct statement by the creator that their work doesn't belong on a Doctor Who wiki.

        05:25, 21 December 2016
      • NateBumber

        PicassoAndPringles wrote: I would like to draw attention to a Facebook comment by Cody Schell...

        I think it's worth noting that many writers aren't familiar with the validity rules for this wiki, and opining that it doesn't belong on a wiki about Doctor Who isn't at all the same as saying it fails the four little rules. That paragraph in particular stops quite short from saying the series belong in different universes or any such: in fact, it explicitly says that Senor 105 is intended to be considered in the light of Doctor Who, and plenty of valid stories have "put a spin" on Whoniverse worlds and cultures.

        06:09, 21 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        PicassoAndPringles wrote: I would like to draw attention to a Facebook comment by Cody Schell, in which he states:

        While some promotion and visibility would have been nice, especially for "by the time I get to Venus", but 105 really doesn't belong on a Who wiki.

        Then, in a following comment:

        I love the comments in the next to last paragraph of this review https://thefifteenth.wordpress.com/tag/senor-105/

        The paragraph in question:

        The story builds on an altered version of Doctor Who history involving the lost twin planet of Earth, but instead of providing thinly disguised Whoniverse worlds and cultures, it puts a spin on them. It distances Señor 105’s world a bit farther from the Doctor’s reality.

        That's a direct statement by the creator that their work doesn't belong on a Doctor Who wiki.

        Authorial intent doesn't determine whether it belongs on the Doctor Who wiki. It determines whether it's set in the — I'm not going to call it the DWU. It's not the "Doctor Who universe" because a huge amount of it doesn't feature the logo, the character Dr. Who, or have (or need) permission from the BBC, and it's an entire multiverse, not a universe. I'll call it the — Greater Multiverse Which Contains Doctor Who, Among Other Things.

        Señor 105 is definitely set in the GMWCDWAOT. The fact that the creator says it doesn't belong here only demonstrates that he doesn't understand how this wiki works. However, it might be a parallel universe/alternative whatchamacallit to the one the majority of this wiki's pages relate to. That's an occupational hazard for a wiki that includes Iris Wildthyme. And unless the text states it definitively, it doesn't matter.

        14:37, 21 December 2016
      • SOTO
        Sorry, mate, but there's nothing incorrect about calling it the Doctor Who universe. Anything we cover (as a valid source) takes place within the greater DWU, a universe which started with and inarguably continues to centre around the Doctor Who franchise specifically. And that's not to say there won't also be great interest around titles that can't fly the Doctor Who flag and banner, of course. In this sense, the "Doctor Who universe" is not itself a BBC property, while the name Doctor Who and the character of the Doctor are.

        Here, "universe" refers to the larger world in general, rather than being confined specifically to N-Space while ignoring the rest of the multiverse belonging to the same reality.

        21:12, 21 December 2016
      • SOTO
        In other words, we use "universe" here more to this definition, which I copied from Mirriam-Webster: "a distinct [...] reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization".
        21:14, 21 December 2016
      • WJDTwGL

        SOTO wrote: Sorry, mate, but there's nothing incorrect about calling it the Doctor Who universe. Anything we cover (as a valid source) takes place within the greater DWU, a universe which started with and inarguably continues to centre around the Doctor Who franchise specifically. And that's not to say there won't also be great interest around titles that can't fly the Doctor Who flag and banner, of course. In this sense, the "Doctor Who universe" is not itself a BBC property, while the name Doctor Who and the character of the Doctor are.

        Here, "universe" refers to the larger world in general, rather than being confined specifically to N-Space while ignoring the rest of the multiverse belonging to the same reality.

        It's not inarguable. I argued it just a second ago. But my main gripe is with the "universe" part. It's really confusing. "DWU" refers to a multiverse. Unless we go with Dave Stone's version.

        Ultimately it's semantics. Point is, it doesn't matter whether Cody Schell thinks it's relevant to a Doctor Who wiki. Being relevant isn't one of the four rules. The series is definitely set in the Doctor Who Universe/Multiverse.

        21:31, 21 December 2016
      • Pluto2
        If it's of any help,The Time Wrestler, a short story in the Obverse-published A Target for Tommy charity anthology has the Doctor meeting Señor 105. Looks like the series passes rule 4.
        01:53, 10 January 2017
      • Bwburke94
        Just because a character has met the Doctor doesn't mean that character's other works are automatically DWU.

        However, there is ample evidence to say the series passes rule 4 regardless.

        04:24, 10 January 2017
      • Pluto2
        Well, let's think about this. It's not just Cody Schell saying he has permission. Stuart Douglas, who runs Obverse Books, also confirmed they have Leonard's permission. To me, it seems like this series passes the four little rules.
        22:29, 13 January 2017
      • NateBumber
        He also appears in Against Nature, by the way.
        16:58, 20 January 2017
      • OttselSpy25
        The longer we leave these gaps open for, the more likely it is that the thread is suddenly closed while we're still mid-discussion.
        03:02, 31 January 2017
      • OttselSpy25
        What we have here is a debate that's been slightly tainted by the fact that's it's bled onto the commercial atmosphere of the story that we're discussing. If you search "Senor 105," the top results are all pages having to do with this debate. To someone writing the series, this is probably annoying. When you want people to look into your work, you probably don't want to have the top result be a page where a bunch of people online call your word non-credible because you don't work for Big Finish.

        Thus I honestly find the words of the author upon the question of "should your series be covered by some random wiki that has absorbed the coverage of your writing" to be somewhat irrelevant.

        "Set in the DWU" has a very specific meaning that I think many people see differently than I do. It isn't literally asking "Hey, is this set in the same canon (if you're using a word that can be switched out for canon without changing the meaning of your statement, you're using the wrong word) as other DW fiction?" Instead, I think it's a question of "Was this story meant to be connected to other instances of DW fiction?"

        It's not enough just to prove that two stories are set in the same universe.

        That's why when it's come to stories such as 'The Sleeze Brothers' we have decided not to cover all of their stories other similar situations were meant to be covered in such a way. Even if the two brothers presented in COMIC: Follow That TARDIS! were used in DWM first, their following adventures were meant to have nothing to do with the strip itself.

        To me meanwhile, it seems that Senor 105 is obviously meant to serve as a parallel and a companion piece to both Doctor Who and Iris Wildthyme (another spin-off).

        Honestly I think Obverse Books has proven itself to be a very credible source in terms of their publishing, on the same level of DWM and Big Finish. I think we can all agree that it is far from the most questionable secondary-publishing group that we currently are trying to cover (that's some shade at Candy Jar Books, if it wasn't clear). The fact that the book series is being sold on the same webpage as their other reputable publications about both DW history and stories with characters like Iris (and, incidentally, Faction Paradox) proves them to be a reputable source for these sorts of things. They wouldn't publish any amazon.com self-published nonsense without knowing that they were in a legally sound area.

        04:37, 22 July 2017
      • NateBumber
        So, to recap:
        • This isn't intended by the series' authors to be some kind of one-way connection: in a Faction Paradox novel by the author of a Señor 105 novella, a character has a vision of a scene with Rodrigo from a Señor 105 short story by another author. Even more directly, Señor 105 has appeared alongside the Fourth and Sixth Doctors in charity stories written by Señor 105 authors; obviously these stories aren't valid, but they clearly indicate that said authors see the Señor as existing in the same universe as the Doctor.
        • Yes, the creator said on Facebook that the series probably isn't relevant to a Doctor Who Wiki, but he's also personally written (since-deleted) articles about it here; besides, there's no reason to think that he knows anything about the four little rules, so an opinion about whether it belongs on the wiki isn't an opinion about whether it's set in the universe. (See all of the above evidence.)

        Am I missing anything? This debate has been open for literally five years; I think it's about time for us to wind it down and give Señor 105 the coverage it deserves.

        04:58, 22 July 2017
        Edited 05:14, 22 July 2017
        Edited 23:22, 23 July 2017
      • Pluto2

        NateBumber wrote: So, to recap:

        • This isn't intended by the series' authors to be some kind of one-way connection: in a Faction Paradox novel by the author of a Señor 105 novella, a character has a vision of a scene with Rodrigo from a Señor 105 short story by another author. Even more directly, Señor 105 has appeared alongside the Fourth and Sixth Doctors in charity stories written by Señor 105 authors; obviously these stories aren't valid, but they clearly indicate that said authors see the Señor as existing in the same universe as the Doctor.
        • Yes, the creator said on Facebook that the series probably isn't relevant to a Doctor Who Wiki, but he's also personally written (since-deleted) articles about it here; besides, there's no reason to think that he knows anything about the four little rules, so an opinion about whether it belongs on the wiki isn't an opinion about whether it's set in the universe. (See all of the above evidence.)

        Am I missing anything? This debate has been open for literally five years; I think it's about time for us to wind it down and give Señor 105 the coverage it deserves.

        Earlier, people were suggesting that we couldn't take the creator at his word, to which I say:

        If the author says he has permission to use Venus, and Obverse is trusting him, what reason for doubt do we have that he's lying? Seems a bit unfair to me.

        01:29, 10 August 2017
      • Pluto2

        OttselSpy25 wrote: What we have here is a debate that's been slightly tainted by the fact that's it's bled onto the commercial atmosphere of the story that we're discussing. If you search "Senor 105," the top results are all pages having to do with this debate. To someone writing the series, this is probably annoying. When you want people to look into your work, you probably don't want to have the top result be a page where a bunch of people online call your word non-credible because you don't work for Big Finish.

        Thus I honestly find the words of the author upon the question of "should your series be covered by some random wiki that has absorbed the coverage of your writing" to be somewhat irrelevant.

        "Set in the DWU" has a very specific meaning that I think many people see differently than I do. It isn't literally asking "Hey, is this set in the same canon (if you're using a word that can be switched out for canon without changing the meaning of your statement, you're using the wrong word) as other DW fiction?" Instead, I think it's a question of "Was this story meant to be connected to other instances of DW fiction?"

        It's not enough just to prove that two stories are set in the same universe.

        That's why when it's come to stories such as 'The Sleeze Brothers' we have decided not to cover all of their stories other similar situations were meant to be covered in such a way. Even if the two brothers presented in COMIC: Follow That TARDIS! were used in DWM first, their following adventures were meant to have nothing to do with the strip itself.

        To me meanwhile, it seems that Senor 105 is obviously meant to serve as a parallel and a companion piece to both Doctor Who and Iris Wildthyme (another spin-off).

        Honestly I think Obverse Books has proven itself to be a very credible source in terms of their publishing, on the same level of DWM and Big Finish. I think we can all agree that it is far from the most questionable secondary-publishing group that we currently are trying to cover (that's some shade at Candy Jar Books, if it wasn't clear). The fact that the book series is being sold on the same webpage as their other reputable publications about both DW history and stories with characters like Iris (and, incidentally, Faction Paradox) proves them to be a reputable source for these sorts of things. They wouldn't publish any amazon.com self-published nonsense without knowing that they were in a legally sound area.

        OttelSpy hit the nail on the head.

        01:30, 10 August 2017
      CzechOut
      Guys, we've long used creator statements about their works as determinative to Rule 4. That's what's meant by:
      ...if a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed ...

      How else do we know what the intent is but by going back to the creators behind it?

      Community discussion has, in the form of what PicassoAndPringles dug up, shown us that the author didn't really mean for it to be in the DWU. You don't need to be familiar with our four little rules to opine that your work isn't connected enough to the DWU to be included on a Doctor Who wiki. And that's really enough to declare this thing invalid. The character can be covered, of course, as far as he appears in other valid works, but not in his own "spin-off of spin-off" stories.

      Also -- and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, least of all Obverse -- the fact that something is commercially for sale doesn't mean rights and clearances have been done. Famously, The Doctor and the Enterprise was sold commercially, but had no permission from either Paramount/CBS or the BBC. Fanzines are technically "commercially for sale", but no rights have been cleared. We are right to be suspicious of things that do not directly derive from a BBC license. And while I'm again not saying anything about Obverse, I just want to dispel the notion that there's a definitive relationship between something being sold commercially and rights having been cleared. That point isn't necessarily determinative of this case. But it is important to float out there on Board:Inclusion debates for the kinds of threads seen here.
      20:49, 10 August 2017
      Edited 22:23, 10 August 2017

      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117614


      Shortcut:
      Dubsflyt
      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/The Background Images" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Inclusion debate:Señor 105 continued".

      I like the idea of the character backgrounds, but seriously the cut out job on them is terrible, there's always so much background left on the image, like for example in the scarf tassels on clara in the current image. They either need to be cut out properly or not done at all. I just makes the wiki look childish like it is.

      14:18, 9 December 2012
      Edited 14:36, 9 December 2012
      Edited by CzechOut 13:04, 17 December 2012
        CzechOut
        Thanks for pointing out the flaw. It's been adjusted. This particular background was done relatively quickly, as it's obviously not going to be up for very long.

        If you'd like to help with the backgrounds, you're certainly welcome to fire up your copy of Photoshop! Since you've created a nifty little forum thread about the issue, just go ahead and submit your designs here.

        The basic format of the background is simple:

        • Make a transparently-backgrounded canvas of 1650 X 1100 pixels
        • Put up a ruler to mark the left and right margins at 310 px and 1340 px on the x-axis
        • On the y-axis, mark your top margin at 150 px
        • Put your images anywhere under 150px, to the left of 310px and to the right of 1340px
        • Save as a png, but make sure it's less than 150kb. That's KILObytes. (You may have to go to somewhere like http://tinypng.org to compress your file.)
        • Upload it to the wiki then post it in this thread
        15:43, 9 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117692


        Shortcut:
        CzechOut
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/The Master project concluded" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/The Background Images".

        After about three years of debate, and really almost eight years of indecision, the Master has now been settled on the site. There is now just one single article on the character, unlike with other Time Lords, per discussions at Forum:The Master and Forum:The Master - 1 article. All links to individual incarnation have been changed to one of the following new templates:

        Instruction for use of these templates is available at each of their documentation pages.

        Material at the various incarnations' articles has been integrated into the central article, with much important writing being done by OttselSpy25, Tybort, Shambala108, Tangerineduel and others. A special thanks goes out to everyone who took a crack at the integration of this important, but difficult, article.

        Due to the fact that a simultaneous merger of seven articles' histories would have resulted in a page history that was nearly un-followable, only the single history of the article at the Master has been retained.

        I personally apologise for the length of time the article was locked. It is not our general practise to keep such an important article from being edited. However, the final act of changing all existing links proved more tedious than I imagined.

        I have only one request of future editors, however. Please do not change the section titles. These are required to be precisely as they are for the proper operation of the linking templates.

        This article is once again open for general editing.

        02:19, 11 December 2012
        Edited 02:21, 11 December 2012
        Edited 01:25, 11 March 2013
        • Edzel2
          As a fan-fic writer who writes a lot of Master-centric fiction, this page is invaluable - thank you!
          23:22, 25 January 2013

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117750


        Shortcut:
        CzechOut
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Admin nomination:GusF" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/The Master project concluded".

        Many users may be unaware there is a formal process for becoming an admin. We've had no discussion on GusF's nomination aside from that offered by me and Tangerineduel.

        Now that we have the power to reach more users through highlighting threads here in the new forums, I wanted to throw some light into the admin nomination process. Please drop by Tardis:User rights nominations#GusF 2, and give your thoughts on this nomination. Please remember to read Gus' first nomination attempt and consider whether he's successfully addressed the concerns that were initially expressed.

        06:16, 12 December 2012
        Edited 07:14, 25 December 2012
        Edited 07:14, 25 December 2012
        Edited 20:41, 31 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Last call for comments, people. If you have any feelings on this candidacy, please leave them at this page by 30 December 2012.
          07:11, 25 December 2012
          Edited 07:12, 25 December 2012
        • Makotheactornotthecharacter
          I support
          07:47, 28 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          This is an announcement thread, not the place to indicate your support. Moreover, simple statements of support or opposition are disregarded. You must tell why at the page twice linked above.
          13:50, 28 December 2012
        • GusF
          If anyone would like to add their two cents (good, bad or indifferent!) to my nomination, now would be a good time to do so at the page which CzechOut has linked above. It'd be much appreciated!
          19:42, 30 December 2012
        CzechOut
        This nomination is now closed, but without prejudice. Due to a lack of positive support, the nomination has failed. GusF may reapply in future, should he so desire.
        20:40, 31 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117767


        Shortcut:
        OttselSpy25
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Why can't pages about invalid sources have Continuity sections?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Admin nomination:GusF".

        Okay, so recently Mini has been going around removing continuity sections from non-cannon stories. This is not something new, and has been done by multiple admins in the past, and I must say; it is most silly. No personal attack against anyone who has enforced this silly idea though.

        The idea is simple enough; if the story isn't canon, it can't have continuity. Especially when it does. And my reply is simple as well.

        "What?"

        Basically, what this rule says is this; "Sure, sure, Devious is a direct sequel to The War Games and a prequel to SfS, and references multiple other stories... But we can't say that on the page; it's non cannon."

        "Sure, Sympathy for the Devil has a direct sequel and the Doctor in it was mentioned in 100 Days of the Doctor, but, gol-ee, SftD is non cannon, so we can't put that on the page!"

        "Yeah, so the Rani may be appearing for the first time sense Time of the Rani and there are at least three sequels to it, as well as many other references to other Doctor Who episodes and plays, but hey... Dimensions in Time is non cannon, so pfft! Can't put that info on there."

        "Yeah, so the line in Night Terrors was a reference to The Seven Keys to Doomsday but how are we to put that on the page? The story is non-cannon!"

        As a wikia which for years has yelled "The stories we cover are not "canon", and those that we don't are not not cannon, just don't and can't cover them. We've also postulated the idea that "If you want to call it cannon, that's great, but we don't!" This suggests that someone who things "DiT" is cannon can just stop by and look at the info as if the story was cannon. But that person can't do that, because this stupid rule suggests that because it isn't cannon, we have to and can with hold information.

        It also doesn't help that you can't scroll down one inch without seeing the word "non-canon", because one of our editors is very persistent.

        So why keep this rule? It's silly, unreasonable, and stumps and stubs our pages! It's a silly rule thought out of a silly word connection and needs to be dropped.

        23:16, 12 December 2012
        Edited 23:17, 12 December 2012
        Edited 23:19, 12 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 05:53, 13 December 2012
        Edited by Mini-mitch 21:33, 19 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 02:59, 20 December 2012
        Edited by Mini-mitch 22:18, 25 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 14:20, 28 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 14:46, 28 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          As User:CzechOut stated in Talk:P.S. (webcast):

          "It is our usual position that non-DWU material doesn't have active continuity"

          I agree with this. There is little/no point in having a non DWU universe story that has continuity. It does not make any sense. Continuity is a link, a direct link to another story (or adventure). We cannot say "This story is not part of the DWU but it does mention previous adventures". There is a clash.

          Non DWU and continuity cannot go together. It just does not make sense, we cannot say a story is not DWU but have continuity to other story which are.

          If there is really anything that is vital important, which the majority of it won't be, it can be reword and put under 'story notes'.

          Also, the continuity of the stories I have removed have been moved to their talk pages, which OS has not mentioned. They are:

          CzechOut also removed continuity from P.S. and placed that on it's talk page.

          00:07, 13 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          Mini-mitch wrote: There is little/no point in having a non DWU universe story that has continuity. It does not make any sense. Continuity is a link, a direct link to another story (or adventure). We cannot say "This story is not part of the DWU but it does mention previous adventures". There is a clash.

          What? No it doesn't! Saying "P.S. is not covered by us, but us, but references the events of The Angel's Take Manhattan" and such like that does not clash and does make sense. I don't understand the logic here, past "Continuity and canon are the same thing!" when our definition of the two are completely different! Once can exist without the other!

          00:14, 13 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          How can a story, which we have judge to, as you put it 'not canon' (I am fighting really hard with myself not to use this word) have continuity? It is impossible.

          "This story is no canon. It does not take place in the DWU. However, it does have continuity." It does not work, it clashes and does not make sense. If a story judged to actually have taken place (non DWU) then it can really have continuity. It goes against itself.

          02:03, 13 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Our definition of "Not canon" is 'something we don't cover'. Our definition of "Continuity" is 'references to other material in the DWU'. You can have continuity without having canon.

          If you don't want to use the word "Continuity", then change it to something else. But don't go around turning perfectly good pages into stubs and removing perfectly fine sections over an argument over the meaning of a word.

          02:51, 13 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Our definition of "Not canon" is 'something we don't cover'. Our definition of "Continuity" is 'references to other material in the DWU'. You can have continuity without having canon.

          If you don't want to use the word "Continuity", then change it to something else. But don't go around turning perfectly good pages into stubs and removing perfectly fine sections over an argument over the meaning of a word.

          Can someone please kill me now? Tangerineduel get over here with that gun. How many times do I have to write this?

          Our canon policy is, wait for it, there is no canon.

          We're not playing a semantic game here. The phrases "something we cover" "that which counts" and "valid source" are not euphemisms for canon. There absolutely, positively, is no such damned thing as canon in Doctor Who. We're not telling you or any other user what you must believe is canon.

          But this wiki can and — in order to function, must —decide what it will allow as valid sources for the writing of our articles. This is mainly because we write our articles from an in-universe perspective — something that's hard to do unless we make some decisions about what the shape of that universe is.

          So we decided on four little rules to help us decide which stories were in, and which were out.

          P.S was eliminated on the basis of rule 4, primarily. It is a deleted scene, something that was long ago decided by community consensus to be a disqualifier.

          And that's the rub. How can a deleted scene have continuity? The act of cancelling a project is the ultimate discontinuity, because the producers have themselves relegated it . For us to have continuity notes on what amounts to a publicly released animatic is nonsensical.

          Is there continuity between Dr. Who and the Daleks and season 1? No, obviously not. Is there actual continuity between The Curse of Fatal Death and the Eleventh Doctor? How could there be? Equally, if a scene gets deleted — which is what happened to P.S. — it absolutely has no continuity with the television series, because the producers explicitly severed its continuity.

          The real danger of a continuity section on a story that is declared invalid is that editors naturally use the same style as they do on other pages. Namely, they write their continuity notes as if the story "counts". In so doing, they make statements they could not make on in-universe pages. This creates confusion for our readers, because the story page could say one thing, while the character page could say another.

          Look at this statement that used to reside at the P.S. continuity section:

          You just couldn't say this on the page Amy Pond, because P.S. is not a valid source. Plus, this editor is relating P.S. to an SJA story or three, for heaven's sake! How could that be right, when the producers deleted this scene and released it in a substantially unfinished form?

          It's sufficient to write a solid lead, a good plot section, and then try to source the video. Since P.S. and The Curse of Fatal Death both legally contain the entirety of their respective narratives, the continuity section is redundant anyway. The reader can just watch the piece in less time than it would take her to read our own confused ramblings..

          05:15, 13 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          So what your saying is that even though Sympothy of the Devil references The Daleks, we can't put that on it's page, because the story we "don't cover it". Even though P.S. references the events of The Angels take Manhattan, we can't point that out on the story's page, because it's not valid. We can't do any of the logical things we should do on a page due to our own opinions on somethings validness.

          "You can believe this subject is a part of the Doctor Who universe. But we don't."

          That's what our Non-DWU banner says. How are we supposed to claim that if pages that have this banner are all cut short?

          12:19, 13 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          What's size got to do with it? If we've got a banner on the page saying that we don't believe something is a part of the DWU, we — logically — shouldn't have a whole section devoted to how the topic fits in with DWU continuity.

          I'm not sure why you find this an objectionable or difficult statement.

          13:55, 13 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Well, then we should have a section related to "DWU references". The logic here still fails to show me how this makes any sense.

          "The Doctor referenced to Snow White and the Seven Keys to Doomsday in Night Terrors. This is a reference to Doctor Wo and the Seven Keys to Doomsday"

          ^

          |

          Sections like this are needed in these pages. We should act like these stories are just things we don't cover, not some strange story devoid of any connections to the DWU. I should be able to go to Dimensions in Time and get just as much on that episode as I could on Doctor Who (TV story) on that story.

          Just because we don't cover them doesn't mean that they're any different from any other DWU story.

          18:44, 13 December 2012
          Edited 18:45, 13 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          A story that we do not cover, means we have deemed not to take place, have continuity? It has not happened, therefore cannot have continuity.

          CzechOut has made it perfectly clear in his first post. No further explanation necessary .

          18:58, 13 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Futher discussion is needed, because this is a stupid rule. It doesen't make any sense and is unfair to stories we don't cannon.
          20:02, 13 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          I'm sorry, but I am banging my head against my computer screen here.

          How is it 'unfair'? The stories which are not part of the DWU, cannot have continuity because they have not happened. It has not taken place.

          Continuity is a link between stories within the DWU, and 'non DWU' stories do not taken place within the DWU. There is not much need for further discussion.

          00:31, 14 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Just because we don't cover them doesn't mean that they're any different from any other DWU story.

          Please re-read and think deeply on this assertion. It's because you think that sentence makes sense that you're having a problem. Definitionally, if we've decided that a story has nothing to do with the DWU, then it's obviously different from a story set in the DWU —  because ... it's not set in the DWU.

          Ouch. My head hurts from the simplicity of the tautology.

          Lemme try a different tack. In The Empty Planet, Clyde and Rani talk about an assignment they have in school about Great Expectations, the real life novel by Charles Dickens.

          Does that mean we can have a real world article about Great Expectations? Does that mean we need a real world article about Charles Dickens? No. Not just no, but of course and obviously no.

          The only reason that we do have a real world article on The Curse of Fatal Death but don't have one on Great Expectations is really because the former is BBC licensed and it has the words "Doctor Who" on the tin.

          And, despite what you say, an article about such a work is different to, say, the article on The Unquiet Dead. The main point of the article on P.S., Seven Keys to Doomsday or any of these highly marginal bits and bobs, is simply to display the {{notdwu}} flag. In effect, the focus of the article is primarily about contextualising the story and explaining why it's not a "normal" story. Secondarily, sure, cast and crew information and plot is important.

          What articles about such stories must never do, however, is to try to find continuity connections in the DWU — any more than we should write a real world article about Great Expectations and unreasonably assert that, I dunno, Mercy Hartigan is Miss Havisham's long lost sister or something. To the extent that there is a relationship between Hartigan and Havisham, it is strictly behind-the-scenes and thus could not populate a "continuity" section.

          01:51, 14 December 2012
          Edited 01:54, 14 December 2012
        • Tangerineduel
          To make it clearer, the universes of the 1960s movies, Sympathy of the Devil/Masters of War and Auld Mortality/Storm of Angels are 3 separate universes.

          So including any other stories not part of their universe in the continuity sections of those pages would be like linking An Unearthly Child to Future Tense a Star Trek Enterprise episode because they both feature a time travel ship that's bigger on the inside.

          Just because they contain similar themes does not make them of the same universe.

          03:55, 14 December 2012
        • Imamadmad
          Although I agree with most I you here that these articles should not have a continuity section, I do agree with OS that it would be a good idea to have a references section. Please hear me out on this one.

          It's all to do with how the stories are linked. The nondwu articles shouldn't have a continuity section because no other story is connected with it. However, it should have a references section because although no other story is connected with it, it is connected to other stories. This may sound like a contradiction, but when you think about it it's true. Going back to your examples of curse of fatal death vs great expectations vs unquiet dead, you can see the three different ways the stories are linked. Unquiet dead is linked in both directions, both from and to other stories, making it coverable on this wiki and let's it have a continuity section. It references other stories by the fact it stars a time lord called the Doctor in a tardis shaped like a police box who is traveling with a companion called Rose. Other stories link to it as the story is referenced in other episodes, and the next episode is a continuation of the story of Doctor Who including Unquiet Dead. Curse of Fatal Death is different as it only links one way, giving it a notdwu tag and not giving it a continuity section. However, because it is linked in one direction it can still be covered on this wiki and I think should e given a references section. How is it linked one way, you might be asking. Well, it refers to other stories by featuring a time lord called the Doctor who travels through time in a tardis shaped like a police box with a companion. (It's also licensed.) However, it doesn't link in the other direction as other stories show that the ninth doctor doesn't die on Terserus and neither does the tenth (amount other things). Therefore, it deserves a reference section as it refers to other episodes, however it doesn't fit into continuity. Great Expectations doesn't deserve either continuity or references sections, and can't be covered in universe on this wiki, as it doesn't link either way. It does not reference other Doctor Who Universe stories and Doctor Who Universe stories do not reference the events of Great Expectations.

          TL;DR, notdwu stories shouldn't have a continuity section, but should have a references section.

          11:26, 14 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          The original poster is just saying that it should be possible to describe the intended (by the creators) links between various stories not in this wiki's continuity. Just because they're not part of the continuity this wiki has arbitrarily decided on doesn't mean they don't have their own continuity relevant to Doctor Who as a franchise (for example, the Peter Cushing movies have their own continuity applicable to one another, even if it isn't connected to the continuity of the current TV show). No one's saying this continuity has to be discussed in the "in-character" section of an article, just that it's worth talking about. You don't have to call it canon or continuity, but there are certainly links, references, allusions, and continuing plots that would seem to bear mentioning.

          It seems strange and counterproductive to deliberately hide content from readers by exiling it to the talk pages. Most casual users won't check those.

          01:38, 18 December 2012
          Edited 01:41, 18 December 2012
          Edited 01:44, 18 December 2012
          Edited 02:17, 18 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: Just because they're not part of the continuity this wiki has arbitrarily decided on doesn't mean they don't have their own continuity relevant to Doctor Who as a franchise.

          Rowan, re-read what you've said. OS25 made this same sort of statement earlier. Seriously, re-read what you said. That doesn't even make any sense. It's like saying, "Just because it's not Christmas doesn't mean it's not Christmas" or "Just because I don't like my own gender doesn't mean I'm heterosexual."

          The continuity section is about the narrative connections between the story you're looking at and all the other narratives out there. There cannot be such connections when we've said at the top of the page, "You can believe this is a part of the DWU. But we don't."

          Here's a concrete example.

          You can say at Dimensions in Time:

          Dimensions featured the first meeting between Colin Baker and Nicholas Courtney in a televised, Doctor Who production.

          You cannot say at Dimensions in Time

          Dimensions featured the only onscreen meeting between the Sixth Doctor and the Brigadier.

          If we start allowing the latter sort of pseudo-narrative connections garbage, before you know it the National Television Awards Sketch 2011 article will be trying to assert that Dot Cotton is Lady Eleanor's distant relative. Which is complete garbage.

          But that's how this wiki goes unless tight control is applied. Don't believe me? Take a stroll through Forum:Discontinuity index. Why do you think we had to move all that stuff out of the regular articles?

          Because it was junk. And the truth of the matter is that because these things aren't continuous, the only kind of section they can have is a dis-continuity section. And where do all the discontinuity sections go? Yep, you guessed it: Forum:Discontinuity index. And I'm certainly not opposed to someone puttin' the info there. (Well, once this link goes blue, anyway.)

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: It seems strange and counterproductive to deliberately hide content from readers by exiling it to the talk pages. Most casual users won't check those.

          You are ascribing some serious ulterior motives to me, aren't ya?  :) No, that's standard Wikietiquette going back at least 10 years on Wikipedia. I could have just deleted it, making it even harder to find. Indeed, as an admin, I have the power to delete the revision, which would have made the content entirely unfindable by non-admin, and pretty difficult for other admin.

          So it wasn't an effort to hide anything. It was precisely the opposite — a pro forma, transparent, what-the-heck-you-do-cause-you're-a-nice-editor stuff. See this section of WP:TALK.

          02:24, 18 December 2012
          Edited 02:28, 18 December 2012
          Edited 02:29, 18 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          No, Czechout, the definition of continuity is not "narrative connections between the story you're looking at and all other narratives." The definition of continuity is narrative connections between at least two stories. That's all you need for there to be a continuity: just two. Are you saying there's no continuity between Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.? We have articles on those movies, and those two movies comprise a continuity. Not the continuity in the sense that we accept for in-universe sections, but certainly a continuity.

          As Imamadmad said, a section discussing continuity links between two sources deemed to be not part of this wiki's continuity does not have to actually be labeled "continuity": you're getting too hung up on your definition of that word.

          If we start allowing the latter sort of pseudo-narrative connections garbage, before you know it the National Television Awards Sketch 2011 article will be trying to assert that Dot Cotton is Lady Eleanor's distant relative.

          As I said, this would only be for continuity intended by the creators. And the Slippery Slope argument is a fallacy; acknowleging the plain truth that invalid stories sometimes share an explicit, officially licensed, creator-approved continuity with other invalid stories does not require us to allow editors to invent connections out of whole cloth unsupported by the actual sources.

          You are ascribing some serious ulterior motives to me, aren't ya?

          Not at all; nothing I said requires me to know your motives. When text is moved from the front page of an article to its talk page, it becomes hidden from casual users, regardless of what you intended. If the text is useful and relevant, it should be on the main page. "I had the power to make things even more hidden than that" is not an actual rebuttal.

          03:05, 18 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Rebuttal? For doing the right thing?

          Laying the majority of your post to one side — mainly because I cannot bear to explain it all again – I'm simply not going to accept any kind of suggestion that my moving this text to the talk page was in any way wrong, ill-intentioned, unhelpful or ill-advised. It is simply the way that you're supposed to behave on this wiki — and any wiki — when you remove text from the main article. There are probably hundreds of examples of me taking the exact same action.

          03:26, 18 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          The question before us isn't what you should do with text removed from the main article; it's whether the text should be removed from the main article at all. As I said, hiding useful information in this way seems strange and counterproductive. Certainly there is some content that should be removed from main articles at times; the point of this thread, as I understand it, is whether or not this particular content should have been hidden in this way.

          It wasn't my intention to claim that archiving removed text in the talk section was a bad idea as a general practice. I've done it myself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Please stick to the topic at hand.

          03:59, 18 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          I think the problem here is that some users have a different idea of what defines continuity than what this wiki defines. If you look at the Canon page, you'll see the wiki's definition of continuity: "This can also be seen as continuity, which is roughly the interconnectedness of stories and how they're referenced in each story." If a story is not part of the interconnectedness (i.e. not defined by this wiki as part of the narrative), then it cannot have any continuity with the rest of the narrative. It might be useful information, it might have a place on the page in some form, but it is not continuity.
          04:27, 18 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          I think too much is being made of the terminology. Whether or not "invalid" articles have "continuity," the information normally organized into the continuity section may still be of interest to readers. If the continuity and reference sections were merged wiki-wide, as this thread proposes, it seems like it wouldn't even be an issue, and no one would seriously argue that the reference sections should be stripped from invalid articles and hidden away in their talk pages.
          05:25, 18 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          Shambala108 wrote: the wiki's definition of continuity: "This can also be seen as continuity, which is roughly the interconnectedness of stories and how they're referenced in each story." If a story is not part of the interconnectedness (i.e. not defined by this wiki as part of the narrative), then it cannot have any continuity with the rest of the narrative. It might be useful information, it might have a place on the page in some form, but it is not continuity.

          Thank you! Someone understands. Any story, that is non DWU cannot have continuity for this reason.

          13:51, 18 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: I think too much is being made of the terminology. Whether or not "invalid" articles have "continuity," the information normally organized into the continuity section may still be of interest to readers.

          They have just been moved to the talk page, not deleted or hidden away. They can easily go there is they are that interested.

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: If the continuity and reference sections were merged wiki-wide, as this thread proposes, it seems like it wouldn't even be an issue, and no one would seriously argue that the reference sections should be stripped from invalid articles and hidden away in their talk pages

          It would still matter. They are being merged. So there would still be continuity. The merge would not make them the same thing. Anything that was continuity would be removed.

          As for references. I would keep them, but do not create links to any of the articles.

          13:55, 18 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          Do you always look at the talk pages on wikis you don't help edit? Not everyone does, and it won't be obvious to everyone there might be useful/interesting content hidden away there. If a section is considered worthy of the main page in most articles, then it seems odd to delete it based on a labeling technicality. Whether you call it continuity or a reference, it's still the sort of thing we normally consider to be interesting/valid.

          Why would you include references without hyperlinks? Purely to make the wiki less functional?

          15:04, 18 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: Do you always look at the talk pages on wikis you don't help edit? Not everyone does, and it won't be obvious to everyone there might be useful/interesting content hidden away there.

          Yes I do. One any wiki I go on and I see that there is discussion on the talk page, I usually go and see what is on the page.

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: If a section is considered worthy of the main page in most articles, then it seems odd to delete it based on a labeling technicality. Whether you call it continuity or a reference, it's still the sort of thing we normally consider to be interesting/valid.

          You are still missing the point that myself, CzechOut, Shambala108, Tangerineduel and Imamadman have say. If the story is non DWU it cannot have continuity. It is impossible.

          There might be interesting, but have continuity (and even references) go against what the non DWU does.

          Rowan Earthwood wrote: Why would you include references without hyperlinks? Purely to make the wiki less functional?

          Having links to the pages would encourages editors to add information from the story. For example, if Death Comes to Time has a link to beer, then someone might edit the article to include what happened with beer in the story - which cannot happen. Non DWU information cannot go on in universe articles.

          15:13, 18 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          Mini-mitch wrote:

          Shambala108 wrote: the wiki's definition of continuity: "This can also be seen as continuity, which is roughly the interconnectedness of stories and how they're referenced in each story." If a story is not part of the interconnectedness (i.e. not defined by this wiki as part of the narrative), then it cannot have any continuity with the rest of the narrative. It might be useful information, it might have a place on the page in some form, but it is not continuity.

          Thank you! Someone understands. Any story, that is non DWU cannot have continuity for this reason.

          Yes, we understand that this is "the reason". We also understand that this is a stupid reason. You're deleting a whole useful section because of your idea of terminology.

          15:14, 18 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, we understand that this is "the reason". We also understand that this is a stupid reason. You're deleting a whole useful section because of your idea of terminology.

          How it is a stupid reason? I have asked you to give me a reason why they should be kept and you have not given a strong enough answer.

          So tell me, why should a small, small percentage of stories, which are not set in the DWU, have links to the DWU?

          15:18, 18 December 2012
        • Rowan Earthwood
          Minimitch wrote:

          Yes I do. One any wiki I go on and I see that there is discussion on the talk page, I usually go and see what is on the page.

          Casual readers don't, and any wiki should be written in a way that is easy for casual readers to navigate. This wiki, in so many ways, is designed to be intimidatingly difficult for casual and even experienced users to use.

          You are still missing the point that myself, CzechOut, Shambala108, Tangerineduel and Imamadman have say. If the story is non DWU it cannot have continuity. It is impossible.

          And you're missing the point that Imamadmad, OttselSpy25, and myself have stated. Stop worrying about the word continuity. If a story builds directly on plot elements from a previous story, and that's something that's considered worth mentioning in most articles, it's something that deserves mentioning in all articles. You don't have to call it "continuity" if you don't want (although that is the proper term). Call it "references to other stories."

          Having links to the pages would encourages editors to add information from the story. For example, if Death Comes to Time has a link to beer, then someone might edit the article to include what happened with beer in the story - which cannot happen.

          Exactly why, ignoring how silly the example is, would it break the wiki to have an article titled "Beer (Death Comes to Time)" or a section within the general Beer article titled "Beer in non-valid sources?" As long as the reader is advised that this beer doesn't exist in other, subsequent stories, how would it cause confusion?

          This wiki does not consist solely of in-universe articles; most articles have out-of-universe sections describing the real-life decisions of editors, show runners, cast members, the press, and so on. There's plenty of room to use sections of articles to discuss story references in even the most out-of-continuity story.

          16:20, 18 December 2012
          Edited 16:21, 18 December 2012
          Edited 16:22, 18 December 2012
          Edited 16:30, 18 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          Mini-mitch wrote:

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, we understand that this is "the reason". We also understand that this is a stupid reason. You're deleting a whole useful section because of your idea of terminology.

          How it is a stupid reason? I have asked you to give me a reason why they should be kept and you have not given a strong enough answer.

          So tell me, why should a small, small percentage of stories, which are not set in the DWU, have links to the DWU?

          Because

          1. Our ideal of continuity is not one shared by everyone, as our "nondwu" banner shows. We don't even call it cannon, we call it coverage. So deleting any useful information given by someone who does consider it canon is insane. If someone goes to the page P.S. (webcast), they need to be informed on such that the story was a sequel to The Power of Three and details info from The Angels Take Manhattan.
          2. Non-DWU stories sometimes have connections to DWU universe stories. Like the few Short Trip stories that explain what the Dalek movies were, or the two or three Dimensions in Timesequels that exist.
          3. Keeping important info from readers about the subject is wrong.
          4. Non-DWU stories often have connections to each other, like Dr. who and the Daleks and the Daleks invasion Earth 2150 AD.
          5. Cutting sections out of stories and stubbing the pages is silly if for no reason other than "we don't consider this canon".
          6. We cannot claim to not have canon if our reason for anything involves the word "canon".
          • This is the wrong type of bullet.
          1. We shouldn't segregate stories by how many there are.
          2. There are quite a few non-narrative stories with continuity.

          All of these are very good and valid reasons, and it is shameful that you are ignoring all

          20:41, 18 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          At this point, OttselSpy25, I have to tell you that I basically don't understand your positions at all.

          Here are but a few of my problems with your assertions:

          • Earlier in the thread, you were arguing that {{notdwu}} stories had continuity like any other stories. Now you're saying that maybe that continuity isn't precisely the same. Maybe for these stories it's about some sort of connection between similar stories, as between the two Dalek movies. In order that our readers not be confused, I would argue that if you're going to include a continuity section, then it must mean the same thing across all pages.
          • "... there are quite a few non-narrative stories ..." What? Seriously, what? Could you please define a "non-narrative story"?
          • "We shouldn't segregate stories by how many there are." Again, what does this mean?
          • "We don't even call it cannon [sic], we call it coverage." You keep making this assertion, and it's wrong. It's just flat out, totally wrong. In no way does the administrative staff of this wiki equate canon with coverage. We are very up front about it. We don't assert canon. We only say, for practical reasons, "these stories can be used to write articles here, and these can't." That's it. I'll say it as many times as necessary: Doctor Who has no canon. There is a meaningful difference between "canon" and "coverage".
          Let me try explaining with an example. Let's say that I wanted to have a wiki about Batman. I could make that wiki about all versions of Batman. I could make it only about the ones that are in the so-called DC Animated Universe. I could make it only about live action versions. I could make it only about the Adam West Batman. There are a lot of options I could choose from. But none of those choices would be wrong. It's just that if I wanted to edit about the Adam West Batman on a site that was only devoted to the DCAU Kevin Conroy Batman, I'd be outta luck. The admin there would simply say, "Sorry that's not what we do here."
          And that's all we're saying here. We've made a choice — after long, long debate, mind you —  that there are certain criteria we're going to use to determine which of those very few BBC-released stories we won't use to write our articles.
          • "Keeping important info from readers about the subject is wrong." Again, the entirety of P.S. appears on our site. We're not keeping anything from anyone. The whole scene is right there in the infobox.
          • So deleting any useful information by someone who does consider it canon is insane. You must agree that some sort of boundaries must be set. I mean, if some person came in here and said that Doctor Who was a part of the Knight Rider universe because in one episode, a Knight Rider character dressed up as Captain Jack, you'd probably quietly delete that information and move on. Yet, in doing so, you're trampling on their personal canon. And this is the difference between canon and valid sources. If we were to try to edit this wiki on the basis of some created canon, we'd never get anywhere. The DWU is so amorphous, so without definition, you could never really write any article if you depended upon some notion of "canon". So our policies have nothing to do with canon. They have to do with what's valid (according to these four little rules) and what's not. By sticking to those four rules, rather than some perceived "canonicity", we are able to define the DWU in a way that people can look at a story and immediately know whether it belongs on this site without having to resort to guesswork.
          • "...stubbing the pages..." Removing the continuity section does not convert this article into a stub, according to our definition of a stub.
          21:43, 18 December 2012
          Edited 21:44, 18 December 2012
          Edited 21:48, 18 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          Shambala108 wrote: If you look at the Canon page, you'll see the wiki's definition of continuity ...

          There is a distinction which must be made between the page about the term "canon" and the wiki's canon policy.

          The first is trying to define the term, and is not particularly overseen by the wiki's administrative staff. It has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

          The second is the practical usage of canon on the wiki, and it's what we're talking about. The only operational definition the wiki has about canon is, "it is something which does not exist".

          Since you have referenced the article canon as somehow representing what the wiki believes about canon, it may be that admin need to lock that article down and make it more reflective of T:CAN. I dunno. Neither I nor any other admin have felt particularly bound, in a policy sense, to what the page canon says.

          22:05, 18 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Okay, first off, if I slip up in this discussion any more by saying "non-narritive" instead of "not covered" or "Non-DWU" then just pretend that I said the latter...

          You bring up a very horrible counter argument about Night Rider or something to counter my "what if someone counts it and is looking for info" statement.

          What I was referring to is a realistic example, like this: What if someone comes here who counts P.S. in his personal cannon and is trying to find out what that episode is referencing? What if someone who thought of Dimensions in Time as cannon is looking for info on any sequels or prequels made over the years? What if someone just is looking for any fun info on Death Comes To Time and any continuity references it makes to other stories.

          Well, they're just screwed because all of that info was removed from pages because- hey - Non-DWU sources don't have continuity! Because Continuity and Canon, those two words don't go together.

          It's an amazingly stupid rule based on the words that you have been trying to get us to ignore. We shouldn't be removing all of these sections just because two words, one of which according to you "doesn't exist", contradict each other in their simplest of their definitions.

          00:55, 19 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: What I was referring to is a realistic example, like this: What if someone comes here who counts P.S. in his personal cannon and is trying to find out what that episode is referencing? What if someone who thought of Dimensions in Time as cannon is looking for info on any sequels or prequels made over the years? What if someone just is looking for any fun info on Death Comes To Time and any continuity references it makes to other stories.

          Well, they're just screwed because all of that info was removed from pages because- hey - Non-DWU sources don't have continuity!

          That's precisely right. If you come here thinking that you're going to find information on something we don't cover, you will be screwed. That's what it means to not cover something. I honestly don't understand why you're having a problem with that, because you evidently understand the concept.

          I'll say it again, mainly because it's been a few days since I've said it. The main point in having an article about a BBC-licensed work that we don't cover is to make sure that there is an article at that location which flies the {{notdwu}} flag. It is not to provide the same level of coverage that we give to other stories. It is primarily to tell people that we think it's not a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles.

          If we go and make the articles as fulsome as the rest of our story articles, that message is muddied.

          05:46, 19 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Okay, fine, but if we have the info and it is useful and relevant to the average user, then we should try and include this story. Not including something on purpose because we "Don't cover it" is, as I've said before,


          Not ver okayish.

          12:29, 19 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          OttselSpy25 wrote: we have the info and it is useful and relevant to the average user, then we should try and include this story.

          What info? Continuity, as discussed earlier, no we cannot include it. Yes we can say 'it was written to taken place after story X' and stuff along that line, but no to any sort of continuity.

          13:19, 19 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Okay, fine, but if we have the info and it is useful and relevant to the average user, then we should try and include this story. Not including something on purpose because we "Don't cover it" is, as I've said before, not very okayish.

          Alright, let's try yet another tack, here. To me, the very meaning of "not covering something" is that there is a reduction in the amount of information about that subject we choose not to cover.

          What would your operational, practical definition of "not covering something" be, then? How would pages on {{notdwu}} subjects differ from the 99.99% of the rest of our pages?

          15:01, 19 December 2012
          Edited 15:02, 19 December 2012
          Edited 15:02, 19 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          CzechOut wrote:

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Okay, fine, but if we have the info and it is useful and relevant to the average user, then we should try and include this story. Not including something on purpose because we "Don't cover it" is, as I've said before, not very okayish.

          Alright, let's try yet another tack, here. To me, the very meaning of "not covering something" is that there is a reduction in the amount of information about that subject we choose not to cover.

          What would your operational, practical definition of "not covering something" be, then? How would pages on {{notdwu}} subjects differ from the 99.99% of the rest of our pages?

          We... Don't cover them?

          Look, the point I'm trying to make is that if we can't have continuity sections on these pages, then the useful info that goes there needs to go somewhere.

          16:30, 19 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          We... Don't cover them?

          Look, the point I'm trying to make is that if we can't have continuity sections on these pages, then the useful info that goes there needs to go somewhere.

          Why on Earth would moving stuff out from the continuity section to another section of the page? It will still be continuity and still be removed. Moving it won't make a difference.

          Everything that is currently under 'continuity' is just continuity and cannot, really, be moved anywhere else.

          16:36, 19 December 2012
          Edited 16:45, 19 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          So let me get this straight, OS25. Your practical solution would be to say that the things that currently fly the {{notdwu}} banner should simply be deleted, if our decision is not to cover them? But if the pages actually exist, then they should have exactly the same format and sections of any other article?

          Am I right in thinking that the only format difference, to you, between a {{notdwu}} and {{real world}} story article are these two templates?

          16:53, 19 December 2012
          Edited 16:54, 19 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          CzechOut wrote: So let me get this straight, OS25. Your practical solution would be to say that the things that currently fly the {{notdwu}} banner should simply be deleted, if our decision is not to cover them? But if the pages actually exist, then they should have exactly the same format and sections of any other article?

          Am I right in thinking that the only format difference, to you, between a {{notdwu}} and {{real world}} story article are these two templates?

          Well, it depends on the story.

          Sympathy of the Devil is not cannon because it is a "what-if story". We don't cover it because the BBC tells us not to in the series title. This story is just a normal audio story, but it "isn't of our own canon". This story has sequels and a crossover into the main series in the 100 Days of the Doctor, and has connections to stories pre-Second Doctor wise, so it has continuity

          Do You have a Licence to..." Is a parody work and an unliscened, as well as featuring Cyberons, so it's diffrent. The references in this story are in no way continuity, they're references. The Cyberons are parodies of the Cybermen, but the two aren't connected.

          Dimensions in Time is basically just not covered because it's rare and no one likes it. It has charactors appearing from past stories and references to other stories, and this can also go in the "references" section. There should be no reason that I can't say "The Rani appears for the first and last time on screen sense "Time and the Rani"."

          It depens on the story and why we don't cover it. But yes, I like to think that {{nondwu}} stories can have the same info as in any other story pages and just have notations on our non-coverage or it's "non-cannon-ness". I see no reason why not.

          I'm sure here comes the point where you tell me why I'm wrong?

          17:27, 19 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Well, you've already done that for yourself:

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Well, it depends on the story.

          Good policy cannot proceed on that foundation. In order to run the wiki in a fair and balanced way, nothing can "depend on the story". All decisions about what we do and don't cover — what we will and will not allow — have to be based on a transparent process — not on your personal idea about the story.

          And there must be some sort of consequence to declaring a story {{notdwu}}. If all we're doing is swapping out the article's tophat template, what's the point? If a user can come to such an article and find assertions about the continuity that story enjoys, then why have we bothered to declare it invalid?

          See, the consequence of declaring a story invalid on in-universe articles is that all information from that story must appear in a section clearly labelled "behind the scenes". The consequence on the story page must be that no continuity be alleged. We're not denying the information to our readers; we're simply placing it on pages like Amy Pond and Rory Williams in the BTS section. That way the reader can clearly contextualise the information.

          If you just put it on the story page, like any other story page, then the reader would almost have to think that we're staying the story is, in fact, continuous with the rest of the DWU.

          Forcing the information, instead, on to BTS sections of individual in-universe pages resolves this confusion rather neatly.

          Again, you can say something in the lead about the important points of {{notdwu}} stories. I wouldn't have a problem with something like "Kate O'Mara made her final appearance as the Rani in Dimensions in Time." You can certainly put something like that in the lead at Dimensions in Time.

          But continuity sections don't lend themselves to that kind of out-of-universe observation. Take a look at the points actually raised at P.S.:

          1. The Angels Take Manhattan implied that Amy and Rory had been sent from the cemetery to circa 1938, the era to which Rory was first sent.
          2. The Angels Take Manhattan also implied that Amy and Rory remained in or about New York City. P.S. confirms this. Anthony's sister was in New York during their parents' lifetimes, both as adult River Song in the summer of 1969, and as young Melody and infant Mels in January 1970. (TV: Day of the Moon)
          3. The Doctor and his TARDIS were momentarily in Manhattan twice during Rory's and Amy's temporal exile: once carrying the First Doctor in 1966 at the Empire State Building's observation deck; and again in July 1969, piloted by the Eleventh Doctor and carrying Rory's and Amy's younger selves on the side of a skyscraper under construction. (TV: The Chase, Day of the Moon)
          4. Anthony is stated to be in his mid-sixties, and to have been adopted as an infant in 1946. However, The Power of Three and P.S. take place in or after 2020, by which time, Anthony would be in his mid-seventies, barring time-travel.
          5. Rory says that he realizes "having a grandson who's older than you is so far beyond weird". Rory grew up with his own daughter and also knew her as a woman considerably older than himself. Even in their youths, Mels was already several years older than Rory and Amy, despite appearing to be their age.
          6. Asylum of the Daleks established Amy's inability to bear additional children after Melody, resulting from the events at Demon's Run. (TV: A Good Man Goes to War)
          7. Amy and Rory are the second and third former companions shown to have adopted children, after Sarah Jane Smith. (TV: Invasion of the Bane, Sky) Ben Jackson and Polly Wright were said to have operated an orphanage in India. (TV: Death of the Doctor)
          8. Rory mentions that he bought a trowel, in response to Brian's suggestion. (TV: Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)
          9. Brian is watering the plants when Anthony arrives, as he told the Doctor he needed to do. (TV: The Power of Three)

          Every single one of those statements is a narrative connection. Exactly none of them highlight the behind-the-scenes significance of the piece. These are notes that begin with the presumption that this story is a part of the DWU.

          And it is not, according to the objective metrics that we have established at this wiki.

          Let's just look in detail at each point. If you eliminate the points with the phrases "implied that", "suggest", and the conditional tense in general, you'd get rid of points 1 and 2. Point 4 is eliminated because it states for a fact something that isn't: this thing about The Power of Three definitely being "in or after 2020" is logical speculation only. It's not the only possibility.

          And then there's point 3. Which is one of those kind of statements that you find in our continuity sections that seems right, but is instantly wrong if you do what we're supposed to to do on this wiki, and consider all media. There are any number of stories in other media where the TARDIS happily lands in Manhattan. I can think of Martha the Mechanical Housemaid, The Monsters from the Past, and Salvation just for a start, and I think you could probably throw Time Bomb in there too.

          Likewise, point 7 seems possibly untrue from an all-media perspective, and would certainly have to be investigated before being accepted on face value. In any case, noting the second and third instance of something is hardly as exciting as noting the first.

          That leaves us with the things that are actually true about the narrative — but my God are points 5, 6, 8 and 9 boring. If this is your idea of "important" facts that we're denying our readers, you and I clearly work from different dictionaries.

          But leaving our relative ideas of significance to one side, the point is that it didn't happen. Any of it. The scene didn't get made.

          We're lookin' at a storyboard, not a story.

          22:05, 19 December 2012
          Edited 22:06, 19 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          ...Okay, not gonna go into an argument about what P.S. is...

          The P.S. continuity section is a bad example. I would like to bring up the continuity section of Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?.

          1. It is generally held that non-BBC productions featuring concepts from the Whoniverse fall into an uncertain area when it comes to canonicity. This includes previous BBV productions featuring established characters such as the Autons. Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? is all but impossible to connect to mainstream continuity due to the fact it is clearly a spoof and includes fourth wall-breaking metareferences.
          2. The end of the story features someone vaguely resembling the Master, a regeneration which references TV: Time and the Rani and a speech at the end which references TV: Survival.
          3. The Licensor's campness seems a direct reference to the Master in TV: Doctor Who.
          4. Sontarans first appeared in TV: The Time Warrior.
          5. Sontarans also have appeared in spinoffs such as HOMEVID: Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans and HOMEVID: Mindgame.
          6. The Krynoid first appeared in TV: The Seeds of Doom.
          7. Janis thorns (upon which 'janis spoons' is based) first appeared in TV: The Face of Evil.
          8. Autons first appeared in TV: Spearhead from Space.
          9. Autons also appeared in HOMEVID: Auton, Auton 2: Sentinel and Auton 3.
          10. Rassilon resembles Rassilon from TV: The Five Doctors.

          1 is an assessment of why this isn't cannon, and needs to on the page to clarify.

          2, 3, 7, and 10 all are explaining references to other things (Jokes, really) to readers who do not understand.

          The rest are bits on the backgrounds of the characters, and at most these may need to go.

          All these bits of info are now gone because "Continuity has to have cannon".

          I have a suggestion; What if for non-cannon pages we make a new section, called "References to the DWU" or "References to other media" or something. That way, useful info presented within the story can be show in their pages.

          23:53, 19 December 2012
          Edited 23:53, 19 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          I have a suggestion; What if for non-cannon pages we make a new section, called "References to the DWU" or "References to other media" or something. That way, useful info presented within the story can be show in their pages.

          I completely against this idea. The way I see it, what ever way you word it, it will still be continuity. It does not matter what you call it, it is the information that is important - and that information would still be continuity.

          Looking a DYHALTSTP. The only one that would would stay, would be the first one - in fact, merge it into the intro. The rest would go.

          00:13, 20 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          I need you to stop using the word "canon". Seriously. It's very confusing, and I think because you don't believe there's a difference between "canon" and "what we cover" or "valid sources", you're confusing yourself and making it impossible for us to communicate with each other. There is a real, demonstrable difference. This isn't "you say potayto, I say potahto". I'm not getting hung up on a word here. There's a world of difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about.
          00:16, 20 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Sorry, it's just hard to natrually talk about something like that without using the word "Cannon".
          02:42, 20 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          Mini-mitch wrote:

          I have a suggestion; What if for non-cannon pages we make a new section, called "References to the DWU" or "References to other media" or something. That way, useful info presented within the story can be show in their pages.

          I completely against this idea. The way I see it, what ever way you word it, it will still be continuity. It does not matter what you call it, it is the information that is important - and that information would still be continuity.

          Looking a DYHALTSTP. The only one that would would stay, would be the first one - in fact, merge it into the intro. The rest would go.

          Well, we need a place to put, say, The Doctor references the events of The Daleks (TV story) on pages like Sympathy of the Devil and such. As well as all of the references made in License above.

          02:47, 20 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Sorry, it's just hard to natrually talk about something like that without using the word "Cannon".

          And this is what I don't understand. We're not talking about the either the word canon or the concept of canon at all. You are, but MM, TD and I aren't.

          02:59, 20 December 2012
          Edited 03:00, 20 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25

          CzechOut wrote:

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Sorry, it's just hard to natrually talk about something like that without using the word "Cannon".

          And this is what I don't understand. We're not talking about the either the word canon or the concept of canon at all. You are, but MM, TD and I aren't.

          No, I mean that it's hard to say something like "Something that is not covered by us" and try to keep it still sounding natural... So I often slip into using the term "non-cannon" and such...

          I keep bring up the concept of cannon because that was Mini's main argument when we started for there being no continuity sections.

          03:07, 20 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          OttselSpy25 wrote: I keep bring up the concept of cannon because that was Mini's main argument when we started for there being no continuity sections.

          No it wasn't. It never was and never will be. I have barely mentioned it. It is not my main argument, in fact it is not even in my thoughts. My main argument is:

          "It is our usual position that non-DWU material doesn't have active continuity"

          I fail to see why you don't understand this. Storys that don't take place in the DWU 'cannot in anyway have continuity. It has been explained numerous times in this discussion.

          Renaming the section, moving it elsewhere on the page will not work. It has to be completely moved of the page.

          17:02, 21 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          Can we try and bring this to a conclusion before the New Year? The conversation is just going round and round in circles, with the general consensus to removing them from the pages.

          OS25 has fought for the section to be kept or renamed, but I feel, personally, the argument is not strong enough. The remaining time this discussion - which I hope to close sometime in the afternoon of New Year's Eve - will allow anyone who wants to speak up to speak up.

          I do not want this discussion dragged out any longer than necessary, and the New Year seems the best time to close it.

          19:57, 25 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Maybe it should be highlighted...
          22:06, 25 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Maybe it should be highlighted...

          Done! :)

          22:47, 25 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          Okay. I think I may have figured out a compromise. I'm sure that it has a flaw somewhere, but hear me out...

          I think OS25 was on the right track with the idea of putting the Continuity section of each page under a different title, but Mini and CzechOut have rightfully pointed out that continuity by any other name is still continuity.

          What I *think* is the issue here is this: Stories that this wiki has decided are not in the DWU cannot have continuity.

          But here's the thing: as it says in the notdwu flag, some people may consider these stories a part of the DWU anyway.

          So what I propose is this: We create a section that essentially says: "IF you consider this story a part of the DWU, this is its continuity." (Or, if we want to just stick to our views and not talk about the reader's, then something like "IF this story were a part of the DWU, this would be its continuity.")

          Well, that's my plan for a compromise. In my eyes, it satisfies both parties. If any of you see a problem (which I assume someone will, given the long and lively discussion we see before us), please tell me what it is.

          Bubblecamera

          04:56, 26 December 2012
          Edited 04:56, 26 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Seems sound to me...
          07:56, 26 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          It's a good attempt at compromise, Bubblecamera, but it ignores the second and most vital sentence in the {{notdwu}} flag: "We don't". Because of those two simple words, the flag is flatly stating that if you want serious coverage of this subject, go elsewhere, cause we're not gonna give it here. If we do as you suggest, we'd be diluting the whole concept of the two words, "we don't".

          "We don't" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "We don't, but we might, if we come up with a clever enough section title." It means that we don't. It means, "we offer this barebones description to you, but that's it."

          23:08, 26 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          Yeah, I suppose you're right, but I don't really see the (supposedly immediately obvious) correlation between "It's non-DWU" and "We don't cover it in full." I don't think I've seen it written anywhere on the main part of the site (i.e. the homepage and the articles) that this wiki intentionally only fully covers material in the DWU.

          If I've missed something big, please tell me!

          Thanks, Bubblecamera

          23:35, 26 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          "We don't" does not mean "We don't care about this story", "We don't consider this an actual story" or "this is less of a story than any other".

          "We don't" essentially means "For one reason or another, this story is not within our perception of the DWU". It's not logical to say "Because we do not consider it to be within the DWU, let's remove all this important and useful info.

          23:44, 26 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          By convention of the MediaWiki software, rules about a site don't appear in the "main part of the site". They always appear in what's called the "Project" or "meta" namespace. On this wiki that namespace is called "Tardis", on Wikipedia, it's called "Wikipedia" and at Memory Alpha, it's called "Memory Alpha". Rules about what we cover and don't cover have appeared there in one form or another since as early as 2005.

          If you've never been to this part of the website, then, yes, you've "missed something big". Pages of most relevance to this conversation are T:CAN and T:VS.

          23:48, 26 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          @OS25: Are you talking to me or to CzechOut? Either way, I agree with what you're saying.
          23:48, 26 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          @BUBBLE I was talking to Czech.
          23:51, 26 December 2012
          Edited 23:52, 26 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          @CzechOut: I suppose I should have made my statement clearer. I had, in fact, read both of those articles, and I just reread them now before writing this. However, the point I'm trying to make is this: Casual readers, or people new to the wiki, or really anyone who hasn't been to that area of the site, will be confused, because (at least on the surface of it) there is no explanation for why it's not covered.

          Also, I'm not asking why these stories are invalid sources, I'm asking why we choose to not cover them. I know the rules for what's valid and what's not, but I don't get why we intentionally leave off information about invalid sources.

          Can you provide me with a specific excerpt from one of those pages explaining why? I can't seem to find any.

          Thanks! Bubblecamera

          00:19, 27 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Almost everything declared invalid has a link back to a specific discussion in which they were declared invalid. The functional definition of "invalid source" is that it's one which doesn't get covered here, and which may not, therefore, be used as a source for in-universe articles.

          You're asking for a specific excerpt, but one's not really necessary, is it? To be declared invalid means that we don't give it attention. "Not covered", "invalid", "outside our fences", "beyond our remit" — these are all just synonyms. Surely our rules don't have to provide a thesaurus section to be clear, do they?

          Do you really think that casual readers will care why we're declaring certain stories outside the DWU? I mean, how many truly casual readers are making their way to Dimensions in Time or Exile?

          I'm of course interested in making things clearer, but I'm struggling to imagine a clearer construction than "You may consider this part of the DWU. But we don't". That's pretty direct, and I actually think most people will be fine with that. In fact that construction has been used for about two years and it's never even been remarked upon until really this thread.

          So let me ask you: what would be clearer? Should we add a little template at the end of these articles that more thoroughly explains our position, kind of like what's been done at Worlds in Time? Would that alleviate your concerns?

          01:11, 27 December 2012
          Edited 01:12, 27 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: "We don't" does not mean "We don't care about this story", "We don't consider this an actual story" or "this is less of a story than any other".

          "We don't" essentially means "For one reason or another, this story is not within our perception of the DWU". It's not logical to say "Because we do not consider it to be within the DWU, let's remove all this important and useful info.

          You are twisting the meaning of a very simple sentence. We write our articles from an in-universe perspective. If we don't consider something a part of that universe, then it necessarily means that we cannot use that source to write our articles. Therefore, there is no "important or useful info" — according to what is important or useful to this wiki — left to be had. So there is no difficulty in removing the information.

          It's not like we're depriving the world of the info. There's still WP:DW. There's still the DW Reference Guide. There's still Shannon Sullivan's site. There are still any number of sites out there that will give you all you want to know about Dimensions in Time.

          But we have a right as a wiki to an editorial viewpoint. And it is, on the basis of many, many discussions which happened both while you were an active editor and long before it, that we will write our articles as if there is such thing as the DWU. We will pretend that the DWU is real, and that we're looking back on it from a time when that universe no longer exists.

          We must therefore know what comprises that universe. And we have decided that this universe is created by stories that are officially released by the appropriate copyright holders. Over 99% of all such stories are valid here, but there are less than 1% which fall foul of a set of other criteria — mostly requiring the story not be parodic or unfinished.

          These we don't cover.

          We don't allege that they have some sort of connection with other DWU stories, because it is our editorial choice to do so. And that's an end to it, really. It is simply a choice. There are other ways to build a wiki, but the inexorable march of our inclusion debates has tended to move in the direction of excluding the parodic, the unfinished, and the deliberately extra-continuous.

          01:38, 27 December 2012
          Edited 01:41, 27 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          "The functional definition of 'invalid source' is that it's one which doesn't get covered here."

          Is this definition written down somewhere on the wiki? I'm really sorry if I sound overly suspicious or anything, but that's not the definition that immediately comes to mind for me. The one that I think of is another one that has been used multiple times in this discussion: that an invalid source is one that cannot be used to write other articles. So I think yes, adding a template to those articles would be a good idea, so that people like me whose go-to definition of "invalid" is different from the wiki's definition can see what the rules and regulations are here.

          04:05, 27 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          The definition of valid sources is at Tardis:Valid sources. There are multiple forum debates about inclusion that can be found at Forum:Panopticon archives. And there is a category page called "Inclusion debates" that lists all the specific inclusion debates.
          05:22, 27 December 2012
        • Bubblecamera
          Okay, I've got it now. Thank you!

          For me at least, CASE CLOSED.

          06:02, 27 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          Glad I could help. I actually like browsing the old forum discussions :)
          06:12, 27 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Yeah, that's always fun.
          17:51, 27 December 2012
        • 75.141.226.87
          I find myself agreeing with Imamadmad's suggestion of making a References section. There are stories that don't exist within the DWU, but they may still have intertextual information that may be of interest to readers.
          03:46, 28 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          75.141.226.87 wrote: There are stories that don't exist within the DWU, but they may still have intertextual information that may be of interest to readers.

          And those readers can simply go elsewhere for that "information". I put it in quotes because I think it's been demonstrated upthread that the actual text of these sections is largely comprised of baseless speculation and relatively minor coincidences.

          We're not depriving our readers of anything, really — at least, not if the excised P.S. section that started this thread are any indication.

          It is not some crime against our readership to firmly state that we don't cover Dimensions in Time — or whichever of these 20 or so titles you wanna insert here — in any great detail. It is merely an editorial choice.

          04:52, 28 December 2012
          Edited 04:53, 28 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          No, "push readers away" is leterally what that is doing.

          Is there any reason for the info not to be there?

          Other than the fact that we don't consider it cannon - and let's face it; call it whatever you like and claim we don't have this or that that's what it is - No.

          Should we activley work on a non stop basis to study and contribute to these stories?

          No, because we have better things to do.

          Should we then remove info from the page?

          No.

          There is no reason to remove info from the pages. I know you dislike people constantly working on these pages, but that's no reason to remove the info all together.

          Connections to other stories exist within these Non-DWU stories. They often thrive off each other, or Doctor Who stories before a point. Facts and trivia can be born from continuity. Continuity sections are needed to document all of these things, and if not continuity sections, then something else - references, DWU connections, Connections; call it whatever. We can call "Non-Cannon" "Non-DWU", so why not.

          You wonder why I want to contribute and care for these non-cannon stories, and the truth is, I don't. These stories fail to interest me. Those that do interest me because I think they should be in-universe stories. But those that are "non-DWU" stories I don't want to be treated like garbage. Why should we treat valid sources and things we don't cover as different things? They're basically the same, except one we count as "Cannon", or "valid" or "covered" or however you care to put it.

          05:14, 28 December 2012
        CzechOut
        If you're still asking the question, "Why should those stories that are valid sources be treated differently than those that aren't?" I'm not sure you'll ever get it. Or, perhaps most accurately, I don't think you care to understand it.

        I, Tangerineduel and Mini-mitch — and latterly Shambala108 — have tried sixteen ways from Sunday to explain this. It's quite clear from your post that this isn't a question of you opposing policy. It's more that you — perhaps stubbornly — are not understanding it.

        And I'm just not sure that there are words left which will help bring you clarity.

        Obviously, since this thread has been hoppin' for the majority of the month of December, your concerns have been heard and addressed. But if you won't even accept that there is a difference between that which is canonical and that which we cover, you're not going to be able to understand our point.

        At the end of the day, this is an arbitrary editorial decision on our part. Sure, we could have a wiki that tried to pick up all the little continuity references in Dimensions in Time and Exile — but we choose not to. Or to be more precise, we choose:

        • to emphasise the notdwu-ness of a the story page by having it devoid of certain elements common to other story pages
        • to allow some of the information that would normally be in a "continuity" section to appear in a behind the scenes section on an in-universe page.

        Again, we aren't really depriving people of most of that info; we're simply making an editorial decision about where that information belongs.

        This thread will now be closed. Maybe one day, if you're no longer involved in the daily grind of gainsaying, this will make some better sense to you.

        Please do not reopen a thread like this again, because the answers will not change, and it will therefore be a waste of everyone's time.

        This thread has not, however, been a total waste of time. Bubblecamera's point that perhaps additional clarity is needed on a page-by-page basis is a good one that will soon be implemented.

        14:45, 28 December 2012
        Edited 14:46, 28 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117878


        Shortcut:
        Mini-mitch
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Appearances" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Why can't pages about invalid sources have Continuity sections?".

        I think, by that I mean I'm not quite sure, but there was talk in the past about moving the 'List of appearances' into the character's page.

        I'm not sure how we would do it, but I reckon we could adopt Wookieepedia's way of doing it.

        The question is: Do we (still) want to do this? Or are people still happy with a separate page?

        01:42, 16 December 2012
        Edited 01:43, 16 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 02:01, 11 March 2013
        • Tangerineduel
          We have discussed it before back in 2010, one of the sticking points was the technical side of things. One that may be fixed somewhat between then and now.

          I don't spend a lot of time on Wookipedia, so I am only guessing that you refer to the Appearances being as a separate sub-heading scrollbox at the bottom of the page? Or are you suggesting an integrated collapsible section of the infobox?

          But I'm still not sure it's the best choice. The infobox is basically there as a summary of the page, a short summary. So the link off to the list of appearances pages is fine. The other problem I forsee with a collapsible section of an infobox, is that if you cram all the appearances in there, when un-collapsed the infobox may be longer than the article.

          02:45, 16 December 2012
        • Mini-mitch
          I knew it had cropped up, but I couldn't find the forum for it.

          Wookieepedia have the subheading with the scroll box, which I think is a good idea.

          No offence, to them, but their infoboxes are awful.

          03:01, 16 December 2012
        Tangerineduel
        I'm not entirely keen on the idea.

        As we have basically the main article body which is in-universe and then behind the scenes section which we'd have to put the appearances section in. So it'd be a sub-heading of the behind the scenes section.

        Also, the limitations of the scroll box on the article make just seeing and reading long lists of text somewhat hard.

        Would creating the Appearances section mean removing the Appearances field from the infobox entirely? Or creating either a redirect to the sub-section, or just removing it entirely? Or would it just be used to articles that have separate "list of" pages?

        03:17, 16 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117879


        Shortcut:
        Doug86
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/The Mysterious Planet - two million or two billion?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Appearances".

        Why does this wiki date The Mysterious Planet to two billion when almost every other source I could find dates it as two million, including the episode itself?

        02:34, 16 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 13:02, 17 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          I haven't seen this story yet, but the BBC Doctor Who website says it's 2 million years after the 20th century. I'm guessing the billion figure is a typo.
          06:29, 16 December 2012
        • Hotshot70
          I think Shambala is correct. I thin it should be millions.
          10:34, 16 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:117925


        Shortcut:
        Tybort
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Characters named only in novelisations" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/The Mysterious Planet - two million or two billion?".

        I noticed in a couple of places that unnamed characters who are named in novelisations have their novelisation names mentioned as a side-note (as with Pilot and Co-pilot (The Horns of Nimon)).

        Tardis:Valid sources/Detailed list mentions that television info supercedes novelisation info when in conflict. Is an unnamed character having a name actually a conflict or contradiction with what's in the story?

        14:08, 17 December 2012
        Edited by TheChampionOfTime 18:25, 20 March 2016
        Edited by Shambala108 01:41, 3 September 2018
        • CzechOut
          I'm not understanding you. How could naming a character in a novel be a conflict, since there is no name in the televised story?

          A conflict means that the character is called "Jane" in the serial but "Sally" in the novelisation.

          16:30, 17 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Of course, in the examples you've given, we would retain a redirect at the onscreen credit, because very few people would know the novelisation name. But the article itself would be moved to the novelisation name. This kind of move is within the power of all users, so feel free to move these pages at your leisure!
          16:33, 17 December 2012
        • Tybort
          I wouldn't think so either, and obviously it makes sense to keep the redirect regardless, but I was wondering because I'd seen it in a few other places (not just the two mentioned), I was missing something that would explain that yes there is a roundabout method. Of course "but I've seen it in other places on the wiki", doesn't mean that those other places are okay, or make sense, to follow that to begin with.

          Also, the same I'd gather would apply if a surname or first name is unique to the novelisation, but doesn't override another surname or first name on TV.

          16:38, 17 December 2012
          Edited 16:38, 17 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Of course, the tricky bit to remember is that novelisations are secondary sources to all original sources, not just television. I think there are a few cases of the novelisations contradicting novels and/or audios or comics. In these cases, the novelisations "lose" again.

          For a long time on this wiki, the classic example was Peri Brown's ultimate fate after she married Yrcanos. The tale given in the novelisation of Mindwarp — that of her going back to Earth and becoming the manager of Yrcanos' professional wrestling career — was discounted as incorrect, since it seemed contradicted by The Age of Chaos, amongst other things. However, Peri and the Piscon Paradox brought it back into the fold as a possible truth.

          16:51, 17 December 2012
          Edited 16:51, 17 December 2012
        • Tybort
          I'm not sure if you answered my question about additional names. I'm assuming by your comments on Talk:Miranda (Doctor Who) and Forum:TVM Bruce and Miranda: Gerhardt or not?, that's a no. Although I do think there's a distinction between "primary sources (television etc.) using different surnames to what's used in the novelisations" (so the primary source "wins") and "primary sources having no available surnames whatsoever, therefore the novelisation doesn't actually contradict anything", as with Bruce (Doctor Who) and Miranda (Doctor Who).
          19:14, 21 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Well, you know, you're kinda talking about apples and oranges.

          There's a difference between characters that have no name and those that have one name. In the original cases you put forward, we were talking about choosing to go with no name over going with an actual name. In that instance some kind of name wins out. However, in the case of Bruce and Miranda, you're talking about changing the name that they're known by in the primary source versus one that they're not known by at all.

          When Bruce (Doctor Who) pops up in auto-suggest, you're much more likely to know who that is versus Bruce Gerhardt.

          21:54, 21 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Put another way, when you have one name, then T:ONE NAME takes precedence.
          21:56, 21 December 2012
        • Freddie R. Aldous
          As the contributor who first added on the pages for Pilot and Co-pilot (The Horns of Nimon) the respective names for the characters, Sekkoth and Sardor, as given in Terrance Dicks's novelisation of the story, I thought I'd better make a contribution to this discussion, if only to explain my actions.

          The reason I added these names was because in Doctor Who: The Universal Databank by Jean-Marc Lofficier, published by Doctor Who Books in 1992, he adds to the entries for the Old Silurian and the Young Silurian in Doctor Who and the Silurians the names for the characters as given in Malcolm Hulke's novelisation, Okdel and Morka respectively, and I thought perhaps I'd better do the same for the aforementioned characters in The Horns of Nimon.

          I hope this makes everything perfectly clear.

          11:25, 26 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Not really. We weren't taking a pot-shot at your editing. Indeed, until you popped in this thread, I had no idea who'd aded those entries.

          The pilot and co-pilot from Nimon are merely examples of a larger rule.

          I would say, though, that Jean-Marc Lofficier's musings in The Universal Databank — frankly his musings anywhere — are the last things this site should be using as exemplars. Frequent mistakes by Lofficier and others are part of the reason that non-narrative sources are considered invalid here.

          It leads to greater accuracy if we have a clear hierarchy of stories, whereby novelisations can provide a name that the serial did not, and then also include redirects from the character's end-credits name. That way, if you search on the credited name, you'll go to the right place, whereupon you'll be greeted by at least a BTS section explaining that the article's name is derived from the novelisation, not the serial.

          23:33, 26 December 2012
        • Amorkuz
          It's an old discussion, but there is a new controversy that seems almost like the cases discussed but with a twist. So far the discussed examples include
          • a character with no name in a story and some name only in the novelisation, in which case "some kind of name wins out", and
          • with first name in a story and last name only in the novelisation, in which case "T:ONE NAME takes precedence".

          The case that I'm proposing to explicitly codify in this thread is when

          • a character is given last name in a story with the first name appearing only in the novelisation.

          Case in point is Harry Osgood, only recently renamed from Osgood (The Seeds of Death). I strongly suspect that it should be treated the same way as when the last name appears only in the novelisation. But it would be great to have a confirmation.

          17:16, 20 March 2016
        • Bwburke94
          I propose we go further and state T:ONE NAME does not take precedence, even for novelisation-only last names. The current policy differs between novelisations and original prose for no good reason.

          Under my proposal, Bruce (Doctor Who) would still redirect to Bruce Gerhardt. Bruce would of course be a disambiguation page, so a new editor would still be able to get to the character from the 1996 TV movie in a few clicks.

          20:43, 21 March 2016
        Shambala108
        Before closing this, I just want to point out that only admins are permitted to move pages. See Thread:128198 for details.
        01:40, 3 September 2018

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:118173


        Shortcut:
        CzechOut
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Should the Love and Wars characters be disambiguated by media?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Characters named only in novelisations".

        With Human Nature, we took the trouble to disambiguate the characters by media. So there's Joan Redfern (TV character) and Joan Redfern (novel character).

        We haven't written a lot of the pages for characters in Love and War. Should we make sure they're differntiated by media, as with the Human Nature case?

        07:42, 19 December 2012
        Edited 07:43, 19 December 2012
        Edited 21:42, 27 December 2012
        • Tybort
          I think that depends. I gather TV: Human Nature/The Family of Blood isn't just PROSE: Human Nature with the Tenth Doctor and Martha, but differs considerably from the source material (not to mention airing around 6-7pm on TV).

          Is there a such a difference with the two Love and wars, or is it a direct adaptation into performed audio?

          10:47, 19 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          I honestly don't know how close an adaptation it is. I imagine it's rather faithful. But any adaptation must have some differences.
          14:55, 19 December 2012
        • Tangerineduel
          Well if we look to Big Finish's other adaptions; the first 6 stories of season 1 of the Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series none of those characters have been dabbed.

          So if we decide to dab the Love and War characters we'd also need to dab those ones.

          If anything Love and War would be the closest to the novel because the other Benny audios were adapted to remove the Doctor, Ace and others from their narratives in the case of Birthright and Just War.

          07:32, 21 December 2012
        • 219.90.150.233
          Seems a bit pointless to make a separate page for such a minor change. Are we gonna DAB every character who had a tiny difference in the target novelisation?
          09:58, 21 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          The Target analogy doesn't fly because we've specifically ruled that Target differences are to be disregarded in the writing of our articles.

          The precedent here is Human Nature, where we do have separate pages for some of the characters.

          As for the Benny releases, well, those were sufficiently obscure to me that they didn't even cross my mind. I've certainly never read nor heard those, so perhaps we should discuss those alongside this question of Love and War.

          12:46, 21 December 2012
        • Tangerineduel
          I am quite familiar with Love and War the novel, and while I've not listened to Love and War the audio I will have hopefully by the new year.

          Based on the Benny adaptions they don't really bring anything more to the party than the novels do.

          I don't think it's fair to use Human Nature as our yardstick for this discussion. The adaption of Human Nature was a more drastic adaption than the Benny audios.

          Given they've all been adapted by the same person (except Beyond the Sun) I would presume Love and War has the same case taken to is as Just War or Dragons' Wrath.

          13:34, 21 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Sweet. Well, once you know for sure there's not too much diversion in the audio, we can rule this discussion closed, then.

          I'm a little confused on the Benny adaptations, though. If they involve the wholesale removal of the Doctor and other elements, how can they not be significantly different?

          15:46, 21 December 2012
        • Tangerineduel
          Well, the first three and the final story are Benny NA adaptions.

          They're not all that different because the two actual DW stories chosen don't actually have a lot of DW elements in them.

          Birthright (novel) was a Doctor-lite novel that was practically a Benny / Ace story. Ace's stuff goes to Jason and the experiences are more or less the same.

          With Just War all of Benny's story is the same. Roz's story is removed. Chris's story I think gets contracted and given to Jason.

          The elements that are DW such as the time travel to get them into the situations is switched for Benny/Jason's time rings.

          16:22, 21 December 2012
        • Tangerineduel
          Having just listened to Love and War I can say there's no diversion character wise that I can discern.

          The audio contracts quite a lot that happens in the novel but that's to be expected as an adaption, nothing major really changes between the novel and audio character wise.

          Any differences are changes needed to make the story work in audio, so some things are spoken and explained rather than coming through in the narrative.

          So, no, I don't think the characters need to be dabbed for the audio adaption of Love and War

          15:58, 27 December 2012
        CzechOut
        Fair enough. Question asked and answered.
        21:42, 27 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:118228


        Shortcut:
        Mbehr
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Should we include The Confessions of Dorian Gray (audio series) on this wiki?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Should the Love and Wars characters be disambiguated by media?".

        Since this audio confirms his existence is within the Doctor Who universe. (Due to the Christmas crossover, this would also technically mean that Nick Briggs' Sherlock is also in the DW Universe)

        04:08, 20 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 01:52, 11 March 2013
        Edited by Rob T Firefly 20:56, 28 April 2013
        Edited by CzechOut 14:52, 3 September 2013
        Edited by CzechOut 15:17, 3 September 2013
        Edited by CzechOut 15:17, 3 September 2013
        Edited by CzechOut 02:03, 26 May 2017
        • CzechOut
          Could you explain that a little better and provide links to statements from the publishers or professional reviewers which back up your statement?
          14:52, 20 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          Anyone got any idea what the original poster was talking about on this one?
          01:52, 11 March 2013
        • Tangerineduel
          While I don't know what the OP is talking about, and I've not listened to any of what I'm about to mention, I have done some quick research.

          According to this review and interview with Scott Handcock he doesn't consider it a spin-off. Because the central character was conceived by Wilde (and also says that would be like saying Sherlock Holmes is a spin-off from DW because he featured in All-Consuming Fire.

          Dorian Gray does however feature in Shades of Gray (audio story) which was suggested to Scott Handcock that he write it by Gary Russell.

          So according to Handcock he doesn't think it's a spin-off, but Dorian as played Alexander Vlahos does appear in Shades of Gray and the Confessions series. Handcock's Dorian did appear in the Bernice Summerfield story first. Which makes him part of Benny and the DW universe.

          14:48, 22 March 2013
        • Rob T Firefly
          A release in the Dorian Gray range[1] crosses over with BF's Sherlock Holmes range[2]. If we accept the continuity of the Dorian Gray range into this wiki's scope, this would also appear to make Nicholas Briggs' Holmes a definitive in-universe portrayal for purposes of the Sherlock Holmes article. That would raise the further issue of bringing in Big Finish's other Nicholas Briggs Holmes stories into the DWU.

          This is tricky as on the surface it's not really any different to taking in other BF original guest-character spinoffs like UNIT, Graceless, or Counter Measures which are also produced by BF; the difference being that the rest of those still tacitly take place in the DWU according to their producers. It's probably a similar situation to the non-canon Minister of Chance or Faction Paradox stuff produced by folks who have deliberately severed DWU ties, but without the research-convenient delineator of a different production company/licencing situation.

          This wiki may benefit from just pre-emptively drawing a sharp line somewhere and sticking to it, as was done with the Star Trek crossover.

          20:55, 28 April 2013
          Edited 20:56, 28 April 2013
          Edited 21:05, 28 April 2013
        • 115.167.66.221
          This page was my idea

          Made it about 1-3 years back

          12:02, 2 July 2013
        • 115.167.66.221
          My name is mr infinity 1998(hamza Hasan )
          12:03, 2 July 2013
        • 175.110.116.48
          I made this page a while back

          I am Mr infinity 1998 / hamza hasan

          11:48, 3 July 2013
        • 96.237.71.73
          I think the Shades of Gray page and the Dorian Gray character page should mention it, for the same reason that the Tsar Wars page mentions "Nicholas and Alexandra". Since Gray's a pre-existing character and Shades of Gray isn't itself part of the Confessions series, I don't think the Confessions series qualifies as DWU.
          01:11, 10 August 2013
        CzechOut
        This discussion has not engendered that much discussion, but it's had since December of last year to attract attention. I'm accepting Rob T Firefly's suggestion of simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. We simply cannot have a situation where Nick Briggs' Sherlock Holmes ends up a part of the DWU. The DWU situation regarding Holmes is already far too complicated without that hassle.

        Here, then, is what we're going to do.

        Dorian Gray is a character that exists, so far as we're concerned, in Shades of Gray only. The Confessions of Dorian Gray series, and by extension the Sherlock Holmes series by Big Finish are not valid sources on this wiki.
        15:15, 3 September 2013

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:118323


        Shortcut:
        OttselSpy25
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/"Songtaran Carols" and it's validyness." overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Should we include The Confessions of Dorian Gray (audio series) on this wiki?".

        I would like to make the case that Songtaran Carols is not a valid source.

        If you have worked with me before, you will note that I hate marking things as non-valid. But this story just is undeniably such.

        The story has not narrative, is meant as a joke, and breaks the fourth wall at the end. You just as soon should count the clip of David Tennant going "I'm David tennant and Merry Christmas!" From the 2008 Advent Calendar, or the clip of K9, Romana, and the Doctor drinking champane in the TARDIS (If we do the latter that'd be cool, actually). The story just is in no way a valid source.

        22:37, 21 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 14:04, 24 December 2012
        • 71.80.219.129
          David Tennant referring to himself as David Tennant and Matt Smith addressing Dan Starkey, in character as Strax, are not the same things. One is OOC and the other is IC.

          The breaking of the fourth wall has been allowed in previous situations, such as Oswin's breaking of the fourth wall at the end of "Asylum of the Daleks" and Ten's direct address of the Prom audience in "Music of the Spheres."

          22:57, 21 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          When David Tennant adressed the people at the Proms, he was adressing people at proms. Not much of a 4th wall collapse.

          My main point is this: This is story is nothing more than a short self-parody sketch, with no narritive; meant to do nothing more than wish those who see it happy holidays. At the end the cast and crew all laugh, and this was left into the video just to make it clear that this was a joke.

          And if we did cover it, how would that work? What is this even? Why is Strax doing this? In what context is this set up? How does any of this make sense?

          Impossible to answer.

          23:16, 21 December 2012
        • 71.80.219.129
          Yes, he was addressing people at the Proms to address people at the Proms, a.k.a. breaking the fourth wall, just the same as wishing the audience happy holidays to wish them happy holidays or Oswin saying "Remember me" and then looking at the camera and winking. It's a fun way to intentionally include the audience, but that doesn't automatically mean something is non-canon because it momentarily breaks the fourth wall.
          23:39, 21 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Alright, that's great. Cool.

          Now, on the subject on anything but breaking the fourth wall because that really is unimportant...

          Also this is diffrent, this breaking of the fourth wall shows the cast stepping off set and going back to being themselves. It was clearly left in as to say "Hey, calm down, this was a joke."

          Now that we're past that... Let's discuss the more important things...

          23:45, 21 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          This sketch is actually just like Dr. Doug Who", except that sketch had a narritive.

          Both sketches were made at Christmas as a joke.

          Both sketches end with the cast and crew busting out laughing.

          Both sketches were meant to be taken purely as a joke.

          That sketch, however, had a narritive.

          00:42, 22 December 2012
        • MystExplorer
          I just watched the ending of Asylum again. Oswin does look at the camera right after saying "remember" but she does not wink. Therefore, I think it's debatable whether or not that was a fourth wall-breaking moment. But here we have the entire cast and some unseen crewmembers bursting out laughing. That goes way beyond William Hartnell's "Merry Christmas" line in Daleks' Masterplan. So I agree with those who've compared it to the Doug Who sketch. This is in no way part of the DWU.
          01:50, 22 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          I agree completely. Anyone else have any other comments?
          20:34, 22 December 2012
        • 70.64.34.140
          I agree. It is a bit of behind the scenes fun, nothing more.
          20:46, 22 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          I'm gonna go ahead and add the tab.. This discussion is rather dead or dying quickly at least, and everyone except 71.8 agrees that it is not valid.
          21:08, 22 December 2012
        CzechOut
        In future, please apply the four little rules before starting a forum discussion. Songtaran Carols is obviously non-narrative — which means that it isn't a story, so it violates rule #1. We therefore don't need to proceed throuh the other three rules. It is automatically disqualified. No discussion can overturn that.
        14:04, 24 December 2012

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:118537


        Shortcut:
        Rawrgoaway
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Can we bring back the "Latest Episode" and maybe get rid of the randomizer?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/"Songtaran Carols" and it's validyness.".

        I don't understand why it was done away with. I can understand it being done between seasons, but i'd like to be able to get straight to the latest episode from the home page of the wiki. It just seems odd to have the "Latest" sections for all the other forms of media, but not the TV episodes.

        02:07, 26 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 01:23, 11 March 2013
        • Digifiend
          I agree about having a Latest Episode link put back on the front page, but only for Doctor Who, as Sarah Jane was axed due to Lis's death, K9 seems to also be finished because the cast will be getting too old, and Torchwood is on indefinite hiatus. Thus, all of them wouldn't ever change - is that not why the randomiser was introduced?
          02:12, 26 December 2012
        • Rawrgoaway

          Digifiend wrote: I agree about having a Latest Episode link put back on the front page, but only for Doctor Who, as Sarah Jane was axed due to Lis's death, K9 seems to also be finished because the cast will be getting too old, and Torchwood is on indefinite hiatus. Thus, all of them wouldn't ever change - is that not why the randomiser was introduced?

          I can understand the Latest Episode not having SJA, K9 (even though i'd thought it would be continuing) or Torchwood, but there should be some sort of front page go-to link that takes us to the last episode of Doctor Who. Every other wiki i go to has some sort of "Last episode" or "Previous episode" link right on the front page. I probably sound lazy, but the truth of it is for a tv episode, you can't simply type in the name and be taken to the page. Not only that, some of the names can be long, and words can easily be assosciated with other pages so instead of the search bar taking you directly to an episode, you'll just be taken to search results.

          10:45, 26 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Just gonna point out here that K9 season 2 had begun filming...
          23:55, 26 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Or test filing at least.
          23:55, 26 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          OttselSpy25 wrote: Just gonna point out here that K9 season 2 had begun filming...

          You got a source for that?

          03:21, 27 December 2012
        • Digifiend
          Yeah, as far as I knew, filming ended three years ago. If K9 is to continue, it's probably going to require a recast. I see nothing about a new season filming on their Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/pages/K9-OFFICIAL-PAGE/254828826587?filter=1
          04:34, 27 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          To answer the original poster, the "latest episode" feature will likely not be returning to the front page. 2012 saw only 6 new episodes, and 2013 doesn't look like it will be more than 10. "Latest episode" is therefore a phrase which doesn't mean a whole lot for the overwhelming majority of the year.
          07:05, 27 December 2012
        • Digifiend
          The usual amount (14) isn't much more than that anyway. 2009 and 2012 were just blips. Anyway, some of the other media with the latest releases linked to on the front page have new entries much less often than the TV series, wasn't there only three entries in the New Series Adventures book range this year? Quick Reads only has one new entry per year. The reference books list isn't even up to date, Brilliant Book 2012 is stated to be the latest one, it's not.

          If you intend to keep those as they are, then not having the latest TV episode linked on the front page is hypocritical.

          02:48, 28 December 2012
          Edited 02:50, 28 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          Digifiend wrote If you intend to keep those as they are...

          We don't. The front page will soon undergo a radical transformation. It's not had a major upgrade in a couple of years, and as was pointed out by Imamadmad in November, it's just time to replace it with something bolder and more modern.

          03:07, 28 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          Digifiend wrote: The usual amount (14) isn't much more than that anyway. 2009 and 2012 were just blips.

          No, I think 2012 is the "new normal". Maybe not inasmuch as Doctor Who is concerned, but rather the larger DWU. See, 2011 didn't have just 14 weeks of new content. It had 14 DW, 8 TW (cause TW and DW overlapped for 2 weeks) and 3 SJA. So that's a respectable 25 weeks of new programming. There were even more weeks of original DWU content back in the heady years of the RTD-led franchise, where you had 34 weeks in 2006 and 2007. And that's where this wiki's tradition of putting "latest episodes" on the front page began. It was kinda necessary because it worked as a sort of "scorecard", allowing people to see the current state of play amongst all the shows.

          Now, though, it's kinda rubbing salt into the wound to advertise a "latest episode", since we're unlikely to have even 14 episodes of new programming until 2014. Do we really keep The Snowmen up on the front page for 4 months? That seems unreasonable — and not a little sad.

          Instead, our front-page approach during the anniversary year will be to celebrate the diversity of the DWU as a whole.

          03:18, 28 December 2012
          Edited 03:22, 28 December 2012
        • Rawrgoaway

          CzechOut wrote: Now, though, it's kinda rubbing salt into the wound to advertise a "latest episode", since we're unlikely to have even 14 episodes of new programming until 2014. Do we really keep The Snowmen up on the front page for 4 months? That seems unreasonable — and not a little sad.

          Instead, our front-page approach during the anniversary year will be to celebrate the diversity of the DWU as a whole.

          Rubbing salt into what wound? Shows have long breaks, it's something that fans have to deal with. 4 months is nothing compared to the sometimes 8 to 10 months that some shows can be gone for. A wiki is supposed to be informative and helpful to the people who are using it.

          You're not "advertising" a latest episode, you're providing the user a way to get to it more quickly. Whatever the case, if the intention of the wiki is to have some sort of celebration for the 50th, that's good and all, but being easy to navigate and more approachable from the homepage should be a priority.

          05:03, 30 December 2012
        • CzechOut
          The "wound" of reducing from 34 weeks of new DWU content a year to 2012's 6. It's the least amount of new content since 1996. Seeing the looming problem of having the 2011 Christmas special being the "latest" episode for the majority of 2012, we took the decision after the conclusion of the 2011 series of SJA to abandon latest episode content on the front page.

          As for our front page being unhelpful in its current form, I'd challenge you to show me a wiki with greater links on its front page. Even though we're redesigning it, you can get to all the major content areas from our front page, which is really the primary function of a front page.

          05:19, 30 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          Czech has a point guys. There's no point in putting up the "latest episode" if three of our shows have been cancelled or have no. New episodes planed and one of them wont have a new episode until Easter.
          18:56, 30 December 2012
        • Rawrgoaway

          CzechOut wrote: I'd challenge you to show me a wiki with greater links on its front page. Even though we're redesigning it, you can get to all the major content areas from our front page, which is really the primary function of a front page.

          Well i don't know what the new redesign will be like, but as it stands now, here is what I've come to.

          http://walkingdead.wikia.com/ has a "latest episode" and "next episode" link right up front to the side. It also has an area with image links to current main characters.

          http://gameofthrones.wikia.com is similar, with a latest episode link and short summary lower on the page, and image links to current main characters as well.

          The best that i know would be http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which has upcoming episodes, recent episodes, news, and is less cluttered compared to the other two.

          Now to challenge you. What does the front page provide to a new watcher of the show? What does the front page have that has anything to do with the latest episode, or for that matter, latest series? Or even the show itself? I can understand not having a latest episode, but using only links, where do i get to an episode list or a series list or even a character list? Have to do some digging around. Many viewers may not even realize there are spin-off shows. I know this is the "Tardis Index File" wiki, and not a Doctor Who specific wiki, but i think it's safe to say that a majority of people who are seeking information for the first time are looking for recent Doctor Who info.

          Perhaps i'm over thinking it all and maybe the redesign will make things much better, but i do feel i have some valid points about the current front page.

          22:08, 30 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          Episode lists can be got from the banner that lies at the top of every page, under "TV".

          I like the idea of putting the episode lists maybe in place of the randomiser on the front page. Something to think about.

          22:31, 30 December 2012
        • OttselSpy25
          I dislike the idea that we should cater out wiki to new series fan. If a new fan comes here looking for info on the new series, then they may find out about the classic series. It's best to share, as if saying "Yes, there is a series past David Tennant as the Doctor! Check it out!" Think not what people look for, but instead what we can give them
          00:40, 31 December 2012
        • Shambala108
          Or past Matt Smith.

          Ottselspy25 is right, we don't show priority to any medium or show over the others.

          01:00, 31 December 2012
        • CzechOut

          Rawrgoaway wrote:

          CzechOut wrote: I'd challenge you to show me a wiki with greater links on its front page.

          Well i don't know what the new redesign will be like, but as it stands now, here is what I've come to.

          Sure, all of these are great front pages. But look at their subject matter. How long have The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones been going? Two years? Three years, tops? I mean they're not even comparable to the challenge this wiki faces.

          Again, the point I was making was about the greater number of links from the front page. You've just provided some wikis that have different, but very many fewer links.

          See, the problem that you've made a distinctly false assumption. You believe that people are generally coming here to seek out information on the most current episodes. And when you're talking about a franchise that's 50 years old — and indeed the one that without doubt is the best-documented of any franchise in the world — the quantity of information we have to curate leads to people having a ton of different interests.

          Some people are primarily interested in the production history of the show. Some people use us to get a quick fact check on the roles that a particular actor played. Some people couldn't care less for the latest televised episodes, but are quite worked up about the latest audio releases. Some are enthusiastic about the comic history. Some only give a damn about the related magazines that the series has spawned. And still others believe that Doctor Who ended after the Virgin New Adventures ceased publication.

          There are so many different in-roads into the world of Doctor Who that it's simply presumptuous to believe that the latest Matt Smith episode is front page worthy. What I'm always struck by is looking at the Special:RecentChanges list. On a typical day, the amount of stuff that our editors tackle that's not about the Matt Smith era far outstrips stuff that is.

          Nevertheless, I think you do have some good points, and I hope you'll find that the new navigational redesign will address them — though perhaps not in the way you imagine.

          22:14, 31 December 2012
        • Sheridan
          I'm hoping there is a 'latest episode' in the new front page design. Let's face it, the first rule of webpage design is that if there's nothing of interest to the new fan on the front page then it doesn't matter how much content you have behind the scenes - they're not going to see it.
          21:56, 12 January 2013
        • CzechOut
          Yes, but the reality is that we're just not getting that much new televisual content. In 2012, the latest episode was The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe for more than eight months. The Snowmen will be the "latest" episode for at least four months. The front page simply can't afford to be that static.
          22:08, 12 January 2013
          Edited 22:08, 12 January 2013
        • OttselSpy25

          Sheridan wrote: I'm hoping there is a 'latest episode' in the new front page design. Let's face it, the first rule of webpage design is that if there's nothing of interest to the new fan on the front page then it doesn't matter how much content you have behind the scenes - they're not going to see it.

          See my above post on why we shouldn't cater to the "new fan".

          22:53, 12 January 2013
        • Crockalley
          It seems as though there is no changing your mind, Czech, but here's my opinion. Doctor Who is a television show. It's ridiculous to have "Latest Audio", "Latest Books", and "Latest Comics", but not "Latest TV". I don't care if it's six months between episodes. I don't care if there's only six episodes a year. If it's an on-going show, there should be a "Latest TV". There's no salt in the wound. It's a convenience tool. It doesn't have to be front and center, but it has to be there, and it has to be more prominent than audio, book, and comics.

          DW is a TV show. Help visitors get to the episodes.

          12:00, 16 January 2013
        • CzechOut
          I urge you to wait and see what's coming.
          14:21, 16 January 2013
        • Crockalley
          Sorry for my impatience. :)
          11:34, 17 January 2013
        • OttselSpy25
          At least you're not as impatient as me.
          15:04, 17 January 2013

        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:118763


        Shortcut:
        MystExplorer
        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/An Adventure in Space and Time" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Can we bring back the "Latest Episode" and maybe get rid of the randomizer?".

        We all know that Mark Gatiss is writing a drama that will cover the origins of Doctor Who for the 50th anniversary. Given that nothing like this has been done before, I think we should decide here and now whether or not this should be covered by the wiki. I know we have articles for Doctor Who Confidential and the DVD documentaries but since this is a dramatization of actual events, we should probably have a discussion as to whether it falls within the bounds of this wiki.

        20:02, 27 December 2012
        Edited by CzechOut 01:47, 11 March 2013
          CzechOut
          There is no way to discuss this subject without falling foul of our spoiler policy. We do not and cannot decide whether we'll cover a thing before it is officially released.

          This thread is thus summarily closed, simply on the grounds that it's massively too early to even broach the subject. Please do not restart this discussion under a new thread.

          21:38, 27 December 2012

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119147


          Shortcut:
          Quest?on
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Real World Location" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/An Adventure in Space and Time".

          I have noticed across several pages in the United States towns and cities category, a section that says: "Though it's possible that a real world location doesn't exist in the same geographic space in the Doctor Who universe, such cases are few and far between. Thus, the map at right is probably a good indicator of the DWU location of (insert city name here)." next to a Google map of the location. Is this supposed to be here?

          17:51, 30 December 2012
          Edited by CzechOut 00:17, 1 January 2013
          Edited by Amorkuz 00:08, 29 May 2017
          • SOTO
            Yeah, I once read something Czech wrote on someone's wall about that. So yes. Unless something in the Whoniverse contradicts them, we go with real-world facts about real-world places. Except we don't talk about the real-world facts in the articles, we just put links to their wikipedia pages. So the map thing is showing the viewer where the place most probably is, with a disclaimer that there's a possibility that it's wrong. In a nutshell, in a fish bowl, in a little blue box. Don't know how the nutshell slipped into the fishbowl. The Doctor should really get a maid. It'll kill the Queen (she's a goldfish). I'm getting off topic, aren't I?
            18:09, 30 December 2012
          • CzechOut

            SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Yeah, I once read something Czech wrote on someone's wall about that. So yes. Unless something in the Whoniverse contradicts them, we go with real-world facts about real-world places.

            No, that is explicitly the position I have argued against, and it is absolutely contrary to the T:NO RW policy. In the in-universe body of articles we in no way assume that what's true in the real world is what's true in the DWU.

            {{map}} produces a wholly new section on pages and it's very clear that we are not alleging that the actual real world location is necessarily the DWU location. It's just a helpful, and decidedly "behind the scenes", note for those people who may not be familiar with the location.

            {{map}} is also a test of mapping technology that is part of a larger Wikia project on using mapping code on Wikia sites.

            22:45, 31 December 2012
            Edited 22:46, 31 December 2012
          • SOTO
            Sorry. Must have been reading the argument backwards.
            22:45, 1 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            But it's not in the behind the scenes section.

            If it's to be placed on articles, even if it's a test I think it needs to conform to our layouts and policies and be under a "behind the scenes" section considering we've been working fairly hard to keep any real world info on in-universe articles within the behind the scenes section.

            I'd also question how useful it is. As we do state often that how the DWU and the real world don't line up dates/events wise. But this template is claiming that it's unlikely that physical locations are different. Not taking into account the various Atlantis locations that abound and the variety of fictional towns.

            15:21, 4 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's not in a behind the scenes section. Its biggest possible offence is that it's a behind the scenes section not precisely labelled "behind the scenes". To my mind, though, if you say "real world location" you're clearly saying, "this is information from the real world and not the DWU" so that's more than close enough to the precise words "behind the scenes".

            Now, you might ask, why even invite this criticism? Why not just call it "behind the scenes" and be done with it. Well, we can't do that. Not because we don't want to, or that it would be hard. I mean, we do not have the ability to do that. There are two things stopping us from titling the section "behind the scenes":

            1. If we did that , we couldn't easily use {{map}} on pages that already have a broader BTS section, such as London#Behind the scenes
            2. The MediaWiki code does not allow section heads to be fully transcluded. You'll note that none of these sections have an "edit" button next to them. Thus, we wouldn't want the title of the section to be "Behind the scenes", because it would mean that people wouldn't be able to edit just that section — which they can on the vast majority of pages that contain a BTS section. Giving the section its own name means that every time we see that section head, we'll know it behaves similarly.

            Moving on to your final paragraph, it appears you don't like the exact wording of the pre-formatted text. Can we talk about revisions to this text? Sure. But I'd point out that just because there is standard text does not mean that you are limited to using only that text. For example, Memphis and Miami contain pretty large caveats that flow logically from the pre-formatted text.

            I would also say, in defence of the text as it now exists, that the statements are true. There aren't many known cases of the location of a real world city being significantly different from what would be shown by the Google map opened to the standard scale. In no way does the standard display actually give the precise real world geocoding, nor does it by default open to a satellite view — even if the maps obviously are based on that amount of real world precision. In most cases, we're talking about a very basic drawing of the location. The whole point of the module is just to give a sense-at-a-glance notion of location.

            What's the utility of all this? Basically, the same utility as everything in category:cricket. Very often I find that place names get thrown out in DW fiction which are familiar to British audiences, but not at all to everyone else. I know I was mystified for years by Sarah Jane's last line in The Hand of Fear. Where the hell was Croyden? Since when has she ever been described as being from this Croyden place, I wondered. Just knowing "it is somewhere close to London" would have been helpful, because then it makes sense that she was going back to London, which is where I'd always assumed she was from. Also, unless you really understand where Croyden is, the Tenth Doctor's "that's near Aberdeen" joke in School Reunion doesn't make sense. But there's nothing in any narrative which gives you a wisp of a clue about this. Why? Because British writers often assume that you know where British locations are. In the same way that they assume you know what it means to be "hit for six" or to throw a leg spinner.

            And this geographic shorthand I think is prevalent throughout a ton of DW fiction. It is assumed we know where Tadcaster is in Fogbound. We are absolutely meant to know that Salford is a Mancunian suburb, and that's why Patricia Menzies has a Mancunian accent in The Raincloud Man and other stories. Hell, the whole of Invasion of the Cat-People is a travelogue throughout Australia, but Gary Russell doesn't do a brilliant job of explaining where things are relative to other things, even though their relative distances is, in a few cases, actually plot-relevant.

            So I'd push back firmly on the notion that this feature goes against our normal policies. It adds a relevant connection to the real world in exactly the same way that most BTS sections on "from the real world" pages normally do.

            Is the map of Memphis giving us info that is as valuable as knowing who sung "Merry Xmas Everybody"? Is it as valuable as knowing a bit more about "Kookaburra" or "Voodoo Child" or "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"? Sure. At least that much. And in some cases, as with "the adventures of Nate Simms" section of Invasion of the Cat-People, having maps — even if potentially the shape of the DWU's Australia isn't exactly the same as the real world — help us non-Australians to contextualise that part of the narrative in precisely the way that Russell didn't.

            Similarly, I think illustrating what Fell's Point is helps us to understand that Peri is talking about a section of the city of Baltimore. Thus, there isn't discontinuity with other stories where she takes a shortcut and just says she's from Baltimore.

            So I think this template allows us to do precisely what you allege it doesn't. It gives us the opportunity to help our readers understand the basic geography of a place mentioned in the DWU, while at the same time allowing a very careful statement that "this may not be the precise DWU location".

            It does, I think, fit within the bounds of T:NO RW, because it explicitly says, "it's possible that a real world location doesn't exist in the same geographic space in the Doctor Who universe".

            The kind of "RW creep" that we've been trying to eliminate from the site never gave this kind of warning. It featured people, for example, slipping in birth dates and death dates indiscriminately, and in some cases preferring Wikipedia info to actual narrative information. This is, to my mind, clearly different because we're putting it in its own section, and we are explicitly saying, "this might not be what is true of the DWU".

            20:39, 4 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            I did notice the lack of the edit button and assumed that like other templates that include a section header that it functioned similarly and did not allow direct editing through that.

            I don't think it fits within the bounds of the T:NO RW. Or if it is, it's pushing at the outer limits.

            Isn't the Wikipedia tag enough to give context and additional real world information?

            By us including the section, even labelled real world, we're still including information that doesn't have any connection to DW aside from the obvious location links.

            I understand that having this information may be useful for some to provide at a glance information. But I think its inclusion is compromising the integrity of the page's in-universe and DW-related information.

            Could it be hidden? Part of my objection is that the image is very obvious on the page, sometimes detracting from the in-universe information, which is kinda the purpose of these pages. If it could be hidden, that way users can elect to see more info.

            14:09, 5 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            When you say:
            ...we're still including information that doesn't have any connection to DW aside from the obvious location links.

            you've rather missed my point. I think that the real world location is actually relevant. In School Reunion, you are supposed to know that Aberdeen and Croyden are in their approximate real world positions, or the joke doesn't make sense. In the Invasion of the Cat-People, you need to understand the distances between various Australian locations or the character's fatigue and claims of being on a "walkabout" doesn't make sense. Being able to see exactly how proximate Titusville is to Cape Canaveral informs our understanding of Father Time in a way that the book perhaps glosses over. Understanding what Fell's Point is prevents you from assuming a continuity error when Peri elsewhere says she's from Baltimore.

            Many Doctor Who stories assume that you know where one place is in relation to another because, well, the Doctor is definitionally a traveller.

            This template gives us a way to suggest what those distances might approximately be, while at the same time making clear that no author has exactly nailed the geography.

            As for whether it could be hidden, yes, anything can be hidden. I'd be strongly opposed, though, because the point is to give at-a-glance information, and it's really the only shot most of these pages have at a graphical element.

            Let me turn this around on you. If this thing were in a section that precisely said, "behind the scenes", would you really have a problem with it? If so, why? What would be the difference between geographical information (which is obviously best relayed graphically) and the sort of text-based behind the scenes info we allow on various pages in cultural references from the real world? If I were to suggest that what upsets you is just the map itself, but that you'd be okay with a text-based description of the geographic information, would I be right?

            18:54, 5 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            I can see your point of view, that this information is helping people reading understand the articles / the stories better. But it does seem like we are dumbing down the information somewhat. We can't provide clarification for every subject and every concept. Some things do exist in relation to the the other and yes we need to use that relational understanding to understand a text. But that's true when reading most media sources.

            Why is the Wikipedia link not enough to assist with further reading?

            This wiki is an encyclopedia of the known DWU, not the real world. - T:NO RW

            By the template saying that Though it's possible that a real world location doesn't exist in the same geographic space in the Doctor Who universe, such cases are few and far between we are mixing the real world and the DWU. Can we definitively say which are the outliers? Which locations are in the "few and far between" category? No of course we can't, our database isn't that complete that we could make that pronouncement. The best we could say is 'at the moment, based on the information currently in our database we know of these locations X, Y, Z that do not exist in the same geographic space in the DWU"

            probably a good indicator of the DWU location of, probably? Probably? I don't want to go all Sixth Doctor here, but probably?

            Yes, the wording could be adjusted with wording similar to the {{conjecture}} template. Unless we've got an in-universe map that allows us to match the in-universe to the real world then it is kinda conjectural.

            If we must include the "behind the scenes map" then it should clearly state that we're placing the map there based not on the real world guess, but that there is enough in-universe information that suggests to us that the London of the the DWU is similar enough in layout to the real world to include a map for clarity.

            But for me, even writing it seems like it's dumbing down of the information a little bit and guessing while we're at it. I also just keep going back to the {{Wikipediainfo}} link.

            Its purpose is "a way to give our readers an easy link to real world information about a topic within the DWU". That's also what the map template is doing isn't it? Yes, I acknowledge it does give "at a glance" info rather than a click away to a dedicated page of information. But I'm still not convinced that's worth compromising our in-universe article's integrity with what probably is the right map of an in-universe location.

            Also on the Wikipediainfo template's page it also states that it should not be used on "real world pages", but the map template states very clearly that it is a "real world location", which suggests a real world-ness to the page.

            Yes, I am being picky about this, but we have faced questions like this before in the past, so I feel the wording is something to focus on.

            I would have less of a problem, yes, if it were in a section called "Behind the scenes" with a subheading "location information", because "Real World X" is precisely the wording we've been eliminating from articles. All the date articles for example now no longer say "Events" and "Real world" they say "Events" and "Behind the scenes". The use of "Real world location" suggests that the article is made up of sections called "Doctor Who universe" and "Real world", which was how many date articles were laid out.

            14:05, 7 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Any other points of view on this one?
            03:26, 11 March 2013
          • ComicBookGoddess
            I didn't really get the Croyden/Aberdeen joke, except through context. The ability to tell that a location is a representation of a real place vs a fictional location, especially for viewers outside of the UK, is important.

            (For that matter, it'd be valuable for UK viewers when the Doctor goes to another country!)

            I think it's also important to recognise that, until the DWU narratively gives an indication that something is different from the real world, it MUST BE PRESUMED to be the same in the DWU as it is the real world. Any other interpretation is logistically insane. What we do in this wiki is give a catalogue of the information which has been demonstrated to be different in the DWU. When we cite things, we are showing what has been shown to be different than the real world due to the presence of the Doctor.

            The problem is, to show what is different, you need to give context to some lesser-known facts as well. That's why we need real-world references. Maybe they hadn't bothered to tell us what a toilet is, but we were pretty sure they existed and at least some of the characters were using them even before we saw them in Boomtown.

            I think that we could do with an alternate wording, perhaps, but some small bit of labelled real world information and even the map link is appropriate. If they demonstrate a difference, we can always update it.

            19:07, 11 March 2013
          • Amorkuz
            While this debate is old, it feels like the opposing sides were coming closer to each other until they got distracted.

            Let us attempt to reconcile the opposing views in hopes to achieve a real consensus.

            First of all, I find compelling the argument that location is sometimes implicitly used by authors for context. Thus, if the template is used sparingly, it can be truly useful. A good example is Meadow Row, which is a street so small no Wikipedia article on it exists. The map remains the only way to easily point a reader to a real-world information, which we otherwise would have done with the {{wikipediainfo}} template.

            Secondly, I see the sense in only putting the map template within the explicit "Behind the scenes" section (in most cases, it is already there) and changing its subsection name to "Location information" to avoid the use of the wording "real world", which was objectionable to Tangerineduel.

            16:49, 28 May 2017
            Edited 16:49, 28 May 2017
            Edited 16:50, 28 May 2017
            Edited 22:55, 28 May 2017
          Amorkuz
          Upon further consideration, the following rules are laid out for the use of the {{map}} template. The long and short of these rules is that the template should be used either in place of a non-existent Wikipedia link or in place of a lacking in-universe description of the location.

          Main rules[[edit] | [edit source]]

          1. The use of the template for locations from the real world is neither completely prohibited nor universally required.
          2. If used, the template must be relegated to the "Behind the scenes" section, which should be created if need be.
          3. The use of the template is encouraged when no Wikipedia page for the location exists. Example: Meadow Row.
          4. In the presence of the {{wikipediainfo}}, the {{map}} template should not be used solely to provide the real-world location, i.e., without any relationship to the narrative. This would be a violation of T:NO RW.

          Fine print[[edit] | [edit source]]

          1. The use of the template is permissible if it illustrates some narratively significant information that relies on the familiarity with the real-world location, but the location is not sufficiently specified in the narrative. In this case, the scale parameter of the template should be chosen so as to best illustrate the narrative information.
          2. Given a choice between a verbal in-universe explanation (perhaps, from a different story) and a real-world map provided by the template, the in-universe information should be given preference despite it being non-visual. For instance, there is sufficient in-universe evidence to place South Croydon in England and Aberdeen in Scotland, which makes a map illustrating their relationship redundant.
          3. The wording of the heading used for the template is to be changed to "Location information". The explanatory text is to be similarly adapted.
          00:04, 29 May 2017
          Edited 00:06, 29 May 2017

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119168


          Shortcut:
          Mini-mitch
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/New Homepage - 2013" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Real World Location".

          I has been discussed before and will happen at some point in 2013. A new homepage. However, before that, there are some things we need to discuss:

          • What should be include? Why?
          • What should be removed?
          • How should it be laid out? How should we display stuff?
          • How should we display the latest stories?

          I think it is very important that as many Users as possible take part in this discussion, instead of just three of four Users.

          In my opinion:

          1) The only thing that should be added is the latest episode - just purely for ease of navigation for Users. We also need to have ore articles in the 'article of the minute' section

          2) Quotes. I personally see no point in the quotes section on the front page.

          3) Tight and compact. Everything should be kept together, like on Family Guy wikia.

          4) I think we should try and keep all the latest comic/audio/novel on the front page - and all the latest sub stories of each - basically what is currently one the front page. However, we only show one of each and then this changes to another of the latest stories of the same type and so on. So, basically, we would have three sections, audio/novel/comic and each of these sections will have six latest stories. They would only show on at a time and would change (fade out) to show another - it would do it for each of the latest stories before beginning again.

          23:25, 30 December 2012
          Edited by CzechOut 16:23, 1 January 2013
          Edited by Shambala108 03:04, 2 September 2018
          • SirBanstead
            The homepage is very long, and most of the content that is making the homepage so long isn't needed. Maybe just keep the latest book, audio and magazine issue from each series, the latest book, magazine and audio from Doctor Who, the latest book, magazine and audio from Torchwood, the latest book, magazine and audio from SJA and the latest book and audio from K9. That should inform the viewer on whats new.I don't think it should have to fade out just say the previous story under the image. Personally I think the quotes should be strictly from the T.V. series, and maybe be able to vote for your favorite quote monthly.
            00:40, 31 December 2012
          • OttselSpy25
            I think we should have a "Latest" and "Random" variable for each series (Doctor Who TV stories, SJA audios, Torchwood books, etc)
            00:44, 31 December 2012
          • Shambala108
            Sirbanstead, We don't favor the tv series over other media, so the choice for quotes is all or none. I like the quotes, but there aren't enough of them for variety and sometimes they are inaccurate.
            01:08, 31 December 2012
          • Tangerineduel
            I think we need to go as simple as possible, there is just too much information on the main page at the moment.

            There's also just a lot of DW related stuff produced month to month. Even when the TV series isn't on air there's a lot of audios, novels and comics being published/released.

            The quotes don't do much harm, but they're another thing to keep updated and as Shambala108 says they're occasionally inaccurate. SirBanstead, we have in the past voted on quotes and articles and it's just a lot of work that not a huge amount of people participated in and really wasn't worth it. As quotes aren't something we focus on hugely I'd suggest we get rid of them.

            For wikis that I think have the right idea for their main pages I'd suggest the Stargate Wiki, which has a fairly simple and clean layout.

            I think that we should do something similar to the Stargate Wiki and have a gallery-slider that has the recently released/published stories One story from each medium. So we'd have 4 images that cycle a TV story, an audio story, a comic story and a prose story.

            I think the random series links could stay. But everything else would be removed. So we'd replace the "latest" sections with the gallery slider. And probably keep the "article of the minute", "feature images" and "news" sections on the right. This should mean that the page would shrink in height to more than half it is currently.

            06:31, 31 December 2012
          • OttselSpy25
            We definetley need to update more often.
            06:50, 31 December 2012
          • Cult_Of_Skaro

            Shambala108 wrote: We don't favor the tv series over other media, so the choice for quotes is all or none.

            I think that's admirable and all, but 90% of people visiting here will think differently. Maybe just audio and TV?

            14:35, 31 December 2012
          • Cult_Of_Skaro
            Also, I would point out that the randomiser doesn't exist for any non-TV series.
            14:35, 31 December 2012
          • Imamadmad
            The main thing I think should be done is to compact the information. One of the main problems with the current front page is that the information is incredibly spread out vertically. Sliders are a good idea because they allow for maximum info in minimum space and they look good.

            And I would like to keep the quotes. They're interesting. However I think the information on the page should be organised in order of importance. So direct links to latest stories should be at the top while things like quotes can be further down the page, so people don't have to scroll far to see the most important information but the interesting extras are still there. We don't want to force people to scroll much. We want to grab their attention with what comes up on their screen as soon as they hit the link to the site from oogle or wherever.

            17:09, 31 December 2012
          • CzechOut
            Before this thread gets too out of control with wish lists, you should know that the front page redesign has been ongoing for a couple of months now, and will be deployed in the next two weeks. It will involve the addition of some moderately complex javascript, since the front page is inaccessible by the js-unfriendly wikiamobile skin.

            There will not be any kind of "recent stories" info on the front page anymore. The clear lesson of the last year is that we don't actually have people who are willing to update this information, so there's no point to advertising "latest story" info on the front page. (And no, this isn't a call for volunteers who are suddenly now willing to update the information. If it's not been happening in 2012, it won't happen in 2013.)

            Basically the front page is being redesigned as a dynamic, principally graphical, gateway, which will lead to several other gateway pages based around various themes. It is on these secondary gateways — e.g. "Books", "Audio", "Species", etc. — where there will then be a random generator, so that each time a person reloads that page, they'll get some more specific information.

            I'd advise, therefore, that you keep adding to this thread so that we can discover the kind of information you deem important. However, you should be aware that your suggestions may actually be implemented on the subject gateways, rather than the main page itself.

            21:09, 31 December 2012
          • Shambala108
            I'd like to keep the news updates on the front page.
            21:44, 31 December 2012
          • CzechOut

            Shambala108 wrote: I'd like to keep the news updates on the front page.

            They absolutely won't be. Technically, they're a violation of T:SPOIL. Before, it didn't matter so much because the default "landing page" was not the front page. Now that Wikia have changed the default to be the main page, the news reel is more of a challenge to T:SPOIL.

            22:20, 31 December 2012
          • Imamadmad
            If you keep the link to other DW wikis, can you please also link to the Doctor Who Answers wiki? Thanks.
            01:00, 1 January 2013
          • Digifiend

            CzechOut wrote: There will not be any kind of "recent stories" info on the front page anymore. The clear lesson of the last year is that we don't actually have people who are willing to update this information, so there's no point to advertising "latest story" info on the front page.

            Can't say I blame you for that decision. The most recent Non fiction & stories book certainly isn't The Brilliant Book 2012, which came out 15 months ago.

            If news on the front page would be a spoiler, maybe just have a link to a news page, noting that it may contain spoilers?

            04:05, 1 January 2013
            Edited 04:07, 1 January 2013
          • Shambala108
            Yeah, I hadn't thought about the spoilers, I was mostly thinking about DVD release news and things like that.
            08:00, 1 January 2013
          • CzechOut

            Imamadmad wrote: If you keep the link to other DW wikis, can you please also link to the Doctor Who Answers wiki? Thanks.

            Don't forget that DWA already receives far more promotion than any other wiki, since it has a module in the right rail of every page. Of course, the module is only visible to IP users, but these make up the vast majority of site users.

            08:02, 1 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Hmmm, apparently that's no longer true. It looks like they replaced the "Answers module" with just another advertisement. Sorry about giving you bad info. It wasn't an issue that I'd been following in 2012, and since it makes me weep to do so, I rarely look at the site when not logged in. So I'm not sure when we lost this module.

            The new design does not feature anything more than links to versions of this site in other languages. The FP and DWC links are gone. So there really won't be a DWA link of any kind, after all.

            09:23, 1 January 2013
          • Metardis
            I think that the 'article of the minute' takes up alot of space and could just include the first sentence of the article. (Or it could just be deleted, I don't see much use in it.) And just minimizing the pictures a bit would make all the difference.
            16:00, 1 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I just got a good idea - how about we put a "Today in Doctor Who" section in the homepage, in a similar way to Article of the Minute. So, for example, let's take yesterday - you'd either have the list of in-universe events (and major behind the scenes events) with a link at the bottom to this page, or you'd simply have a link to the page. I feel like if we'd put both the in-universe and out-of-universe events, it'd add too much to the load time. But, then again, I don't know much about the mechanics.
            18:46, 31 January 2013
          • Shambala108
            I like it!
            19:40, 31 January 2013
          • CzechOut

            SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: But, then again, I don't know much about the mechanics.

            Which is why you like this idea. It's a non-starter for me for both the reason that it'll take quite a bit of work to implement technically, but also because it goes completely against the new design ethic. The front page is being converted into something that merely directs people to other places, not something that imparts actual info.

            Now, it is possible that long term the individual gateway pages might include a feature like you suggest. So it might be that we'd eventually have a "this day in comics history" thing at Gateway:Comics.

            19:51, 31 January 2013
          • SOTO

            CzechOut wrote: The front page is being converted into something that merely directs people to other places, not something that imparts actual info.

            Well, as I said, it doesn't necessarily have to actually include the information. If you just want things that "direct people to other places," then we can go with the other suggestion I made, which is just that we'd have the heading "Today in Doctor Who history" (or "Today in the Doctor Who Universe" or something like that) with a link to the article of the day. It doesn't seem to me like you like the idea at all, though.

            20:12, 31 January 2013
            Edited 20:16, 31 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I'm not wholly opposed to the idea existing in some form, at some future date, on the wiki. But it won't be the front page, which has already been delayed for far too long.

            You're stressing the design objection, but if you'll note I put the important objection first: it's a bitch to program. I would think it would take fully a month of hard work to get the idea to work, because we haven't set up our timeline pages to accommodate this possibility.

            We'd have to create 366 individual templates, and populate each of those templates with information, in order for it to work. That's a lot of work that could be put to better use actually writing and improving our main content.

            The easier solution is just to put up a graphic that changes each day, displaying the current date. Then we could link to, say, 31 January and there ya go. That way, improvements to the date pages would be improvements to this feature, and nobody's wasting time on a non-content feature.

            20:28, 31 January 2013
            Edited 20:32, 31 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I made the suggestion assuming that there was some way of linking to the article and automatically displaying the beginning of the article. It seems there isn't, judging by what you've said.

            Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure I grasped everything - are you saying that either we could insert all the information into the templates ourselves (which I'll admit would be a complete waste of time - so a non-option) or we could just put the link (which I suggested twice), and this would be easy?

            Your last solution (last paragraph) is more what I was referring to, if I understood what you said. Reading it again, are you implying that there IS a way to link it to an article so it automatically updates, or did I misinterpret you completely?

            20:46, 31 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            There is also the problem of time zones. Which time zone would it be based on? I assume UTC. But because people access the site from all over the world, just in my timezone the link would be to the wrong day for about half the day. And it sounds like a ridiculously hard job trying to get something that changes depending on the time zone of the reader.

            PS, sorry if I quintuple post. It keeps dating its not posting.

            21:18, 31 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Yes, I meant UTC, as that's what the clock at the top is going by, and signatures in posts. That's the time that Wikia (at least I'm assuming it's all of Wikia that goes by that time) uses. And the time and day is wrong in my time zone as well. But that's what the wiki goes by. It would be a waste of time (if not impossible) to even just have two time zones, one closer to the UK and one closer to the US, and those are probably the places where the majority of our users come from. So, if we would do this, we'd use UTC.
            22:33, 31 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            The actual link is pretty easy. All ya do is type: 
            [[{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]]

            See: 5 November

            So that's no biggie.

            And I don't personally see it as a problem that it returns time in terms of UTC — Tue, 05 Nov 2024 05:46:48 +0000 —  since we've got a big freakin' UTC clock on every page of our site. Choosing and reinforcing a single time zone is kinda the way we universalise the experience for everyone, regardless of location. And, it's thematically appropriate for us that the time involved be "London time".

            The problem is our data. If we're going to feature something, it needs to be an exemplar of our best work. And these day pages are far from that. They disobey our most basic rules by not having leads and by containing a lot of weeds amongst the grass.

            I'll make you a deal. If you clean up the pages — give 'em a proper lead in which you note the biggest things that happened that day — then I'll figure out a way to feature it on at least the main gateway pages. Show me that you're dedicated to making these pages look great and I'll give you the tech to feature 'em.

            As you start to think about how to make these pages better, you might find yourself wanting to open up a debate about whether we want to split each of these pages in two and have two 1 January pages — 1 January for in-universe events and 1 January (real world) for real world events. You might also think about what kind of pictures might illustrate these pages, since most have nada. Or you might think about ways to improve the appearance of information. Should, for instance, births and deaths be in a sidebar? Is there a particular year's events that deserve highlighting in a sidebar?

            Again, if you can make these pages look great, I guarantee you they'll be featured prominently.

            01:12, 1 February 2013
          • SOTO
            I think we should recruit several editors to aid in this process. I agree that the date pages have a lot of work to be done. Even if I were to do it alone, though, and commit to doing 10 of them per day, it would only take me about a month.

            As far as sections are concerned, I believe on the Wikipedia date articles, they have an "events" section, then "births," then "deaths." I think we could benefit from something similar. So, if we're going with splitting the articles (brilliant suggestion; never thought of it - maybe I shall indeed open up that debate), on the out-of-universe pages, we'd have any big events (like 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who) in the introduction, then a "Releases" section with all the releases, then a "Births" section, then a "Deaths" section. In the in-universe pages, we might have the most key event or aspect of the day in the introduction, an "Events" section, then "Births" and "Deaths" sections. I think, though, that if we split up the articles, it'd be harder to come up with leads for the real world date articles. Should I open a new discussion in the Panopticon about date pages so we can get onto this new project as soon as possible? I feel like this is getting off the topic of the new homepage.

            03:59, 1 February 2013
          • CzechOut
            Well, these are great questions. But, yes, for the sake of clarity, you should be asking them elsewhere.
            04:44, 1 February 2013
          • OttselSpy25

            CzechOut wrote: Well, these are great questions. But, yes, for the sake of clarity, you should be asking them elsewhere.

            Really*coughshadacough*

            Sorry, just a joke.

            04:51, 1 February 2013
          • Metardis

            Shambala108 wrote: I like it!

            That's the sort of thing you like to hear! Wahey!

            17:17, 7 February 2013
          • Witoki
            I really do hate to dredge up such an old thread, but is there any more motion planned for the front page? I notice that very little of what was originally suggested appears to have been done.

            There seems to be an awful lot of unnecessary information on the front page that could be condensed, and a few bits of janitorial cleanup that could be useful.

            The Data Core logo looks... not so great on the front page. Do we not have a higher-res version of it?

            For the series links, we have a randomizer for all four, but would it be terrible to also include a "most recent" link for Doctor Who? Torchwood and K-9 are on extended hiatuses (hiati?), and Sarah Jane Adventures has ended, so only Doctor Who would really need a link like that.

            For Audiobooks, Books, and Comics, the images look strange without some sort of table-like layout (an invisible one would look fine, but "loose", it looks messy), and the lists below are somewhat dense.

            Are the New Series Adventures going to continue, do we know? There hasn't been a new one since December, supposedly. And the SJA Audio Series ended in 2011. And Doctor Who at the BBC in 2010. Should we be showing inactive series at all, or simply list all audio series on an Audiobooks page?

            We have a lot of outdated information that hasn't been relevant in upwards of three years or more; we even have listings of defunct book lines on the front page.

            We compared our goal for the front page to things like Stargate Wiki and Family Guy Wiki, but I think we still have a lot of work ahead of us. If we can reduce the vertical sprawl of the page, we can move some of our right sidebar into the main content area (the X of the Minute areas are rather difficult to read at six words per line).

            13:39, 3 April 2013
            Edited 13:41, 3 April 2013
          • CzechOut
            No, you're quite right to bring it up. Things have been happening, but they're on the back-end and have no visible footprint yet. As the new front page doesn't involve currency at all, your questions are moot. That is, we've seen the same problems you've noted, and those observations are what has motivated the switch to a scheme of organisation that's not based on release date.

            The front page will be switched within the next couple of weeks.

            14:34, 3 April 2013
          • ComicBookGoddess
            Is the front page still going to me the main link to the Floor 500 system?
            16:16, 3 April 2013
          • CzechOut
            If you're talking about the category explanation that's actually at Doctor Who Wiki/Categories and not on the front page at all. However, that's just a little bit of meaningless drivel, really. It's not a "system" at all. The atual category system is at Category:Floor 500 itself.

            In the new concept, the category tree all be much better explained at a series of individual portal pages, which will go into the categories that are relevant to that particular topic.

            I don't think you'll really need what's written at Doctor Who Wiki/Categories any more, but there are no plans to actually delete it, as it can exist harmlessly, even if unlinked.

            17:49, 3 April 2013
            Edited 17:49, 3 April 2013
            Edited 17:50, 3 April 2013
          • ComicBookGoddess
            Remember when I asked about what linked to Floor 500 and you pointed at the main page? What's going to link to Floor 500 now?
            19:11, 3 April 2013
          • CzechOut
            What you're asking makes no sense in the new scheme of things. You'll like these changes because they'll help to make the category structure more obvious.
            21:22, 3 April 2013
          • Imamadmad
            It's September already, and the new homepage still isn't up yet. Will it be ready in time for the 50th?
            03:40, 21 September 2013
          CzechOut
          There have been whispers in the wind about Darwin for months now, and that was giving us pause. But I requested early adoption of Darwin precisely with the aim of having the underlying style of the wiki as a whole — as well as the front page itself — sorted by 23 November.

          However, the main reason that the front page redesign got delayed was because of a general desire to make T:OFF REL very clear, in light of not just the two episodes yet to come this year, but also the distribution cock-up that happened for The Name of the Doctor.

          10:00, 21 September 2013
          Edited 10:05, 21 September 2013

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119172


          Shortcut:
          SOTO
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/"Spoilers!" - the "rumours" section?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/New Homepage - 2013".

          Ahoy, TARDIS crew! I'm assuming you've all been to Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005). When you arrive for the first time, you get a disclaimer warning you that there are spoilers on that page and you get the option to either continue or leave. According to the spoiler policy, such spoilers are allowed on pages like that one. Now at the very bottom of the page, there's a section called "rumours." According to the Miriam Webster dictionary, the definition of a rumour is "talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source." So, according to its very definition, the rumours section should contain what Whovians think as a whole, and not confirmed facts. I don't think the rumours section should be so strict about sources. The page allows spoilers and there is clearly a section on what the people think will happen, not necessarily just what the crew say in interviews. If the people think a certain old series alien is coming back, then it should be included in the section, regardless of whether or not there's anything to back it up aside from speculation. It's a section about speculation; either get rid of it or use it properly. (That was longer than expected...)

          00:19, 31 December 2012
          Edited 00:21, 31 December 2012
          Edited by CzechOut 02:50, 11 March 2013
          Edited by CzechOut 16:37, 19 May 2013
          • SOTO
            Any opinions on the matter?
            00:20, 31 December 2012
          • Shambala108
            If the choice is allowing any/all rumors or getting rid of them altogether, I would say get rid of them.
            01:04, 31 December 2012
          CzechOut
          All things should be sourced. Even rumours. But here's the kicker: rumours here aren't what you say they are. I don't think you can establish such a thing as "what Whovians are as a whole". Whovians aren't a monolithic unit, and even if they were, where would you go for such information?

          No, the rumours section is meant to be for sourced information from actual news outlets. It's about what the press has revealed — not what Joe Whovian from Boise, Idaho thinks will happen.

          I direct your attention to T:RW SRC and T:RUMOUR, which are our actual rules on rumours and sourcing real world articles, both the results of earlier forum discussions.

          In other words, we won't be adopting your suggestions.

          21:27, 31 December 2012

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119813


          Shortcut:
          Eladkse
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/TV prefix template" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/"Spoilers!" - the "rumours" section?".

          I'd like to propose the creation of a template to allow editors to create easy links to different episodes in the correct format.

          Currently, the following is used:

          ([[TV]]: ''[[The Snowmen (TV story)|The Snowmen]]'')

          which produces: (TV: The Snowmen)

          I propose the creation of Template:TV, so that {{TV|The Snowmen}} produces the same result.

          The template code would be (obviously):

          ([[TV]]: ''[[{{{1|}}} (TV story)|{{{1|}}}]]'')

          and should hopefully work with all our TV story articles, thanks to all the articles being disambiguated with the same suffix (and the recent renaming of the TV movie to match).

          Thoughts?

          13:34, 9 January 2013
          Edited by CzechOut 15:54, 30 May 2017
          • CzechOut
            This was indeed the coding implication of having added consistent dab terms to all story titles. However, I never got back to it because there were so many other holes in the dike.

            We already had such a template in the past, but it was deleted (and then brought back with the intentionally-discouraging title {{DW/Archive 1}}) because the #ifexist bug produced a lot of false redlinks in Special:WantedPages.

            This template would actually work fine now — though it no longer needs its #ifexist statements — and has worked out some problems your description didn't anticipate. For instance:

            • it handles up to 10 references, so you could type ({{DW/Archive 1|Castrovalva|The Talons of Weng-Chiang|42|Tooth and Claw}}) and it'd produce (TV: Castrovalva, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, 42, Tooth and Claw).
            • it eschews the use of parentheses, since that must be entered manually by the editor, else you'd end up with a lot of parentheses.

            The only reason I haven't brought this one back yet is because I want it to be for every media, and to accept any story title. We also had a similar template for each of the media, but I want only one template. I think it should be dead simple for the end user, though it will be much more complicated for the coder.

            The big obstacle is in trying to figure out how to convey the medium (distinguishing between The Gift (comic story), The Gift (ST short story) or The Gift (TV story)) as well as how to handle the exceptions where medium isn't enough, such as Twilight of the Gods (MA novel) and Twilight of the Gods (BNA novel).

            15:33, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Oops - seems I forgot about listed references. And I think I do actually remember that template now.

            On the topic of all media - it's going to be very difficult to try and get every single one to work, but it might be possible given enough arguments in the code.

            In the 'within medium' disambiguation case, I could set it so if a dab is defined, use it, else use the default dab for that format.

            As for different formats, we'll need to separate them using parameters I think.

            I'll throw some code in a sandbox and see what happens.

            15:48, 9 January 2013
            Edited 15:54, 9 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            Wouldn't it be simpler to have half a dozen templates for each medium?

            I know one template to rule them all would be nice, but wouldn't isolating them help with multiples of story titles across different mediums. As far as I know there's no two TV stories with the same name.

            15:56, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yeah but don't forget the problem is that if you have a "within medium" disambiguation, you don't just have one exception. By definition, you have at least two exceptions. Using the earlier example, you have (novel), (BNA novel) and (MA novel). So although it's understandable how the default would be handled, it's less certain how you'd distinguish between BNA and MA alternatives. It may just be that we'd have to make specific exceptions in the code that force the user to enter "Twilight of the Gods (MA novel)". Which would be fine, really — almost none of the exceptions involve significantly-referenced stories.
            16:02, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Yes, my thoughts exactly. I have already made a template work doing this here.
            16:04, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Well, my mind goes to the exceptions, and they're certainly important to remember. But maybe the thing to do is simply to try to make the normal articles work first. I don't really want to hold up progress arguing for the 20 or so exceptions in the system. If we can get a single template to work for almost everything, that'll be pretty amazing.
            16:18, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            I almost have a good first version - I just need to know all the prefix possibilities we need to cover, and their standard dab.
            16:20, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Check out the code for {{title dab away}} for a list.
            16:27, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Okay, I have a first version template, which can be found at my sandbox. The code itself isn't very reader friendly at the moment, but the template works (as far as I can tell) for any combination of TV, AUDIO, NOVEL and COMIC references.

            Feel free to experiment with the template on on this test page, and give me any feedback for problems you find and/or situations within those 4 areas it doesn't cover.

            16:40, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            My immediate problem with it is that it requires people to use variable names. It's not significantly faster to type audio5=The Chimes of Midnight than it is to type The Chimes of Midnight (audio story). I realise that you have to do something to distinguish between media, but this is too bulky for new users. (And, incidentally, this is the point in the rewrite where I always came into contact with the brick wall.)
            19:59, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:02, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            The truth is that this may not be possible. Now that we've also simplified the prefix side of things, it might be good enough to have {{TV}} {{P}}, {{A}}, {{C}} and the lot.
            20:05, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Well, we're either going to have to start using #ifexist (this will cause problems with Special:WantedPages, and with any titles used in multiple media), or we'll have to use separate templates. While is nice to have one template to do everything, it's just going to have to be what-if after what-if after what-if. I think seperate templates is the best way forward

            I'll keep going at it creating one big template though - as my sandbox has SMW, I've made a lot of templates which take advantage of this, and I think we can make that work here too.

            20:07, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            No wait that's not it. There is a way around this.
            20:08, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            What if we create a base template. I dunno, call it {{dab handler}}. Something. Heck, maybe you'd directly be able to use {{dab away}}. But then we have {{TV}}, {{P}}, whatever. These all refer to {{dab handler}} (or {{dab away}}), but because {{dab handler}} has been called by another template, we can make assumptions based upon the template that called it. So if you use {{TV}} to call it, you assume a prefix of TV, and you assume the elimination of (TV story). I suppose the end user still has to do separate template declarations but that's okay, since there aren't but about 7 prefixes nowadays.

            I guess that's not really a way around end-user simplification, but it certainly would simplify the code.

            20:13, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            (The advantage of using a single template like {{dab away}} at the core would be that if any new exceptions come up, you only have to change {{dab away}} to have a global effect.)
            20:17, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Actually, wait, if you use {{dab away}} you don't have to do any more work really. It'll just strip the title regardless of what's handed to it. So by using {{TV}} to call {{dab away}}, you're effectively just adding [[TV]]: to the beginning of a string of titles.
            20:26, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            I've written up what essentially would be the base code for Template:T here. As you say, because we're using Template:T, the only difference between that template at, say, Template:T would be the prefix.
            20:29, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:29, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:33, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:34, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            So, if we consider the separate templates, we can doubly simplify the code itself by making {{TV}}, {{P}}, {{C}}, and {{A}} call a template listing the {{dab away}} for each parameter.
            20:37, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:37, 9 January 2013
            Edited 20:37, 9 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Okay, it's still a WIP - but I have the workings of an all-in-one template. It's a bit hacky, in that I'm using Semnatics to find categories which match media type (which is why I also haven't got PROSE working yet). If you would like to see it, it's at my sandbox.

            If you don;t want such a template that's find - but for my own purposes, I'm going to try and finish it.

            10:04, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I will indeed get around to it at some point today. Lots of pots on the boil at the moment.
            14:20, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Indeed. Getting the logo and title sorted should be your priority. This can definitely wait. ;)
            14:22, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Whatcha mean by "other mediums - to be typed manually by user for ease of coding"?
            15:31, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            The template currently parsers TV, AUDIO, PROSE and COMIC references by itself. However, I wasn't sure whether it was worth the trouble trying to get the template to parse for the other prefixes. Hence, the 'other' parameter.

            On this sandbox page, you can see an example - it's the last one on the page. WC: P.S. has been added manually to the reference by the 'editor'.

            15:39, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Also, guess the template still needs some work for redirects. :/
            15:40, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            This is pretty good stuff so far. I'm not quite sure why The Snowmen isn't in the list after moving it to The Snowmen (TV story), but I'm guessing it's just because the categories aren't set correctly.

            The obvious question that w:c:eladkse:template:DW/find raises is, "what happens if the categories get moved by users"?

            The whole thing falls apart, right?

            So what we need to really make this work is some kind of extra, hidden way of enforcing category usage, right?

            15:42, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            The best way to maintain integrity (and this would also make the template easier to code) is to add a 'medium' property in SMW to each page - probably via the infobox templates. This would let the referencing template know exactly what medium each article is about, without the hacking apart of categories.

            As for the redirect, I'm going to have to do some looking around. As far as I knew (because I have other SMW templates), redirects also redirect their properties, so that shouldn't be happening.

            15:46, 10 January 2013
            Edited 15:46, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yeah that is weird. Redirects should be redirecting their properties.
            15:49, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Right, I know why the redirects aren't working - it is because while SMW redirects properties, it doesn't redirect categories.
            15:50, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Hence why the [[medium::]] property would be doubly useful.
            15:59, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Yes. Now, if such a property were to be implemented - what labels would we use? As most of the SMW is invisible to the end-user, we can probably get away with just using the prefixes. Or alternativly, we can use more descriptive terms (television story, audio story, etc).
            16:02, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Oh I think I'd probably do a #set thing where the user didn't have to enter it at all. Basically I'd #explode the PAGENAME so as to mine it for the dab term, and then set it silently. It wouldn't actually appear in the infobox, but it would be a part of the infobox coding.

            Is there any reason why TV would be more convenient to your coding than TV story? I suppose we could mine equally well for everything between the parentheses or just the first word.

            16:10, 10 January 2013
            Edited 16:13, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Yes, sorry. I made an assumption that you used separate infobox templates for each format, and that you could add a medium specific #set within them. I've never looked too closely at the infoboxes here. I never suggested that the user had to enter that info - that would be asking for trouble.
            16:13, 10 January 2013
            Edited 16:13, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            We used to use separate infoboxes per media, and indeed you'll still see redirect template names to that effect. But there's really only {{Infobox Story}} at the core these days.
            16:16, 10 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Okay, I've made a new template which takes the dab term from the parameter we've discussed and uses that to determine placement. It works for all the in-universe prefixes, where there is guaranteed to be both a dab term and a page specific to that medium (as opposed to CON and the commentaries). The 'other' parameter is still there for any other prefixes, as they won't have any guaranteed dab.

            I have an exam for a few hours now, so I may not respond quickly.

            17:28, 10 January 2013
            Edited 17:29, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I haven't forgotten about this. It's very important that we get this done. I can't thank you enough for the work you've done so far. I'll be back with more specific comments soon.
            20:04, 14 January 2013
          • Eladkse
            Seems we both forgot about this.

            I haven't done any further development of Template:DW|the template, but per my last message, it works for the following main prefixes:

            There is also an {{{other}}} parameter to manually add additional mediums. The template can be expanded further to accommodate additional commonly used dab terms, but will never be able to be used for all prefixes, as prefixes such as for commentaries don't have their own pages to link to, and the template would sort any such pages into the main medium (For commentaries, TV).

            My previous reply is incorrect in terms of CON, as pages do actually exist for them. I'll probably add that to the template soon. If there are any other dab terms which will work, tell me. If we can automate as many prefixes as possible, the better.

            11:57, 2 June 2013
          • Eladkse
            Actually, I've just spotted a flaw I might need help resolving. The dab "TV story" is used for a lot of stuff other than what we prefix as TV. Namely, it also contains content that is HOMEVID and NOTVALID. If a user is intelligent enough to realise this, they would use {{{other}}} for these, but that doesn't seem intuitive to me, and more likely or not we'd end up with the automatic dab find being used and assigning the wrong prefix.

            We may have to have another look at setting the prefixes using SMW parameter in the infobox.

            12:08, 2 June 2013
            Edited 12:09, 2 June 2013
            Edited 12:10, 2 June 2013
          • CzechOut
            Nope, not forgotten about it, but a bit overwhelmed with the workload from the active season. We do need to get back in on this.

            Yeah I think we will have to force prefixes by way of an SMW #set. If this doesn't automatically take the decision of which prefix to use out of the hands of the user, there's not much point in it.

            It's gotta work like you have at w:c:eladkse:Doctor Who: Template:DW, and then the template figures out what to do with it.

            HOMEVID and NOTVALID are a problem, yah, since {{DW/find}} is based upon {{da}}, thus revolving solely around the dab term.

            So I guess there are two choices that I can think of.

            One is to build a second switch to put at the top of {{DW/find}} in which we check the whole name of the page against a list of the (relatively few) things that use HOMEVID and NOTVALID. If it falls through both of those then we nest the existing {{DW/find}} #switch in the #default line of this proposed new #switch, and Bob's yer uncle.

            So, roughly it'd be something like this: 

            {{#ifeq: {{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}
|Exile (audio story)
|et al = NOTDWU
|First Night (TV story)
|et al = HOMEVID
|#default = current contents of {{DW/find}}
}}

            Course this method would require maintenance by admin to add new stories as they came in, and it's probably not as elegant as just #setting something on the page. The only — only, he says! — problem with the #setting method is that it would be incredibly vulnerable to attack.

            So the #setting has to be done within a template that can be locked. But how do you get it so that the template can recognise what kind of page it's on? Maybe you only need to #set it in the cases of these things that are not prefixed by dab term. So maybe you create a #switch in the infobox code that checks the PAGENAME against a list of story names, and if it finds the right name it #sets medium=NOTDWU.

            Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but I'm trying to solve a regex puzzler at the same time. Hope there was something there of use.

            Anyway, broad agreement that we need to pick this project up again and get it implemented. Current system is a stumbling block for new users, and if we can work out the few exceptions you've noted then we're probably good to go.

            Oh, just thought: if we figure out the exceptions for these two, then we might be able to use it for REF works. Or we might then be able to add (non-fiction) as a dab term, and avoid exceptions altogether. Since we'll be making it easier to cite those works, adding a bit to their names nets in fewer keystrokes for the editor.

            Ugh, sorry again for the stream-of-consciousness.

            16:14, 2 June 2013
          • Eladkse
            I've just realised that w:c:eladkse:Template:DW/find is already relying on a SMW parameter for mediums - which I had added to my dummy pages in lieu of infobox information. Guess that shows how long it has been since I looked at it.

            From the looks of your suggestions, both solutions would require maintenance an exceptions list.

            On reflection, using SMW in DW/find would require the semantic data to be called for each page we want to link to, it may not be the best way in terms of load time - especially on longer pages.

            However, it does have the distinct advantage of allowing users to use non-dabed redirect terms where available (The Snowmen vs The Snowmen (TV story)). It depends how you want to take that - should we encourage users to use correct page names, or is it better to use redirects to their advantage?

            If we want to force correct page name usage, it would allow the template to use the input directly without SMW. Then we can have a switch for exceptions in the template. Whether that is maintained within the template itself or on a separate subpage is up to you - whatever is easier.

            17:49, 2 June 2013
            Edited 17:58, 2 June 2013

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119834


          Shortcut:
          CzechOut
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Should "Worked on" categories be eliminated?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/TV prefix template".
          The answer to this question was agreed to be yes. Therefore, we no longer allow categories like "worked/acted on such and such a TV show". All these categories have been eliminated. Please do not replace them.

          When they first were implemented on the site, the connections to other media franchises categories were for series that really had a significant impact on Doctor Who. For instance, Worked on All Creatures Great and Small matters because there's a pretty big connection betwen All Creatures and Doctor Who, thanks to the centrality of the JNT/Johnny Byrne/Peter Davison creative triangle. You just wouldn't have gotten the Davison era without the working relationships established on All Creatures. Similarly worked on Sea of Souls and worked on Born and Bred described working relationships of direct relevance to the shape of series 1. Likewise Worked in the Life on Mars franchise has a huge relevance to the Moffat era.

          But Worked on The Bill? Actors who appeared in the Young Ones? Worked on Where Eagles Dare? These describe co-incidences of employment.

          It's quite clear to me that category bloat has well and truly set in.

          Categories are not meant to be substitutes for writing the body of articles. We should not be allowing the category section to be much, much longer than the body of the articles themselves.

          Bernard Kay is the poster child for this phenomenon. It's clear that the editors have simply abandoned any attempt to write a good article, in favour of using the category system as a way to just list this actor's C.V. What's especially unforgivable here is the fact that DWU material has been fobbed off to a category. The categories include Big Finish Doctor Who voice actors — but no attempt is made in the article to explain what roles Bernard Kay had in Big Finish.

          I think the time has come to look hard at the list of categories under connections to other media franchises and decide which are truly important and which are not. The time is definitely upon us to stop the creation of new categories in that part of the category tree.

          In addition to deciding which of the current categories should be destroyed, we should also make it a rule that you cannot add any of these categories without mentioning the role they had in that franchise within the body of the article. It leaves readers hanging to just say, "Oh yeah, they were in Press Gang without also saying what their role was.

          19:51, 9 January 2013
          Edited 03:38, 11 March 2013
          Edited 06:20, 14 March 2013
          Edited 06:21, 14 March 2013
          Edited 06:22, 14 March 2013
          Edited 06:23, 14 March 2013
          Edited 06:23, 14 March 2013
          • MystExplorer
            All right, you win. I'll stop adding the "worked on" categories to articles. From now on, I'll limit myself to writing articles for people who are working in the DWU for the very first time. At least that way I probably won't be reprimanded for trying to make the wiki as accurate and comprehensive as possible. Slughorn42 ☎ 20:37, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
            20:37, 9 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            This isn't a move against you personally. The absolute explosion of subcategories of connections to other media franchises is hardly your own fault.

            It's simply time to take a step back and look at what's happening to figure out if it makes sense.

            22:57, 9 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            Wow, that's a lot of categories.

            First question. What are they for?

            The intro on the category page doesn't really enlighten me, only makes me want to ask why?

            "organise people who worked on any part of the DWU franchise, who also worked for one of the other television franchises listed below".

            Okay, why and why should we care?

            By not splitting it down into DW, TW etc it seems like we're caring more about the fact that they worked on Star Wars than DW, or TW or whatever.

            Some categories seem needlessly vague like Category:Worked on Sherlock Holmes adaptations‎…right. I can think of at least 4 different Holmes adaptations off the top of my head and we're lumping all of those into a single category ??

            The categories don't really tell me anything, they're kinda interesting on their own, but to be really interesting I'd like an article dedicated to it, to explain why it's notable that these people were in these series and how it's relevant to DW.

            Blake's 7 isn't the best example, though it should be the best example of cast / crew crossover.

            As for deciding what categories to keep, I think there needs to be 2 different points of connection to DWU in order to create a category of "Worked on". So that would mean two different crew members worked on a show or an actor and a writer. But not 2 actors. This would mean pairing back the Worked On/Actors who appeared in to just worked on (if you're an actor you are working on a series not just appearing in it). Pairing back the categories also would make this category and its sub-categories a little less confusing as at the moment "actors who appeared" and "worked on" are both in the :Category:Connections to other media franchises which makes it a little confusing as to what you're looking at.

            By having this crew/actor or writer/crew requirement it should help us to thin down the categories a little bit.

            14:52, 14 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            It does seem abit against what this wikia is going for to me. We've removed things from BBV which aren't related to the DWU, and these categories are just more blatant examples of that.
            14:57, 14 January 2013
          • Mini-mitch
            Now this is a conversation I would like to bring back up.

            It should go - they serve no real purpose than to link a handful of people to other work they have done - most of these are non notable roles.

            All notable roles should be included in the body of the article - does it really matter if we don't say who else worked on the same franchise? Their pages will have the information.

            I don't really think knowing who all worked on 'The Bill' helpful - unless they were a major character in which case it can be added to the relevant actor's page.

            Do I care who else worked on the program? Nope. Not unless they were in a close partnership within the program - in which case it can be noted on all the actor's pages...

            00:07, 25 February 2013
          • MystExplorer
            Now that I've thought about it, I guess the categories probably should go. It can be fun from a trivia perspective but the more categories we add to a given actor's page, the more cluttered and messy it begins to look.
            00:20, 25 February 2013
          • SOTO
            I personally find it interesting to link seemingly unconnected people. It's really cool trivia. Still, if we are to get rid of them, we need to keep the ones where cast that worked closely in Who work together again in another series.
            00:28, 25 February 2013
          • Shambala108
            There are some actor pages where the category box is longer than the article itself. I'd be in favor of getting rid of these categories.
            00:52, 25 February 2013
          • SOTO
            Old Jack's Boat, for example, while totally unrelated to Who, has RTD, Bernard Cribbins, and Freema Aygeman working close together once again. This is significant. Connections that are merely incidental, while interesting, are not necessarily notable and worth all the extra space.
            01:02, 25 February 2013
          • CzechOut
            So since we have agreement in principle that these things have gotten out of hand, we now need to decide whether to
            • get rid of them all (easy)
            • figure out a set of criteria by which to keep some of them (harder)
            07:05, 25 February 2013
          • Imamadmad
            It's easier to get rid of them and then to enforce the rule for the future, and since any important information can be said on the individuals pages, I can't see any reason to keep these categories, especially when most will probably only end up with a few people in each if we go with only strong connections.
            07:35, 25 February 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            Get rid of them all.

            Shambala108 has hit it on the head; when the category box is longer than the article's we're prioritising the wrong things.

            13:15, 25 February 2013
          • CzechOut
            Anyone wishing to oppose the notion of deleting all categories of this ilk, you've got a week to register your counter-argument.
            01:03, 27 February 2013
          • CzechOut
            Last call for additional comments.
            22:33, 3 March 2013
          • SOTO
            Just to clarify, we'd be getting rid of all of them?
            22:37, 3 March 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yes. That's the current motion on the table, most recently by Tangerineduel, with support by Imamadmad, Slughorn42, Revanvolatrelundar, Mini-mitch and Shambala108. Unless you're reading the thread differently than I am.
            23:04, 3 March 2013
          • SOTO
            Nope, just making sure I understand. Considering the length of the cat box, after more thought, I'm for it too. It's interesting, but not worth the clutter.
            23:07, 3 March 2013
            Edited 23:09, 3 March 2013
          • MystExplorer
            Ok. It's been a week and the categories are still up. Any particular reason?
            23:24, 6 March 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yes.
            00:48, 7 March 2013
          • MystExplorer
            Do they take awhile to delete?
            00:59, 7 March 2013
          CzechOut
          Hearing no other comments long after the stated closure date, this discussion is deemed resolved to the following effects:
          1. All subcategories of :category:connections to other media franchises, as well as that category itself, shall be deleted by bot, and all members of those categories shall have the categories removed. If expedient, the categories may be create-locked to prevent re-creation.
          2. Neither these categories, nor anything like them, may not be re-created unless there be community consensus to reverse this judgment. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as a violation of T:BOUND.
          3. This decision does not mean that real world articles about television shows with close Doctor Who ties need be deleted. However these pages, like All Creatures Great and Small and Born and Bred, will need to be updated, because various DPL calls will no longer function after category removal. Users can help with this process by accessing Special:TagsReport, selecting dpl, and removing the DPL statements.
          03:37, 11 March 2013
          Edited by Shambala108 04:12, 6 September 2019

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119861


          Shortcut:
          CzechOut
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Is our wiki Tardis or TARDIS?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Should "Worked on" categories be eliminated?".

          In the debate over changing the wiki name, I know that Tangerineduel indicated his preference, along with several other users, that "Tardis Data Core" was to be represented as "TARDIS Data Core".

          My moves in the past few hours to seemingly ignore that and go ahead with "Tardis Data Core" are not refutations of community will. Rather, they are merely upholding T:BOUND and T:TARDIS.

          The way the applicable policy is now written, the name must be written "Tardis Data Core" because we are bound to use policy as it is currently written until such time as policy is changed.

          Feel free, therefore, to use this thread to discuss why T:TARDIS is an unreasonable rule that must be rewritten.

          However, simply saying "I don't like Tardis over TARDIS" is not enough. You must give a reason why that's a bad way to distinguish between the wiki and the in-universe device, especially given that our project namespace is "Tardis", not "TARDIS". Also, please make sure you have familiarised yourself with the arguments at TARDIS#Behind the scenes.

          02:45, 10 January 2013
          Edited 02:46, 10 January 2013
          Edited 02:46, 10 January 2013
          Edited by Amorkuz 23:30, 27 May 2017
          • Cult_Of_Skaro
            I don't exactly see why we need to distinguish at all. It seems entirely unnecessary. As long as one is 'TARDIS' and one is 'TARDIS wiki' we should be fine.
            05:07, 10 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            I agree with Cult of Skaro. Why do we need to distinguish like this? I mean, people aren't exactly going to get confused between TARDIS and TARDIS Data Core, or at least I hope the majority of our readers will have the brain power necessary to figure out the difference, especially with context.
            09:35, 10 January 2013
          • OttselSpy25
            As long as the logo says "TARDIS", I see no proplem.
            12:27, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            There are a lot of reasons to need to distinguish between the wiki and the vehicle.
            • The wider Wikia community, as I've pointed out elsewhere, reference our wiki based on our url, not our actual full name. Thus, they will simply refer to us as "Tardis" anyway.
            • The technical name of our project — that is, the name assigned to our project namespace — is Tardis. It's not TARDIS, and it will not be changing to TARDIS. It's syntactically confusing for our project name to have the same canonical (in the computing sense) spelling as one of our content pages. The distinction between "Tardis" (the project) and TARDIS (the page) is technically useful. It would therefore be "odd", to my mind", to have the project namespace use Tardis and then insist upon TARDIS in the literal representation of the wiki's name. That would mean we could end up with a page like Tardis:TARDIS Data Core, which would just be weird.
            • Word choice within the Tardis and Help namespaces. We don't want to be obliged to type out "TARDIS Data Core" or even "TARDIS wiki" each and every time we refer to the wiki. It's much easier just to say "Tardis" and be done with it.
            • We do need a rule about whether to use "TARDIS" or "Tardis", since hundreds of licensed stories — and the Radio Times and the Oxford Dictionary — use the latter. You can snigger and say that World Distributors annuals and novelisations don't count, but these were the dominant publishers of prose for almost 30 years. Moreover, most early reference books also use Tardis over TARDIS. The latter form only came into prominence from the Wilderness years onward. It's out of respect for the fact that more things have been published using TARDIS that we allow that form to be on the page about the object. But it is clearly wrong to say that Tardis is "incorrect". Any objection to that capitalisation cannot be on the basis that it is "wrong".
            • The work on pages in the MediaWiki and Tardis and Help namespaces done prior to yesterday's name change universally supports T:TARDIS. It would be much more laborious to change away from this rule. It's all very well to have an opinion like, "I don't like Tardis" — but it's the practise of actually implementing that opinion that I'm more concerned with.
            • Using Tardis allows some differentiation between terms that are more or less exactly the same. Just to give one small example of a genuine problem that would require a surprisingly large amount of editing to undo, the Tardis Manual is a different thing to the TARDIS Manual or the TARDIS manual. The point's been made above that context alone will make it obvious which thing we're talking about, but this is a case where that's not so. The capitalisation of "Tardis" is the only thing that tells you which is talking about the wiki's manual and which the show's.
            14:51, 10 January 2013
            Edited 14:54, 10 January 2013
            Edited by Shambala108 03:38, 14 June 2019
          • Tangerineduel
            I have read the TARDIS#Behind the scenes, and will now reference back to the Forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon? where the ruling was that we would use the spelling that appears in more sources. Returning to the TARDIS#Behind the scenes, yes it does say that the World Distributors, Radio Times and Oxford Dictionary used the lower case Tardis.

            In print only Virgin Books, BBC Books and Big Finish all write TARDIS in upper case. Then there's DVD blurbs, BBC media releases and various other promotional material that has been generated over the past 20 years.

            There are, I believe more examples of different ranges etc using the upper case TARDIS than the lower case Tardis.

            15:12, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yes, but forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon? is talking about usage in in-universe articles. And it's on that basis that the article about the in-universe object is at TARDIS, and that every in-universe article which includes a titular TARDIS is fully capped.

            But this has nothing to do with in-universe articles. This has to do with usage in the MediaWiki, Tardis, and Help namespaces when referring to something that is not an in-universe object: this wiki.

            15:27, 10 January 2013
          • OttselSpy25

            Tangerineduel wrote: I have read the TARDIS#Behind the scenes, and will now reference back to the Forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon? where the ruling was that we would use the spelling that appears in more sources. Returning to the TARDIS#Behind the scenes, yes it does say that the World Distributors, Radio Times and Oxford Dictionary used the lower case Tardis.

            In print only Virgin Books, BBC Books and Big Finish all write TARDIS in upper case. Then there's DVD blurbs, BBC media releases and various other promotional material that has been generated over the past 20 years.

            There are, I believe more examples of different ranges etc using the upper case TARDIS than the lower case Tardis.

            The reason TARDIS is TARDIS despite the over-boarding amount of "tardis" spelling is the same reason "Mary Celeste" is not "Marie Celeste" despite the latter being used twice as much in the DWU. The earlier is all together the more correct, thus the one that should be used. But, back to the site's name all together...

            17:34, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Could we get a little more discussion on this one? We need to settle this one way or another by about 1 February. If you feel that T:TARDIS needs to be amended, or repealed entirely, please give your thoughts why, below.
            17:11, 15 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            The T:TARDIS section is somewhat oddly written, I'm hesitant to edit it while the discussion is still going on, but it just needs some editing to word it stronger and clearer.

            It also needs to state that Tardis/TARDIS Data Core is the name of the wiki, Tardis is how it's listed on wikia and is the web addy. It needs to be clear about why these things are as they are. The tech side of things a little hand wavey, and you have to go down into the table of Help:Namespace to find our what Tardis: has to do with the namespace.

            I understand the reasons behind why Tardis as a namespace needs to exist as it is (though am a little fuzzy on whether it could be all uppercase and if that would influence our Wikia listing).

            Having re-read and thought through everything I think we might be able to make it clear that the Tardis in "Tardis Data Core" doesn't refer to THE TARDIS but to the project. That needs to be really clear.

            I think some readers may see it as us bastardising a DWU concept for our own purposes. That's something both our two names share (sort of) TARDIS Index File was something we appropriated but wasn't actually said. Tardis Data Core is something that was said though only sort of. Reading CzechOut's suggestion in the other thread the "Fourth Doctor tells K9 to look for the Record of Rassilon buried deep in the TARDIS' data core" - the apostrophe is key in that sentence and would've changed how TARDIS was said and the intention.

            In relation to that quote and how we use data core our wiki's name makes sense. If you imagine a change (for a moment) Tardis to Project (that's what all wikis namespaces are originally called) then this wiki's name becomes Project Data Core. Swap Project for Tardis and it returns to Tardis Data Core.

            So, what I'm saying is I understand why Tardis needs to be lower case, I still think it looks odd, though only from a POV of "TARDIS should always be uppercase". From a tech point of view I know it should be "Tardis" when relating to wiki matters.

            I think, in the matter of wiki name Tardis/TARDIS my role as admin and my personal opinion conflict and would further complicate this discussion, so should any vote or decision making process come up regarding specifically the name's casing on the pagetitle I will abstain from that portion of the discussion.

            14:58, 16 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            Seeing the reasoning for the tech side, I say that the site should use the spelling Tardis, although the logo should say TARDIS. If nothing else, Tardis is just easier to type. Only have to hit shift once.
            19:49, 16 January 2013
          Amorkuz
          The decision had to be reached by February 2013. By mid-January 2013, all objections to styling the wiki as Tardis and the Doctor's time-space craft as TARDIS were removed.
          23:30, 27 May 2017

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:119862


          Shortcut:
          CzechOut
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Tardis Data Core logo" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Is our wiki Tardis or TARDIS?".

          Just to make the transition go as smoothly as possible, a new logo has been temporarily added to the site. This probably won't be the final logo, but it did receive some general support at the name-change debate.

          TardisDataCore7.png

          The main objection was, in my view, one from Tangerineduel, in that he noted the A and R in "tardis" were hard to distinguish. This seems a valid complaint, so future iterations will definitely seek to correct this issue.

          Anyone got any other complaints or ideas?

          02:52, 10 January 2013
          Edited 22:24, 16 January 2013
          Edited by Amorkuz 14:05, 28 May 2017
          • Digifiend
            Yeah, the T looks like a G! Definitely change the font on the word Tardis.
            02:58, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Um, what? I don't know how you make your gs but the descender in the logo goes to the right, not to the left. On a g, the descender goes to the left. The font probably will get changed, but definitely not for that reason. That's a completely ordinary t.
            03:11, 10 January 2013
            Edited 03:12, 10 January 2013
            Edited 03:13, 10 January 2013
          • Digifiend
            A capital G, lol.
            03:16, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I don't see that in the least. I think we have to remember that people will know they're at a site called "tardis" by virtue of the fact that they've typed in the url or clicked on a Google link, so the chances they'll read that as "Gardis" are relatively slim.
            03:21, 10 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            I can't say that I'm mad about the typeface. It doesn't say "Doctor Who" to me. If anything, it reminds me of a turn-of-the-millennium comic book.
            05:32, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Well, the typeface will eventually change, but I don't see a comparison with Young Justice to be a horrible one. I could think of a lot of worse logos than those used by DC.

            Don't forget, though, that for legal reasons we have to use free/public domain/CC-BY-SA fonts. So that's putting a big damper on things.

            06:39, 10 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            It needs to either be spaced out more or the logo needs to be centred in the area it's in because it's left aligned at the moment.
            07:11, 10 January 2013
            Edited 07:12, 10 January 2013
          • Tardis1963
            It's... ok. The data core bit is fine, I guess, but yeah, change the font for TARDIS.
            11:39, 10 January 2013
          • TARDIStraveler
            The new font looks ridiculous. Why does the O look like a targeting reticle? In a Doctor Who logo?

            Sorry, that's me being rude again. Rude, and not ginger.

            13:09, 10 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            The O bit looks good IMO, but I do think the rest of the font for the words data core is just weird. It looks like the page hasn't loaded properly or something because the letters are shifted or something halfway down. If you could get the same font without the shift, then I think it's good.
            14:20, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Given the wide-ranging and completely irresolvable opinions on this logo just in the first 12 hours of this thread — not quite sure what to do with user:Imamadmad's disdain for the "data c re" font next to Tardis1963's approval — it's clear that we're probably going to be going through a few more iterations. However, it's equally clear that no one would be able to deliver a logo that's completely satisfactory to everyone.

            This therefore brings to mind two notions that we need to have going forward:

            • The logo used on the user talk welcome messages will now be changed, by bot, to file:Wiki-wordmark.png. That way, as the logo changes, the welcome message will always contain the latest version. Due to the fact that welcome messages are usually substituted rather than transcluded, you may well receive a somewhat false "you have a hypercube" message.
            • The logo will be finalised by 1 February at the latest. If there's no consensus by that date, I will declare "no consensus", and pick one out of necessity. As has already been demonstrated in the discussion that created the current version, I will take on board your suggestions, but I can't do so infinitely. If you want to shape the logo, speak up and speak quickly.
            15:11, 10 January 2013
          • Digifiend

            TARDIStraveler wrote: Why does the O look like a targeting reticle? In a Doctor Who logo?

            That's a good point, the Doctor is known for his anti-gun stance. But I think it could easily be a Dalek doing the aiming! :)

            16:20, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Well, it should be pointed out that this is simply how that font is. But I was thinking it was just the reticule on a microscope or camera lens. But it could be the gun thing, I suppose, since the Doctor has fired many a gun without issue.

            In any case, it implies looking for something, and maybe it's all the more interesting that there are such a wide range of objects that it implies.

            16:35, 10 January 2013
          • 208.104.135.187
            This isn't about the logo per se, but the new color scheme that's come with it is EXTREMELY hard to read. Linked text blends right in with the background--and since the reference links in the wiki are so comprehensive, that means some articles are nearly impossible to decipher without shifting the screen constantly. Even black text is difficult to read on the deep blue. Please fix!

            Thanks!

            17:45, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Warning was given at Thread:119783 that the eventuality described by 208.104.135.187 was going to occur today. Please sit tight. Switching from a light background/dark text theme to precisely the opposite isn't like flipping a switch. It's a pretty big overhaul that takes a bit of time to sort through.

            Thanks for your patience.

            18:47, 10 January 2013
          • Imamadmad

            CzechOut wrote: ...user:Imamadmad's disdain for the "data c re" font...

            Disdain is probably too strong a word. At a distance the font looks fine. But I honestly thought something had gone wrong with the loading of the image the first time I saw it because of the little sideways shift in the middle. It's like you went to photocopy something and accidentally bumped the page half way through. If there was the same style of font without the shift it would be absolutely fine. From a distance when you can't see the shift it looks fine. But up close... Anyway, just a small thing. Wouldn't be too upset if it was left as in. The design in general is quite good. The positioning on the page just needs to be fixed though.

            19:23, 10 January 2013
          • Thefartydoctor
            The whole Wiki new look is awful. Bright text on a deep, navy background is just terrible... whoever decided this must have had cataracts. I can't explain how terrible it looks...

            I know everything must change from time to time but there's a difference between change and destruction... and why has the name been changed anyway? :/ I have to be negative about this because someone does.

            20:21, 10 January 2013
          • Thefartydoctor
            To be fair to you, I just read the bit about you're gonna need more days so I'll keep schtum haha :P
            20:23, 10 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            Since Czechout has asked for opinions, and quickly, here's mine: the font is just wrong for a site that's meant to encompass all of Doctor Who and its spin-offs. To me, in addition to the Young Justice comparison, it suggests an action-based video game. Now, youth and action are important parts of Doctor Who, but most of Doctor Who doesn't resemble a teen superhero comic or a shoot-em-up game.

            I think we should be going in another direction altogether. Something simpler, perhaps more classic and timeless in appearance. We obviously can't copy the typeface of the series' current logo, but we could probably find something similar to the sans serif typeface used for credits and story titles in the latest title sequence. Alternatively, we could find something resembling the Pertwee/TV Movie logotype (which is still used for "classic Who" products) or something similar to the diamond logo (which I think is still pretty widely recognized). Perhaps there's a free font resembling the Futura family, which has been used as the basis for Doctor Who logos and onscreen credits at several points in the series' history.

            In short, I'd prefer a logo that was less "in-your-face" and more "in the family" of the fonts used in the series.

            20:30, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            We've used the Region 2 DVD range Futura font for ages, as can be seen by looking through the history of file:Wiki-wordmark.png. I just wanted something different. The barrier, again, is in finding something that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

            Rest assured, however, that the fonts will change, and that I've already been mocking up some more "classic" fonts today.

            20:36, 10 January 2013
          • Thefartydoctor
            May I ask why you decided to name it TARDIS Data Core? Data Core surely is not a TARDIS reference? I'm not saying we should return it to Index File but at least Index File was a reference to the TARDIS that the majority of fans understood? And btw- I'm sorry for sounding so miserable, I'm just trying to provide you with another side of the debate.
            20:47, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Please read the entirety of the thread :) Had you done so, you would have found a link to the debate on the name change.

            It's interesting that you say that "Tardis Data Core is surely not a a TARDIS reference" while "Index File was a reference to the TARDIS that the majority of fans understood". The precise opposite is true.

            The TARDIS Data Core was specifically referenced in State of Decay, but there is no such thing as a TARDIS Index File. The latter is a misunderstanding of the script of Castrovalva. In fact, Nyssa's looking for the index file of the TARDIS information system, not the so-called "TARDIS Index File". The TARDIS almost certainly has multiple index files, since every bit of computer technology would likely need one — as is implied by Nyssa.

            Anyway, a debate was held for a bit over a month, during the time when the most number of visitors to the site were likely to be had in this long break between the two halves of series 7. Sorry you missed it.

            20:58, 10 January 2013
          • 68.77.109.6
            cannot read the yellow text.
            21:43, 10 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            The colors are in transition, anon. They haven't settled where they'll end up yet.

            Is the GPL compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0? If so, we might consider Beteckna, which appears to be a GPL-licensed Futura knockoff.

            21:57, 10 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            CC-BY-SA is not GPL compatible, no, so I imagine the reverse is true.
            22:18, 10 January 2013
          • Lego Whovian
            The title of the logo is "tARDIS data core". I have no problem with the "data core" bit, but does TARDIS have to start with a lowercase "t".
            10:15, 11 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            Apparently that is the capital T in the font Czechout chose (and which I dislike).
            16:48, 11 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            Here's a free sans serif font with the sort of clean look I'd prefer: Nexa

            However, although the site says it's free, I'm not sure whether its license is compatible with cc-by-sa.

            Another alternative to consider might be Gill Sans. That's the font used in the BBC logo, and Wikipedia says that in its original form it's public domain, so licensing concerns don't apply.

            17:50, 11 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            No way will it be Gill Sans. Horrible font.
            18:15, 11 January 2013
          • Thefartydoctor
            Gill Sans is better than this font :/
            21:14, 12 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Okay, here's the first in a series of mockups which will all use different fonts. Feel free to comment before the other versions are posted. As with all these mockups, this may not represent precise final colours.
            TardisDataCoreMetro1.png

            Call me Metro.

            TardisDataCoreMetro2.png

            Call me Metro2

            17:02, 14 January 2013
            Edited 17:03, 14 January 2013
            Edited 17:13, 14 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            For the "O", why don't we use a Dalek eyestalk sight? There's plenty of apps for it around, so copyright can't be much of an issue.
            17:11, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            It's a good idea, but I think you're wrong about copyright. The Dalek exterior design is pretty well locked down.
            17:14, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut

            Josiah Rowe wrote: Here's a free sans serif font with the sort of clean look I'd prefer: Nexa

            I've looked carefully into this one. The license specifically denies usage with apps. Since Wikia are launching their new iOS Wikia app, which may include our logo to headline our content, I think we need to err on the side of caution and not use it. (This effectively cuts off all fontspring.com fonts.)

            17:38, 14 January 2013
            Edited 17:40, 14 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            I didn't mean the exterior of the eye, I meant the first person view of the eye. There's apps about that let you take pictures and use it as an overlay. That would make quite a good "O" that we could use.
            17:57, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut

            Revanvolatrelundar wrote: I didn't mean the exterior of the eye, I meant the first person view of the eye. There's apps about that let you take pictures and use it as an overlay. That would make quite a good "O" that we could use.

            Could you please point me in the direction of what you're talking about?

            18:35, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            And the second in today's series does something I said wouldn't happen. Before you get mad at the use of a sentence case "Tardis", consider that it leaves us a little less vulnerable to a legal attack, since we can claim that it's a dictionary word — which is only true if we use the sentence case version. (And, yes, the top and tails are intentionally lopped off.)
            TardisDataCoreRockwell.png

            Call me Rockwell.

            18:38, 14 January 2013
            Edited 19:03, 14 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            Like this: http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3800000/1x06-Dalek-Screencap-Rose-Tyler-rose-tyler-3821258-688-400.jpg
            18:45, 14 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            Maybe put the TARDIS into it?
            18:46, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Ahh, yeah. That really wouldn't work for the logo. It's a bit too complex. Remember, we only have 65px height to work with.
            19:00, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            And today's third alternative is one to try to incorporate Josiah's wishes. I've not yet found a close, rights-clear version of his suggested font. However, Josiah's general point is that he'd like to see a simple font that's directly associated with Doctor Who. I don't think this is absolutely necessary, because of course we cover more than simply Doctor Who. However, I've found a font that's very close to the text seen atop the police box door. Not the modern TARDIS — that's actually the font they're using in the Moffat-era titles, too — but more the 1970s version of the prop.
            TardisDataCoreRoadway.png

            Call me Roadway.

            19:51, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Arrgh, this new forum puts so much vertical distance between things, it's hard to contrast and compare. Let's take a look at all of today's proposed logos side-by-side. Please don't get hung up on colour or minor scale issues. The current logo isn't, for example, "justified left". It's just got a slightly smaller scale than others. Imagine that it's got the same scale as the others. Judge your favourite based instead on font and layout.

            If you don't like any of them, please lemme know that, too.

            TardisDataCore7.png

            90s Retro

            TardisDataCoreMetro2.png

            Metro

            TardisDataCoreRockwell.png

            Rockwell

            TardisDataCoreRoadway.png

            Roadway

            TardisDataCoreRoadwayAlt.png

            Roadway Alt

            20:00, 14 January 2013
            Edited 20:00, 14 January 2013
            Edited 01:30, 15 January 2013
            Edited 22:22, 16 January 2013
          • Revanvolatrelundar
            Definately the first (90s Retro) one for me.
            22:47, 14 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 22:22, 16 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            By the way, I should point out that this project is so not about me. If you wanna get in on it and offer your own designs, please do so. Here's all you need:
            • The design must be exactly 250px X 65px
            • It must be a transparent .png
            • You must be able and willing to send me a fully layered version of the file in the .psd format
            • The fonts used must be totally compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (if you have a question about a font, ask me)
            22:54, 14 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            Unsurprisingly, of those options I like Roadway best.

            Incidentally, another objection to the current logo is that it's a bit too reminiscent of this, which is being used by another Wikia wiki (and also has some distinctly non-Whoish associations).

            01:05, 15 January 2013
            Edited 01:05, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Since you like that one, Josiah, I've just added a variation to the above "comparison post". What are your feelings for Roadway versus Roadway Alt?
            01:32, 15 January 2013
          • Mgailp
            Of these, Metro is my fav. I'd like Rockwell best if it was not cut off, lol. Just like the hitch in the current one, being cut off makes me wonder if the graphic did not load correctly. I definitely do NOT like using the TARDIS as the "A" in TARDIS.

            I do like the idea of the Dalek-view for the "o." I've always thought of it looked sorta like a hi-tech camera / binocular focusing ring from spy shows, so someone with the talent could easily evoke the feel without using the exact layout.

            02:25, 15 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            I prefer Roadway to Roadway Alt, because I think that using the TARDIS as the A doesn't work if we're also evoking the TARDIS "POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX" sign. (Having it on the side does work for me, though I can't quite say why.)
            03:18, 15 January 2013
          • Digifiend
            I like the Roadway one, but I think that the TARDIS looks better the way it is shaded in the 90s Retro logo.
            01:32, 16 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 22:23, 16 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            I like Roadway. It's Police Box-like lettering and simple layout is nice.

            The 90s Retro logo I find too 90s video game sort of imagery. Metro is again a bit 90s TV show-eque with the O on core. Rockwell is a little too cherry. Finally Roadway Alt is just a mistake to include the Police Box as the A and impedes readability.

            15:05, 16 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 22:23, 16 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Okay, since a couple-three people are kinda-sorta behind Roadway, I'm going to move ahead to testing that one live to see how it actually sits on the page. This doesn't mean that we're definitely gonna keep this design. It just means that there's enough support to "kick its tires" a bit.

            If you really don't like Roadway, please let your views be known.

            Other designs are still welcome from other people, and I may yet offer a few more designs myself.

            21:02, 16 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I've juryrigged all the logos around the joint to be changed simply by changing File:Wiki-wordmark.png. This means that in some cases the image is very slightly fuzzy, because it's being stretched. It's not pixellated anywhere — just not quite crisp. But it's more than good enough to check its performance.

            Please check it out in Monobook, on the Main Page, at a typical user welcome message, on a dark background, on a light background and report your findings here.

            22:18, 16 January 2013
            Edited 22:20, 16 January 2013
          • Digifiend
            It looks a bit fuzzy on Main Page and Monobook, but you would've expected that anyway. There's no colour clashes, you'll be pleased to find.
            23:52, 16 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Okay, but do you like it?
            00:18, 17 January 2013
          • Tardis1963
            I'm not too fond of Roadway, but I do quite like Metro. Make to O a normal O in Metro and then it'll be perfect, IMO.
            03:07, 17 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            I like it. Sits equally comfortable on the dark main pages and the light forum etc pages.
            07:17, 17 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            It's interesting you say that, Imamadmad, cause I was thinking Roadway didn't work so well on the light pages. I was toying with the idea of having rotating logos, each done in a different font somehow associated with the history of the DWU.
            14:24, 17 January 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            I think it looks fine on both the light / dark.

            On the light pages the fuzziness/pixelation is more visible, though I assume that's the aforementioned stretching affect.

            I think it'd be a mistake to have rotating (by which CzechOut would mean changing rather than an animated logo?) as I think we need a consistent design across the wiki.

            16:24, 17 January 2013
          • Digifiend
            Since with that design, you're trying to evoke the TARDIS Police Box sign, maybe you could edit the logo so that the background is blue rather than transparent? On dark background pages, that background would just blend in and look the same as it does now, and on a light background, it would more closely resemble that sign.

            I did like it as it is though. I think it evokes the Hartnell logo as well as the Police Box sign.

            16:25, 17 January 2013
            Edited 16:26, 17 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yah, Roadway really doesn't work on wikiamobile skin. Not nearly enough contrast against that very-almost-white.
            18:25, 17 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I personally think Metro is the best (runner-up: 90s Retro). It's crisp and pleasing to the eye. It's not top modern, too old-fashioned, or too sci-fi. Upon first seeing Metro, I also thought of the Dalek eyestalk view idea. But that appears to be off the table.

            I think Roadway might be really cool if it was written on a contour top of the TARDIS, actually instead of the words "POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX." We'd have to find a way to full in the "BOX" space but I think that would work. Roadway on its own seems way too bland to me. This is just my opinion but I find it has no character. And, by the way, I'm not implying that we do a full TARDIS with "TARDIS DATA CORE" on the top; rather, just the top piece. Maybe even with the light on top. I think I'll test it to see how it would look.

            00:41, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Here's a basic "sketch" of what I meant (I know that it's much bigger than you wanted suggestions to be but, given the nature of this one, you wouldn't be able to see it very well if it were that small):

            TARDIS DATA CORE smaller.png

            This big view could possibly be like the "full" logo, whereas a smaller (ie. more cut off, more emphasis on and zoomed up more to the words) version would sit in the top right corner.

            If anyone does like my idea, I would recommend starting from scratch. I did a bit of a clumsy rushed job of it, as it wasn't and still isn't intended to be a candidate for logo in itself; rather just an example of what my idea might look like.

            -SOTO

            04:14, 18 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 14:35, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I forgot to mention: the font I used was a very basic one, Gill Sans MT in bold. I thought it fit best. I assume that it's public domain.

            PS: it looks good on our blue background.

            04:18, 18 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Thanks for taking the time to make this logo. Unfortunately, it cannot be used because it is of inappropriate dimensions. The 250X65 dimensions aren't a suggestion — they're exactly what's required. Please read the post upthread which describes the basic requirements for a site logo.
            04:26, 18 January 2013
            Edited 04:27, 18 January 2013
          • Mgailp
            I did not pick up that Roadway was supposed to look like the "Police Call" sign until it was mentioned by Josiah. With that in mind, I agree with Digifiend that it needs a stable dark background and add that it needs to be outlined. I also agree that it would be better with the '90s retro TARDIS design.

            SmallerOnTheOutside, I love your graphic idea but I can't see it as the site logo. I think it would lose too much in the size reduction.

            04:31, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Yes, I mentioned that it has inappropriate dimensions. I also mentioned that I wasn't suggesting this be our logo. I was merely illustrating basically my suggestion. I personally cannot think of a way off the top of my head to use this concept while maintaining proper dimensions, and so that the text isn't so small you can barely read it. I was hoping this might spark an idea in someone and they'll improve on the concept and make it usable. But I do think, as I mentioned, that we could use a more full-sized version extending all the way up to the light at the top.

            But the "main" logo would be some sort of close-up. I'm just trying to show that somehow we should make a bigger connection to the "POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX" sign.

            04:36, 18 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I really don't want to dampen your enthusiasm for creating potential logos. But it's important to make sure you're working realistically. You must start with a design that works at 250X65. That's what makes this such a challenging project.

            As you can see from the existing logo, there's only about 25px between the top of the logo and the top of the page. There's simply not enough room on the page to execute your idea.

            04:44, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            What I'm trying to say is that on the top of the page, we can have something like this:

            TARDIS DATA CORE police box.png

            But maybe for example on the home page, we can sometimes use the "full version." I mean, I'm just throwing this idea out there. I don't really expect it to get anywhere.

            04:47, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            The one thing that I personally have against using my creation is that words would be too small if we used anything like the above picture. I just feel like there should be some kind of connection to the Police Box sign. But I've learned that that'd be harder to carry out than I'd previously thought.
            04:51, 18 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how that would in practice work, since you'd have to get much closer in on the lettering. By the time you've zoomed in, such that "TARDIS DATA CORE" was approximately 60px high, you'd lose any detail suggesting the police box frame. Plus, the logo's colors should drive the site's colors, which would mean that we'd want to use the blue of the logo in the background. If we did that, of course, whatever amount of police box remained would be indistinguishable from the background.
            04:53, 18 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Very true. I know that it wouldn't work. If no one has any ideas as to how to make it work, I'll just drop it. No need to be stubborn. Of the options, I still choose Metro.
            04:56, 18 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            If we weren't obliged to use that damned navigational array, we could actually do something with your idea. But that navbar forces us into something that really can't be much wider than 250px.
            05:04, 18 January 2013
          • OttselSpy25
            What if we try and use the "Pull to open" boc on the front?
            13:01, 18 January 2013
          • CzechOut

            OttselSpy25 wrote: What if we try and use the "Pull to open" boc on the front?

            Again, the dimensions are 250X65. In order to even attempt to use the "Pull to Open" bit, the dimensions would have to be 65X250. You can't fit something portrait-orientated into something that has a widescreen shape.

            14:33, 18 January 2013
          • Thomsons Gazelle
            I personally prefer the retro logo. It mirrors the more sci-fi look of the wiki that came with the new color and name, which in turn mirrors the evolution of the series themselves. Retro could still use some imporvment. The T and A needs to be changed to some degree, and since finding a better font is rather difficult, why not manually edit the letters? I could almost do it myself, and I don't have any advanced editing software worth mentioning. Smaller's concept is also quite interesting, I especcially like the idea of including gallifreyan in the background, and the font is quite good. Perhaps something just a little Smaller than retro would be best?
            21:54, 18 January 2013
          • OttselSpy25
            Yeah, I like the retro one better as well.
            06:42, 20 January 2013
          • Memnarc
            I'm liking Roadway, or Roadway Alt. While I like the overall look of Roadway Alt slightly more, I could see how having all the letters more visible would be more helpful to the casual visitor.
            07:45, 20 January 2013
          • Jasondkiesling
            I like smallerontheoutsides and the second one posted (the first of the post with 2)
            01:38, 21 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Just to be clear, SmallerOnTheOutside has not submitted a valid design. In no way is it technically possible to implement it. Please do not vote for it.
            01:59, 21 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I will repeat myself. My submission is in no way a candidate for our actual logo. It wasn't even intended as one, and, in the discussion above, it was clarified that it would be impossible to use. As much as I love the compliment (which I do), please do not vote for it. It's not a possiblity. Thank you,

            SOTO

            02:13, 21 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Oh. It looks like CzechOut beat me to it. Oops. I really should clear cache more often.
            02:13, 21 January 2013
          • Digifiend
            Speaking of clearing the cache, some people have been unable to post on the new style forums and Message Walls across Wikia for the last couple of days. It's fixed now, so if anyone can't post and is reading this, the cure is to purge your cache.
            02:50, 21 January 2013
          • Mgailp
            I did not realize Roadway was supposed to be reminiscent of the font from the Police Box sign. I agree with one of the posters above that it would look better with the TARDIS from the Retro logo. At the moment I am writing this, the one up is Roadway and it looks better on the white background than the blue which loses the outlining of the letters.
            22:34, 21 January 2013
          • Tadukoo
            I personally like Metro the best.
            21:36, 23 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Artistically, Rockwell's the nicest, but it doesn't quite represent Doctor Who and the Whoniverse for me.
            21:45, 23 January 2013
          • Captain Pnut
            whats the point of a crosshair?
            11:36, 24 January 2013
          Amorkuz
          The matter of the logo had to be decided by February 2013. As with any question involving taste and artistic expression, no unanimous opinion on which design is best could be expected. RTD knew that, Moffat knows it. No reason to expect more uniformity in this case. However, it should be noted that most designs eventually discussed were based on the proposals within the discussion.

          During the discussion of several fascinating designs and ideas (some technically impossible), "Roadway" variant emerged as a collaboration between several designers and garnered the most votes among all the designs.

          Further, throughout 2013, the design was extensively used by the community as a whole as the basis for the 50th Anniversary Wordmark Project.

          Thus, the design was both explicitly chosen as the most popular in this thread and implicitly approved by the wider community as part of the anniversary celebrations.

          14:02, 28 May 2017
          Edited 20:20, 28 May 2017

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120007


          Shortcut:
          CzechOut
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Site design for the colour blind" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Tardis Data Core logo".

          Since I'm in the middle of redoing the site anyway, it occurs to me that we should offer a skin for the colour blind. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of designing for that audience. If anyone has any notions they'd like to advance in this regard, now's the time.

          21:26, 11 January 2013
          Edited 02:03, 11 March 2013
          • Tangerineduel
            Would it be enough to go into Universal Access (or the Window equivelant) and switch to "use grayscale"? Then see if the site is still usable like that.
            14:33, 12 January 2013
          • 70.72.211.35
            I'm finding it difficult to read a number of pages - blue links on blue background - so a color blind option would also be good for those who are having trouble reading the site, color blind or not. Depending on how you're doing this it might be easier than offering a "default to classic" option like most websites offer when they do a redesign.
            16:31, 13 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Uh, no. It's not my intention to provide a design "cause you don't like this one". Colour blind design isn't about offering a colour choice — it's about designing with sensitivity to a handicap.

            Could you please define better what's "difficult to read" about the current design? The link blue has virtually the same contrast ratio as the white — it far, far surpasses minimum web contrast standards —  so I don't get why you're having problems reading it.

            Could you perhaps give me an idea why you've said "a number of pages" are hard to read, rather than the whole site, full stop? Which pages in particular are difficult for you?

            19:26, 13 January 2013
          • Natalieshark
            I don't know why my initial post didn't seem to post, so if I double post, sorry.

            My issue with the new design is the color. White text on a dark background is always a bad idea. It's rough on people with astigmatism (which is roughly 50% of the population, myself included).

            While it looks neat, it's hardly useful for any kind of long term reading. If you're concerned about the site being readable by the color blind, why not also have the classic option for the people whose eyes will feel strained?

            This is one of my favorite Doctor Who sites, but right now, I can't really read it without having to look away for periods of time, and when that happens, my vision is filled with blocks of text floating around like when you look at a bright light.

            19:40, 13 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            There is no "classic" option. The site has always progressed through different colour schemes.
            20:28, 13 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I've spent the past several hours researching the impact of astigmatism on web design, and it appears that there is no agreement on whether light-on-dark or dark-on-light is preferred.

            I've also gotten a "colour blindness simulator" and looked at the site through that. I can't see that it's a particular problem.

            I may well offer a dark-on-light option, simply on the basis of Natalieshark's passionate request. But I don't think I can reasonably call it a "colour blind design" or a "design for the astigmatic". I don't think there's any hard evidence to suggest that this design is too low contrast for the colour blind, and it really seems to be just personal preference whether people like dark-on-light or light-on-dark.

            If anyone can provide me with any kind of evidence for one or the other, it'd be valuable.

            22:29, 13 January 2013
          • 76.115.169.136
            This may not be the best place for this, but I didn't want to post a new thread that seemed like random complaining. I like the overall look of the new site design, but there is an enormously glaring error: the Doctor Who Television Stories box. It is a white and light lavender background with light blue text, making it completely unreadable and incredibly straining on the eyes. I figured this was an oversight and thus thought it best to break it up.
            23:12, 13 January 2013
          • 76.115.169.136
            Bring it up, not break it up. Bleh.
            23:13, 13 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            It's not an oversight. The redesign hasn't been completed yet. As explained in 2012 site facelift, it's a complicated process to switch from dark-on-light to light-on-dark. It takes a bit of time, that's all :)
            23:37, 13 January 2013
          • Tardis1963
            For what it's worth, I love the light-on-dark design.
            03:09, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            And there lies the problem. I really have spent most of the day concentrating on the issues raised by user:Natalieshark and my conclusion is that it's not always a bad idea to go light on dark. What I've read today has been people arguing passionately for both sides of the argument.

            I really do think our only option is to offer both types of design and be as inclusive as we can.

            you have no idea what joy that prospect inspires in me.

            05:25, 14 January 2013
          • 166.137.101.167
            I suppose I could view the site on my iPad. Pressing the home button three times allows me to reverse the polarity (couldn't resist) and see the negative inverse. So it's basically black text on orange.
            05:55, 14 January 2013
          • Natalieshark
            ^that was me btw.
            05:57, 14 January 2013
          • 82.233.220.39
            Sorry, but I must say I'm completely horrified by the new settings of the Wiki - the (supposedly) white letters on a dark blue background appear as a random selection of white, light green and other difficult-to-identify-but-definitely-different tones, which makes pages highly unattractive and far more difficult to read than with the old version, with its no-nonsense white background. This is NOT user-friendly at all ! Please, please revert back to the old setting, or at least provide an alternative for persons who prefer to read informative textes on a pale, page-like background...
            19:39, 14 January 2013
          • 82.233.220.39
            (I'm the guy who complained in the above message) The problems I have with the new design may well come from my astigmatism - since I'm experiencing exactly the same problems as Natalieshark above: I simply find it impossible to read the new site for more than a few minutes... and I feel a great optical weariness afterwards. Which means I can no longer expect to browse this wonderful site as long as it remains so optically-unfriendly. This is a true, honest comment; please don't think that I'm exaggerating. Right now, having read the new site for a few minutes, I'm still feeling "optically dizzy" - sorry if this is not the correct term; I'm not a native English speaker but I'm sure you'll know what I mean... Please make the site usable again for everyone!
            19:52, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Okay, I honestly am researching this subject just as quickly and as thoroughly as I can. I've put out feelers at w:c:community exploring the possibility of adding a button that will allow any user to switch between the dark and light styles.

            I've got a self-imposed deadline of getting some sort of solution by 20 January. I'll post back here as and when new developments occur. Please check back often.

            20:09, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Thanks to a lot of help from Pecoes, we're getting very close to a solution. You may have noticed a little button that now appears directly underneath our logo.

            This is not active yet.

            However, with any luck, it will soon be possible to use this button to switch between the dark-on-light (DOL) theme seen at, say, Tardis:About, and the light-on-dark (LOD) theme seen at, say, Tardis:TARDIS.

            Please bear with us for a few more days as we bring this exciting new dimension to our Tardis!

            16:28, 23 January 2013
          • Tadukoo
            I know that it was stated that you'll be adding the option to switch between DOL and LOD themes, but with the current color scheme, I have to either lean in closer to my screen or highlight text just to read it. I am a person with astigmatism in one eye, and my depth perception is off (I went to the eye doctor yesterday and she pointed out the depth perception problem, which I didn't know about prior to this). The links to me look to be the exact same color as the background, and the normal text color on a page appears just a little bit lighter than the background. Not sure if this is just my eyes being bad or that the current colors appear that way for everybody, but I wanted to get my opinion in...
            21:13, 23 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            As our Twitter feed indicates, things are a bit worse for the next few hours before they get better. Hopefully they'll be fixed this afternoon/evening (North American time zones). Please stand by.
            21:16, 23 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Okay, things are calmer now, and we're entering the final phases of getting this button to work. I would appreciate feedback from those upthread who have claimed to suffer from astigmatism or colour blindness as to whether at least one of the two colour options works for you.

            The button is a li'l wonky, but it's basically working. You can find it directly to the right of the "edit" and "talk" buttons at the top of pages. Not this page, mind you, but any regular article page. Go here to test.

            If you start on the dark-on-light (DOL) scheme, the button works perfectly. If you start on the light-on-dark (LOD) theme, you may have to hit the button a few times and reload the page to get it to switch back. (Hopefully, this'll get fixed.)

            Again, anyone with visual acuity problems, please tell me whether at least one of the two themes basically works for you. (I know there are individual problem areas, but I'm just hoping one of them generally makes for inviting reading.)

            02:49, 24 January 2013
          • SOTO
            On the final version, you are going to keep the fonts consistent, right? As it stands now, it changes the font and size when you switch between the two schemes. I'm just letting you know of small things in case somehow you fail to notice. I know it's not final and I highly doubt that the final version would still have this mistake regardless. Still, to be safe...
            03:16, 24 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            I'm looking for comments from people with visual acuity problems about the overall effect. If this is not you, please comment in the thread entitled "2013 site facelift" only.
            03:21, 24 January 2013
            Edited 03:23, 24 January 2013
            Edited 03:23, 24 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            The "change colours" button is now working much more smoothly. You should now be able to easily switch between the two stylesheets on articles like The Doctor. There's still quite a lot of "fiddly" work to do in order to perfect the two styles, but at least now people of all visual acuities should be able to comfortably read our articles, whether they prefer light or dark backgrounds.
            08:24, 24 January 2013
            Edited 08:26, 24 January 2013
          • Natalieshark
            Looks great! Thanks for the option! The site does look great, and I wish light on dark didn't bother my eyes, because it IS very cool.
            14:07, 24 January 2013
          • Tadukoo
            Now the LOD scheme works for me (as in I can see it perfectly fine), and the DOL works too...with my glasses on, both are fine, but I checked without my glasses (and leaning in closer to the computer screen since I'm near sighted), and the LOD irritates my eyes, while the DOL does not. I prefer the DOL though :) (and wear my glasses constantly when I'm awake anyway, except for rare occasions)
            20:39, 24 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Awesome! The astigmatism crowd seems to have a viable option, then. Any colour blind users out there who'd like to comment on which of the two skins work well? I'm actually thinking that if you're colour blind, but otherwise normally-sighted, you shouldn't have too much problem with either. I've run the site through colour blindness emulators and don't see a particular problem with either skin — but emulators are never as good as the real deal.
            20:43, 24 January 2013
          • Tadukoo
            Isn't color blindness only with reds and greens though?
            21:04, 24 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            There are man different kinds of colour blindness, up to and including purely monochromatic vision. But, yea, the fact that we're talking about a mostly blue design seems to mean we've automatically eliminated some forms of colour blindness.
            05:23, 25 January 2013
          • Tadukoo
            Total color blindness (purely monochromatic vision) would make everything black and white, so both color schemes should work, I think...and the two major types of partial color blindness are red-green and blue-yellow, so If I'm thinking about that correctly, the schemes should be fine (for color blind people), unless they have a rare type of partial color blindness.
            18:55, 25 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            In the light version only, I've now installed additional mouse-over contrast in the form of a background highlight. Although the precise text colours are proving very elusive for me, this feature will definitely stay. It's recommended in some of the literature I've read, and it certainly seems to make links pop a bit more. If those with visual acuity issues are not finding this feature helpful, please let me know.
            23:09, 29 January 2013
          • Metardis

            CzechOut wrote: Uh, no. It's not my intention to provide a design "cause you don't like this one". Colour blind design isn't about offering a colour choice — it's about designing with sensitivity to a handicap.

            c'mon, CzechOut, that's a little mean, I myself am a little colour blind!

            17:25, 7 February 2013
          • Metardis
            But still, I appreciate you doing this.
            17:26, 7 February 2013

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120146


          Shortcut:
          SOTO
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Redirects" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Site design for the colour blind".

          I've never done redirects before so how are they done? One way I can think of is to change the article's name to what you it to redirect from and then change back. But is there any proper way to do this? For example, I want to redirect "elevator" to "lift" for our American viewers and "Queen Nefertiti" to "Nefertiti" as that's how I personally searched her up and I'm sure others will too.

          03:10, 14 January 2013
          Edited 03:11, 14 January 2013
          Edited by CzechOut 01:50, 11 March 2013
          • SOTO
            Never mind, I figured it out by clicking edit on a redirect page I found. You just put in "#REDIRECT [[article name]]". Thanks anyways!
            04:14, 14 January 2013
          • Josiah Rowe
            The simple answer to "how do I make a redirect" is to follow a redlink to the page you want to redirect, type "#REDIRECT [[target]]", where "target" is the page you want the term to redirect to, and save the page.

            However, much more complicated than that is the question of whether you should create a redirect. Personally, I'm all for them, on the principle that they make things easier for readers and people searching for subjects. However, other people feel that redirects shouldn't generally be made, because they encourage editors to make links "wrong" (that is, if we have a redirect from Queen Nefertiti to Nefertiti, then if somebody is making a page about Queens in Doctor Who they might use Queen Nefertiti instead of Nefertiti on that page). As it is now, if somebody does that, they'll see from the red link that they don't have the "proper" name for the link; but if there's a redirect, then both versions will be blue.

            I don't personally think that's such a big deal, but others may disagree.

            04:18, 14 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            There's a preloadable format for redirects if you ever get confused.
            06:13, 14 January 2013
          SOTO
          Thanks.
          06:14, 14 January 2013

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120168


          Shortcut:
          SOTO
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/CON episodes" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Redirects".

          I really want to finally fill in and complete all the Confidential episode pages, but I'm not really sure what information should be included and the basic order of the page. Judging by their histories, those pages have been sitting there for several years mostly blank and mostly untouched (except for the Bot). I am willing to devote as much time as possible to work on and hopefully finish this, but can someone please just do one example so that I get a feel for what it should be? Thank you in advance, --SOTO

          07:07, 14 January 2013
          Edited by CzechOut 02:51, 11 March 2013
          • Shambala108
            You could take a look at The Ultimate Guide (CON episode) and The World of Who (CON episode) to see what kind of stuff is covered.

            Basically, just watch the episode and write about what you see. I've never seen the complete versions, only the Cut Downs, so that's pretty much the extent of my advice.

            04:19, 15 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Okay, thank you, Shambala. I own the Confidentials as part of my series boxes. I own every NuWho season and I was already planning on watching/rewatching Confidentials as I've over watched the episodes (if that's possible).

            Of course, the two articles given - and the only two CON articles done so far - aren't conventional VON episodes. In fact, they're not even technically Confidentials. I guess I'll just do my best based on what's already been given. I'll probably start next week, as this week's hectic enough for me as it is, but I'll definitely start soon. Any advice given to me until I start will obviously be taken into account and will be much appreciated. Thank you.

            04:28, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Whatcha mean you own the Confidentials as part of your series boxes? That just means you own the Cut Down versions, right? If so, you may not be well placed to write the articles.
            06:14, 15 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            Even if you only own the cutdown versions, the full versions are all online if you know where to look.
            12:44, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Yeah, one of the big things we need on these pages is a comparison of the two versions.
            16:15, 15 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Just to confirm, I have an extra disk in my series boxes that has all the Confidentials of the series. Is this definitely the cut-down version? How long is the full version?
            21:09, 15 January 2013
          • Tybort
            Full versions are 30-45 minutes. I'm almost certain the final few series were 45 minutes at the very least.

            Plus, don't they actually SAY cut-down in the edited version, or is that just the TV repeats?

            21:14, 15 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I'm not at home right now but I'm pretty sure I have the full version. I'll double check when I get home. Also, by the way, I'm from Canada so maybe what comes with the series here if different from elsewhere. Just putting that out there in case it has any significance.
            21:18, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            You don't have the full version if all you're talking about is what's on DVD. The full version has never been released to DVD, except for one or two 2009 episodes.

            And Canada is a special place, but it's not so special that it has a different release to the rest of the world.

            21:21, 15 January 2013
            Edited 21:23, 15 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Oh. Okay. So the full versions were only on TV? So that's why these pages haven't been done yet? I've had trouble fond Confidentials online in the past (it's a lot more difficult than finding Who episodes)but Ill try searching more thoroughly. If I can't find them, then should I somehow put in what in the cut-down version (either in another section or I just put it in normally but make a note that this is the cut-down version only)? Or should I just leave it alone and wait for someone with access to the full ones to do it? Excuse me if there's typos in this message; Im writing this on my iPhonr.
            21:28, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            Basically, if you don't have access to the full versions, you're going to be limited in what you can contribute to the article. The Cut Downs definitely don't come close to giving you an idea of what all is in the full versions. But we definitely need the Cut Down information, so there's a vital role for you to play!

            Every one of the episode pages has the same format. There's a section on every page called "Elements retained in Cut Down". You can certainly add to that section, giving an overview of what is contained in the Cut Down. You can also add to the "Home video releases" section, where that's not already been filled. See Send in the Clones (CON episode) for an example of the text that's meant to appear in the home vid section. (I think all of this has been added already, though.)

            I'd rather you didn't touch the other sections, simply because you're looking at only fractional information.

            21:48, 15 January 2013
            Edited 21:49, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            And, no, they've not been done because they're especially hard to find. They've not been done because our editorship has never made them a priority. We didn't even start covering Confidential until just after series 5 was broadcast.

            Generally speaking, it seems that most of our editors prefer editing the fictional side of Doctor Who rather than the behind-the-scenes pages.

            It's just lack of interest, not lack of access, really. I mean, Confidential ran almost as much as Doctor Who itself back when it was on.

            21:54, 15 January 2013
          • SOTO
            Okay, thank you. Next week, I'll fill in the "Elements Retained in Cut Down" section.

            On a side note, I also prefer writing in-universe pages; I just noticed that no one has done it and probably won't do it for a considerable amount of time, so I took the initiative.

            21:59, 15 January 2013
          • CzechOut
            And it's great you did! Thanks for noticing lonely pages :)
            01:01, 16 January 2013
          • Imamadmad
            User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26975268-20130114070751/@comment-4189499-20130116091813
            09:18, 16 January 2013
          • SOTO
            I will not give information on this site as to my usual places, but last time I checked them, most of the Confidential episodes were deleted.

            Also, off topic, but I go away for a days or two and all of a sudden the logo's all cartoony.

            00:18, 18 January 2013
          CzechOut

          SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I go away for a days or two and all of a sudden the logo's all cartoony.

          Please see the relevant thread — Tardis Data Core logo —  in the FORUM ACTIVITY listing to your right.

          00:20, 18 January 2013

          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120516


          Shortcut:
          PotterheadWhovian17
          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Below 'External Links' template." overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/CON episodes".

          I feel like the text/font for the... I don't know what to call it. The footnotes? Yeah, when you open it and see all these sub-categories, sometimes the font is to light against the background, which makes it very hard to read.

          23:47, 19 January 2013
            SOTO
            The colours are in flux at the moment. As I'm sure Czech will tell you, we're in the middle of "redecorating." Czech's playing around with colours and we're choosing a new logo. If you want, I'm sure you can bring up the issue here or even tell CzechOut about it personally here.

            I know you're fairly new here (so am I, incidentally); you learn to get around this place pretty quickly, in my experience. Always make sure you're up to date on all issues and discussions. Also note to always check the Talk pages of articles before you edit them, just in case -- as you neglected to do in Clara Oswald regarding the Clara/Oswin issue.

            Good luck on your editing adventures! I look forward to meeting you again.

            07:24, 20 January 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120540


            Shortcut:
            70.72.211.35
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Edit summaries should be mandatory for reverts" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Below 'External Links' template.".

            I'm getting a little annoyed at Mini-mitch and others blindly reverting my edits without giving an explanation in the edit summary. I just had an edit on Quick Reads reverted because I stated that each book - and I own each book - has 100 pages of story text, and that the latest book, The Silurian Gift, had its price dropped to £1 - even though the article includes visual confirmation of this latter point. Either ban IPs from editing, make it an exclusive club where only a few editors are deemed worthy of contributing, or play fair.

            17:13, 20 January 2013
            Edited 03:33, 21 January 2013
            • SOTO
              We never revert edits just because people don't have accounts. Especially not admin. There's always a reason. I'm not familiar with this particular subject matter, but maybe whoever reverted your edits thought that the number of pages and the price is irrelevant, or maybe it was discussed and we decided never to include prices in articles. I have no idea. I personally always explain why whenever I revert an edit. Very often, these things happen because the editor didn't check the talk page. For example, I've had to revert multiple edits on Clara Oswald because people keep on adding information about Oswin without reading the talk page where we had a discussion and decided to separate the two characters into two separate articles.

              My only advice is: always check the talk page; if your edit gets reverted without an explanation and the talk page gives no answers, you can always contact the people on their user talk page. If that fails, give up or contact an administrator. Otherwise, if you have any questions, you can always contact CzechOut who's well versed in TARDIS policy is always willing to help you. Good luck!

              21:05, 20 January 2013
              Edited 04:13, 21 January 2013
            • Shambala108
              SmallerontheOutside said it best - if you don't know why an edit was reverted, ask. Admins often do a lot of mass reverting (either vandalism or someone unknowingly breaking a rule on dozens of pages) and the rollback feature is just more convenient for them. If you ask, they will answer, and you can learn something new about the wiki.

              Making summaries mandatory would just cause a lot of headaches. Yes it's helpful, but some users do lots of edits and mandatory summaries would be burdensome.

              22:25, 20 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Hard to take your complaint seriously, 70.72, when you didn't give any edit summaries, either — at least not until you reverted MM and said, ironically, "no reason given". And you're being less than generous to Mini-mitch, who did ultimately give a very full edit summary.

              I must also note that what you are requesting is technically impossible. As far as I'm aware, the very most that we could do is to make a little warning come up, asking people to confirm that they don't want leave an edit summary. But it's still possible to avoid leaving an edit summary. And this would work only if the editor were making a regular edit. As Shambala108 has correctly noted, when using the rollback feature — a special tool available to admin — it's in no way possible to leave an edit summary.

              I know that it's frustrating to have your work reverted without a clear understanding why. There being so many reasons why a thing might be deleted, you should not assume malicious intent. At worst, you should assume that user:Mini-mitch simply forgot the edit summary. At best, you can assume that he was performing a rollback, and therefore could not enter an edit summary. (And in fact, that's precisely what he was doing at Quick Reads, according to the history.) Either way, it's no biggie.

              All this can be doubly frustrating for the IP user, because we admin might summarily revert the work of a vandal using your IP address without realising that you're a different user to the vandal. This is part of the reason that it's vital that you register an account.

              You should also realise that we have no way to talk to IP users such that we can be assured that they've got the message. If you register, then we can communicate with you.

              The perk of registration is that your work will more likely survive — and, if it doesn't, you'll probably get a message as to why the deletion occurred.

              Our long experience on this wiki is that it is a total waste of time for admin to leave messages for IP users. Back in the day, when we were using different skins, it was possible for us to communicate with IP users a bit better. But that's all changed in the last couple of years. The administrative staff are under absolutely no illusions about our ability to communicate with IP users like you. There's not one single avenue of communication that we have with an IP user where we know that you'll get our messages. You don't get a message flag if we change MediaWiki:Community-corner, your user talk page, a forum thread — nothing. You've chosen to edit our wiki from the fringe of our community, and in a way that you are wholly prevented from normal communication. So you really can't expect us to try to communicate.

              That may seem harsh, but realistically, the software treats the message alert as a perk of registration. So if you want to be a full part of this community, again, register an account.

              Now, having said all that, everyone should realise that it is policy to leave an edit summary. I've recently added some javascript to the edit window which provides you will a drop down menu of edit summaries. It is easier than ever to leave an edit summary. But still, even those of us who are pretty religious about leaving edit summaries are going to miss a mass or three.

              02:48, 21 January 2013
            • Digifiend
              Of course if an admin performs a Rollback, it's impossible to leave an edit summary.
              02:52, 21 January 2013
            CzechOut
            Since it is a technical impossibility to grant the original poster's request, this thread will now be closed.
            03:32, 21 January 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120763


            Shortcut:
            CzechOut
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Near-humans must go!" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Edit summaries should be mandatory for reverts".

            It's my belief after looking long and hard, if sporadically, for years that "near-human" isn't a term that's used in Doctor Who. Instead, I think this term was innocently imported into our wiki from another franchise, most likely Star Wars. We know from talk:Near-human that it was not introduced here based on usage in DW fiction.

            Unless someone can produce for me evidence from a narrative source that "near-humans" exist in the DWU, I'm going to eradicate the term from the database, replacing it with the term "humanoid".

            02:43, 24 January 2013
            Edited 21:16, 3 April 2013
            • SOTO
              I agree entirely. Though I wouldn't be surprised if, if we look hard enough, we can find at least one reference to "near-humans" in a novel or comic. Now I may be wrong (I usually am), but as I understand it, at the moment, there's a distinction between the two, being that humanoid is anything that has our basic body shape, (In the words of the article, "A humanoid species was thought of as one which was bilaterally symmetrical, bipedal, and possessed of a naturally upright posture. Such species also typically had two arms, two legs, one thorax, a neck and head with a brain located in it.") whereas near-humans, as it stands, seems to mean species that are identical or practically identical to humans internally and mostly indistinguishable.

              Obviously, this can be changed. I just felt it needed to be mentioned that near-humans are a subcategory of humanoids. I still agree that having "near-humans" is useless and not in-universe, though I think there should be a distinction between what defines, for example, the Slitheen (humanoids but not near-humans) and Futurekind.

              03:09, 24 January 2013
              Edited 03:10, 24 January 2013
            • Tardis1963
              Humanoid is based on shape, wheras near-human is about physiology. I don't agree with calling near-humans humanoids, but I do agree with finding a source for 'near-human', or a more appropriate term for it.
              05:32, 24 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, well, as I said, I've given it a good look for ages and haven't found anything. I'm going to rip it out of the wiki shortly unless someone actually comes up with something. Besides, we're using it to refer to species that never had that term applied, like Alzarians and Trakenites.
              08:19, 24 January 2013
            • Tardis1963
              It doesn't appear to be that important around here anyway. Removing it sounds good to me.
              05:09, 25 January 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              I agree.

              Any information on the Near-human page that might be of any importance can either go on the respective species' pages or somewhere on the Human page as the definitions seem to about comparisons to humans rather than any alignment with humans or being near-to-human.

              15:35, 25 January 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              Just to bump this post up - encase it hasn't been done yet - I agree: remove them.
              12:17, 20 March 2013
            • Rowan Earthwood
              Humanoid is definitely the proper term. Alien Bodies put it best:

              In Alien Bodies, the word “man” is used to describe any male sentient life-form, and the word “woman” is used to describe any female sentient life-form, even when the life-forms in question aren’t technically human. This may not be strictly accurate, but it does get rid of awkward sentences like “the male multi-armed semi-humanoid Kelzonian fish-person shook his head”. Similarly, the word “humanoid” is used to describe any life-form that resembles a human being, even when a non-human is speaking; a Time Lord would actually describe someone as “looking Gallifreyan” instead of “looking humanoid”, but this looks clumsy and slightly embarrassing on paper. Anyone requiring further information about cross-species translation conventions should consult Preface III of Professor Thripsted’s excellent Genetic Politics Beyond the Third Zone. Ask your local library if they can order you a copy. But only if you enjoy wasting people’s time.

              On the other hand, the novel Down used the term "human-ish."

              03:06, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki
              Thank you, CzechOut

              I've been hoping someone would bring this up for some time now, glad to see this happening.

              12:47, 3 April 2013
            • Tybort
              Human-ish in The End of the World sense seems to be descendants or offshoots of humanity like digihuman or protohuman rather than "anything humanoid". In that instance, though, it's a very brief mention.
              13:05, 3 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Except, by the existence of Time Lords alone, we know there are humanoid races that precede humanity itself.

              What species would you call Astrid Peth?

              13:09, 3 April 2013
            • Tybort
              I have actually considered Unnamed species (Voyage of the Damned) to describe the humanoid race on the Titanic. Is that a bit far?
              13:59, 3 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              Some really helpful stuff by Rowan upthread. The Down reference is a great catch, and will help to change our spelling from humanish to human-ish. Bit more research left on this one before "near-human" reaches its permanent end with us. The bot change is a fairly simple one.
              14:38, 3 April 2013
            • Anoted
              While it may be awkward, I like Time Lordish, and it's certainly less awkward than Time Lordoid.

              Does anyone else find it just a little egocentric to refer to everything in terms of us?

              15:37, 3 April 2013
            • Witoki
              But who's to say Time Lords are the oldest either? (Also, very technically speaking, wouldn't the term be "Gallifreyish" or "Gallifreyoid"?)

              It's hardly egocentric to use "humanoid" as the blanket term on a website geared toward human readers.

              15:51, 3 April 2013
            • CzechOut

              Anoted wrote: While it may be awkward, I like Time Lordish, and it's certainly less awkward than Time Lordoid.

              Does anyone else find it just a little egocentric to refer to everything in terms of us?

              Yeah, this wiki doesn't run on the principle of "let's make up a name". The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether the term "near-human" has any basis in the narrative. We are therefore going to be eliminating that term from the wiki's code.

              We're obviously not then going to create a term "Time Lordish".

              17:36, 3 April 2013
            • Anoted
              I was mainly joking. Though I have to say that Gallifreyish sounds delicious.
              18:01, 3 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              Okay, this process is winding down, although the article near-Human still survives until every bot process winds down.

              This thread is effectively closed now, as the wiki has been scrubbed of "near-human". However, I'm just going to move it to the archives and leave the thread open just in case people spot some instances where the bot missed.

              Please note that this discussion has resulted in an actual bit of policy, to be found at T:HUMANOID. (Or, if you prefer, T:ISH.)

              Thanks again to Rowan for that terrific find at Down.

              21:15, 3 April 2013
            CzechOut
            And done. The article has been deleted and protected against recreation.
            07:00, 4 April 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120836


            Shortcut:
            Digifiend
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/New website: is it citable?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Near-humans must go!".

            BBC Worldwide had launched a new website (http://www.doctorwho.tv) and Rory's profile mentions the events of P.S.. Would P.S. still count as Non DWU, because it sounds to me like it is considered to be in continuity by the BBC.

            11:58, 25 January 2013
            Edited by Amorkuz 21:31, 1 June 2017
            Edited by CzechOut 18:37, 9 August 2017
            • Tybort
              It's still in violation of Tardis:Valid sources' four little rules from what I gather. The thing was released as an animatic of what-would-have-been a DVD episode that was voiced over by Arthur Darvill, and not as a completed story. I think the idea is, if we (as in the wiki, I'd freely count it in my "head canon") count it, then that leaves the floodgates open for various deleted scenes, unmade scripts and the Eighth Doctor's regeneration in The Flood (graphic novel) and we need some cut-off.

              Incidentally, when I click on Rory's profile on that site, it just shows an error message.

              Also relating to the "four little rules", we can't really cite a website as a source for the events of P.S., only stories.

              14:12, 25 January 2013
              Edited 14:15, 25 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, the kicker here is that this website is a non-narrative source, which means it fails the first of the "four little rules".
              14:26, 25 January 2013
              Edited 14:27, 25 January 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              Even if it didn't fail our "four little rules" test, I'd argue against citing it on the grounds that it's not terribly accurate. For example, it says that Bennett was Vicki's father:
              Vicki and her father Bennett crash land on Dido. When her father is unmasked as a murderer and falls to his death, she’s left alone.

              Of course, Bennet murdered Vicki's father; he wasn't her father or anything like it. (I've sent them a note to correct that, so if you're reading this in the archives and it no longer reads like that, you can thank me.)

              03:51, 28 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Then again, we thought the same thing with Dark Vader. Or was it the other way around...? :-P
              03:55, 28 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              Josiah Rowe wrote: Even if it didn't fail our "four little rules" test, I'd argue against citing it on the grounds that it's not terribly accurate. For example, it says that Bennett was Vicki's father:

              Vicki and her father Bennett crash land on Dido. When her father is unmasked as a murderer and falls to his death, she’s left alone.

              Of course, Bennet murdered Vicki's father; he wasn't her father or anything like it.

              And this is a perfect example of precisely why so-called "reference" works are disallowed by this wiki. The DWU is completely different to the Star Wars franchise, for example, where reference works are assiduously researched.

              14:37, 28 January 2013
            • Tardis1963
              With the Star Wars reference, I accidentally read that as 'a-Sidious-ly' :P
              10:09, 29 January 2013
            • 2.26.206.85
              I disput that it trueley fails the 4 rules like the 8th doctor regelation in endgame or the Doctor giving rose and the other 10th Doctor tardis coral as they where story points that didn't make it to the finished product this was planned then cancelled then mayd in a different format like the big finish lost story's releases
              19:33, 28 March 2016
            Amorkuz
            That P.S. is invalid was decided at Forum:P.S.. The only new information discussed in this thread comes from a website, which is not a valid source. Hence, P.S. remains invalid.
            21:31, 1 June 2017

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120839


            Shortcut:
            Tybort
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Ebook exclusives: short story or novel?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/New website: is it citable?".

            I notice that of the recent ebook exclusives, The Angel's Kiss isn't disambiguated at all, Devil in the Smoke is considered a novel, while A Big Hand for the Doctor is considered a short story (presumably along with any forthcoming "eshorts").

            Are Big Hand and Smoke's length along the cut-off between short story and novella, or is there some inconsistency between labelling them?

            (For the record, according to amazon.co.uk, The Angel's Kiss is an "estimated" 80 pages, A Big Hand 41 pages and Devil in the Smoke 67 pages)

            14:03, 25 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 01:59, 11 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              ABHFTD is called a short story because that's what the Puffin press release called them.

              I haven't researched the others, but they can't go un-disambiguated. It's not really a matter of number of pages, but what the publisher calls them. If they're called novella or novel then the dab term is (novel). If they're actually called short story, then they're (short story).

              14:22, 25 January 2013
            Tangerineduel
            After hunting through Random House UK's press releases (Random House UK is the published, Ebury is a Division of it and BBC Books is a division of it, incidentally Virgin Books is also part of Ebury).

            Not on the The Angel's Kiss page but on the summary page Random House describes it as a "novella", so it can be dabbed as a novel in keeping with our other Telos Novellas.

            What's annoying me is plenty of sites (even those Wikipedia cite) state in relation to The Angel's Kiss the "BBC Books has announced...". I can't find any BBC official announcement of this, though they must have said it somewhere for it to have been widely reported.

            15:11, 25 January 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:120937


            Shortcut:
            82.233.220.39
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Colour Change" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Ebook exclusives: short story or novel?".

            Hello. I just wanted to say THANK YOU for making the "dark-on-white" site available again!  :)

            17:45, 26 January 2013
            Edited 14:07, 26 May 2017
            • Digifiend
              Bug report: On the dark skin, you can't see what you're typing in the search box, and on the light skin, some text on the front page is hard to read.
              19:03, 28 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I was just about to report that. I just couldn't find this page for some reason.
              20:17, 28 January 2013
            CzechOut
            I'm glad you like the change colour button, 82.

            Digi and Smaller, when you can't see text, you should assume the following, in this order:

            1. You need to clear your cache to see the latest changes
            2. I can't see it either, and am working on a solution.

            There's coming a time, probably this week, when I will consider myself through with the site redesign and after that point bug reports on invisible text will be entirely welcome, as they'll be unexpected. For the moment, though, it's not helpful to have obvious errors highlighted.

            Also, remember that bug reports are for The Drax Cave — not this board.

            Things having to do with the redesign should be placed at 2012 site facelift. Furthermore, when submitting bug reports, please remember to include the browser and version number where you see the error. Reports without browser information aren't as helpful as they could be.

            21:30, 28 January 2013
            Edited 21:39, 28 January 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121062


            Shortcut:
            CzechOut
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Clara: How many articles does one girl need?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Colour Change".

            Somehow, a discussion has been held about the obviously major character of Clara Oswald on a single talk page, and the page has been split in three without a thread being started here.

            Because this involves three pages, a discussion on a single talk page can't possibly be binding. Questions about the handling of similarly-named topics have typically been handled in the forums (Cybermen, Torchwood, et al), and I see no reason to make an exception in Clara's case.

            I for one can't understand the rationale for splitting the article whatsoever, as the Doctor says quite explicitly that it's "the same girl".

            Please give your thoughts below as whether it makes sense that we have Clara (The Snowmen), Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswald.

            The precedent discussion is here.

            08:13, 29 January 2013
            Edited by Witoki 21:47, 31 March 2013
            Edited by Witoki 14:52, 2 April 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 03:05, 5 April 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 23:24, 18 May 2013
            Edited 12:55, 13 November 2016
            • Memnarc
              I think the main point of the argument is that while the Claras are confirmed to be physically (it appears) the same person and be linked somehow (Run you clever boy, a love of souffles), it's still unclear in what manner.

              Is she, for example, like Scaroth: one person spread across time, but with her minds linked? Or are all the Claras duplicates of some original Clara that have been seeded throughout history so that they may encounter the Doctor?

              The point is, we don't know. And until we know, I feel like we should keep them as separate articles.

              09:36, 29 January 2013
            • Tardis1963
              I say one article - called 'Clara Oswin Oswald', as per her gravestone. That would then be split into sections for the two of her so far - 'Clara' from Snowmen, and 'Oswin Oswald' from Asylum.

              The whole thing is - we don't know yet. I say one page due to lack of information.

              10:13, 29 January 2013
            • Whosethebestwho
              I think that it was one page, but then someone split it during the discussion. Hence, the discussion on only one page, but three pages for the same girl. The Doctor does state that they are the same girl, so I think that means we should keep one page. Just my thoughts.
              11:48, 29 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I feel like that because we don't know how she is 'split through time' that we should keep her pages seperate. For all we know her last name is really "Blackadder" and we don't know it.
              13:15, 29 January 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              I split them after Oswin was moved (without discussion by Digifiend who stated "Clara and Oswin are the same person.... but how that's possible I cannot explain, as she's now died twice." in the edit summary) to Clara.

              At the moment as Memnarc has said we know they're linked but don't know if they're the same person. At the moment we don't know. If we were to have one article at this moment I think we would come close to breaking our T:SPOIL, creating articles based on what might happen or what hasn't yet been released. Or to take CzechOut's Doctor quote as fact theorise on what exactly the Doctor means without having seen the development of that assertion.

              If we combined the articles at the moment there would be a lot of vague language describing "another life" or "another lifetime" as there was in the few edits following the move.

              Also from a technical side of things it's a lot easier to merge the three (or however many) articles into a single article than it is to split them apart.

              14:25, 29 January 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              Shouldn't common sense prevail here? We all know that the Claras are all the same person. If, on the unlikely chance that the Claras are not the same person, or needed to be treated as incarnations much like the Time Lord known as the Doctor, they can be created later. But as an information site, pretending something is unknown for the sake of some adherence to strict "facts" goes against the point of being a resource.
              16:13, 29 January 2013
              Edited 16:13, 29 January 2013
            • Cult_Of_Skaro
              Definitely one page called 'Clara Oswin Oswald.' That covers all her various names, and then we can have sections in the article on her different versions.
              17:13, 29 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              No, common sense should not prevail.

              We know they are somehow "the same". Despite what some people seem to have presumed, there is no indication that she has the same memories, or that she isn't just one of those "coincidences" mentioned in The Pandorica Opens. She could like Scaroth, and be the same person. But we don't know. She could just be part of the whole "Gwen Cooper" time-family thingy. We don't know. She could just be part of the Blackadder dynasty. But We Don't Know. So the only logical solution to do until we find out if she is or isn't literally "the same person" is to keep the pages seperate.

              17:39, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I agree. Going according to the rules of this very site, we shouldn't make presumptions and speculate that they're the same person. Because that's what it is: speculation. All we know is their similarities. If we didn't have established rules against this sort of thing, I'd personally want them to be one page. As they are clearly different versions. But, as per the way the TARDIS Data Core goes, they should be two articles. In the same way that we have Pete Tyler and Pete Tyler (Pete's World). They're both essentially the same man, but alternate versions. The situation is similar here, no matter the outcome. Once we find out exactly how the three versions are connected, we can have another discussion. But, as it stands, they should have separate articles.
              17:59, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              It's not speculation that they're the same person. We have the Doctor explicitly saying they're the same person.

              I just don't see how you get around this:

              I never knew her name, her full name. Soufflé girl. Oswin. It was her. It was soufflé girl. Again. I never saw her face the first time, with the Daleks. But her voice. It was the same voice. The same woman, twice. And she died. Both times. The same woman!Eleventh Doctor

              Given that, it is actually speculation to have separate articles. We've been directly told, emphatically, that it's the same person. Turning away from that description — especially since that change came, as Tangerineduel pointed out, without discussion — flies in the face of the basic principles of the wiki.

              We should always report what is actually in the stories — not what we think is there, or what we would wish to be there.

              And what's absolutely, explicitly in The Snowmen is that, somehow, the same woman has appeared at three different points of history, despite having died twice. That's it.

              We can only break the articles up if we have proof that they're different people.

              18:25, 29 January 2013
              Edited 18:40, 29 January 2013
              Edited 18:45, 29 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yes, as I have noted before, the question is not that she is the same woman, but rather that we don't understand how that is. We separate Rory Williams and Rory Williams (Auton), despite them being, according to some sources, "the same person".
              18:47, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              No, OS25, you're misapprehending the situation. Rory Williams (Auton), Pete Tyler (Pete's World), Martha Jones (clone) — all of these were firmly understood within their script of introduction to be different entities from their "originals". It was important to the plots of those stories that they be so understood. Even Gwen Cooper's similarity to Gwenyth was eventually explicitly dealt with.

              Clara is precisely the opposite. We have the Doctor explicitly saying in several different ways, along with the director's visual language, and Moffat's scripted intercutting of Clara's speech, overwhelming evidence that we are meant to understand these are the same people. The question Moffat obviously means for us to ask is not, "How can different people have the same physical appearance?", but, "How can this be the same woman?"

              Secondarily, from a wiki administration standpoint, we also have the unquestionably bad precedent of a user, in the middle of a discussion, simply pre-empting the end of that discussion and splitting pages. That will not be allowed to stand.

              If this discussion ends in a hung jury, the pages are still going back to one article because Digifiend went against our normal rules of order.

              Everyone participating in this discussion should understand that this is the discussion to split the article apart. Digifiend's separation is invalid, as it was done without consensus. If we end up with a hung jury, then there's no consensus for change from the original, single article approach and the article remains as it originally was — one article.

              In order for the article to be split, there must be a clear and overwhelming consensus in this thread for that eventuality.

              19:06, 29 January 2013
              Edited 19:10, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Exactly. Czech, I originally had the same opinion as you. And I agree, the Doctor pretty much explicitly says that she's the same person. But we don't know how. They clearly are different versions of Clara. Aside from the fact that Oswin and Clara have different, but similar, personalities, they in at least some way have different bodies, as both bodies died. So without getting into speculation, they are the same person, different bodies. Like I pointed out earlier, Pete Tyler and Pete Tyler (Pete's World) are two separate articles, and, as OS pointed out, Rory Williams and Rory Williams (Auton) are two articles as well. In Pete's example, it's an alternate version; same basic person, but from a different reality, and slightly different. In Rory's example, it's the same consciousness, but in a different body. Considering the neither Clara seems to remember the Doctor might indicate that they don't share on consciousness, although that's speculative, as either one could be lying. Point is: at the very least, the three Clara are in a similar situation to Auton Rory.
              19:11, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              OttselSpy25 wrote: Yes, as I have noted before, the question is not that she is the same woman, but rather that we don't understand how that is.

              I just want to highlight this one sentence. So what if we don't understand how that is? Our articles are written from an in-universe perspective, and from that perspective, the Doctor thinks they're the same person, we have no evidence to the contrary, so the Doctor's perception guides how the article is written.

              19:13, 29 January 2013
              Edited 19:13, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Considering the neither Clara seems to remember the Doctor might indicate that they don't share on consciousness, although that's speculative, as either one could be lying. Point is: at the very least, the three Clara are in a similar situation to Auton Rory.

              We cannot possibly write our articles from the position that "our source might be lying, so therefore we pre-emptively withhold judgement". God, if we did that, our wiki would literally fall apart. What's rule number 1? The Doctor lies.

              Almost everything we know about, well, everything is because of something one character says to another. How do we know Peter Davison played the Fifth Doctor? Because he said to a guy who claimed to be "the original" that he was the "fourth" regeneration. They both could be lying for all we know, but we still put the articles at First Doctor and Fifth Doctor. How do we know Ace is from Perivale? Because she tells us she is, and she seems to have some passing familiarity with the joint when she goes there. Except, it's not actually Perivale we see but the real world Ealing. Nevertheless, she tells us it's Perivale, so we are bound to believe that what we see is in fact Perivale. The Eleventh Doctor claims to be in the Richard Nixon Oval Office — but the Oval Office we see looks nothing like the 1969 Nixon White House. Marco Polo gives us very confusing information about his life that doesn't square with historical facts. But we still report what he says in the serial of the same name, because that's the deal with our site.

              We trust what characters say until such time as they are actually disproven, in-universe. This article on Clara is simplicity itself to write as a single article because of the magic phrase, "According to the Eleventh Doctor ..."

              We don't have to make faulty comparisons to the Auton Rory. We just have to report what we know from the story, and leave it at that.

              19:26, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. Though I think it's kid of unfair your way as one side (yours) clearly has an advantage: if there's no consensus either way, you win.

              Anyways, I'm yet to hear an real reason that explains why it specifically shouldn't be two articles, rather than just opposing our reasons.

              In response to your second to last post (I'm behind), just because the Doctor thinks something is a certain way, that doesn't mean that in-universe, it's true. "Never mind; forget all my previous theories." This is just the Doctor's first theory. The Doctor has been wrong before.

              It would be wrong to say definitively that they're the same person. Which is why I like the way it's done now: separate articles, with this sentence: "She was one of the three known people who the Eleventh Doctor claimed were one and the same, along with Clara Oswald and Clara." That's as definitive as you can get, without speculating.

              19:29, 29 January 2013
              Edited 19:31, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry, I'm behind on this discussion. You misunderstood what I meant in the above quoted sentence, but I'll ignore that for now. If we're assuming that anything a character says or does is fact until proven otherwise, then Clara and Oswin don't share one consciousness, as neither seemed to remember the Doctor. Or, if they do share a consciousness, then their shared memories ends before both meetings with the Doctor. Therefore, they can only be interpreted as either different versions or two people that are linked.
              19:35, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay. Though I think it's kid of unfair your way as one side (yours) clearly has an advantage: if there's no consensus either way, you win.

              Anyways, I'm yet to hear an real reason that explains why it specifically shouldn't be two articles, rather than just opposing our reasons.

              Well, lemme be clear. This isn't my way. This is the standard way that consensus works in wikis. Digifiend has gone outside the normal process by making a radical change to an article while that change was under discussion, thereby disrupting the normal order of things. Worse, this was all done on a talk page, rather than The Panopticon, which is not the normal place that such discussions have taken place historically.

              In other words, there was never a consensus to make that change, so this is the discussion that should have happened. We are now initially having the proper discussion that should have preceded the breaking up of the article.

              Of course, I'm not saying that we have to have every, single article splitting discussion here at The Panopticon. But it has been our usual habit that we bring "the biggies" here. Regular characters and concepts that are going to be frequently linked on a number of different other pages are almost always discussed here, because they'll affect almost everyone's editing practises.

              If we as a wiki allow Digifiend's split to stand as the "current" state of affairs, then we'll be saying to everyone who gets involved in a contentious move, "Eh, skip the discussion, move things how you wish, and let the chips fall where they may." It would be disastrous for the wiki, and make a nonsense out of the whole discussion process.

              Thus, the original state of the article — all Claras on one page — is the one we are now talking about, and the burden falls on the people wanting to change that to build a consensus for change. Put in Wikipedia terms,

              "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

              Sometimes we do stray from Wikipedia's "no consensus" rule, as when discussions fail to generate any interest. But given that this is a well-attended discussion, it's gonna take more than a tie for your position to prevail. This notion is really ancient (well, as ancient as anything can be with wikis), and far predates the existence of this wiki.

              Finally, if you haven't heard a pro-active reason why it should be kept as one article, then you've not really been reading what I and several other people have said in this thread. The reason is, quite simply, all in-universe evidence is that they are the same person. Check out the Eleventh Doctor quote above. Couldn't be any clearer: "She's the same woman."

              It's up to you and Digifiend and OS25 to give clear in-universe evidence to the contrary. Somehow, you have to dispute the Eleventh Doctor's own words with actual evidence from the series in order for your view to prevail.

              20:54, 29 January 2013
              Edited 20:54, 29 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Logical. I surrendor.
              21:06, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Listen, I'm not just picking a side and being stubborn, here. I'm willing to sway, and I definitely will, once I've heard real evidence that they are definitely the same person. I understand where you're coming from, but, in my mind, according to what I've read in this discussion, saying that she's definitely the same person is illogical. Yes, the Doctor said it, but that's the only proof you have. What you said about characters only applies to my last comment (which you seem to have ignored), where Oswin says specifically "Don't know, never met you." It does not apply to the Doctor's theory, since it's only a theory. Obviously, he's not lying, but he's just recognising that they're essentially the same person, for his purposes. He recognises the similarities and figured out that, somehow, they're the same person.

              I agree that they're the same person, that much is evident in the story. But I still think they should have three articles, for my two reasons above:

              1) They might be the same person, but definitely two separate bodies. You might think that comparison to Rory Williams (Auton) is bogus, but I still haven't heard your reasoning for that. Maybe your reasoning will change my mind. But, as I understand it, the reason Rory and his Auton self are separated is because it's an entirely different body that looks just like the real Rory, with Rory's consciousness in it. But it's not the "main" Rory. (If the reason was just because that timeline was negated, then Rory (Auton) would just be under the section at the bottom entitled "Alternate timelines" or something like that.) Anyway, if the reason is as stated above, then the same should apply to Clara, as it's the same consciousness but different bodies.

              2) Oswin says specifically "Don't know, never met you." Clara doesn't act like they've met before, either. Although, on your side, it's shown that she's a fairly good actress. She has two lives in the Snowmen and acts and sounds completely different in each. So it's entirely plausible that she's purposely hiding the fact that she remembers the Doctor, and doing it quite convincingly. If we're going with "We cannot possibly write our articles from the position that 'our source might be lying, so therefore we pre-emptively withhold judgement'", then it's clear that she's never met the Doctor before in either life, and therefore does not have the same consciousness, therefore should have separate pages.

              Apart from the two points above (which you pointedly ignored in all your responses), I agree with you completely. What you say is logical. I just feel like those two points are important and shouldn't be ignored. If you can counter my two points logically without speculating (which I'm sure you can), I'm coming over to your side. I'm not antagonising, just making sure you recognise all important points.

              21:27, 29 January 2013
              Edited 21:28, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              In any argument to radically change an article — as by renaming or splitting — the burden of proof is on the person who wants to make the change, not the person who wants to keep the article as is. Acceptable proof is, but is not limited to, in-universe evidence and Tardis policy.

              Policy's easy to understand. I can change The Snowmen to The Snowmen (TV story) without issue or controversy, since that is a standard dab term that we use. I can revert fanfic at Nyssa and the Fifth Doctor without discussion because of T:NO FANFIC

              But in-universe facts are the clinching argument. That's why TARDIS Index File is now in red, even though that was a blue link for seven years. You might say that you believed you heard Nyssa say "TARDIS Index File", but it never actually happened.

              Same thing here. You have no hard evidence that suggests the Doctor is wrong when he says, "they're the same girl".

              Your first point in the immediately-preceding post is supposition. It is not an impossibility that the Clara who fell from the TARDIS is the same person, even physically, as the one who was on the Alaska, or the one we see in the graveyard. It's science fiction. Bodies get re-animated. Memories are selective. You would need evidence on the order of what we got with Rory to split the articles. You need Clara to physically drop her fingers and reveal an Auton gun for us to have separate articles. You need a physician scanning her body with some fancy medical device and pronouncing, "This isn't the same girl..." You need something overt. All you have is a sense of illogic. What you're saying is that it doesn't make sense that they could be the same person, so therefore they aren't. What I have — "According to the Doctor, they were 'the same woman'" — is therefore stronger. Why? Because it's a rock solid, water-tight fact. The Doctor said they were the same woman — twice — so that's what we have at present.

              As for your second point, you're quibbling about remembrance in a story that centrally contained a memory worm, told in a universe that has retcon, starring a character known for his ability to hypnotise. Should the character's lack of memory be mentioned in the article? Sure. But this is the DWU. Bad memories happen all the time and don't imply the creation of unique entities. Jamie and Zoe don't remember most of their time with the Second Doctor, but they are the same people who travelled in the TARDIS.

              22:12, 29 January 2013
              Edited 22:12, 29 January 2013
              Edited 22:14, 29 January 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Honestly, this reminds me of the whole "Did River kill the Doctor?" question after "Let's Kill Hitler" last season. The situation was the same: the characters state a fact in-story, but the debate was whether we could trust the character (maybe they were mistaken?) Anyway, common sense did not prevail that time, so I would like to avoid that sort of stuff this time. Czech seems to have the best idea: the character has stated something in-universe, so we should go with the best information we have at the moment. The best info at the moment is that all three Claras are somehow the same. So, we ought to merge the pages together unless/until something in-story changes. To say that "we don't know for sure, the Doctor could be mistaken" is true, but we can't take that approach about everything everyone says about everything; that would just be stupid. To use the "we don't know for sure argument" is just not taking an objective, factual stance. The fact is that the Doctor has stated that the Claras are the same. So we work off of that objective statement, NOT our subjective doubt over whether the statement is true. I advocate that all the pages should be remerged like they were in the first place.
              02:10, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Thank you, Czech for responding to my two points, and explaining it from your POV. Wording was a bit harsh, but I'm in no way offended. I agree with you completely. As they say, logic prevails. I'm going to go with OS on this one: "Logical. I surrender." You've successfully won me over. Congratulations. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't missing two valid points. Sorry I took me this long to respond; I lost my Internet for several hours.
              03:18, 30 January 2013
            • Digifiend

              CzechOut wrote: Secondarily, from a wiki administration standpoint, we also have the unquestionably bad precedent of a user, in the middle of a discussion, simply pre-empting the end of that discussion and splitting pages. That will not be allowed to stand.

              If this discussion ends in a hung jury, the pages are still going back to one article because Digifiend went against our normal rules of order.

              Everyone participating in this discussion should understand that this is the discussion to split the article apart. Digifiend's separation is invalid, as it was done without consensus. If we end up with a hung jury, then there's no consensus for change from the original, single article approach and the article remains as it originally was — one article.

              In order for the article to be split, there must be a clear and overwhelming consensus in this thread for that eventuality.

              What separation? I renamed the Oswin page to Clara Oswin Oswald, that's the opposite of splitting it. My intent was that they should be one page. Tangerineduel, an admin, was the one who did the split, on December 28. As I said in the edit summary, they're the same person, but we just don't know how that's possible yet.

              17:52, 30 January 2013
              Edited 17:54, 30 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              Digifiend wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: Secondarily, from a wiki administration standpoint, we also have the unquestionably bad precedent of a user, in the middle of a discussion, simply pre-empting the end of that discussion and splitting pages. That will not be allowed to stand.

              If this discussion ends in a hung jury, the pages are still going back to one article because Digifiend went against our normal rules of order.

              Everyone participating in this discussion should understand that this is the discussion to split the article apart. Digifiend's separation is invalid, as it was done without consensus. If we end up with a hung jury, then there's no consensus for change from the original, single article approach and the article remains as it originally was — one article.

              In order for the article to be split, there must be a clear and overwhelming consensus in this thread for that eventuality.

              What separation? I renamed the Oswin page to Clara Oswin Oswald, that's the opposite of splitting it. My intent was that they should be one page. Tangerineduel, an admin, was the one who did the split, on December 28. As I said in the edit summary, they're the same person, but we just don't know how that's possible yet.

              This is true.

              I think that the three people who are all Clara aren't necisarrily the same character.

              18:08, 30 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I think the pages should be split on the basis of her different "lives". We keep the Doctor's ten invarnations seperate, despite the oft statement that they are fundamentally "the same"; so the three Clara articles should be split on the same basis, with three pages for Clara's three lives. Perhaps Clara Oswin Oswald could be the main page, covering all of Clara's lives (albeit not completely) and then there could be three seperate pages on each of her 'lives'. ("she died three times..." aka lived three different lives.
              18:15, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              Digifiend wrote: What separation? I renamed the Oswin page to Clara Oswin Oswald, that's the opposite of splitting it. My intent was that they should be one page.

              Well, no. The word "rename" is a bit of semantic trickery by Wikia. There's no difference between "rename" and "move", which you definitely did. It may have been your intent to create one page, but normal users can't do anything but split a page when they use the option labelled "rename".

              This is part of the reason why it's bad form to take an action like a page move/rename on the page of an important character, concept or story without discussion.

              In many cases, having a redirect wouldn't be problematic. But in this case, your action very definitely created a stir, as witnessed by the very first post of Talk:Clara Oswald#Why a single article? / Splitting article.

              Your move actually created the avenue by which information could then be put onto the redirect page — the precise opposite of what you intended. Tangerineduel, in other words, did not split the article. You did, and he merely followed up your action, trying to make some sense of it, given the discussion that erupted on the talk page.

              Neither I nor anyone else is mad at you, but your action — though done for completely the opposite reason than it appeared — is beyond the norm of our usual practises when it comes to names of important, frequently-linked pages.

              18:35, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I think we should just put it all into one page, possibly also having three separate pages for the separate Claras, kind of like we do for The Doctor, with separate pages for each incarnation, like the Third Doctor. An then, once the series is over, we'll have another discussion based on the information that we'll get.
              18:43, 30 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I think we should just put it all into one page, possibly also having three separate pages for the separate Claras, kind of like we do for The Doctor, with separate pages for each incarnation, like the Third Doctor. An then, once the series is over, we'll have another discussion based on the information that we'll get.

              Precisely my point.

              19:04, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              OS, Smaller, you guys have both already acquiesced to it going onto on page. Unless there's some other meaning to the phrases, "I agree with you completely" and "I surrender".
              19:14, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              Digifiend wrote: What separation? I renamed the Oswin page to Clara Oswin Oswald, that's the opposite of splitting it.

              I've changed the word "rename" to "move" in the drop down so that it's clearer exactly what one is doing when one uses that button. Hopefully, confusion as to what exactly is going on will be minimised.

              19:20, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, I was in complete agreement, but I think OS has made a good point, so I think it's certainly a possibility. I think, though, that we shouldn't go too over-the-top with this discussion, since, in less than 2 months, everything we discuss here will be worthless and we'll have to do this all over again. So if you think it will be most logical to have it all in one place, and most people agree, I won't oppose that. When the real discussion comes, I will go with my opinion all the way. I just don't think it's worth the while, and, frankly, I see the logic of both sides. Therefore I think we should just group them together into one page, or otherwise go with what majority thinks. For now. I'm hoping someone else will join this discussion, though, other than just us three for the most part. I want to see other people's opinions and arguments after reading the discussion we three have had.
              20:05, 30 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I would like to note that the three pages never worked well as "one page". Of you look at the Post-Christmas Carol page that was formed on all three, it was very cluttered; with no one knowing what to call "Clara" at parts.
              20:20, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, it's going to be more than 2 months. We won't revisit this before the end of the series, which is going to be in late May. You may certainly expect that whatever emerges here will result in the page being move-locked.
              20:28, 30 January 2013
            • Bold Clone
              IMO, we shouldn't have the Clara page split into three any more than we would split the River Song page into three.
              20:42, 30 January 2013
            • Silent Hunter UK
              One article and one article only, covering multiple versions.
              20:47, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              It's good we're getting other people's opinions. OS, I don't disagree with you in any way, but can you please explain how it "never worked well," for the sake of this discussion? Silent Hunter UK, do you have a reason for your opinion. I'm just interested in other peoples' reasons to oppose the split-up (aside from Czech, of course, who's already said everything).

              PS. This didn't post earlier. Weird. I had to retype it.

              21:22, 30 January 2013
            • Silent Hunter UK
              They are in essence the same character, played by the same actor - like the alternative fates of Ace.
              21:30, 30 January 2013
            • Chericola
              I think it would be easier to create one article for all of Oswin's incarnations. All the information will be in one place and easy to find. If there are three articles then they would have to be updated if more information is revealed in future episodes about Oswin in Asylum and Clara in Snowmen and Oswin the Doctor's new companion, and the reason for Clara/Oswin's alternate lives. They are the same character anyway, with the same personality.
              04:46, 31 January 2013
            • SOTO
              They actually have slightly different personalities, incidentally, but, basically, you're right. It's nice to hear about it from that stand point. He (she?) brings up the point that it'd be easier to find. I suppose this is valid and important, and the purpose of this wiki is for people to be able to find information on the DWU. If it becomes hard to find, that can be problematic. It does seem like majority will go for one article.

              Czech, how long should we wait until we finish this discussion up? How about we close the discussion at 0000 UTC next Wednesday? That way it's a week from the start of the discussion.

              04:57, 31 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              This is not a discussion about a simple, arbitrary decision. It's only been ongoing — in a properly prominent place — for about a day. It's a tad premature worrying about an end date. Next Wednesday might be appropriate — but only if the discussion dries up.

              So far, we're seeing a goodly number of new or infrequent forum posters to this highlighted discussion. Let's have you, me and OS25 retreat from the discussion for a while and see what new voices have to say for a while.

              05:10, 31 January 2013
              Edited 05:11, 31 January 2013
              Edited 05:12, 31 January 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Given the complexity of Clara/Oswin's character I feel it would be premature to combine the articles until we have further proof of the characters single nature.

              We lack at the moment the 'glue' of an explanation to glue the varied accounts of Clara/Oswin's life together. I'm concerned this lack of information will lead to speculation on the article and be detrimental to the information on such a prominent article.

              However, if we can agree on a structure for a combined article then I am not against a merger of the articles (I'll likely be doing the merger).

              15:59, 31 January 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              I agree with Tangerineduel. Although we do have the Doctor's assertion that the two (not three! he doesn't know about present-day Clara yet!) women are "the same woman", absent any explanation of how that's possible, having a single article is going to be needlessly confusing. (For one thing, what would we call it? Based on broadcast evidence alone, the Starliner Alaska version was named Oswin Oswald, not Clara Oswin Oswald, and we only know the "present day" version's name because of the credit of "Clara's friend".)

              I think that having separate articles until we know more about the relationship between the three versions of Clara will be the most helpful for readers.

              16:16, 31 January 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              Josiah, I completely disagree. If I were looking up information on Clara, it would be way more difficult to have three separate articles. Again, to be the most functional as an information resource, a combined article is the most efficient way to handle the situation. It removes redundancy (the mention of her relationships with the other versions being repeated) and a stub article about the one in modern day.
              16:58, 31 January 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              The thing is that based on in-universe, diegetic information only, we can combine only Victorian Clara and Oswin from the Alaska. It's obvious to us as viewers that modern-day Clara is a third iteration of "the same woman", but we can't say that based on in-universe evidence yet. In-universe, all that we know is that modern Clara looks like the other two and walked past Victorian Clara's grave. We can justify a merger of Victorian Clara and Alaska because the Doctor says they're "the same woman", but adding in modern Clara is our supposition. Yes, it's strongly implied by the narrative, but in-universe the Doctor doesn't even know that modern Clara exists yet. So how can we justify merging her stub into an omnibus article?
              17:17, 31 January 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              I understand that. I guess to me it's just that the goal here should be functionality as a resource, rather than simply as an objective organizer of data. I myself would actually be ok with an omnibus article and three articles you could link to if you want completely undiluted facts about the individual incarnations. It would be inefficient and pedantic, and ultimately a waste of time, but would satisfy both parties (save, I guess, for CzechOut, whose initial complaint is apparently the number of articles rather than the distillation of information).
              17:46, 31 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              Josiah Rowe wrote: The thing is that based on in-universe, diegetic information only, we can combine only Victorian Clara and Oswin from the Alaska. It's obvious to us as viewers that modern-day Clara is a third iteration of "the same woman", but we can't say that based on in-universe evidence yet. In-universe, all that we know is that modern Clara looks like the other two and walked past Victorian Clara's grave. We can justify a merger of Victorian Clara and Alaska because the Doctor says they're "the same woman", but adding in modern Clara is our supposition. Yes, it's strongly implied by the narrative, but in-universe the Doctor doesn't even know that modern Clara exists yet. So how can we justify merging her stub into an omnibus article?

              I know i said I would stay out of this discussion for a bit, but I'm gonna weigh in here because I've not yet specifically opined on the "third Clara".

              I strongly feel that we do have diegetic information that Modern is the same as Victorian and Dalek Clara. This is what happens in The Snowmen, after the bit I've already quoted:

              DOCTOR: Something's going on. Something impossible. Something ... Right you two stay here. Stay right here. Don't move an inch.
              VASTRA: Are you coming back?
              DOCTOR: Shouldn't think so
              VASTRA: But where are you going?
              DOCTOR: To find her. To find Clara.

              He doesn't say, "I'm going to find someone who is like" the woman they've just buried. He says he is going "to find Clara".

              Lest there be any doubt whom he means, we then get:

              JENNY: But Clara's dead. What's he talking about? Finding her?
              VASTRA: I don't know. But perhaps the universe makes bargains after all.

              Vastra there is referencing the bargain he wanted to make earlier whereby he would get Clara — not some copy of Clara — back.

              We then cut to modern Clara, and everything about that shot is designed to let you, the viewer, know that this is the same woman, including the line, "I don't believe in ghosts.".

              And then there's the episode's final shot.

              DOCTOR (looking at a picture of the Victorian Clara on the scanner) Clara. Oswin. Oswald. Watch me run.

              It is not speculation whatsoever to say that he believes that the Clara he had already met is somehow still alive. And there is no reasonable doubt from the visual language of the piece that the "modern day Clara" is the one with whom he is going to rendezvous. What would be the point of showing her if not?

              It couldn't be using any clearer filmc language. Shot of Modern Clara over Victorian Clara's grave. "Don't believe in ghosts." Shot of Doctor in Tardis, looking at Victorian Clara. "Clara. Oswin. Oswald. Watch me run."

              If we put modern Clara on her own page, we'd be ignoring filmic conventions and using only part of the episode as a valid source.

              We are supposed to be writing articles from our audience perspective. As the second principle of T:IU states:

              "Write from the perspective of a neutral observer who has access to all known facts about your topic. You, the writer of the article, are omniscient, even though the subject of your article is not."

              So it doesn't matter that he's not met modern Clara yet. From the evidence we have right now, there is no other reading of that scene but that there are multiple Claras who are all the same woman — because that's what the Doctor quite emphatically believes. Since we have no other in-universe source to knowledgeably contradict him at present, his beliefs about the situation predominate.

              As long as the article stresses in the lead that it is the Doctor's belief that Oswald is a person that somehow is the same woman across time and despite death, I think we're fine.

              18:49, 31 January 2013
              Edited 18:50, 31 January 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              It's an interesting point — because while I agree that all the language of film is telling us that modern Clara is another form of "the same woman", it somehow seems like a leap to act as if that information is available to a hypothetical omniscient neutral observer, because such an observer would not be receiving the information via a filmic medium. If the medium is the message, this seems like the sort of information that doesn't quite translate accurately, if you see what I mean.

              I don't want to push the point too far, but it's worth remembering that "filmic language" can lie too. For example, all the filmic language of The Impossible Astronaut told us that the Doctor was killed and his body burned at Lake Silencio. Later we found out that, no, that was just a Teselecta ship disguised as the Doctor.

              Anyway, I don't feel that strongly about the point. I'm willing to go along with whatever consensus develops here. I still think that having three articles is the simplest and clearest solution for our readers, but I don't feel like it's important enough to fight for.

              21:13, 31 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              The three charactors in the three stories are just that, the different charactors in three different stories. We know nothing about how they are connected past "they are the same". We see no indication if they're really the same or if they're the same person split through time, or if there's some third thing she is. Some people will look for the entity that she seems to represent, that of "The girl split through time", and some will look for her individual selves. She's less like River Song and more like The Doctor. All 11 of the Doctors are still technically "The same man" as Moffat has put it, yet there are 11 pages on his 11 lives. Clara is the same. She has three, independant, seperate, and all around different lives; each of which deserves it's own page.
              00:49, 1 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              At this point the three characters seem far more distinct than the various Doctors. The Eleventh Doctor remembers when he was the Tenth Doctor, and the Ninth and the Eighth and so forth. (Well, given how much trouble the Eighth had holding on to his memories, perhaps not so much the Eighth. But you know what I mean.) His memory and continuity of existence (on the principle of the Ship of Theseus, aka Trigger's Broom) show that he is "the same man".

              But apart from the fact that they're all played by Jenna-Louise Coleman, and Doctor's assertion that Dalek Oswin and Victorian Clara are "the same woman", and a handful of lines about soufflés and running, we don't have any understanding of how the Claras can be the same woman. In fact, the explanation (which I'm sure we'll get in the rest of the season) will have to overcome the frankly massive objection that Victorian Clara and Dalek Oswin are both dead. Now, sure there will be some wibbly-wobbly explanation that may even make sense. But we don't know what it is yet. We don't know how the characters are connected, just that they are, somehow. Until we've got that connective tissue, I think it makes sense to keep the articles separate.

              02:05, 1 February 2013
            • Chericola
              I think that maybe Victorian Clara and Dalek Clara somehow know that there are other Claras out there. When they are dying, both say 'Run, you clever boy, and remember', as if asking the Doctor to find the next Clara. Also, the Clara from Asylum seems surprisingly familiar with the Doctor.

              Both Claras only appeared on one episode each. Since it's clear that they are the same woman, they should be merged into one article. Given that we don't know much of each of their backstories, there might not be a lot of information to put them in one article each.

              09:20, 1 February 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Well we should really wait and watch the rest of Series 7 of Doctor Who, which will most definitely reveal the answers to The Mystery Of The Three Claras, before saying anything more, that is my suggestion. Series 7 Part 2 will reveal who Clara Oswin Oswald is, it is highly likely.
              09:07, 14 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Until then we should keep the pages seperate as they are.
              14:36, 14 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              I agree, as I've said above keeping the articles separate allows us to be much more concise with our language regarding the three Claras.

              If we combined the articles at this point in time we would have to include a lot of vague language to allow us to have all the info on a single page. More so than our other pages with different accounts of a characters' histories as we just don't know (but hopefully will) with Clara.

              15:21, 14 February 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Case put on hold until Series 7 Part 2 reveals true answers?
              16:43, 14 February 2013
              Edited 16:44, 14 February 2013
            • 91.225.19.229
              I agree with MrSiriusBlack
              09:05, 25 February 2013
            • 91.225.19.229
              agreed
              14:11, 25 February 2013
            • 91.225.19.229
              Troll. Doug87
              09:51, 12 March 2013
            • 91.225.19.229
              Series 7 Part 2 starts March 30 2013
              12:30, 21 March 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              It does indeed
              12:31, 21 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Just to keep this discussion up to date, there's now a fourth Clara: Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel). As we don't have any categories for both this and Clara (The Snowmen), I'm thinking of making a new category: Category:Clara Oswin Oswald? Category:Incarnations of Clara Oswin Oswald? Category:Versions of Clara Oswin Oswald?
              19:15, 23 March 2013
              Edited 19:15, 23 March 2013
              Edited 19:19, 23 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              Memnarc wrote: I think the main point of the argument is that while the Claras are confirmed to be physically (it appears) the same person and be linked somehow (Run you clever boy, a love of souffles), it's still unclear in what manner.

              Is she, for example, like Scaroth: one person spread across time, but with her minds linked? Or are all the Claras duplicates of some original Clara that have been seeded throughout history so that they may encounter the Doctor?

              The point is, we don't know. And until we know, I feel like we should keep them as separate articles.

              I agree. We have a show where, in addition to your situation, Jenna could be playing identical ancestors and descendants or temporally displaced triplets or gangers or tesselectas or what have you. Aside from personality traits, each of the Claras appear to be individuals with no knowledge of the other versions of her. They're individuals. This is even different from The Doctor, where we have separate pages for each of his individual incarnations, but at least they all know they are the same person and retain memories of past selves.

              19:35, 23 March 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Just to keep this discussion up to date, there's now a fourth Clara: Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel). As we don't have any categories for both this and Clara (The Snowmen), I'm thinking of making a new category: Category:Clara Oswin Oswald? Category:Incarnations of Clara Oswin Oswald? Category:Versions of Clara Oswin Oswald?

              We absolutely and positively will not be having those additional categories. This should all be one article until proven otherwise.

              22:14, 23 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Isn't it the lack of proof that we're discussing.

              We "know" that they're all the same person but lack the proof to integrate them all into a single article.

              Although, I agree we do not need the various categories suggested by SOTO.

              07:18, 24 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yeah, until more info is given on how they are different, they should remain seperate.

              I think Category:Clara Oswald would be enough.

              07:33, 24 March 2013
            • Kyle03
              I think we should only do one page explaining all of the Clara's called "Clara Oswin Oswald.
              13:43, 24 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I don't know why you all seem to think I was suggesting multiple categories.

              Anyway, we know they're connecting. Perhaps Category:Clara Oswald images would serve as a category for all of them, as they're all connected to Clara Oswin Oswald.

              17:35, 24 March 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Again, we can just wait another six days for Doctor Who to return. That will solve the mystery.
              21:13, 24 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Well, The Bells of St. John are probably not going to solve the mystery; Clara's story will br drawn out over all of 7B and maybe even into Series 8. That said, we're not going to wait potentially anywhere from two months to a year and a half. The Doctor has specifically and explictly claimed that the Claras are all the same. Going from in-universe evidence, that's all the justification and proof we need to merge the Claras back into one page. It's simple enough; we have three section for her three incarnations in Biography, and three paragraphs explaining her personality under Personality and Traits.
              00:02, 25 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I don't oppose to that, but I think we should wait at least until TBOSJ. We obviously won't get all our questions answered, but we'll certainly find out a whole lot more — maybe even a piece of information to prove that she's one person!
              00:05, 25 March 2013
              Edited 00:06, 25 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Eh, that's fair enough, I suppose. We've already dragged this discussion for two months, another six or seven days won't really hurt. In the meantime, I may start work on a compilation of the Clara pages in my sandbox. Sound good?
              00:10, 25 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Certainly not against policy — have fun! :)

              You can link to your page here, if you so wish.

              00:15, 25 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Alright, I'll do that: here it is. If you see anything out of place or wrong, just let me know.
              00:24, 25 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I assume you're eventually going to form it into one article, rather than just stack four on top of each other?
              00:28, 25 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Yeah, I just need some time to incorporate all of the stuff together; work it down to one Biography and one Personality section, the like.
              00:44, 25 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I still stand by the fact that we still need separate pages on the separate incarnations of Clara.
              12:47, 25 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              The stacked approach is a good one which neatly avoids a lot of the speculative language that was used in the previously combined article.

              If a combined article could continue without devolving into speculation between the subheadings I wouldn't be against merging all the articles we've got at the moment.

              Although I agree that waiting until TBOSJ has been broadcast would leave us with more information.

              14:29, 25 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I agree, but I think that we still need to keep separate pages on each incarnation of Clara. Also you assert that Clara in the prequel and the Clara in the Snowmen are the same person, something that we don't directly know.
              14:33, 25 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Agreed. We don't have any in-universe evidence to prove that the girl Clara is the younger version of modern Clara; that's one reason why I don't have a problem with waiting until St. John, in case the episode clarifies that. (That said, St. John and Season 7B may not ever address the matter; what do we do then?)

              Out-universe though, it's just commmon sense (at least IMO). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Steven Moffat has stated in interveiws that there are only three Claras.

              Another argument for one Clara page is precedent; all of the Master's incarnations are placed together on a single page, even though we aren't sure how all of his incarnations, timelines, and appearances fit together. Why can't we place all the Claras together on one page? Anyway, I've got a prototype Clara page to use as an illustration of how this would work out. Tangerine, would you say that my page has too much speculatory material on it?

              15:26, 25 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Because the Master is known to have a straight forward life. The Master had a day-by-day life. Even if one or two lives don't match up, his lives are pretty straight forward. We have no idea just how Clara's lives are connected past the fact that they are. A better analogy for Clara is the Doctor than the Master, who we keep seperate pages for.
              15:53, 25 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Actually, from what I understood, one of the main reasons all the Doctors are split up is because of the massive amount of information. Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor are two of our longest pages — imagine all the Doctor pages in one!

              As far as the Master, as you know, we originally had separate pages, but grouped them together. Why? From what I gathered, one of the main reasons was that we can't really name the articles easily, and we don't really know much about numbering of incarnations and such. Unlike with the Doctor, who we follow around and know nearly every major event in his life, the Master's life is way more fuzzy and our understanding of it exclusively centred around his encounters with the Doctor.

              So let's inspect Clara:

              1. Name: At the moment, we have "Oswin Oswald," "Clara Oswin Oswald," "Clara (The Snowmen)," and "Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel)." That works okay as it stands now. But I'm positive that the Clara we'll be introduced to in 7B will be named "Clara Oswald" as well — probably with a middle name of "Oswin" too. And any incarnations from hereon, if she should die again, will be named "Clara Oswin Oswald," or, if not specified, "Clara Oswald." So we're going to end up with a lot of "Clara Oswin Oswald (dab term)"s and "Clara Oswald (dab term)"s. I think it would be easier to handle on one page, split by her many lives.
              2. Readers: Next question: what are the readers looking for? Especially during 7B, readers will go to Clara Oswin Oswald to gather information on all the different versions of Clara and possibly formulate their own theories, only to find out that the page only has The Snowmen information. With all the information gathered on one page, it would please the readers much more, as they could look at all the information at once, and be able to think.

              By the way, an alternate way of handling this is to have one common page, ie. Clara Oswin Oswald, where we put basic information on all of them, as well as similarities, differences, and, when we get it, the explanation for the split-up. In sections for each incarnation, we'd have basic information and storyline, and a link to the "main article" on that specific incarnation for more information.

              16:21, 25 March 2013
              Edited 16:22, 25 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Not really. The Doctor is also "known to have a straight forward life" and "a day-by-day life". We know excactly how the Doctor's lives are connected, but we still use seperate pages because of the distinctness of the various incarnations. You could argue for having different Clara pages because of the distinctness of her incarnations, but I return to the Master. He has several incarnations, but we don't bother to have seperate pages for him. We do the same for clara; we don't need to know precisely how the Claras are connected aside from that thay are.
              16:28, 25 March 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Everyone, just wait and watch Series 7B before saying ANYTHING else on this damn thread. Questions will be answered.
              12:10, 26 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              We're free to have any discussion at any time, Mr. Black.
              13:01, 26 March 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              The discussion of which will be answered by doing what I suggested be done.
              20:40, 26 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              But your suggestion was over reactive and you're comments just so. We're discussing if there's enough evidence to move them all into one article yet. It would appear that there isn't, but that's just my opinion and anyone who has a separate one has the right to state it. If Bold wants to work on a prototype he's damn well entitled to and doesn't need you patronizing him or anyone else for wanting to discuss.
              20:46, 26 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              While I'm incline to agree, Mr Black, the way you phrased it and your attitude is insulting. It's not in keeping with the standards I have come to expect here. Please refine yourself.

              I can't see how a dab page with the different Claras would be a bad idea at this point. Surely we can agree to do something like that until the plot is more clear.

              23:00, 26 March 2013
              Edited 23:00, 26 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              We will need to do something before Bells airs anyway, so users know where to go to add new info on the character that will undoubtedly be revealed in the episode. A dab page seems to be a good idea. Maybe we could recruit somebody watching the premier over in the UK to be able to react immediately if this Clara is revealed to be the same one as in Snowmen and/or the prequel and dab/order a page accordingly so when other users, including international ones who won't be able to see the episode for at least a few more hours, have finished watching, the page is already dabbed properly and will be ready for the influx of edits that will come once people are finished. Or it might just be easier if everything is combined roughly into one article beforehand so people know where to put the info, and then the info can be re-split-up later if need be. The main thing is making sure there is a place for editors to start writing immediately following Bells, especially with the complexity of this current situation. So yes, MrSiriusBlack, I do think we need to discuss this now rather than later.
              05:52, 27 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I think it would be easiest if we grouped them together ASAP (there's only three days left). Then we can discuss again. I think it would be much easier as far as editing after the episode. As soon as the episode's broadcast, we'll decide again based off the new information.

              But, for now, what I propose is one grouped together page, with both Biography and Personality split up into the different incarnations. This will help both editors and readers alike immediately after the episode — editors because they won't be confused as to where to put the information, and readers because they'll have one place to read up on everything we know on this mysterious Clara and her various lives, as I'm sure they'll all be eager to do the research.

              Also, I'm not sure that the UK is getting it first... I'll calculate the timetable with the different timelines...

              06:02, 27 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              There is no way the BBC will allow any other country to have Doctor Who first. And that does seem to be a sensible idea. Combine them for now so readers and editors can easily find the page, and then discuss a possible split post Bells of SJ.
              06:07, 27 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. Before we take action (which we'll have to wait to do, until more people voice their opinions), we should work on a draft. A subpage of Clara Oswin Oswald perhaps? Or maybe just a subpage of a user page?
              06:10, 27 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Yeah, UK does get it first... Who among our frequent editors are British?
              06:17, 27 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Here's a draft of all the pages grouped together: Clara Oswin Oswald/Rewrite. Feel free to edit as you please. We need to make sure that the wording isn't speculative in the slightest.
              06:59, 27 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Looks good to me so far. Just looking from a layout perspective, I think it's divided up well. New readers will easily be able to understand where to edit, and it would be easy to split the article up again if need be.
              08:26, 27 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Just looking back a bit, your version (SOTO) is very similar to Bold Clone's version, although I think the distinction between the end of Snowmen Clara and Prequel Clara is important to have, since we don't yet know if they're one and the same.
              08:30, 27 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              I just thought I'd note that while merging the articles isn't too difficult there is a process through which it is done. And I've kinda become the admin who does a majority of the wiki's mergers.

              I'm saying this as in order to do an effective merge I'd need to lock all the Clara pages during the merger to prevent people making edits as there's a few Clara pages to merge it's sort of a Russian doll sort of maneuver (to merge one page is moved to the other and then restored so to merge the articles that'll need to be done a few times) one page into another, then that one into the next etc.

              So, if we want a single article then we need to decide before TBOSJ or a few days after TBOSJ has been broadcast as I won't be able to do it immediately after it's been broadcast as there'll be too many editors on here to do it effectively.

              11:51, 27 March 2013
              Edited 15:09, 27 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Sorry, I still think a dab page only. I don't think we're going to have clarity on whether she's the same girl so easily.
              15:06, 27 March 2013
            • Cult_Of_Skaro
              I'm not British, but I will be watching it an hour after British broadcast if that helps.
              15:57, 27 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Seriously, it smells to me like a story arc rather than something that will become absolutely clear in the Bells. Even if the Clara from Asylum and the Clara from Snowmen turn out to be echoes of the new companion I'd still argue for them to have their own pages. And the girl from the prequel? They might never address it further. The best plan is to keep them as separate pages, with a dab page, until the mechanism by which she is the same girl is made crystal clear in narrative. And if it turns out that the new Clara also dies? Same deal.
              17:18, 27 March 2013
            • Rowan Earthwood
              From a usability standpoint, it'd be much easier to read the wiki if all four of the versions of Clara Oswin were merged into a single article. Spreading them out like that makes it difficult to find things. It's fine to state in the article that we're not sure how it can be that they're the same person, but having to hunt all over to figure out how seven parenthetical words are arranged is too much of a burden on the user. Just turn "Oswald Oswin" and other configurations into redirects.
              22:22, 27 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Redirects to the specific sections, of course, like we do with the Master.
              22:40, 27 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yeah, I still don't buy it.

              The difference beetween the Mastaer and Clara, again, is that each incarnation if Clara was a different person. The Master lead a linear life, Clara did not. We should thus keep said incarnations seperate and have one page that discussess them, like we do for the Doctor.

              01:16, 28 March 2013
            • Bold Clone
              Honestly, we don't need to know how linear Clara's life is. Why, you might ask? Because she's actually lived three different lives, each linear and yet somehow entirely distinct from each other. There are three seperate woman living in seperate places and time periods, but they share the exact same name and appearance. Clearly, this isn't a case of ancestor/descendant or Gwen from Torchwood, but something like Scaroth from City of Death; several individuals scattered accross time but excactly the same person. If thy are excactly the same person, then we need to merge the seperate pages together. However, you're right about not knowing how Claras' lives fit. So if we do compile them into one page, we need to make clear that we don't actually know how they/she is the same person, just that she is.

              At this point, I recommend that we wait 'til St. John airs, on the off-chance that this whole this will magically be solved then. Plus, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere or decide anything at all quickly enough for Tangerine to merge the pages together. Realistically, St. John will only confuse and/or tantalize us with hints, and we won't get the full picture until the finale, same as with all other Seasonal Story Arcs (the Cracks, Vote Saxon, Torchwood, etc.). Even then, if Clara continues as a companion into Series 8, we may not learn the truth about her for another year or more, similar to the Cracks and the Silence or River's identity.

              01:54, 28 March 2013
            • SOTO

              Tangerineduel wrote: I just thought I'd note that while merging the articles isn't too difficult there is a process through which it is done. And I've kinda become the admin who does a majority of the wiki's mergers.

              I'm saying this as in order to do an effective merge I'd need to lock all the Clara pages during the merger to prevent people making edits as there's a few Clara pages to merge it's sort of a Russian doll sort of maneuver (to merge one page is moved to the other and then restored so to merge the articles that'll need to be done a few times) one page into another, then that one into the next etc.

              So, if we want a single article then we need to decide before TBOSJ or a few days after TBOSJ has been broadcast as I won't be able to do it immediately after it's been broadcast as there'll be too many editors on here to do it effectively.

              You really should write new messages separately, rather than just editing old messages — I would never have noticed this. I just happened to be reading through.

              Anyways, I think this should be done before Bells, so that editors know where to go. Honestly, we need to decide what we're doing immediately: either we're merging, or we're creating one central page with basal information and links to the separate incarnations. We need to reach some sort of conclusion, or otherwise just do whatever's more convenient. As I've said above, we need to make sure that editors and readers know exactly where to go when looking for the different Claras. Be it one page or a dab-like page linking to the different pages, it needs to be crystal-clear before Saturday.

              02:42, 28 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Agreed with SOTO. The thing can be split up again after Saturday once more info has been revealed. We just need to be able to let editors easily access the correct section of the correct article to add new information in, and to try and remove as much guesswork on their part about where things go as possible. Whatever is done can be undone if need be to best represent the info, but for this weekend, our top priority should be making the place as new-user-friendly as possible. If a dab page is used instead of a merged article, it needs to be easy to get to and all the different versions of Miss Oswald must be clearly distinguishable for anybody who has never been here before. And we need to decide what to do ASAP.
              05:50, 28 March 2013
            • SOTO
              How about we just do it by vote? By 12:00 29 March UTC, whatever has the most votes gets implemented. Does that leave you with enough time to merge the articles, Tangerine, or do we have to make the deadline earlier?

              Anyway, my vote: we merge. But I'm willing to sway either way.

              Next?

              06:16, 28 March 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Merge, and separate later if need be.
              06:24, 28 March 2013
            • Chericola
              We should merge the pages together. That's my vote.
              09:17, 28 March 2013
            • Cult_Of_Skaro
              Merge, and if we need to separate, separate.
              13:49, 28 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              DAB, under Clara Oswald. Rename each other page with a dab term showing their episode origin. Lock the other pages without a DAB term as redirects to the dab page. Add clear terms and links to the others on each page.
              14:32, 28 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Really guys, a vote? The majority isn't the most right here, it's the one with the most logical answer that needs to be choosen.

              With that said, I vote keeping them seperate until further info is given (and keeping even past then)

              17:28, 28 March 2013
              Edited 17:28, 28 March 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Anyone here seen The Bells of St. John: a Prequel? That has a child Clara Oswald in it. Another Clara.
              20:37, 28 March 2013
            • Quest?on
              I vote merge.
              21:40, 28 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. It has been 20 hours since the last vote. Anyone else who wishes to vote will have to do so immediately.

              Now, the vote seems to be in favour of a merge (5:2). In response to OS's complaint, yes, I know, votes aren't always the best option, but discussion wasn't getting us anywhere. Everyone's arguments are equally logical, and, while I think that a merge is most logical, you too disagree. A vote was the only option, as we need one of them to get done. Also keep in mind that this is only a temporary solution — we'll discuss fully after the broadcast of Bells.

              Now the main problem is if we have enough time. Do we, Tangerine? There's only about 24 hours until broadcast. If you do not have enough time to merge the articles, then we'll be forced to use the dab page idea instead.

              18:02, 29 March 2013
              Edited 18:04, 29 March 2013
            • TARDIStraveler
              I vote merge, keeping the different incarnations in order by when they were introduced to the audience. If it turns out down the road that there's evidence of a better order to the different Claras (time warp/cloned genius/reincarnation/OMGITSROMANAISNTIT) then the page can easily be rewritten.
              18:12, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Or merged with Romana. :P

              Since it seems we're in favour of a merge, would you mind helping me clean up Clara Oswin Oswald/Rewrite? That's where the text for the merged page is now sitting. While we're waiting for Tangerine to respond, we can work on it.

              18:16, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              We should also discuss the titles of the different sections.

              At present, they're:[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Oswin Oswald[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Clara Oswin Oswald[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Clara Oswald[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Child Clara Oswald[[edit] | [edit source]]

              A bit confusing, if you ask me.

              Perhaps:[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Oswin Oswald[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Victorian Clara[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Modern-day Clara[[edit] | [edit source]]

              or

              21st century Clara[[edit] | [edit source]]

              (speculation today, but not tomorrow)

              Child Clara[[edit] | [edit source]]

              18:28, 29 March 2013
              Edited 18:56, 29 March 2013
            • Shambala108
              Ottselspy25 is right, there is no need for a vote.

              Czechout clearly states at the top of the thread that it is policy for this character to be on one page: it's an in-universe character, and we have in-universe evidence that they're all the same. If anyone wants to change the policy, they have to provide clear, convincing evidence that the characters are not the same. If you're in favor of merging, you really don't have to do anything.

              SmallerOnTheOutside, I recommend that you do the headings in another post, once an admin has closed this one, because this one's getting long already. It really is a different issue anyway.

              18:42, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              The main issue at the moment, you'll gather from reading the recent posts, is that it has to be clear for both editors and readers immediately after the broadcast of The Bells of Saint John. The obvious method is a merge. Since two members opposed to that, with logical agreements (that's not to say that I agree with them), it felt better to get a community consensus rather than just going ahead and carrying out my own opinion.

              The other option was either a dab-like page, or one main page with basic information and links to the separate pages.

              Now that the consensus has decided to merge, I'm going to leave a message on Tangerineduel's talk page, as he wanted to perform the merge. There's less than 24 hours left.

              18:54, 29 March 2013
              Edited 19:44, 29 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              You neither have the right logic or the authority to make such a call. The idea is that we don't know if they're literally the same person, and even if they are, the different incarnations should still have seperate pages to avoid confusion. That would just make for better articles. The discussion should continue as it was going. It's clear that this talk is far too dead to even consider doing a poll; Especially not one where you only gave one day. When the episode airs is irrelevant.
              20:53, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'll re-explain myself: it needs to be clear for both readers and editors where to add the information the moment that episode airs. The time of the broadcast is very important, as something has to be done by then. If you want a dab page, fine, we need something. Then we open a new discussion after the airing.

              At the moment, the format must be terribly confusing for new editors and readers alike. Readers'll want to look up information on all incarnations; editors'll want to add information to the latest one. But where to look? They'll immediately go to Clara Oswald or Clara Oswin Oswald, both of which are only the Victorian Clara. So two solutions: either we merge the pages or Clara Oswin Oswald/Clara Oswald becomes a dab page with links to Clara Oswald (The Snowmen), Clara (The Snowmen) (possibly renamed Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John) in the future to avoid confusion) and Oswin Oswald (Asylum of the Daleks). Since it seems unlikely that we can merge the articles properly before the broadcast of Bells, I think it will suffice to create a dab page.

              Anyone object to dab page creation? We will, of course, open a new discussion post-broadcast.

              21:54, 29 March 2013
            • 71.80.217.6
              Keep them separate.

              Clara doesn't know The Doctor. She doesn't know him in any version of him we've seen so far. She's died in two versions. Past, present, and future are all individuals. The idea that they are the same person is The Doctor's theory, which goes against the fact that she has never met him and has no idea about her so-called "other lives," which we do not know matter of factly are her other lives.

              So my vote is to keep them separate.

              22:43, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. The vote didn't work, and we obviously don't have enough time to merge them anyways, so we're forced to create a dab page. Just to clarify, that would mean Clara Oswald being moved to Clara Oswald (The Snowmen) and Clara Oswin Oswald (Clara Oswald being a redirect to there) becoming a dab page.

              Objections?

              This needs to be done before the broadcast, but I won't do it until someone voices their opinion. Basically, though, this has been agreed upon upthread.

              23:05, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I'll wait five or six hours (maybe more), and then, if no one objects, I'll be forced to act, so that readers and editors know where to find the pages. Also consider that, in barely more than 12 hours, Clara Oswald will apply to the Bells version too, thus it needs a dab term anyways. In fact, considering that, it would only be an application of policy to create a dab page. I'll still wait a few hours...

              Please someone respond so that I can get to it.

              23:09, 29 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              A good idea, but you really should leave the page-moving to qn admin.
              23:16, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              None of them are currently around, or at least not editing. Anyway, I technically have the capacity, because the 'move' feature would move Clara Oswald to Clara Oswald (The Snowmen) and leave a redirect at Clara Oswald. Then, I'd just replace "#REDIRECT Clara Oswald (The Snowmen)" with the text of the dab page — simple!
              23:21, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Hopefully, an admin comes along and is able to do it. Otherwise, I'll have to do it myself. It's only because it affects popular pages that I'm even announcing it — it's just implementing T:DAB! — usually, I just go ahead and do my job. That's the main reason why I'm waiting. But, if it comes to it, I'm capable enough.
              23:23, 29 March 2013
            • Shambala108
              Just keep in mind that for many admins, it's almost the middle of the night right now. They will probably be able to take care of it in their morning.
              23:43, 29 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Yeah, and, in their morning, I'll be sleeping. :)

              We won't be able to make sure that it gets done. How many of our admins are even British, anyway? I've always found that the majority of our regulars are North American. And anyway, look upthread — I asked a 2 days ago who here's British so that they can take action immediately after initial broadcast, and still no one has responded.

              I think I'll just wait until the middle of the night for me and then do it myself. Or maybe you can do it, as you're by far my senior (not to mention that, if I recall correctly, you were offered adminship).

              00:11, 30 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Is "Clara Oswald" confirmed to be the way the credits will read?

              Is it ready to go with redirects for any page that doesn't have a dab term? Also, that brief text on each page indicating that they should visit the dab page?

              I have a two pronged issue, myself. I'm both working tomorrow and the two local television providers don't have BBCA, so I'm going to be exercising self-control to not go anywhere that I might get spoiled before iTunes can satisfy me. :)

              02:59, 30 March 2013
            • SOTO
              We do have {{dab page}} for that you know.

              I'd just add "{{dab page|Clara Oswin Oswald}}" and get this:

              You may wish to consult Clara Oswin Oswald for other, similarly-named pages.

              As far as the credits, yes, it is confirmed. Here's my source: [3] From the BBC itself. It is, of course, still considered a spoiler, but the credits definitely will say "Clara Oswald." But we obviously can't rename the page until broadcast.

              Anyways, since we clearly can't have three articles named Clara Oswald, I'm going to wait until hour before renaming the page to Clara Oswald (The Snowmen). Call it future-proofing, if you wish. Then I'll create the dab page in Clara Oswin Oswald's place. Even if the new one wasn't "Clara Oswald," I'd still have to rename Clara Oswald because of Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel).

              03:12, 30 March 2013
              Edited 03:15, 30 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Was it agreed to change it from Clara Oswin Oswald? You don't get much clearer definition of a name than a gravestone. Shouldn't Clara Oswald (The Snowmen) be a redirect?
              03:15, 30 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Well...

              At present, Clara Oswald is the main page for Victorian Clara, and Clara Oswin Oswald is a redirect.

              But I'm almost positive that the Bells one will be specifically called Clara Oswin Oswald, too. Also consider the confusing factor that the modern-day Clara was first introduced in The Snowmen, meaning that they're both technically Clara Oswald (The Snowmen). It's all wibbly wobbly, if you ask me. Maybe we can change Clara (The Snowmen) to Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John), since her Snowmen appearance lasts only a few seconds.

              Here's my proposition until Bells, though:

              Post-broadcast, Clara (The Snowmen) should be renamed Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John), IMO.

              03:32, 30 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Looking at the page history, it was Mini-mitch who moved the page from Clara Oswin Oswald.
              03:53, 30 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'm now moving...


              Scratch that — it's been move-locked by Tangerineduel. :/

              In that case, I'll just create the dab page at Clara Oswin Oswald and leave an admin to do the moving.

              04:10, 30 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well...

              But I'm almost positive that the Bells one will be specifically called Clara Oswin Oswald, too.

              Now we know "Bells" Clara is not Clara Oswin Oswald, but simply Clara Oswald, unlike Victorian Clara or Futuristic Oswin. Like Jenna's other characters, she'd never met The Doctor before.

              00:02, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yes, and thus I propose we move what is currently Clara Oswald to Clara Oswin Oswald (The Snowmen) and the new clara to Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John)
              01:38, 31 March 2013
              Edited 01:39, 31 March 2013
              Edited 01:39, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Technically, the new Clara was introduced in TV: The Snowmen.

              Anyways, yes, it does seems that we have Oswin Oswald, Clara Oswin Oswald, and Clara Oswald. Problem is with the naming: Victorian Clara's also called Clara Oswald. This is tricky...

              02:02, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Technically, the new Clara was introduced in TV: The Snowmen.

              Anyways, yes, it does seems that we have Oswin Oswald, Clara Oswin Oswald, and Clara Oswald. Problem is with the naming: Victorian Clara's also called Clara Oswald. This is tricky...

              We can't just have Clara Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswald, since that is the middle name of one and not of the other? Sarah Jane's page is Sarah Jane Smith, not Sarah Smith.

              02:15, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO
              That's completely different. Sarah Jane is always referred to as Sarah Jane! Only the Doctor called her that, occasionally. But we'd never say "Sarah Smith," we'd say "Sarah Jane Smith." Don't take the exception and try to use it to warp your argument.

              Amy Pond: Do we name her page Amelia Jessica Pond? Or Amelia Jessica Williams? No! We have a policy against married names and middle names!

              03:40, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet
              The Doctor began referring to Clara as Clara Oswin Oswald as soon as he knew her middle name. That's what he called Victorian Clara at the end of "The Snowmen" and what he erroneously called Clara in "Bells." He mirrored this at the end of "Bells" with the omission of "Owsin" after having learned that Oswin was not the middle name of this Clara.
              04:02, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Agreement. The middle name in this case is rellevant and important to the charactor, including sho she is and what she represents. Thus we should keep it.

              To respond to Meweits's question above, we can't just have Clara Oswald and Clara Owin Oslwald, because there is another Clara Owsin in the Prequel and Clara Oswin Oswald is the DAB page. Besides, as they all have so similar names it's best to keep the DAB terms to avoid confusion.

              (Does anyone know what happened to Czech? It's weird not having him join in these things... He hasn't been on in 5 days! :0)

              04:41, 31 March 2013
              Edited 04:43, 31 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Before I start moving pages I want to make sure we're on the same page on the moves as there seems to be rename tags on all of the Claras.
              This is Victorian Clara and we'll use her full name to DAB the article.
              This is graveyard Clara, remains there as I can't see confirmation between this and Bells of St John Clara
              The content from this page concerning TBOSJ Clara however will need to be moved.

              Clara Oswald becomes a disambiguation page for the various Claras, rather than Clara Oswin Oswald.

              Pages that remain where they are

              My questions prior to moving are to OttselSpy25 do we need to DAB Clara Oswin Oswald? Only Victorian Clara has the full name including the middle name.

              SOTO do we know of any firm connection between Clara (The Snowmen) (aka Graveyard Clara) and TBOSJ Clara?

              09:58, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yeah, they both have the same friend. (No other Clara has been shown to have this friend, thus it must be the same.)
              17:07, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki
              Oh wow, I didn't realize this thread was here. Sorry for clogging up the Talk pages, all.

              Considering the leaf at the end of The Bells of Saint John, and the autumn scene where the Doctor meets a young Clara in the prequel, would that not lead one to believe they are the same Clara Oswald?

              It seems we only have three (Oswin from Asylum, Clara Oswin from Snowmen, and Clara from Snowmen, Prequel, and Bells) when you factor everything together.

              Also also (and forgive me if this has been answered, this thread is mighty long), would we not want to have the companion Clara's page simply be Clara Oswald? We have yet to demarcate a companion's page in such a way before.

              17:58, 31 March 2013
            • Geek Mythology
              Surely the pages should be:

              Oswin Oswald - This is the name given by the Alaska crewmember in Asylum Clara Oswin Oswald - This is the full name (as shown on grave) of the governess in Snowmen Clara Oswald, This is the name given by the nanny in Bells of St John onwards.

              18:38, 31 March 2013
            • TenCents
              I agree with Witoki.
              18:40, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki

              Geek Mythology wrote: Surely the pages should be:

              Oswin Oswald - This is the name given by the Alaska crewmember in Asylum Clara Oswin Oswald - This is the full name (as shown on grave) of the governess in Snowmen Clara Oswald, This is the name given by the nanny in Bells of St John onwards.

              I'm inclined to agree. What we ultimately get is:

              No demarcated names, but a dab page to clear it up as backup.

              18:42, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I'm inclined to agree with Witoki, if we can find rationale for the Prequel Clara to be the Bells Clara then this should work... And with the leaf, I think we have.
              18:53, 31 March 2013
            • TenCents
              The BBC website biography for Clara says Prequel Clara and Bells Clara are the same Clara.
              19:23, 31 March 2013
              Edited 19:23, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut

              OttselSpy25 wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Witoki, if we can find rationale for the Prequel Clara to be the Bells Clara then this should work... And with the leaf, I think we have.

              Whatcha talking about? She's never seen holding, admiring, fondling, or in any way interacting with a leaf in the prequel.

              20:09, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki
              http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rryyj/profiles/clara-oswald

              "The Doctor met Clara when she was much younger in this prequel…" (links to A Prequel)

              I think that about clinches it.

              20:16, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              No, it doesn't. That's out of universe information, and therefore not admissible in in-universe articles.
              20:21, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              OttselSpy25 wrote: Yeah, they both have the same friend. (No other Clara has been shown to have this friend, thus it must be the same.)

              Are you talking about Angie? Because Sophie Miller-Sheen plays "Clara's Friend" in "The Snowmen" and Eva de Leon Allen plays "Angie" in "Bells."

              Witoki wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rryyj/profiles/clara-oswald

              "The Doctor met Clara when she was much younger in this prequel…" (links to A Prequel)

              I think that about clinches it.

              That works for me.

              20:23, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              But I think that the leaf may be enough evidence.
              20:24, 31 March 2013
            • Geek Mythology
              I don't see how the leaf is evidence, but either way, it's still speculation.
              20:26, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki

              CzechOut wrote: No, it doesn't. That's out of universe information, and therefore not admissible in in-universe articles.

              I don't see how it could possibly be inadmissible. It's not a speculative statement, it's the BBC website stating, quite plainly, that Clara from A Prequel grows up to be Clara from Bells.

              20:26, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet
              Honest question: what makes out of universe information inadmissible in this case, but admissible in other wiki situations?
              20:34, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut

              Witoki wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: No, it doesn't. That's out of universe information, and therefore not admissible in in-universe articles.

              I don't see how it could possibly be inadmissible. It's not a speculative statement, it's the BBC website stating, quite plainly, that Clara from A Prequel grows up to be Clara from Bells.

              See rule one of our four little rules. For a source to be valid, it must be a story. No exceptions.

              20:35, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: What we ultimately get is:

              No demarcated names, but a dab page to clear it up as backup.

              Wow, you guys have been busy without me! :)

              The above quote is what I think we should do. Although it's tricky to connect the three modern Claras...

              But the dab page should definitely be Clara Oswin Oswald (disambiguation), since it's far more central. Also consider that readers will go straight to Clara Oswin Oswald or Clara Oswald and expect to find everything there, so, barring a merge, if they go there and want to find info on Oswin, her link's on the dab page, too.

              20:35, 31 March 2013
              Edited 20:37, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.
              20:42, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut

              Mewiet wrote: Honest question: what makes out of universe information inadmissible in this case, but admissible in other wiki situations?

              What other "wiki situations" did you have in mind?

              20:43, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              CzechOut wrote: See rule one of our four little rules. For a source to be valid, it must be a story. No exceptions.

              Wasn't "P.S." considered valid by this wiki until Chris Chibnall stated that it was intended to be filmed but was not due to the actors not being available? That seems like out of universe information, which was why I thought that the BBC stating that the Claras are the same would also count.

              Sorry about the confusion, but I'm just trying to understand the difference.

              20:43, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              That's the best option, in my opinion. Number one: no proof that they're different people. Number two: it would be a lot less confusing for readers. Number three: We don't have to worry about names and dab pages.

              20:45, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              I think... are we suggesting the same thing then? I'm a bit confused.

              Basically, "Clara Oswald" is everyone but the Oswin from Asylum (an Oswald of the future) and Clara Oswin from The Snowmen (an Oswald of the past)

              20:46, 31 March 2013
            • Geek Mythology

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              As much as we don't have any "hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people", I'd say that we don't have any that that they are all the same person either.

              Either way, all eleven incarnations of the Doctor are the same person, but each still has their own wiki page, likewise Romana and Romana II.

              20:48, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              I think... are we suggesting the same thing then? I'm a bit confused.

              Basically, "Clara Oswald" is everyone but the Oswin from Asylum (an Oswald of the future) and Clara Oswin from The Snowmen (an Oswald of the past)

              I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but I can assure you that you're not suggesting the same thing. Czech's suggesting that all the Claras (yes, including Oswin) be on one page. Everyone on Clara Oswin Oswald.

              20:49, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki

              Geek Mythology wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              As much as we don't have any "hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people", I'd say that we don't have any that that they are all the same person either.

              Either way, all eleven incarnations of the Doctor are the same person, but each still has their own wiki page, likewise Romana and Romana II.

              Very true, but those are also characters who identify as distinct individuals. "I die, and some new man goes sauntering off", you know?

              20:49, 31 March 2013
            • Geek Mythology

              Witoki wrote:

              Geek Mythology wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              As much as we don't have any "hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people", I'd say that we don't have any that that they are all the same person either.

              Either way, all eleven incarnations of the Doctor are the same person, but each still has their own wiki page, likewise Romana and Romana II.

              Very true, but those are also characters who identify as distinct individuals. "I die, and some new man goes sauntering off", you know?

              Fair enough, but I still don't see what evidence there is that the various Claras/Oswins are actually the same person.

              Surely going either way will be speculation?

              20:52, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO

              Geek Mythology wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: I will say again that it should all be on one page until we have hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people.

              As much as we don't have any "hard, definitive, absolute, unambiguous evidence that these are different people", I'd say that we don't have any that that they are all the same person either.

              Either way, all eleven incarnations of the Doctor are the same person, but each still has their own wiki page, likewise Romana and Romana II.

              This is case by case. The Master's in one page because of naming issues; the Doctor's on eleven pages because of, let's say, length. I personally wasn't there for those discussions, but I can assure you that there were specific reasons.

              As far as proof, there is far more proof leaning towards her somehow being the same person, versus no proof for them being different. I'd recommend you read through at least the first half of this page, to get a little bearing on the situation.

              20:52, 31 March 2013
            • TenCents
              I'm curious as to why BBC isn't counted as a valid source: they are, after all, the ones who own Doctor Who. There would be no Doctor Who without the BBC.
              20:57, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              TenCents wrote: I'm curious as to why BBC isn't counted as a valid source: they are, after all, the ones who own Doctor Who. There would be no Doctor Who without the BBC.

              Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/

              21:07, 31 March 2013
              Edited 21:10, 31 March 2013
            • Noneofyourbusiness
              What about Clara Oswin Oswald for one and Clara Oswald for the other, since one has a middle name and the other doesn't?
              21:21, 31 March 2013
            • Shambala108
              Mewiet and Twocents:

              Here's the difference. Story pages are out-of-universe, so out-of-universe sources can be used. Characters are in-universe, so only in-universe sources can be used.

              Hope that helps.

              21:28, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki
              That seems rather arbitrary, to be perfectly frank.

              So Steven Moffat can walk up, say "The Prequel takes place in 1998", but we can't include that because Moffat isn't an in-universe source? That doesn't make any sense.

              21:32, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut

              Mewiet wrote:

              TenCents wrote: I'm curious as to why BBC isn't counted as a valid source: they are, after all, the ones who own Doctor Who. There would be no Doctor Who without the BBC.

              Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/

              Please read our four little rules. You will see there that rule #1 is that a valid source must be a story. A statement on the BBC's website is not a story. It's … a statement on the BBC's website.

              There is no inconsistency in using out-of-universe statements for declaring a story valid, because story pages are out-of-universe. That's why they all start with {{real world}}. It's absolutely vital to use out-of-universe statements to determine the validity of stories because if we evaluated stories based on their in-universe content we'd be throwing things out left, right and centre. John and Gillian: gone. The Death of Ace in COMIC: Ground Zero: gone. There are simply too many contradictions in the narratives of DW for us to base our decisions upon the narrative quality of a piece.

              Basically, we let all stories in, unless the production team tells us they didn't mean for a piece to be set in the DWU.

              21:32, 31 March 2013
              Edited by OncomingStorm12th 16:50, 9 September 2020
            • Witoki
              I think we're getting off-topic. Let's bring this back to the subject at hand.

              As far as the number of pages:

              There is a sizable amount of evidence to suggest that the Asylum, Snowmen, and Bells Oswalds are three distinct women. There is not substantial evidence to suggest Snowmen epilogue, Prequel, and Bells Oswalds are distinct women.

              There is a decent amount of evidence to suggest that Snowmen epilogue, Prequel, and Bells Oswalds are the same woman. There is not substantial evidence to suggest Asylum, Snowmen, and Bells Oswalds are the same woman.

              21:37, 31 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              Indeed. What some people don't understand is that if we continue to have multiple pages, multiple links will be made to multiple pages. Then, if we do find that the Claras are all the same person — and, really, that's probably the most likely outcome, isn't it? — we'll have to change all the links.

              It's a lot of work for no reason. Just keep it all at Clara Oswin Oswald and be done with it—until and unless it's ever proven that there is some significant difference between the various Claras.

              22:37, 31 March 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I suppose that one could argue that sense the doctor only thought there to be three Claras that any suggestion of more would be speculation, and thus that any modern Claras must all be the same...
              22:38, 31 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              The REAL question is: Is the default assumption that all the characters with the same name, personality traits, and appearance are the same woman?

              I think that, yes, that's a good default assumption. When we see Amy or the Doctor we rarely assume they're not the same.

              So, logically, we start with one page for the Claras. Then, we should collect narrative evidence to split off some.

              Of course, in narrative, at this point, only the Doctor thinks she's the same person, and even though he thinks this, he also clearly states that he considers it impossible. That is enough wobbly in the narrative to split off the two versions that definitely lived in other time zones and were actually shown to die.

              (As you'll recall, in most narratives, having clearly died in another story would be plenty of evidence that someone is meant to be considered a different person. Doctor Who should have to show us why before they get a pass. I mean - if they'd spread out Auton Rory for longer, or if they hadn't made clear Ganger Amy was actually Amy, we'd be arguing that still.)

              So, combine the modern Claras as if they'd never been split, and leave the Oswalds from Asylum and Snowmen as their own pages unless different narrative evidence comes to light showing us how it isn't impossible that she's the same woman.

              -> Ha! I just realised it's only logically so difficult because Moffat turned the story inside out on us. It's a timey-wimey metaplot...

              22:49, 31 March 2013
              Edited 22:51, 31 March 2013
            • Mewiet

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: Of course, in narrative, at this point, only the Doctor thinks she's the same person, and even though he thinks this, he also clearly states that he considers it impossible. That is enough wobbly in the narrative to split off the two versions that definitely lived in other time zones and were actually shown to die.

              (As you'll recall, in most narratives, having clearly died in another story would be plenty of evidence that someone is meant to be considered a different person. Doctor Who should have to show us why before they get a pass. I mean - if they'd spread out Auton Rory for longer, or if they hadn't made clear Ganger Amy was actually Amy, we'd be arguing that still.)

              So, combine the modern Claras as if they'd never been split, and leave the Oswalds from Asylum and Snowmen as their own pages unless different narrative evidence comes to light showing us how it isn't impossible that she's the same woman.

              And The Doctor's statement that it's impossible is backed up by the fact that CO, COO, and Oswin tell him that they don't know him, that they don't recognize and have never met him before. To take The Doctor's theory/suspicion as fact is the wrong way to go. It's far too speculative to definitively call all three of them the same person with the information that we have right now.

              23:06, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I don't really understand how you can completely dismiss the modern Snowmen, the Prequel, and the Bells Clara's being distinct, yet claim that there's no evidence that the rest aren't the same woman.

              Until we meet Clara's friend or Clara's mother, or have Bells Clara remember her childhood meeting with the Doctor, we can't really link them as the same life. And I highly doubt those narrative elements will ever get revisited.

              I think we should also consider the names of the articles related to Clara. Having Clara's mother and Clara's father implies that they're married and the parents of the same Clara. But they're not.

              23:13, 31 March 2013
              Edited by Shambala108 23:47, 26 August 2019
            • OttselSpy25
              We have met Clara's Friend, thus we know that Snowmen and Bells are the same.
              23:18, 31 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              It's not rejecting evidence, it's deciding the default position to argue from. There's not enough evidence either way, dude. That's why the argument keeps going. You have to make a definition of default.
              23:18, 31 March 2013
              Edited 23:20, 31 March 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I don't really understand how you can completely dismiss the modern Snowmen, the Prequel, and the Bells Clara's being distinct, yet claim that there's no evidence that the rest aren't the same woman.

              Until we meet Clara's friend or Clara's mother, or have Bells Clara remember her childhood meeting with the Doctor, we can't really link them as the same life. And I highly doubt those narrative elements will ever get revisited.

              I think we should also consider the names of the articles related to Clara. Having Clara's mother and Clara's father implies that they're married and the parents of the same Clara. But they're not.

              There's no implication of marriage by calling them her mother and her father. And unless we want to go back and check that there are no ambiguous mother/father pairs, I don't see what those pages warrant renaming. It will be obvious quickly in each article that they are separate and disconnected.

              23:25, 31 March 2013
              Edited by Shambala108 23:48, 26 August 2019
            • ComicBookGoddess

              OttselSpy25 wrote: We have met Clara's Friend, thus we know that Snowmen and Bells are the same.

              We met her in Snowmen, and that looks like her daughter in Bells, but we can't say for sure she's the same.

              However, we 'can,' agree that the default position should be that the Claras are the same - unless there's stuff (it goes bing when there's stuff)- errr, I mean, evidence. We have stuff for future Clara and past Clara - but we don't for the modern.

              We end up with a dab page, Clara Oswin Oswald (The Snowmen), Oswin Oswald (Asylum of the Daleks), and Clara Oswald (the rest of them). Only there's a logic to why and it's in accordance with rules. **shrug**

              23:54, 31 March 2013
              Edited 23:54, 31 March 2013
            • SOTO

              OttselSpy25 wrote: We have met Clara's Friend, thus we know that Snowmen and Bells are the same.

              No, we haven't...

              23:57, 31 March 2013
            • Quest?on
              I read the discussion on the Master pages, and they were all placed on one page because they used a complicated system of naming that no-one outside this wiki could understand. I think that is what we have here.
              00:44, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Not really, these are all very easy to name... And we really don't know how all of the Claras are connected, so it's kinda impossible to put them all on one page.

              The pages should be kept seperate.

              00:59, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              ComicBookGoddess wrote:

              OttselSpy25 wrote: We have met Clara's Friend, thus we know that Snowmen and Bells are the same.

              We met her in Snowmen, and that looks like her daughter in Bells, but we can't say for sure she's the same.

              However, we 'can,' agree that the default position should be that the Claras are the same - unless there's stuff (it goes bing when there's stuff)- errr, I mean, evidence. We have stuff for future Clara and past Clara - but we don't for the modern.

              We end up with a dab page, Clara Oswin Oswald (The Snowmen), Oswin Oswald (Asylum of the Daleks), and Clara Oswald (the rest of them). Only there's a logic to why and it's in accordance with rules. **shrug**

              I agree. 11 only spoke of 3 Claras. We know of 5 accounts of Clara in 3 timezones, so it's logical to assume that the same ones in the same timezones are, well... the same.

              01:00, 1 April 2013
            • 42dirou
              If The Doctor says she is the same person, she is. Until he says otherwise, which I think he would even agree with... until he doesn't :)
              03:02, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Except the Doctor is frequently wrong. He is just as fallible as any other character.
              03:08, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              42dirou wrote: If The Doctor says she is the same person, she is. Until he says otherwise, which I think he would even agree with... until he doesn't :)

              Right... :P

              Anyway, the only fact we have at present is the Doctor's word — they are the same woman. And, so far, there is no evidence to the contrary. It would be speculation to assume that he's wrong. Until we have hard evidence that they're different people, he have to go by all we have:

              I never knew her name, her full name. Soufflé girl. Oswin. It was her. It was soufflé girl. Again. I never saw her face the first time, with the Daleks. But her voice. It was the same voice. The same woman, twice. And she died. Both times. The same woman!The Doctor [The Snowmen [src]]

              03:20, 1 April 2013
            • 42dirou

              Witoki wrote: Except the Doctor is frequently wrong. He is just as fallible as any other character.

              Read closer, that is what I was inferring...

              03:26, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              42dirou wrote: If The Doctor says she is the same person, she is. Until he says otherwise, which I think he would even agree with... until he doesn't :)

              Right... :P

              Anyway, the only fact we have at present is the Doctor's word — they are the same woman. And, so far, there is no evidence to the contrary. It would be speculation to assume that he's wrong. Until we have hard evidence that they're different people, he have to go by all we have:

              I never knew her name, her full name. Soufflé girl. Oswin. It was her. It was soufflé girl. Again. I never saw her face the first time, with the Daleks. But her voice. It was the same voice. The same woman, twice. And she died. Both times. The same woman!The Doctor [The Snowmen [src]]

              Her dying twice on-screen is pretty good proof the Doctor is wrong.

              03:26, 1 April 2013
              Edited 03:28, 1 April 2013
            • Mewiet
              It's speculation to assume his speculation is right when she herself says that she's never met him before and two of JLC's characters have died. There is only speculation that they are the same person, while clear evidence points to them being individuals.
              03:27, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Right on. I can't see why we can't keep the modern Claras separate from the two dead versions until we see what kind of bad wolf she is. ;)
              03:30, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: Her dying twice on-screen is pretty good proof the Doctor is wrong.

              Clearly, you're not very familiar with the Whoniverse. Even just from the Moffat era, it's a world with Gangers and Teselecta. With memory worms and resurrection devices. It's really not that far fetched that she died twice.

              You can't really apply the logic of the real world to the DWU.

              03:31, 1 April 2013
              Edited 03:32, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              And yet we separate our Gangers, and the Teselecta, from the people they mimic.
              03:32, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO
              That's not the point. I'm not claiming that she's anything like a Ganger. My point is that, applying real-world logic, Gangers must be the same as the originals, as Gangers don't exist. That's just plain wrong. Applying Whoniverse concepts, we know that they're distinct beings.

              Same here: the Claras must be distinct, because people dying and then reappearing a century later don't exist. That's also just as wrong.

              03:42, 1 April 2013
            • 42dirou

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: That's not the point. I'm not claiming that she's anything like a Ganger. My point is that, applying real-world logic, Gangers must be the same as the originals, as Gangers don't exist. That's just plain wrong. Applying Whoniverse concepts, we know that they're distinct beings.

              Same here: the Claras must be distinct, because people dying and then reappearing a century later don't exist. That's also just as wrong.

              This is almost like a religious/spiritual discussion, funny really.

              03:47, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: That's not the point. I'm not claiming that she's anything like a Ganger. My point is that, applying real-world logic, Gangers must be the same as the originals, as Gangers don't exist. That's just plain wrong. Applying Whoniverse concepts, we know that they're distinct beings.

              Same here: the Claras must be distinct, because people dying and then reappearing a century later don't exist. That's also just as wrong.

              Pretty much where I was going with it too. There's (thus far) no logic behind claiming the three Oswalds are the same person, we have to separate them.

              03:49, 1 April 2013
            • Mewiet
              And if each version is a ganger, or identical family like Gwen and Gwyneth, they wouldn't all be the same. Which brings us back to the fact that there's no proof that all three are the same. There is, however, her own statements that she doesn't know The Doctor and the fact that each version is a unique individual, leading an individual life, in different time periods.

              Witoki wrote: Pretty much where I was going with it too. There's (thus far) no logic behind claiming the three Oswalds are the same person, we have to separate them.

              Exactly.

              03:50, 1 April 2013
              Edited 03:51, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              I'm just saying we need to agree on a default, which for the sake of simplicity (and not arguing versions of the Doctor every time he walks on screen, oj, he just did it again didn't he?) should be "they’re all the same".

              Then we can argue about which ones have enough evidence to split (and I think future Dalek Oswin, yes, and past Snowmen Clara, yes.)

              03:52, 1 April 2013
            • 42dirou
              If it looks like a rabbit, jumps like a rabbit, smells like a rabbit..... it's definitely not broccoli :)
              04:01, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO
              That makes no sense. You can say, "These ones are the same, but not those." I'd like to hear cold hard proof that Oswin's a different person from Oswin or Victorian Clara.

              Memory? She's introduced in a story about memory worms, and the Doctpr is known to be able to hypnotise.

              Death? Once again, what I said above.

              The only concrete fact we have is that the Doctor thinks she's the same woman. Show me something that proves otherwise!

              04:06, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Is there anybody arguing for an end point other than three articles? Czech thinks one, anybody else? Given my simple default theory, anybody else still thinking split the modern Claras?
              04:07, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: That makes no sense. You can say, "These ones are the same, but not those." I'd like to hear cold hard proof that Clara's a different person from Oswin or Victorian Clara.

              Because Oswin died in the future, and C.O.O. died in the 19th century.

              We separate Rory Williams and Auton Rory, despite the former retaining the latter's memories. We have the exact same situation here.

              04:08, 1 April 2013
            • 42dirou
              That's good enough for me
              04:09, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: Is there anybody arguing for an end point other than three articles? Czech thinks one, anybody else? Given my simple default theory, anybody else still thinking split the modern Claras?

              I'm sorry to disappoint you, but picking and choosing at random is not "the simple default theory." The default is, in fact, one page, since we are told that she's the same woman, and we have no proof to the contrary.

              04:15, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              We are told that the Doctor thinks she's the same woman. It's literally the speculation of the Doctor that they are one. And yet none of them recognize him at first meeting.

              Again, we separate Auton Rory from Rory Williams, despite the real Rory having the Auton's memories. So how is this any different?

              04:18, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Your tone is borderline insulting, SOTO. Watch it.

              I take it, then, you're in favour of one page? You didn't seem to be arguing that.

              As you may notice above, several users feel that the competing narrative evidence of the two deaths is at least as strong a statement.

              04:21, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              Witoki wrote: We are told that the Doctor thinks she's the same woman. It's literally the speculation of the Doctor that they are one. And yet none of them recognize him at first meeting.

              Again, we separate Auton Rory from Rory Williams, despite the real Rory having the Auton's memories. So how is this any different?

              It's very simple. We can't just go around speculating on when the Doctor is wrong or wright. We can't say "The Doctor said this, but he may be blatantly wrong or stupid so let's ignore it." (The exception is if it was a joke) Yes, you're entirely right, the Doctor may simply be wrong. But until we're told as such it's speculation to presume that he is such.

              On that note, the Doctor only talked of three Claras:

              • The Dalek Oswin
              • The Past Clara
              • The Present Clara

              I think that it is such speculation to presume that there are more Claras then the Doctor knew of. The Doctor only ever spoke of one present Clara, thus there must only be one present Clara.

              04:22, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'll play along and show you the faults. Let's sag we keep them split. In that case, we have no proof that end-of-Snowmen Clara, Prequel Clara and Bells Clarra are the same.

              Therefore, we'd end up with something like this:

              As if that's not bad enough, what if there's another one? No. Titles too confusing, for starters. Not gonna happen.

              So you see, even ignoring that fact that the only evidence we have is the Doctpr's words, we can't split them because of naming issues!

              04:23, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Naming issues have never been the basis for combining pages before. We had an enormous debate over Brian Williams that roughly ended with "how ugly the pagename is is irrelevant, accuracy is paramount".
              04:27, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Yeah, but the issue here is that we don't necessarily need them to be together... Can I please direct you all to my post above Smaller's?
              04:30, 1 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but picking and choosing at random is not "the simple default theory." The default is, in fact, one page, since we are told that she's the same woman, and we have no proof to the contrary.

              You cannot take The Doctor's verbal speculation as proof and simultaneously ignore her very own statements to the contrary.

              04:30, 1 April 2013
              Edited 04:31, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              OttselSpy25 wrote:

              Witoki wrote: We are told that the Doctor thinks she's the same woman. It's literally the speculation of the Doctor that they are one. And yet none of them recognize him at first meeting.

              Again, we separate Auton Rory from Rory Williams, despite the real Rory having the Auton's memories. So how is this any different?

              It's very simple. We can't just go around speculating on when the Doctor is wrong or wright. We can't say "The Doctor said this, but he may be blatantly wrong or stupid so let's ignore it." (The exception is if it was a joke) Yes, you're entirely right, the Doctor may simply be wrong. But until we're told as such it's speculation to presume that he is such.

              On that note, the Doctor only talked of three Claras:

              • The Dalek Oswin
              • The Past Clara
              • The Present Clara

              I think that it is such speculation to presume that there are more Claras then the Doctor knew of. The Doctor only ever spoke of one present Clara, thus there must only be one present Clara.

              04:31, 1 April 2013
              Edited 04:31, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              OttselSpy25: In full agreement, all evidence thus far points to "three" being the correct answer here,
              04:32, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Sure, OS25, we can think the Doctor's wrong, and we know he lies. We just can't afford the argument of thinking he's wrong about off screen events. When events are on screen we can know as much or more than he does.

              Just because we split off Past and Futuristic Clara doesn't mean we have to split them all, SOTO. If the logic is that they're together unless narrative evidence says to split them, we're only arguing about if the strength of the different evidence is enough to split off which ones.

              04:33, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: Your tone is borderline insulting, SOTO. Watch it.

              I take it, then, you're in favour of one page? You didn't seem to be arguing that.

              As you may notice above, several users feel that the competing narrative evidence of the two deaths is at least as strong a statement.

              I am sorry if you're insulted.

              Anyway, as I said, you can't apply the real world.

              Sure, in the real world, if someone dies, then, a century later, someone who looks identical appears and doesn't seemingly remember her past life, then we know that they're different people.

              But what about the Doctor's 'death' last season? We saw him die, and we saw his body burning. According to the real world, he's dead. No question about it.

              ...And then he was still alive. Clearly, this must be a different man, right?

              Wrong! What we saw die was actually a Tesselecta, and the Doctor survived unharmed. Throw in a memory worm, and what have you got? Clara's situation.

              Now I'm not claiming that she was a Tesselecta at the time of her deaths, and that she forgot about the Doctor because of a memory worm — that would be terrible writing! A repeat.

              I can explain this better... Take the beginning of Series 6, for example. We couldn't say that the Doctor seemed to die, but could have escaped by actually being a Ganger. Or being in a Tesselecta. We could only deliver the facts that we were given: the Doctpr died and his body was burned. Sure, that information's now incorrect, but, at the time, it would have been speculation to assume that he didn't die.

              Same here. All we're told is that she's the same woman, and that she both died as Clara and as Oswin. Anything else is speculation. We can't say that, I don't know, her soul was extracted by the Great Intelligence, and then put in a different Clara. We equally can't say that they're different women.

              Is the Donna we see in TEOT a different woman just because she doesn't remember the Doctor? You can't say, based solely on her not remembering, that they're distinct.

              04:46, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              The Doctor is a time traveler. Within that very episode we had a dead 1103-year old Doctor and a living 908-year old Doctor. No conflict, no issue. Even before we knew about the Teselecta, the page said quite plainly that the Doctor was dead.

              We are not told that Oswin, Clara Oswin, and Clara are the same woman. We are told that the Doctor believes them to be the same, even though (once again), none recognizes him.

              • We meet Oswin in the distant future. She does not know the Doctor. She dies.
              • We meet Clara Oswin in the 19th century. She does not know the Doctor. She dies.
              • We meet Clara in the 21st century. She does not know the Doctor.

              All logic points at three separate individuals. It is massive speculation to suggest they are the same woman.

              I have yet to see any response to this question: We treat Rory Williams and Auton Rory as separate individuals, yet Rory retained the memories of his Auton counterpart and the Doctor believed them to be the same. Why does this same logic now not apply to Clara?

              04:52, 1 April 2013
              Edited 04:53, 1 April 2013
              Edited 04:55, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Argumentum ad absurdum. You did report the Doctor's death as his death until it was clear it was an apparent death, right?

              We've got narrative evidence for both sides. Even the Doctor says that it's impossible for her to be the same woman - in fact, that's the whole point for him. She has three different names, she doesn't carry memories over (only personality traits), and she dies. Like, confirmed dies, with cemetery plots with headstones and incinerated after being turned into a Dalek dead. Clearly they were not the same body.

              Every once in a while, other narrative evidence should be able to be stronger than the word of the Doctor. Otherwise, he's infallible and the stories aren't really interesting that way.

              05:00, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Also, there's clearly a lingering memory between all of them. On Modern Clara's subconscious were "Run You Clever Boy And Remember" (which she used to remember the password) and "Oswin" (which she thought of as a username).

              Both VicClara and Oswin have a love for soufflés.

              Add in the fact that they all look identical, have similar personalities, and that the Doctor says they're the same. Everything points to them being the same person.

              Sure, she doesn't remember him, and sure she dies twice. That doesn't make sense to our eyes. But who ever said her life's linear? Perhaps they all have the same origin, but branched out. If that we're the case, we'd put her on one page.

              Point is, we don't know yet. We won't know until the finale. For now however, evidence proves that, somehow, she's the same woman. We don't know how, but she is.

              05:03, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              And would you argue VicClara is telepathic because she said "Pond", too?

              We know that all three share physical appearance, some life choices, major personality traits, and turns of phrase. We know this intrigues the Doctor, because he knows that this sort of thing does not happen. Even in the DWU. Or else why would it be interesting enough to rouse him from his sulk?

              05:09, 1 April 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              Witoki wrote: The Doctor is a time traveler. Within that very episode we had a dead 1103-year old Doctor and a living 908-year old Doctor. No conflict, no issue. Even before we knew about the Teselecta, the page said quite plainly that the Doctor was dead.

              We are not told that Oswin, Clara Oswin, and Clara are the same woman. We are told that the Doctor believes them to be the same, even though (once again), none recognizes him.

              • We meet Oswin in the distant future. She does not know the Doctor. She dies.
              • We meet Clara Oswin in the 19th century. She does not know the Doctor. She dies.
              • We meet Clara in the 21st century. She does not know the Doctor.

              All logic points at three separate individuals. It is massive speculation to suggest they are the same woman.

              I have yet to see any response to this question: We treat Rory Williams and Auton Rory as separate individuals, yet Rory retained the memories of his Auton counterpart and the Doctor believed them to be the same. Why does this same logic now not apply to Clara?

              Sigh... BECAUSE IN The Way Through the Woods THE DOCTOR AND RORY HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION WHERE THEY AGREE THAT ALTHOUGH RORY AND HIS AUTON DUPLICATE WERE THE SAME THEORETICALLY, THEY WERE ALSO DIFFERENT. EVEN THOUGH HE SHARED SOME OF THEIR MEMORIES, THEY WERE SAID TO BE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

              There, you happy? The reason is that we have an in-universe secondary page on Rory is that we have an in-universe source that says that they were different. Now will everyone please stop trying to relate the case of Clara to other cases? I've heard one too many irrelevant and stupid "Ooooh, but the Master is all together" "what about the teselecta?" arguments in these and they're quite frankly annoying and tedious. The case of the Claras is a unique one that will take decisions based off of it's own right, so let's just discuss it as it is and not as a theoretical relation; ALRIGHT?

              Sorry to get mad, but no one seems to be able to focus in this discussion!

              05:12, 1 April 2013
              Edited 05:12, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              The Doctor says she's the same woman.

              Then the Doctor says that it's impossible.

              How is it that either side is taking the Doctor at his word?

              05:12, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Clara's situation is "impossible," but true. Even the Doctor doesn't contradict the facts. But it's something new, something he'd never encountered before. He can't explain it, but he sees the connection. We can't explain how she can be the same person. According to so-called 'common sense', she can't be. But she clearly is!
              05:13, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              OS: I only bring it up because the logic being used to support merging all the Claras flies in the face of our already-established practices with similar cases like that of the Rorys.

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Clara's situation is "impossible," but true. Even the Doctor doesn't contradict the facts. But it's something new, something he'd never encountered before. He can't explain it, but he sees the connection. We can't explain how she can be the same person. According to so-called 'common sense', she can't be. But she clearly is!

              And how do we know it's true? The whole point of her is that she is a mystery. Literally the arc of the next two months is going to be about her impossible existence.

              We CANNOT assume that three women who live in different time periods are the same woman. You are taking the side of the unlikelier possibility, that one woman is transcending spacetime. There is more proof that they are different than that they are the same.

              05:18, 1 April 2013
              Edited 05:19, 1 April 2013
              Edited 05:21, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              We have to assume they are distinct characters until the show proves otherwise. There is too much standing in the way of their being "the same person" to make that claim at this time.
              05:20, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: And would you argue VicClara is telepathic because she said "Pond", too?

              We know that all three share physical appearance, some life choices, major personality traits, and turns of phrase. We know this intrigues the Doctor, because he knows that this sort of thing does not happen. Even in the DWU. Or else why would it be interesting enough to rouse him from his sulk?

              Actually, 'Pond' could be a lingering memory from Oswin. Oh, and I forgot to mention that they both ended up becoming nannies after someone's death exactly a year before meeting the Doctor. Did someone kill those two people to get Clara to take the job? Plant subconscious thoughts into her head, just to trap the Doctor? Who knows. Well... Moffat knows...

              05:22, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              OS25 - Now that's definitely insulting. Not everyone will know that, and how similar cases were handled is relevant.

              We have a comment from a character that as routine theorises out loud from half formed ideas, in contradiction of what even he indicates is the natural order of things? Sure bet I'm going to argue for the explaination that has the least distance from reality until it's at least clear to the Doctor what may be happening.

              05:25, 1 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, there's clearly a lingering memory between all of them. On Modern Clara's subconscious were "Run You Clever Boy And Remember" (which she used to remember the password) and "Oswin" (which she thought of as a username).

              We don't know that it is a lingering memory.

              Again, identical family exists in the Whoniverse, even for characters who (as far as shown) didn't have children, like Gwnyeth. But somehow hundreds of years later, an identical relative with a near identical name appears in modern day. The phrase and name have just as much possibility of being passed down through familial relation as they do for being the same woman. You can in no way prove that it's a carried over memory. There is no cold hard evidence for her being the same person.

              05:35, 1 April 2013
              Edited 05:35, 1 April 2013
            • Imamadmad
              OK, just reading the posts from over the past few hours, we seem to have drifted off topic (to whether all Claras are the same person or not, something which won't be revealed probably until the series finale, rather than just how we should organise her page(s) for the sake of this wiki), and even when we were on topic it was often hard to tell exactly what point each person was arguing for. Basically, the three main outcomes are:
              • 1 page- All versions of Miss Oswald are included on one page, under different sections
              • 3 pages- The pages are divided so we have one for Victorian Clara, one for Dalek Oswin, and one for all modern day versions of the character (and assuming the modern versions are all the same person)
              • 5 pages- An individual page for each version of Miss Oswald, so Oswin Oswald, Clara Oswin Oswald, Clara (The Snowmen), Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John: A Prequel), and Clara Oswald (The Bells of Saint John).

              Can people please state which position they are arguing for?! And then can we actually get back to talking about how we will divide this character's pages?

              Personally, I'm for 3 pages. The Doctor has thought of half-baked theories before and been wrong in a big way (just look at Curse of the Black Spot for an obvious example). The solution which seems to sit best with all of the facts is that each of the Miss Oswalds from each timezone are separate enough individuals to gain their own pages (different biography, slightly different personality, 2 of them died), however it is reasonable enough to assume all the modern Claras are the same person (very little evidence to the contrary). Also, having 3 separate pages which are linked together in the lead (in case a reader lands in the wrong spot) would make the page more readable, as there is all the info for each incarnation together (rather than having to scroll down past several different versions to get to the next part on that particular incarnation [or whatever they are]) and it means it would be easier for editors to link to the exact incarnation they are talking about in articles, and it just means there is a smaller body of text for people to read at once. Anyway, if it is proved that they are the same and need to be on one page, would it really be that hard to merge the pages? Both SOTO and Bold Clone did a draft of a potential merge earlier, and that seemed to be fine.

              08:23, 1 April 2013
              Edited 08:47, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              I am in favor of 3 pages.
              10:37, 1 April 2013
            • TARDIStraveler

              OttselSpy25 wrote:

              Sigh... BECAUSE IN The Way Through the Woods THE DOCTOR AND RORY HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION WHERE THEY AGREE THAT ALTHOUGH RORY AND HIS AUTON DUPLICATE WERE THE SAME THEORETICALLY, THEY WERE ALSO DIFFERENT. EVEN THOUGH HE SHARED SOME OF THEIR MEMORIES, THEY WERE SAID TO BE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

              There, you happy? The reason is that we have an in-universe secondary page on Rory is that we have an in-universe source that says that they were different. Now will everyone please stop trying to relate the case of Clara to other cases? I've heard one too many irrelevant and stupid "Ooooh, but the Master is all together" "what about the teselecta?" arguments in these and they're quite frankly annoying and tedious. The case of the Claras is a unique one that will take decisions based off of it's own right, so let's just discuss it as it is and not as a theoretical relation; ALRIGHT?

              Sorry to get mad, but no one seems to be able to focus in this discussion!

              Could you be any more insulting to people? Really, relax. I know we're all fans, but it's still just a TV show.

              If I could make a general suggestion, why don't we take a page from how we have information for the Doctor and Romana on here - one page with the basic character information, and separate pages for each incarnation? Boom. Everybody wins.

              11:14, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              As with Imamadmad and ComicBookGoddess, I am in favor of three pages.
              12:41, 1 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              I would just like to point out that the administrative staff does not endorse or allow the blatant rudeness displayed by OttselSpy25. This discussion, though contentious, had been civilised until OS25's recent comments. Let's try to move forward as if that venom had not been injected into this discussion.
              14:37, 1 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              I would also like to stress to people that the use of ALL CAPS for emphasis is almost always taken as incendiary. While it's sometimes necessary in edit summaries, since there is no other option there, only italics and bolding, or both, are to be used in all discussion areas.
              14:44, 1 April 2013
              Edited 14:45, 1 April 2013
            • Shambala108
              OK, I haven't seen Saint Johns yet, but I gather that, not only did it not resolve the situation, it further complicated it. My assumption is that whatever we do is going to have to be corrected to some degree when all the facts are known.

              So I think we should go for the simplest option. And right now, according to Czechout's post above, one page is the simplest way for later corrections.

              15:04, 1 April 2013
            • Cult_Of_Skaro
              I say one page.
              15:31, 1 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              Imamadmad wrote:

              Can people please state which position they are arguing for?! And then can we actually get back to talking about how we will divide this character's pages?

              I'm firmly against one page. Ideally, I'd like to have three pages, but I could live with five pages to avoid the speculative madness that would be a single page that nobody can prove is the same woman three times.

              16:22, 1 April 2013
              Edited 16:22, 1 April 2013
            • 94.6.195.145
              Bloody hell ubertwits just listen to MrSiriusBlack
              16:36, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess

              94.6.195.145 wrote: Bloody hell ubertwits just listen to MrSiriusBlack

              And perhaps you should have read the moderator posting above you.

              While I agree with Mr Black that it will all come clear eventually, it'll be a MESS if we don't resolve some kind of plan before then.

              17:13, 1 April 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              Why not four pages, with one main "Clara Oswald" page covering each of the three versions as a whole, laying out the mystery, and then the separate ones for each of the "incarnations", like we do for the Doctor? One for the little girl is a quite silly, though. If it were a little girl named Rose Tyler, no one would be suggesting she wasn't the same Rose.
              17:33, 1 April 2013
              Edited 17:33, 1 April 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              Is there serious doubt as to Clara from "The Snowmen" being the same character as Clara from "The Bells of Saint John"? Is there no room for common sense in this argument? If you need that level of proof, then where is the proof that the Doctor in "Bells" is not a different character than the one in "Snowmen"?
              17:46, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Let's try this from a different angle, as we're still running in circles:

              Two things in particular seem to be clogging this up:

              Do we consider Claras of different time periods to be the same Clara Oswin Oswald? As they have flickers of memories, but no conclusive evidence suggesting their deaths were faked or unnatural in any way, and they all are very specific about the (different) uses of their full names, I am inclined to believe that they are distinct, separate people. I imagine Oswin and Clara Oswin's cleverness will be explained (probably as a result of TGI's actions, and some kind of duplicity throughout time), but just as Rory and Auton Rory are separate despite sharing memories, so would the three time period sets of Claras.

              Do we consider the three contemporary Clara Oswalds to be the same person? There appears to be an intended inference that these three are the same Clara (unless we are to believe that three of them are running around concurrently). There is evidence (albeit inconclusive) that suggests these three are the same Clara Oswald.

              We need to follow the narrative. And the narrative is pointing us to there being a connection among Claras, but that only the contemporary Clara(s) are the same exact person.

              Thoughts?

              18:02, 1 April 2013
            • Shambala108
              "Is there no room for common sense"? Not when you're talking about Moffet. I'm starting to think he reads this wiki and writes his plots just to confound us.

              That's why the simplest solution is for one page, to be split off if/when necessary as Clara's history is made clear. It's apparently easier to split off from one article than to clean up after merging several articles into one.

              18:05, 1 April 2013
            • Trebligoniqua
              ^ Works for me.
              18:06, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I think that's roughly what CBG was suggesting. Default to one page, split as necessary.

              The trick becomes, do we have enough evidence for Dalek Oswin and Victorian Clara to split them?

              18:09, 1 April 2013
              Edited 18:10, 1 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              I'm suggesting that we should always presume one page.

              The problem is, I'm also arguing that we already have enough evidence to split out the two time-shifted Claras. :)

              18:42, 1 April 2013
            • SOTO

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: I'm suggesting that we should always presume one page.

              The problem is, I'm also arguing that we already have enough evidence to split out the two time-shifted Claras. :)


              Make up your mind! :P

              Honestly, let's go with the simplest and (IMO) most accurate option: one page. Period.

              Until we have absolute proof that they're different, it's one page.

              23:48, 1 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Which is where I have to be the annoying one and posit that Dalek Oswin and Victorian Clara's deaths in distant centuries serve as proof those two are not the same people as our weird contemporary Borg Clara
              01:43, 2 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              My mind is made up on three; it's just I feel that we should be certain WHY we end up with three. ;)
              01:56, 2 April 2013
            • CzechOut

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: My mind is made up on three; it's just I feel that we should be certain WHY we end up with three. ;)

              Precisely. We need to be certain. That's why we should have one until there's definitive proof that there's more than one.

              Because we don't really know what to call the "other" Claras without using massive disambiguation terms, we should go as simple as possible and put it all on one page.

              We need someone, in a narrative, to tell us that these Claras are not the same character, that there is something akin to "reincarnation" going on, before we should present split articles.

              08:31, 2 April 2013
            • CzechOut

              Witoki wrote: Which is where I have to be the annoying one and posit that Dalek Oswin and Victorian Clara's deaths in distant centuries serve as proof those two are not the same people as our weird contemporary Borg Clara

              Why is that proof in a series based on time travel?

              08:32, 2 April 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Just wondering, what would the article then be called, if there is only one? We have been given 3 different names for the character, and the only consistent thing about the names have been that the last one is Oswald. So, would it be Oswin Oswald, after the first version, Clara Oswin Oswald after the second, or just Clara Oswald after the third (since it was specifically stated that the third one didn't have a middle name of Oswin). Even just from a naming perspective I can see 3 articles being easier (and more accurate).
              10:26, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              No, it would be Clara Oswin Oswald, which covers all three. Clara Oswald falls under it, as does Oswin Oswald, and, of course, Victorian Clara Oswin Oswald. From a naming perspective, the simplest.
              10:37, 2 April 2013
            • Imamadmad
              But two of the three aren't Clara Oswin Oswald. In fact, modern Clara was clearly specified to not be Clara Oswin Oswald, just Clara Oswald.
              10:42, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, and Oswin's specifically not Clara. I am aware.

              As stated, the different Claras would get subsections, in which they'd be referred to by their individual names.

              What you don't seem to be understanding is that Clara Oswin Oswald encompasses them all. If she had a collective name for all her incarnations, it'd be that.

              In fact, it is that — on the opposite ends of the spectrum, we have Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswald. Then, in the middle, mixing the two, we have Clara Oswin Oswald. That name — the name on the gravestone — relates to all of them.

              10:52, 2 April 2013
            • Imamadmad
              It just seems weird to me to name an article something which isn't exactly true for 2/3 of it, especially as the Clara we will probably be seeing most of isn't the one with the middle name. Look, I could live with it all being under that blanket term, but I think it would be better not to name an article something which, while it can be adapted to suit all incarnations, isn't actually perfectly true for 2 of them. But if you disagree, it's not a major point and not one I'm in the mood to keep on arguing.
              11:24, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Total semantic point, but how would we order the C.O.O. page? Oswin, Clara Oswin, Clara? I get the feeling that Clara's run in with TGI influences how Oswin and Clara Oswin are so clever, but obviously we have no proof of that thus far.

              Also, how do we deal with things like "Home Planet" and "Affiliation", or even "Name" if they are not all the same? Would we have three separate Infoboxes within the article? We also have a birth and death date for Clara Oswin, and the issue of species for Oswin (human or Dalek?)

              It's somewhat ironic that the conversation has bent in the direction of one page, when before we met the contemporary Clara, the consensus seemed to point to separation until proven same.

              Also, minor point against "same person": Clara Oswin died just after her 23rd birthday (her gravestone), while Clara is at least 24 when she meets the Doctor (her book).

              11:28, 2 April 2013
              Edited 11:31, 2 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              My fellow Wikians, I have already said that Series 7B onwards has a a high chance of revealing who Oswald is. We do not need to discuss this matter until the end of this Series, if it does or doesn't reveal all.
              11:31, 2 April 2013
              Edited 11:32, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              :D I do see where you're coming from, and I do disagree, but there's no point in arguing.

              So are you suggesting we have:

              Honestly, I'm interested in hearing you're rationale behind grouping the three so-called 'modern' Claras. While I agree that it's visually implied that the Snowmen and Bells Claras are the same (and we can't even prove that!), there's absolutely nothing to go on for the Prequel one.

              Honestly, even with those clothes, the scene could just as easily taken place in, say, the 40s as in the 80s, making it entirely possible that she's a different Clara. It's not as if the mother is texting or anything; there's no evidence to pinpoint what decade it's from. Definitely either the 20th or 21st centuries (or possibly 22nd), but, beyond that, we can't get much. It's all down to whether we get a connection: Clara remembers her encounter or we meet the mother.

              11:34, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I'm comfortable separating young Clara if we make it clear through some statement that it is currently unclear if she is the same as the adult Clara from Snowmen and Bells (so long as this doesn't somehow block us from making the logical connection at the end of the series, should it not be explicitly pointed out).

              Oy, this whole thing is just the Melody situation all over again.

              11:38, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              MrSiriusBlack wrote: My fellow Wikians, I have already said that Series 7B onwards has a a high chance of revealing who Oswald is. We do not need to discuss this matter until the end of this Series, if it does or doesn't reveal all.

              My fellow Wikian, we do need to discuss this prior to that. Number one, at present: not organised. Every week, we're going to get loads of information and red herrings, and we need a place to put all that. We can't just wait.

              Anyway, that brings me to a new point: we need somewhere where we can list the clues given as to the connection between the Claras. If it's all on one page, it'd go there. If in separate pages, we'd create a central page (like The Doctor), and have the different pages contain more specific information on the individual incarnations.

              11:39, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: I'm comfortable separating young Clara if we make it clear through some statement that it is currently unclear if she is the same as the adult Clara from Snowmen and Bells (so long as this doesn't somehow block us from making the logical connection at the end of the series, should it not be explicitly pointed out).

              Oy, this whole thing is just the Melody situation all over again.

              Take a look at her section at Clara Oswin Oswald/Rewrite. It says that it's unclear whether or not she's one of the above at a younger age, in I recall correctly...

              11:41, 2 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              If you're just going to carry on being thick and not listening to the sensible suggestions, then FINE, see if I care if you waste your own time!
              12:10, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Wow, where did that come from? Please take a look at Tardis:No personal attacks. That was quite rude.

              If that was directed at me, I'm not offended, but, either way, please don't use that kind of tone around here.

              Anyway, can an admin perhaps archive this thread and start a new one? This is getting quite long...

              12:22, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I swear I'm not trying to complicate the matter, but...

              Considering we're going to be seeing a lot more of Clara (The Snowmen) than Clara Oswald (the Victorian), what is the likelihood they could be changed to Clara Oswald and Clara Oswald (The Snowmen) (or Clara Oswin Oswald) respectively, while we sort the rest of this out?

              12:55, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm not sure I understand your question. The way I see it, if we merge, we'll leave the links to the specific incarnations for future use, and make them redirects. Even redirects to their respective sections. Is that what you're asking...?
              12:59, 2 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              Witoki wrote: Total semantic point, but how would we order the C.O.O. page? Oswin, Clara Oswin, Clara? I get the feeling that Clara's run in with TGI influences how Oswin and Clara Oswin are so clever, but obviously we have no proof of that thus far.

              Also, how do we deal with things like "Home Planet" and "Affiliation", or even "Name" if they are not all the same? Would we have three separate Infoboxes within the article? We also have a birth and death date for Clara Oswin, and the issue of species for Oswin (human or Dalek?)

              It's somewhat ironic that the conversation has bent in the direction of one page, when before we met the contemporary Clara, the consensus seemed to point to separation until proven same.

              Also, minor point against "same person": Clara Oswin died just after her 23rd birthday (her gravestone), while Clara is at least 24 when she meets the Doctor (her book).

              All things I agree with. It would be a mess to try and have them all on one page. There's too much contradiction and blatant speculation. (Except on your last point: Clara Oswin Oswald was 26 when she died [born on November 23], but Clara Oswald's book points to her being only 24. Your general point still stands though.)

              13:01, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki

              Mewiet wrote: Clara Oswin Oswald was 26 when she died [born on November 23], but Clara Oswald's book points to her being only 24.

              Whoops! Right you are, 1866-1892. My bad, well ignore my point there then.

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I'm not sure I understand your question. The way I see it, if we merge, we'll leave the links to the specific incarnations for future use, and make them redirects. Even redirects to their respective sections. Is that what you're asking...?

              We seem to be approaching a decision on this, yes. But before we go wonking up redirects, it seems odd that our new, regular companion is the only iteration of Clara that has a demarcation "(The Snowmen)" while the others operate just using their names. It may not matter once/if the page is combined, but as a temporary measure, you know?

              If we're lucky, The Rings of Akhaten will help clear a bit of this up, as it'll be the first chance the Doctor and Clara have to chat.

              13:08, 2 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Now you're being a hypocrite, SOTO. I notice CzechOut had some words with you for calling him arrogant. Remember your own history before you accuse others.
              13:09, 2 April 2013
              Edited 13:12, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: Total semantic point, but how would we order the C.O.O. page? Oswin, Clara Oswin, Clara? I get the feeling that Clara's run in with TGI influences how Oswin and Clara Oswin are so clever, but obviously we have no proof of that thus far.

              Also, how do we deal with things like "Home Planet" and "Affiliation", or even "Name" if they are not all the same? Would we have three separate Infoboxes within the article? We also have a birth and death date for Clara Oswin, and the issue of species for Oswin (human or Dalek?)

              It's somewhat ironic that the conversation has bent in the direction of one page, when before we met the contemporary Clara, the consensus seemed to point to separation until proven same.

              Also, minor point against "same person": Clara Oswin died just after her 23rd birthday (her gravestone), while Clara is at least 24 when she meets the Doctor (her book).

              Didn't see this post.

              Order: in the order that the Doctor meets them (or that we see them)

              Infobox: No, not multiple infoboxes — that would be ridiculous! No, one infobox with all the information. What's so complicated?

              As far as age, why does that matter? We clearly met a child version (around 8). Then again, it's technically possible that she originated as Prequel/Bells Clara, then went to Victorian London and became Snowmen Clara, then Asylum, but that would be a boring plot line.

              13:10, 2 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Now you're being a hypocrite, SOTO. I notice Shambala108 had some words with you for calling him arrogant. Remember your own history before you accuse others.
              13:14, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, let's try and reach a decision by Saturday. A temporary one, but one that should hold until the finale, when we should have definitive proof for one of the two sides.
              13:17, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              Witoki wrote: Total semantic point, but how would we order the C.O.O. page? Oswin, Clara Oswin, Clara? I get the feeling that Clara's run in with TGI influences how Oswin and Clara Oswin are so clever, but obviously we have no proof of that thus far.

              Also, how do we deal with things like "Home Planet" and "Affiliation", or even "Name" if they are not all the same? Would we have three separate Infoboxes within the article? We also have a birth and death date for Clara Oswin, and the issue of species for Oswin (human or Dalek?)

              It's somewhat ironic that the conversation has bent in the direction of one page, when before we met the contemporary Clara, the consensus seemed to point to separation until proven same.

              Also, minor point against "same person": Clara Oswin died just after her 23rd birthday (her gravestone), while Clara is at least 24 when she meets the Doctor (her book).

              Didn't see this post.

              Order: in the order that the Doctor meets them (or that we see them)

              Infobox: No, not multiple infoboxes — that would be ridiculous! No, one infobox with all the information. What's so complicated?

              As far as age, why does that matter? We clearly met a child version (around 8). Then again, it's technically possible that she originated as Prequel/Bells Clara, then went to Victorian London and became Snowmen Clara, then Asylum, but that would be a boring plot line.

              Order: That works, for now. But again, we seem to be being led on a path where Clara influences the Oswin and Clara Oswin that The Doctor has met already. Obviously no hard proof for it yet, but something to keep an eye on, to be sure.

              Infobox:

              • Home Planet - Earth? We don't know that for sure with Oswin.
              • Affiliation - Very varied from one Oswald to the next
              • Name (the big bold name at the top of it) - "Oswin Oswald"/"Clara Oswin Oswald"/"Clara Oswald"/"Ms. Oswald"/"Oswald"?
              • Image - A set of three images, or one?

              Age: True. And I was wrong anyway, so it doesn't make much difference there.

              13:19, 2 April 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              After reading through everyone's comments both sides have benefits and downsides and it is evident that we have a broad mix of opinions throughout this discussion.

              Linking continues to be an issue and one we need to solve so we're linking to the correct Clara and people are able to get to that information. Having a combined article will just mean linking to separate sections. Having separate articles means linking to separate articles.

              This issue I think needs to be formalised before the broadcast of the next episode, as, yes as MrSiriusBlack says the rest of Series 7 will probably reveal what's up with the soufflé girl, but that's not the whole issue.

              We know what we know, and we know what we don't know, though that which we don't know we presume will be explained.

              Combining all the articles into one will take time and it's preferable to do a couple of days before the broadcast of an episode so we can get linking issues fixed.

              With this issue like another that slips my mind there is a difference between what I think and what I think is good for the wiki and the administration of the wiki.

              In this case a single article for Clara Oswin Oswald is better for the wiki than multiple articles.

              13:24, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              MrSiriusBlack wrote: Now you're being a hypocrite, SOTO. I notice Shambala108 had some words with you for calling him arrogant. Remember your own history before you accuse others.

              Number one, irrelevant. Number two, if you'd have read the actual conversation, you'd find that it was a misunderstanding caused by the wrong ordering of words.

              And anyway, I'm not accusing you, only remind you. OS25 was recently blocked for his discussion habits; I don't want the same happening to anyone else.

              Now can we please use this discussion to talk about Clara and Clara only. If you would like to continue this discussion, contact me on my talk page.

              So. Since lots of people are for split articles, can someone give me a good reason why? Keep in mind we're dealing with the temporary issue, nothing permanent. At the moment, we don't know much. Our job now is to format her page(s) in a way that keeps it organised during 7B, and that makes it easy to switch if necessary following the finale. Pretty much, whatever's simplest to follow, to carry out, etc...

              13:26, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              EDIT: Comment removed while I read the above comments.
              13:26, 2 April 2013
              Edited 13:27, 2 April 2013
            • Shambala108
              Can I just point out that spoilers are not allowed on any forum (except the Howling) and that includes casual mention of upcoming story titles. Please see Tardis:Spoiler policy.
              13:30, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I'm good with going with TangerineDuel's proposal for now, though I'm still primarily in favor of three pages.

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              So. Since lots of people are for split articles, can someone give me a good reason why? ... Our job now is to format her page(s) in a way that keeps it organised during 7B...

              Because Oswin and Clara Oswin thus far have no connection to 7B, basically. Clara is a continuing character who we'll undoubtedly see grow in the next seven episodes, whereas it's speculation to assume we'll see any more of Oswin or Clara Oswin.

              It's intriguing to me that we're going through the motions in the exact opposite manner as the River/Melody situation, where we assumed they were separate until proven to be the same (and even then, there was significant friction against combining them until the show sat us down and spelled it out).

              13:33, 2 April 2013
              Edited 13:42, 2 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: So. Since lots of people are for split articles, can someone give me a good reason why?

              You just answered your own question:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: At the moment, we don't know much.

              You keep claiming them to be the same person, a fact that you cannot prove in any way, shape, or form. All you have to do is reread this thread where people have posted evidence to the contrary over and over again. Until it is proven that they are the same person, there is far too much evidence against them having a single page. At the moment, you just don't know.

              13:33, 2 April 2013
              Edited 13:34, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              For the infobox, we'd end up with something like this:

              As far as the picture, we might do one picture; we might do a collage of four pictures; we might do a rotating slideshow like with the Doctor.

              13:35, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Mewiet wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: So. Since lots of people are for split articles, can someone give me a good reason why?

              You just answered your own question:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: At the moment, we don't know much.

              You keep claiming them to be the same person, a fact that you cannot prove in any way, shape, or form. All you have to do is reread this thread where people have posted evidence to the contrary over and over again. Until it is proven that they are the same person, there is far too much evidence against them having a single page. At the moment, you just don't know.

              Okay, this is the last time I'm repeating myself: her dying is not proof of different people in a world where anything can happen. Her not remembering is not proof in a world with memory worms, hypnotism, and the GI (who are able to control all of humanity). Her being in a different century is not proof in a world with time travel.

              Once again, we can't apply real-world logic to this. Remember: this is not only Doctor Who, but a Moffat plot line. You bet it will be wibbly wobbly, and all over the place, and maybe it'll even make sense! But we all know that it will get explained. We also all know that Moffat won't rip us off by telling us in the finale that they're different people and it's just a coincidence, and the Doctor was just barking up the wrong tree. What would be the point of this whole story line? We're clearly building up to an explanation on how she can exist across time.

              So. Clues and evidence: One person:

              • "Run You Clever Boy and Remember" is a phrase most likely in her subconscious. Her first two incarnations said it right before their deaths, and her third used it to remember an Internet password. Obviously, there's some connection; some lingering connecting memory between them.
              • Modern Clara thinks of 'Oswin' as a username.
              • The Doctor states that they are the same woman.
              • They all look identical, sound identical, and have near-identical personalities
              • Both ModClara and Oswin are computer geniuses.
              • Both VicClara and ModClara are nannies.
              • VicClara has shown her skill in having different voices and personalities, as evidenced by her normal self and her "Miss Montague" self. She has acting abilities, and could easily fake not remembering or being someone else, even if her memory wan't wiped.

              More than one person:

              • Died twice: Doesn't hold much water. See comments above.
              • Doesn't remember: Memory wiped by GI, Doctor, or memory worm. Could be faking at the future Doctor's orders. Doesn't prove much of anything.
              • Different century: once again, doesn't mean much with time travel.

              While I can see your doubt, I still think there's far more evidence for her being one person. And even if she's not, she's clearly somehow one entity of sorts. Or something amplified. There is something connecting these Oswalds, something that should not be spread out across five different pages.

              13:56, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              That's all well and good, SOTO. However, by taking the "one person" side, you are assuming there is going to eventually be an explanation identifying them as one. The timey-wimey side, if you will, of a scenario we don't/can't yet understand. We must assume real-world logic applies until a fantastic solution is clarified in-universe.

              Until the series shows us the wild and imaginative reason they are the same person, we have to default to them being different people. Why?

              Because two of them died. And the show hasn't explained how that's possible.

              Maybe she was launched through time. Maybe she had her memory wiped. Maybe she's immortal. But these are maybes. Assumptions.

              By calling them the same person, we are excusing an impossibility because there might be an explanation. We chronicle what the show tells us, yes? Then let's wait for the show to tell us that they are in fact the same person and not just echoes of the same person.

              14:00, 2 April 2013
              Edited 14:02, 2 April 2013
              Edited 14:04, 2 April 2013
              Edited 14:08, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Wow, wow, wow, back up-- "the show to tell us that they are in fact the same person"

              Let's analyse this: where the the show tell us that they're different people? I can't think of a single instance.

              As you say "we chronicle what the show tell us," and we can't just ignore facts just because they haven't been explained yet.

              • Fact: She died twice
              • Fact: The Doctor says she's the same woman
              • Fact: All the similarities I mentioned above

              Just because "the show hasn't explained how that's possible," doesn't mean it's not true. Sure, we have to be careful with our language; we can't speculate about how.

              But we have clear fact, that you seem to be running over with your she-died logic. Yes, she died. Yes, she appeared again in the Victorian era, then died again. And, yes, she appeared yet again in the 21st century. How? We don't know yet. Why? Still unknown. All we have is facts.

              So far, the only facts we have our her deaths, her reappearing, and the Doctor stating that they're the same woman. I'd like to see a solid fact' saying that they're different people — not, "in the real world, this would be unlikely."

              14:11, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Again, we must default to real-world logic. Fantastic solutions can only apply when the show presents them in-universe.
              • Fact: She died twice
              • Fact: The Doctor says she's the same woman
              • Fact: All the similarities I mentioned above
              • "She" didn't die twice. Oswin Oswald died. And Clara Oswin Oswald died.
              • "The Doctor says" is not a valid argument. The Doctor has been wrong before, and we cannot take his word as truth, when he clearly does not himself understand what is going on.
              • Similarities do not define identicality.

              The only clear fact we have is that two characters died.

              Until the show presents us with an explanation as to how this person can die multiple times (see Rory*), we must assume that they cannot cheat death. Any assumptions otherwise are speculation.

              *"It happened in a dream" twice, resurrected from Amy's memory twice, igniting a paradox, etc. -- all shown in-universe, and even still we have an Auton Rory page separate from Rory Williams.

              14:19, 2 April 2013
              Edited 14:28, 2 April 2013
              Edited by Tangerineduel 16:05, 28 June 2013
            • SOTO
              So you think the real world has more bearing than the Doctor's word?

              The Doctor's word is all we've got; take it or leave it. He's lived for 1300 years and knows almost all there is to know about the universe, and you're claiming to know better than him?

              We can't just speculate that "maybe he's wrong." His word is fact until proven otherwise. To your untrained mind that hasn't travelled the universe, you think that her dying is going to restrict her. He knows what he's talking about, and we go with what he says until we're given something overt that says that they're different people.

              To quote Czech when I was on your side (before he talked some sense into me):

              It is not an impossibility that the Clara who fell from the TARDIS is the same person, even physically, as the one who was on the Alaska, or the one we see in the graveyard. It's science fiction. Bodies get re-animated. Memories are selective. You would need evidence on the order of what we got with Rory to split the articles. You need Clara to physically drop her fingers and reveal an Auton gun for us to have separate articles. You need a physician scanning her body with some fancy medical device and pronouncing, "This isn't the same girl..." You need something overt. All you have is a sense of illogic. What you're saying is that it doesn't make sense that they could be the same person, so therefore they aren't. What I have — "According to the Doctor, they were 'the same woman'" — is therefore stronger. Why? Because it's a rock solid, water-tight fact. The Doctor said they were the same woman — twice — so that's what we have at present.

              14:52, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              More than his word, which he immediately claims is "impossible"? Yes.

              It's not an impossibility that these Claras are the same person. But we cannot assume that death doesn't count until the show tells us it doesn't.

              14:54, 2 April 2013
              Edited 14:54, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Speculation is reading into it like you are. We know that somehow — we don't know how — she escaped death. That's a fact. There's probably a twist to it, but it stands as a fact right now. We don't need to wait until the explanation to present facts. Facts are fact.

              "The Doctor has been wrong before" is plain-out speculation. Going contrary to narrative evidence just because it doesn't apply to real life is just plain wrong. There are a billion different ways that the Claras can all exist and still be one person — it's hardly far-fetched in the world of science fiction.

              We have to take what the narrative's telling us: the Doctor says they're one and the same; there's clues sprinkled throughout to insinuate a connection. There's clues all over the place. And you're ignoring it all just because she died.

              14:59, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              The Doctor is speculating. It is clear that he himself does not understand what is going on, so his reference to her as "the same woman" is just as valid as one of us saying it. Namely, it's not valid.

              We can't assume that "somehow" anything. It is not fact, it's supposition. Look at the words you're using: "somehow", "we don't know how", "probably a twist"

              The narrative evidence is that the Doctor claims she is the same. I'm not saying he might be wrong. I'm saying he has been wrong. He is not an infallible source of information, and we cannot take his word as iron-clad.

              "There are a billion different ways that the Claras can all exist and still be one person." Of course. And when the series shows us that one way, I will concede she is the same person. Until then, we must default to the assumption that they are separate, but somehow connected.

              15:08, 2 April 2013
              Edited 15:10, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: More than his word, which he immediately claims is "impossible"? Yes.

              It's not an impossibility that these Claras are the same person. But we cannot assume that death doesn't count until the show tells us it doesn't.

              We're not "assuming" anything. The show has told us so far that they're the same person, that the Doctor doesn't understand how, and that they clearly somehow escaped death. That is exactly what fascinates the Doctor, what made him search for a third Clara. This is something new that he'd never encountered before. He wouldn't be interested if they weren't the same person. He's interested because he's seeing something that, even to his old eyes, seems "impossible." She goes against all his beliefs, but he doesn't ignore the facts.

              Just the fact that the facts go against everything he knows is what's so intriguing for the Doctor.

              I never knew her name, her full name. Soufflé girl. Oswin. It was her. It was soufflé girl. Again. I never saw her face the first time, with the Daleks. But her voice. It was the same voice. The same woman, twice. And she died. Both times. The same woman!Eleventh Doctor [The Snowmen [src]]

              This is what we're given, and nothing contradicts this so far.

              Once again, facts:

              • Same woman, twice. Now three times.
              • She died both times.
              • She somehow still managed to appear in the next appearance/incarnation/life/whatever.

              Yes, this goes against, instinct, against "common sense," but this is what we're given. You can't cite her death as a reason why she's different people when the Doctor clearly states that, yes, she died, and, yes, she's also the same woman. They obviously are both true without contradicting themselves.

              It's our job to report what happens in the stories themselves, not what we can gather. You're already speculating when you're saying "Well since she died—"

              15:17, 2 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Series 7B will reveal all. If you won't listen to me (In a manner of speaking, as this is text) then I won't listen to YOU.

              MrSiriusBlack OUT

              15:21, 2 April 2013
              Edited 15:22, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              Witoki wrote: The Doctor is speculating. It is clear that he himself does not understand what is going on, so his reference to her as "the same woman" is just as valid as one of us saying it. Namely, it's not valid.

              We can't assume that "somehow" anything. It is not fact, it's supposition. Look at the words you're using: "somehow", "we don't know how", "probably a twist"

              The narrative evidence is that the Doctor claims she is the same. I'm not saying he might be wrong. I'm saying he has been wrong. He is not an infallible source of information, and we cannot take his word as iron-clad.

              "There are a billion different ways that the Claras can all exist and still be one person." Of course. And when the series shows us that one way, I will concede she is the same person. Until then, we must default to the assumption that they are separate, but somehow connected.

              No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

              And no again. It's not "supposition" to present facts when you don't know how they happened. If a magician performs a trick, and you don't know how he did it, did he not do it at all? No, he obviously did it — you just don't understand the mechanism.

              "Somehow" does not mean, nor is it anywhere close to, "maybe." "Maybe" is speculation. "Somehow" is a fact that we just can't explain yet. We know what trick the magician performed, but he hasn't yet revealed his secret.

              We saw with our own eyes with two deaths: fact. We saw her return: fact. We saw the similarities: fact. We saw memories seeping through from past lives: fact. He saw same personality and life choices: fact.

              Different people: not a fact. We have no hard evidence to support that statement. The best you can give me is "she couldn't have died and still be alive." But all the facts go against that, thus clearly there's a way that she's still alive.

              15:30, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              The fact is that three women with similar names and similar characteristics were portrayed by the same woman.

              That is all you have to go on. For all we know, they're all just related and there is a familial link. We cannot assume a connection that has yet to be explained.

              Meanwhile, in the "separate" camp, we have two women dead and one alive. Basic biology that has yet to be disproven. How is death speculation?

              You stake your claim on this show being one where people have beaten death before, but likewise this show has had beings that change and morph their appearance. You cannot assume anything until the show explicitly states it. And the show has not done that. The Doctor has no idea what's going on. He's hypothesizing.

              If you are so sure that these three women from different centuries are the same woman, then tell us in no uncertain terms how that is the case. Give me the fact of how they are the same and I will concede.

              15:31, 2 April 2013
              Edited 15:31, 2 April 2013
              Edited 15:31, 2 April 2013
              Edited 15:32, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              You're clearly not reading a word I'm typing. I'm not repeating myself. Hopefully, you'll understand from Czech's explanation. Or, better yet, read through this forum from top to bottom. You won't have to ask as many questions.

              If you disprove the Doctor's word, then we have nothing to go on, therefore — what? — she doesn't get a page at all? We don't know anything definitively, but the most definitive source is the Doctor's word, and nothing has gone against it so far.

              Like I said, this is a temporary solution until we're given a definitive answer, which we're not likely to get until the finale. As it stands, all we have is the Doctor's word. That's it. What you call "basic biology" is irrelevant — that's your opinion, not what the narrative explicitly tells us.

              15:51, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              It is apparent from the scene in which that quote takes place that the Doctor does not understand what is going on. We simply cannot take his word as fact as such. And if the Doctor's word is all you have to go on, then how can you possibly call it fact?

              If all we have is the Doctor's befuddled hypothesis, then we cannot state that all Oswalds are the same woman. Death is not an opinion. There has been zero explanation for how she could survive death twice, and as such, we must assume that the deaths we have seen were final.

              15:57, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Let me put it this way:

              We do not yet have proof that Oswin, Clara Oswin, and Clara are the same woman. We have possibilities and hypotheses, but no actual proof as of yet. Meanwhile, basic facts of humanity preclude her from dying in the 19th century, living in the 21st century, and dying in the far future. There are possibly workarounds to this, but they have yet to be presented or explained in-universe.

              Is there a reason we cannot put, somewhere in the bio of each, that the Doctor believes them to be the same woman? It acknowledges that he thinks (at least at present) that they are the same, without committing to it being fact. Would that not satisfy his statement?

              16:06, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Fine. Show me a piece of definitive evidence from the narrative itself that explicitly says that they're different women. And then explain to me how that piece of evidence is more reliable and more valid than the Doctor's statement.

              And if it involves a hypothesis or a derivation, it's already down the toilet. At least in comparison to the Doctor's statement.

              16:07, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Oswin Oswald died in the distant future.
              And Clara Oswin Oswald died in 1892.
              And the Doctor does not know how this can be.

              Until the series shows these deaths were not final, we must document what the show has presented. Two women are dead, and one is alive.

              We said the Doctor was dead for the whole of Series 6, until the series showed us that he wasn't.

              16:11, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:11, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:13, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Just my point. I'm not denying that they're dead. But, according to our only source, they're one person as well. How that is possible, we will find out.

              At the beginning of S6, the narrative was telling us that the Doctor was dead. We reported it. It was later contradicted.

              Now, the narrative is telling us that the Claras are all one woman, and we should report that, and then, if it turns out the Doctor was wrong, only then do we split it.

              Just like we couldn't presume that the Doctor died, we can't presume here that the Doctor is wrong. We go by what the narrative tells us, until it's proven wrong. And the narrative is telling us that they're the same woman.

              You're probably just confused because you don't know how. And, because of that, you start making deductions. Well, that's called speculation.

              We report what we're told and what we're told only. I doesn't have to make much sense now; it will eventually.

              16:23, 2 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              There are dead bodies when everything is over. Even if they'd been different people, there are separate dead bodies to account for. So, I still say 3 articles.

              In any case, you're both continuing to argue in circles ad infinitum.

              Here's how the comments have come down so far:

              • SOTO - 1 article
              • Witoki - 3 articles
              • MrSiriusBlack - defer the question
              • Mewiet - 3 articles
              • Tangerineduel - ? 1 article
              • Imamadmad - 3 articles, will compromise to 1
              • Czechout - 1 article
              • Shambala108 - 1 article
              • Trebligonica - 1 article
              • CultofSkaro - 1 article
              • TardisTraveler - 1 article
              • Ottselspy25 - 3 articles
              • 42Dirou - 3 articles (broccoli!)
              • Geek Mythology - 3 articles ?
              • Oh, yeah, me, - 3 articles

              So, I count: 7 for one article 7 for three articles

              Ouch. Unless I miscounted. Anybody else want to weigh in or change their vote?

              16:23, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:24, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: according to our only source, they're one person as well.

              He claims this without having any idea how it's possible. The very same claim he made with Auton Rory. The Doctor was wrong.

              Before it gets said: I am not assuming the Doctor is wrong. I am simply not assuming the Doctor is right. His statement does not supersede the evidence already in place without some proof of his own.

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: You're probably just confused because you don't know how. And, because of that, you start making deductions. Well, that's called speculation.

              I am making no deductions. We have two dead women and one living. That is immutable fact.

              16:28, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:29, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO

              ComicBookGoddess wrote:

              • MrSiriusBlack - defer the question

              :D

              Anyway, only VicClara has a body to account for. ModClara hasn't died yet, and Oswin presumably died in the explosion. It's not that far-fetched, however, that she'd somehow escaped. Then again, you'd have to account for her being a Dalek...

              Anyway, that makes one definitive death, not very odd for one person...

              16:28, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              Anyway, only VicClara has a body to account for. ModClara hasn't died yet, and Oswin presumably died in the explosion. It's not that far-fetched, however, that she'd somehow escaped. Then again, you'd have to account for her being a Dalek...

              Anyway, that makes one definitive death, not very odd for one person...

              I hadn't considered that angle, there is certainly the possibility that 24-year old Clara Oswald gets captured by Daleks and turned into "Oswin" Oswald (losing her memory of the Doctor), before escaping the Asylum with the Doctor's assistance (with the memory of him once again deleted) and landing in Victorian London as Clara Oswin Oswald, before meeting the Doctor a THIRD time and dying at 26.

              Or vice versa. ModClara get mindscrewed into VicClara, and her dead body is reanimated with fake Alaska memories by the Daleks.

              But that is a mountain of speculation (that I less-than-secretly hope could actually be the case).

              16:35, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:54, 2 April 2013
            • Mewiet

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: according to our only source, they're one person as well.

              Factually incorrect. What you're erroneously counting as fact is The Doctor's speculation. Our sources are Clara Oswald, Oswin Oswald, and Clara Oswin Oswald which all refute The Doctor's speculation.

              You cannot provide proof that they are the same woman without woeful amounts of speculation and faulty "proof."

              17:06, 2 April 2013
            • Shambala108
              Mewiet, what you don't seem to understand is that we are trying to figure out what to do with her/them until we have all the facts. No matter what we do — one page, 3 pages, 10 pages — we will probably have to fix something at the end of the season/arc. So it's not a matter of facts, which are obviously being interpreted in different ways in this thread, but rather it is a matter of what is best to do with her/them until we know everything. It is easier to split one page into multiple if necessary than to merge several pages into one. We recently merged all the "Master" pages into one and it took a long time and a lot of work.
              17:14, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Also take into consideration that readers will come here for info on all of them. If we make one page, we can have a section entitled "Similarities and differences among the Oswalds" or something like that.

              In fact, I might add that to Clara Oswin Oswald/Rewrite.

              If, however, we have separate pages, we can always also have a central page (in the dab page's place) on all of them, where anything of interest to the Clara phenomenon is mentioned, along with a summaries biography for each incarnations, with links to the full articles.

              17:32, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I'm inclined to agree on both counts, SOTO.

              If it's one page, we should have a section highlighting the "Oswald phenomenon". If it's three (or more) pages, the "dab" page should focus on the phenomenon itself, while also linking to the individual articles the way a dab page normally would.

              17:53, 2 April 2013
            • CzechOut

              Mewiet wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: according to our only source, they're one person as well.

              Factually incorrect. What you're erroneously counting as fact is The Doctor's speculation. Our sources are Clara Oswald, Oswin Oswald, and Clara Oswin Oswald which all refute The Doctor's speculation.

              You cannot provide proof that they are the same woman without woeful amounts of speculation and faulty "proof."

              Ahhh, but you see, that's how we roll around here. See the Doctor is a valid source. Audience interpretation of the narrative facts isn't.

              It's a narrative fact that the Doctor believes there's only one girl. So that's where we start from. The person with apparently the most amount of information in the narrative, indeed the only person with a working time machine, says they're one girl. So, sure, he may be wrong or lying.

              But the least controversial statement to make is, "According to the Eleventh Doctor, Clara was one girl in several different points in time who died multiple times." And for that reason, there should be one article, with all of the various Claras discussed therein, until and unless someone comes up with information that flatly contradicts the Doctor's lines at the end of The Snowmen.

              19:37, 2 April 2013
              Edited 20:21, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              I can live with one page (for now) if we make it very clear, like in the sentence you just mentioned, that we are basing this on the Doctor's belief.

              I still think we will ultimately want three pages, but in the meantime (that is, until the finale hopefully clears everything up) I'm fine with one.

              19:41, 2 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              Absolutely. It's vitally important on any number of pages that we say, "According to this character", or "In that character's opinion", or "This other character said that such and such was true."

              The more this wiki can closely cite and characterise its statements, the stronger its articles will be.

              Take, for instance, the page on the Master. If we just said, "The Master was an evil Time Lord", we'd have to strike that from the page as speculation or hyperbole or just lazy writing. But because we put in actual quotes from people calling him the "quintessence of evil", "one of the most evil and corrupt beings", we're able to say he's evil in a way that irrefutably "sticks".

              There's no reason that we can't approach the Clara situation in exactly the same way. We report precisely what's in the episodes. And if we stick to that, rather than buying into the tricks that Moffat seems to be setting up for us, then we'll probably end up with an article that doesn't require a lot of editing, once Moffat's knots are all untangled.

              20:18, 2 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Actually, that's a very good point. If the Doctor is wrong, all it takes (aside from splitting the article - oof) is suggesting that the Doctor "once believed", etc.

              Sounds good to me.

              20:27, 2 April 2013
            • Geek Mythology

              ComicBookGoddess wrote: There are dead bodies when everything is over. Even if they'd been different people, there are separate dead bodies to account for. So, I still say 3 articles.

              In any case, you're both continuing to argue in circles ad infinitum.

              Here's how the comments have come down so far:

              • SOTO - 1 article
              • Witoki - 3 articles
              • MrSiriusBlack - defer the question
              • Mewiet - 3 articles
              • Tangerineduel - ? 1 article
              • Imamadmad - 3 articles, will compromise to 1
              • Czechout - 1 article
              • Shambala108 - 1 article
              • Trebligonica - 1 article
              • CultofSkaro - 1 article
              • TardisTraveler - 1 article
              • Ottselspy25 - 3 articles
              • 42Dirou - 3 articles (broccoli!)
              • Geek Mythology - 3 articles ?
              • Oh, yeah, me, - 3 articles

              So, I count: 7 for one article 7 for three articles

              Ouch. Unless I miscounted. Anybody else want to weigh in or change their vote?

              For what it's worth, I've been through some of the arguments, and changed my mind, making it 8/6 in favour of one article.

              Does that settle it?

              21:30, 2 April 2013
            • SOTO
              I love how, when I explain it, everyone disagrees, but, when Czech says the exact same thing, everyone starts to change their minds... :P
              02:17, 3 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Sometimes it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it.
              03:49, 3 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              By the way, just to throw it out there cause it's not been noted in the thread yet, it's not just the Doctor telling us Clara is one woman anymore. The old monk in Bells says of her,
              "The woman twice dead."

              That's the definite article "the". So the monk means, "a single woman who has died twice". Not two women dying once.

              05:08, 4 April 2013
              Edited 05:16, 4 April 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              Ah, but how likely is it that the monks would have had information on her from a source other than the Doctor? Still the same problem. :)
              05:37, 4 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              It doesn't matter for the purposes of writing the article. Again, all we're doing is reporting what people have actually said. Assessing where a character got his information is speculation and inadmissible.
              06:58, 4 April 2013
            • Chericola
              Couldn't the pages be merged now and we can come back to it later, when there is more information about Clara?
              10:38, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              That would be a waste of time, Chericola. This is ALL a waste of time!!!
              11:20, 4 April 2013
            • Anoted
              I've been following this discussion for a few days now, though I had to stop reading at a certain point. I'm for three separate articles:
              • We don't know that they are the same person
              • It's easier to do three articles to one instead of one to three
              • It's easier to keep track of the individuality of each appearance as well as the similarities between them

              For me, the last reason is perhaps the most compelling. I'm sure we'll see lots of references in the current Oswald to the past Oswalds. Things she says or does that remind the Doctor of a girl he met who died. But if we treat them as separate characters and write up full articles on them (including full personality sections) than we will do the best job of treating them as individuals. We'll do the best job painting a picture of the girls that the Doctor met. The girls that the Doctor had no idea were the same person. The girls the Doctor liked and was intrigued by even before he knew just how special they were. If this issue isn't cleared up in the future, I'll likely feel the same way. I know we like to think or her as one girl, but really, the Doctor met two whole and complete people before he found his current companion. I don't really like the idea of discounting that just because she's also a mystery spread throughout time and space.

              Edited to say: Not three articles specifically. As many articles as we have versions of Clara. Which at the moment would be four. Or, alternatively versions of Clara like the one seen at the end of The Snowmen could go on a disambig page. Basically versions where we're seen a girl who looks like Clara but know little other than "a girl who looked like Clara was here, did X here sometime in the general time period of/after/before..."

              12:06, 4 April 2013
              Edited 12:25, 4 April 2013
              Edited 12:25, 4 April 2013
            • 109.150.91.243
              4 articles:

              -Oswin Oswald -Clara Oswin Oswald -Clara (The Snowmen) -Clara Oswald

              The third being for the briefly-seen contemporary Clara at the end of The Snowmen, since we have no proof, or even a canon indication, that she is the Clara Oswald from BSJ. (Younger Clara from the BSJ prequel, being confirmed to be the same Clara as BSJ Clara, should appear in Clara Oswald.)

              12:11, 4 April 2013
            • CdeDBD
              ^That was me.
              12:27, 4 April 2013
            • Geek Mythology
              This part of the reason I changed my mind. saying one page for every clara is one thing, but what if we find out that everytime one clara dies a new one is born, reincarnation style. We could end up with potentially countless claras, and therefore countless pages.

              Not to mention the fact that we have currently seen three claras (past present and future), but people are already saying we need five pages.

              Unless/Until we find out more info, having a single page for all of them does make the best sense in terms of organising this wiki.

              12:34, 4 April 2013
            • Anoted
              If they are incarnations then once we know that we'd better be able to put her in one page. We'd know why main character traits show up again and again, and be able to describe things properly. But right now we know nothing. We note when she says "Oswald for the win, Oswin!" because we knew her with that name. It startles us as viewers and it startles the Doctor. Right now we're in a bit of the same boat as the Doctor. He doesn't know what it means, though he takes note of it. And since we don't know what it means we don't know how to handle it.

              If she is a reincarnation then we'd right a section on the strongest parts of her personality. That we see throughout space and time. And we'd note things like "Oswald for the win" as creepy coincidences. But if Oswin has some deeper meaning we'd write things completely differently. Or if the current Clara ends up losing her memory and staying in the future and is in fact the girl in the Dalek. There are thousands of possibilities. And until we know better shoving her into one page seems like a mistake. A mistake that (at least to me) seems likely to hinder writing and a full exploration of each Clara.

              12:50, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              All the Eleventh Doctor's serieses so far have contained Story Arcs to build up tension for viewers. For example, In S5 the story arc was The Crack, In S6 the story arc was The Mysterious Eye Patch Lady. My theory is that Clara herself is the Story Arc of this series, and so we'll most likely find out who she is at S7B's finale. My suggestion is that we put this discussion on hold until said Series Finale episode.
              16:10, 4 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              The Master page works perfectly well as a single page about different versions of the same person. Remember that this is a wiki, not a print magazine. That means that we can create links however we want. It's possible and easy to create redirects to specific parts of any article. So if you want to link to the Victorian Clara within an article about the "gestalt" Clara, that's easy to accomplish.

              The recent couple of concerns about how putting everything into one page will "hinder … a full exploration of each Clara", or how it's "easier to do three articles into one rather than one into three" are, from a purely technical standpoint, absolutely wrong.

              Now, it's fine to have a different opinion about whether you want to have multiple articles or one. But please don't try to interject a falsehood about the technicalities of wiki usage.

              As a purely technical matter, it is by far easier to avoid having multiple pages. If we find out later on that Moffat has in fact told us the precise truth, that Clara really is "the woman twice dead", then we'll be obliged to change all the links. There will only be more links as we progress through the series, so the act of consolidation will necessarily be harder the longer we wait.

              16:25, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Did you even read my theory, CzechOut?
              16:33, 4 April 2013
              Edited 16:37, 4 April 2013
            • CzechOut
              Isn't your solution just to leave things split until the end of the series? That's unacceptable to me, because it means that we'll just be allowing the number of links to grow in the meantime. That's just more work to clean up later. It won't ever be, strictly speaking, wrong for links to be to the gestalt page, even if we later have to recreate individual pages. You'll still end up on a page that will be relevant and have links to a more specific page.

              However, the opposite isn't true. If we have to recombine the pages (and yes, it's worth reminding everyone that it would be a re-combination; this page was split against site policy) then it will be wrong to have links the way they currently are.

              Again, from a purely technical standpoint, it's obviously more work to continue with these three pages—and be wrong—than it is to continue with one page and be wrong.

              And, of course, even if the multiple articles are justified, there's every chance that at least one of them is at the wrong name. And that will take work to rectify.

              16:57, 4 April 2013
            • Geek Mythology

              CzechOut wrote: it's worth reminding everyone that it would be a re-combination; this page was split against site policy

              If the split was made against site policy in the first place, then wouldn't it be site policy to undo that split, thus saving the discussion?

              17:02, 4 April 2013
            • Witoki
              Sirius: Every season has had series-long arcs.
              1. Bad Wolf
              2. Torchwood
              3. Mr Saxon
              4. DoctorDonna, disappearing bees, disappearing planets
              5. The Cracks in Time
              6. Lake Silencio

              Czech: I am in support of the one-page layout at this point, however it should be noted that the Master at least had a continuous biography. It was clear he was one character, Clara's a bit more muddled than that.

              17:04, 4 April 2013
              Edited 17:04, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              I didn't ask if you'd read my suggestion, I asked if you'd read my theory:

              All the Eleventh Doctor's serieses so far have contained Story Arcs to build up tension for viewers. For example, In S5 the story arc was The Crack, In S6 the story arc was The Mysterious Eye Patch Lady. My theory is that Clara herself is the Story Arc of this series, and so we'll most likely find out who she is at S7B's finale.

              17:04, 4 April 2013
              Edited 17:04, 4 April 2013
            • TARDIStraveler
              Again I'm going to suggest - why don't we go about the Clara Conundrum with the same way we have pages set up for the Doctor and Romana?

              We have one page for general information on ALL the incarnations and how they relate to one another - The Doctor and Romana.

              We also have separate pages for the individual incarnations - First Doctor et al, Romana I and Romana II - that cover events which only happened to them.

              Unless this is against some sort of policy of which I'm not aware, I feel that this is probably the best way to go about posting info for Clara.

              17:11, 4 April 2013
            • Anoted
              I completely agree with TardisTreveler. I think trying to force all the Oswalds onto one page is a bad idea, especially since we don't know the nature of their connection. Also, why are referring to the various versions of her as Claras? The only name that all three of her have in common is Oswald.
              17:29, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              I don't appreciate being ignored.

              "All the Eleventh Doctor's serieses so far have contained Story Arcs to build up tension for viewers. For example, In S5 the story arc was The Crack, In S6 the story arc was The Mysterious Eye Patch Lady. My theory is that Clara herself is the Story Arc of this series, and so we'll most likely find out who she is at S7B's finale."

              Again, Series 7B will reveal all.

              17:50, 4 April 2013
              Edited 17:52, 4 April 2013
            • Witoki
              In your mission to not be ignored, Sirius, you seem to be ignoring that you are not being ignored. I addressed your statement directly, scroll up.
              17:57, 4 April 2013
            • MrSiriusBlack
              Yes, I see that reply above, Witoki, but what you said in that reply is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
              18:39, 4 April 2013
              Edited 18:40, 4 April 2013
            • Witoki
              It's not though. The series has been screaming out that Clara's identity will be the driving force of 7B, there's no new information, nor any real argument, in your post.

              Additionally, this is not a problem we can just ignore for seven weeks/episodes, as it will only compound the issue if not dealt with one way or the other.

              18:41, 4 April 2013
            • 184.210.83.166
              wow...after reading all this in the open public it makes me want to avoid this site as a whole. While I recognize this is a debate over something about taking one piece of info an splitting it, it reads to me as if arrogant wordage and lack of political correctness did filter in, whether anyone wants to accept the idea or not.

              I really don't mind clicking on a link that brings me somewhere else or reading it all on the same page.

              02:43, 5 April 2013
            CzechOut
            And with that salient comment it's time to close up shop. If the discussion is actually turning users away from the wiki, it's doing more harm than good.

            Everyone's had a pretty generous bite of the apple on this one and there's enough opinion here to arrive at a consensus.

            This thread will now close, and our senior bureaucrat, Tangerineduel, will, at his convenience, announce the direction we're going to take, based upon all the comments here.

            Thanks to all have contributed, and apologies to those who were offended by the intemperate language here. Please note that we do have policies against the kind of snakiness that crept into this discussion, and that these policies were ultimately enforced.

            03:04, 5 April 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121084


            Shortcut:
            Tybort
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/In-universe websites fails the four valid source rules?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Clara: How many articles does one girl need?".

            This may even be bleeding obvious, but I just need pointing out anyway. As the four little rules say, only stories count.

            Now, obviously, anything of the UNIT website or Who is Doctor Who? that's onscreen could be sourced to those episodes that show computer screens of those sites, but the Torchwood website; later instalments of Clive's website after Mickey took over; most anything prefixed with WEB...does this mean, per our rules, we shouldn't source them (aside from the aforementioned onscreen stuff)? User:CzechOut points out here that at least the Torchwood website is in no way narrative. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:09, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

            19:09, 29 January 2013
            Edited 19:12, 29 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 14:53, 6 September 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 14:54, 6 September 2013
            • CzechOut
              Martha Jones' myspace blog is an exception, too. A very tricky exception, because it's one of the few stories in any medium that is no longer publicly-accessible, even via the Wayback Machine. Its broader legitimacy comes from the fact it was referenced in The Pirate Loop. See Keisha Jones#Behind the scenes.

              (That said, it's maybe not an exception, exactly, in that it was genuinely narrative — if first person stream of consciousness.)

              22:24, 29 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Since this phenomenon is something that Moffat and company have not continued, it's kind of a closed chapter in Who history. The sites are now winking offline as the BBC finds fewer reasons to maintain connections to that era of the program.

              It's only going to be harder to justify the use of these sources on in-universe pages, since they can't easily be experienced by modern audiences. And it should be pointed out that they're not in great use now: only about 150 ns:0 pages use the link WEB.

              I think we need to take a good, hard look at everything at wikipedia:Doctor Who tie-in websites — sorry for the wikipedia link but our list is pretty incomplete — and consider whether the right approach might not be to consolidate all known information onto real world pages and to phase them out of use on in-universe pages.

              We could maintain and indeed improve our coverage of these sites by not having to work them into in-universe articles. Since many are not narrative, we could focus our energies on describing them on their own, real world pages to make sure we really got a sense of what the sites contained.

              This approach, it seems to me, would be doubly useful because several of the sites have multiple iterations. Some of the citations which currently exist may well refer to a version of a site that no longer exists. By restricting their use to just archiving, we'd do our readers a better service than trying to figure out which are valid, narrative sources and which aren't. Plus, it's awfully difficult to discern between the two types since some of these sites have pages that are arguably narrative alongside pages that aren't.

              I say we should declare all of them invalid — principally because their content is variable over time. That will then free us to systematically look at their archived history so as to create more complete picture of them for our readers.

              22:59, 29 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I agree; they should not be valid sources as they have a mixture of in-universe and out-of-universe pages. But I think having the information on the pages becomes more and more important as time goes on, especially since people can't view the sites anymore. I they can't view the site, where else can they get the information but here? I think this is important. Therefore we should cover everything on the sites, but only in their own out-of-universe pages and in the Behind the Scenes section.
              03:28, 30 January 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              I agree with Smallerontheoutside: information cited to those websites should be moved to a behind-the-scenes section, not removed from the articles altogether.
              01:34, 31 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              That's fair enough. Almost always when I refer to an "in-universe page", I'm not talking about usage on the BTS section. Thus, when I recommended removal from in-universe page, I didn't mean to imply a ban on their BTS usage. But if they are cited on a BTS, care should be taken to define when the reference was valid. We probably do need to require some sort of "accessed on" date for not just these web resources, but any web citation. This is probably second nature to you, Josiah, but we've never made dating of web references required here.
              01:52, 31 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Out of curiosity, how would this "accessed on" date be formatted and how would it be viewed when not editing?
              03:35, 31 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, this isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. If you're talking about general web citation, maybe it's time to require {{cite web}}.

              For these in-universe websites, you could use {{cite web}} or you could say — if we decide that they can only be in BTS sections — "According to the version of the <whatever> web site that was available in 2007, such and such is true." We could repeal the whole WEB prefix, forcing people to use some sort of sentence construction that mentioned a date.

              But we first have to decide whether we're agreed that in-universe websites are invalid for the writing of in-universe articles.

              05:26, 31 January 2013
              Edited 05:27, 31 January 2013
            • SOTO
              Well parts of Defending the Earth!, as I'm sure you know all too well, have been edited by and comments have been added by the general public. If we would make that a valid in-universe source, then I can go there and post something utterly preposterous like, "I'm the Twelfth Doctor. I have ginger." and all of a sudden, we'd have to create the Twelfth Doctor and add that he's ginger. But, no, that's ridiculous. So that's one aspect that definitely cannot be valid. Also, the UNIT site only adds to the UNIT dating controversy. I'm also sure that a lot on the sites (even the parts written by BBC) explicitly contradicts the TV stories.

              But I have one last point: these aren't necessarily "in-universe" pages. They can also be considered out-of-universe fictional websites based on the in-universe websites, and hence we'd have two different websites for Who is Doctor Who? (Rose) and Who is Doctor Who? (web) or something like that. The former would only talk about what we know about the website in-narrative, as the website that Clive Finch created because he noticed this Doctor that Rose noticed, whereas the latter would talk about the out-of-universe website that the BBC website put up and treat that information in the same way that we would The Brilliant Book 2012. Just putting my two cents in, whatever they're worth (I'd imagine about two cents...).

              CORRECTION: They might not be worth two cents, but they'd be Canadian and Canada Mint has recently abolished the penny. Everything's rounded to the nickel now.

              05:41, 31 January 2013
              Edited 05:42, 31 January 2013
            • Tybort
              Given User:Tangerineduel's addition of {{Proposed deletion}} to Adweam and Raltean, whose only sources are the "in-universe" Torchwood website, may as well bump this to see if anyone has anything to add in favour or against making them invalid.

              Certainly, it'll be difficult to use sources of websites that we can't even find like Martha's blog.

              16:10, 8 March 2013
            • Shambala108
              My vote is for making them invalid for the same reason we use for making stage plays invalid: the content does not stay the same.
              04:38, 9 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Yes. I agree with CzechOut and Tybort that we should invalidate the in-universe websites for writing our in-universe pages as they fail our T:VS.

              These sites can be used in the BtS sections on pages by saying "the in-universe Torchwood site states that Henry Parker obtained a suit of armour from the Raltean" and add the {{cite web}}.

              I also agree with CzechOut that a single overview page of the websites used in DW would be useful, as long as we're not replicating what Wikipedia is doing.

              Although I think if we have firm confirmation of them existing in-universe like search-wise.net then they should get their own page because we've got firm in searchwise's case on-screen evidence of it existing in-universe.

              13:09, 2 April 2013
            • Tybort
              Search-wise.net, and Who is Doctor Who? (if not the Mickey-owned Defending the Earth!) are in Rose, and the UNIT website with the buffalo password's in World War Three.
              16:00, 2 April 2013
              Edited 16:05, 2 April 2013
            • Tangerineduel

              Tybort wrote: Search-wise.net, and Who is Doctor Who? (if not the Mickey-owned Defending the Earth!) are in Rose, and the UNIT website with the buffalo password's in World War Three.

              Yep, those three. But only as they appear on screen. Anything else (like information gleaned from visiting them) goes in the behind the scenes sections.

              13:30, 3 April 2013
            • Tybort
              How should we be going about naming Clive's website? The title of the website comes off as "Doctor Who?" more than "Who is Doctor Who?" going by the "text" of Rose, though admittedly whoisdoctorwho.co.uk is visible as a url.
              13:54, 3 April 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Use the URL I think as at least that hasn't changed.

              In the article we can note the various names it's gone under.

              13:56, 3 April 2013
            • SOTO
              Bump. Allow me to give some input to feed the discussion.

              I recently revisited the series 2 Torchwood website, which is no longer under the original URL but can still be found here. I would definitely argue that the "jobs" section of the site is perfectly narrative, telling multiple stories from different people's perspectives and overall supplanting information from other media. In fact, notice how you can't even get to the real-world sections of the website from there!

              But I suppose some would disagree. Because of the ambiguity of this case, I will (grudgingly — I could fill up half a calendar with that site!) stand by my previous opinion and say that we should not consider websites as a valid source for DWU info. Period.

              After all, we need to create a simple, solid rule. It can't be "sometimes websites can be considered valid, but not always". We can't start forum threads for every single website and every single page on them to determine if they're valid. So, even though I still do feel like we're missing out on a lot with sections like Torchwood's "jobs", I will grudgingly go with "no websites at all" if that is what the rest feel.

              06:12, 22 July 2013
            • CzechOut
              Okay, this discussion has been open for long enough. Time to close 'er up. So-called "in-universe", BBC-operated websites are henceforth declared invalid. However, because they are official, information from the websites may be included, if properly cited, in "behind the scenes" sections.

              If you'd like to help cleanup pages in light of this ruling please go to Tardis:WEB cleanup, a page that's been set up to help with collaboration on this project.

              15:29, 23 July 2013
            CzechOut
            Thanks to everyone who helped at Tardis:WEB cleanup. The bot cleared away the remaining links in non-vital namespaces today and the prefix WEB has now been fully retired.
            14:52, 6 September 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121101


            Shortcut:
            Mini-mitch
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Wikia Alliance" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/In-universe websites fails the four valid source rules?".

            Should we join one of the Wikia Alliances - probably the SciFi Galaxy.

            Wikia describes it as: :Choose an Alliance and your wiki will get updates about exclusive content (think beta codes, star interviews, giveaways, etc.) from member communities. Communities that participate will receive the badge on their community, proudly showing their alliance and giving first-access to this extra content. Plus, your community will get promoted on the hub to which it belongs, on Wikia’s Twitter and Facebook accounts, and you will be listed as member in the links below for all the world to see.

            What is every bodies thoughts?

            01:07, 30 January 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 01:22, 11 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              I think we should definitely participate, if only because it's only through participation that you ever really know what these Wikia promotions are about.

              I'd suggest we do all three, since some people regard Doctor Who as science fiction, some call it science fantasy, and there's enough of a comics history to justify going down the Heroes United route.

              01:12, 30 January 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              How long should we give this discussion - I would much rather join sooner rather than later.

              I think maybe about 24 hours to 48 tops?

              01:21, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Let's call it at 0000 UTC Saturday.
              02:07, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I don't really see what there is to discuss - there's nothing to lose; it'll only help with promotion of our wiki. I agree.
              03:21, 30 January 2013
            • Shambala108
              Smallerontheoutside, any potential change to the wiki should benefit from discussion.

              My only question is, Will this add more junk to the pages, increasing page-loading time?

              04:39, 30 January 2013
            • SOTO
              I wasn't literally saying that it shouldn't be discussed. I was using it as an expression to mean that there's no cons and only one clear answer. Sorry if that confused you.
              04:42, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut

              Shambala108 wrote: My only question is, Will this add more junk to the pages, increasing page-loading time?

              I honestly can't answer that question. There's not enough information in the Wikia announcement to make that kinda judgement.

              But I wouldn't think that it would be an irreversible decision. If we get into it and it causes obvious problems, we should be able to get out of it, especially if we can demonstrate "community concern" through a thread like this one.

              05:11, 30 January 2013
            • Shambala108
              OK, thanks for the response!
              05:23, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              The only firm thing I can tell you is that their last thing, that Time to Play promotion, had a net zero impact on page load time. It amounted to a graphic. This one sounds more elaborate, but who knows? They never really tell you that much, because they rightly figure that most admin don't care about what's under the hood.
              05:31, 30 January 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Just wondering, is there any reason why not to join the fantasy and/or heroes alliances. We would obviously join the scifi one, but what would be the reason against joining the ones that only kinda sorta represent the show/wiki?
              05:45, 30 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, as I've said, I think we should join all three because there's a strong argument that Doctor Who fits all three. Doctor Who is, to my mind, science fantasy with a strong comics publishing history.
              13:29, 30 January 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Looking at the Harry Potter Wiki (the only wiki that's already a member of an alliance that I frequent) and I can't see any changes to their wiki, except the addition of two Alliance banners on the right of their main page.

              Going to a random set of pages on the HP wiki I can't see any difference in load times.

              I agree we should join all three, as CzechOut says DW covers all three (and more, there's likely not a genre DW hasn't covered at some point).

              15:38, 31 January 2013
            • CzechOut
              After clicking through on the banners at w:c:harrypotter, I am now opposed to participating in the Wikia Alliance.

              All it's doing is directing people to various user-written blogs. The science fiction one currently takes users to a blog about a subject matter that's, in my opinion, as thematically different as you can get from Doctor Who — a gory video game series that regularly depicts disembowelment but happens to be set in space.

              Since we've decided as a community to get rid of blogs, I think that featuring a connection to blog posts on our front page would serve to confuse our user base. We already field the occasional question, "How do you start a blog here?" This feature would probably only increase those questions.

              More importantly, because it depends on blogs, we will never be featured. If there were even a chance that we might be on one of these banners, and thus drive traffic here, then I'd see some use to it. But there's not. So the only possible benefit is the slim chance that we might get promoted in a Wikia tweet (woohoo) or their Entertainment portal page. We just wouldn't be full partners on this thing.

              Finally, the graphic involved is much bigger than the "Time to Play" one was. I don't feel that it will fit into the upcoming main page redesign at all. And the "Time to Play" graphic was just a link to an internal page. This is a link off site.

              So now that I've had a chance to actually look it in action, I really don't want to participate in this at all.

              17:17, 31 January 2013
              Edited 17:18, 31 January 2013
              Edited 00:45, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sounds very reasonable. I just checked it out at w:c:harrypotter, and I agree with you. It doesn't really have any place here. I also got inspired by another wiki and thought of a good idea for the new homepage that I'll post at its thread.
              18:46, 31 January 2013
            • Digifiend
              Thanks for that info CzechOut, because that means the toku wikis won't benefit either, as we also have disabled the blogs feature.
              22:36, 31 January 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I just did it at Robotech Wikia... What you said indeed happened...

              I'm gonna leave it in the off chance that I get new editors from it...

              00:41, 1 February 2013
            • Phant0mqueen
              I think we should try it.
              01:42, 1 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              It's unfortunate that the Alliance seems to revolve around blogs to such a high degree.

              I didn't click through the links when I checked out the Harry Potter Wiki on my last post (more focused on load times / changes to their wiki).

              14:13, 1 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              The one benefit that stands out to me is the change we could get some new Users... Even if we could trial it for a period time and see how it goes - that could be an option.
              15:58, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              How, though? We'd never be featured in any of the banners.
              16:45, 1 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              In the case, we shouldn't do it. If there is no true benefit from joining the Alliance, then we shouldn't actually do it...
              17:05, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I hate to seem wishy-washy on this whole promotion, but there's so little information out there, it's basically like reading tea leaves.

              I want to suspend the 0000 (UTC) deadline on this subject to allow time to get a little more information. I've sent off a request for clarification to Wikia Staff. Hopefully we'll get a response back no later than midweek. Sarah Manley is the point person on this, and she's requested elsewhere that wikis contact her directly for more info about how the program will fit individual wiki's needs. She's always been quick to respond to our requests, so I've no fear of us being in limbo very long.

              What I've asked is whether the badges will always be links to blog posts, or if it's possible these links might be to some other type of page. If it's possible they will change to an ordinary page, then I think we should join.

              If however this promotion is for blog posts — because the holiday promotion took care of regular pages — then I wanna sit this one out.

              Make sense to everybody?

              23:25, 1 February 2013
              Edited 23:29, 1 February 2013
            • Ricky Spanish
              http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:485293#2
              01:11, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Sorry, people:

              I've had a bout of conjunctivitis and so literally didn't see an email from Sarah. As is made publicly clear at the thread linked by Ricky Spanish, Sarah's saying that it will eventually be more than blogs.

              02:56, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              So... Since it's not just blogs, are you for it now? I am. I think it'll help with the promotion.

              If it causes any problems, we can always get rid of it, right?

              03:03, 5 February 2013
              Edited 03:16, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Nope I'm not jumpin' back on the bandwagon just yet. I wanna see what happens when they change. I also still have reservations because of the precise nature of the badge and because we're linking to things that are really different, continually, to our own wiki. Deadspace, the current SF link, is like the total other end of the spectrum from Doctor Who. It's graphically gory, and I'm not sure how appropriate it is that we participate in its promotion.
              04:16, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I've just checked out the latest change to the Heroes Alliance, and it's still stuck on blogs. Plus, it's giving information that this wiki would consider a spoiler. I think it would be confusing for people to go from this wiki where there are no blogs and where articles about characters from upcoming stories are completely forbidden. It implies that we're cool with revealing that kind of information.

              I'll look again next week, but so far this thing has a lot of strikes for me:

              • features blogs, which we don't have
              • immediately exposes our readers to a totally different definition of spoiler
              • links to content that is sometimes graphically violent, far beyond the limits of even what's in Torchwood
              • seems to define each of the three alliances so broadly that there is no definition
              • so far, it stresses the work of Wikia Staff members, rather than the actual local community.
              • gives unrealistic expectations about the way the wiki actually looks
              23:41, 8 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              Has there been any further thought about this? Or are we no longer interested?

              In fact, can we still join?

              23:59, 24 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, I'm not too interested. Especially since they're kinda forcing it on us with ads anyway. What's the point of being asked to join if they're just gonna put a whopping great add on the front page and in the spotlights?
              00:02, 25 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I'd say "no"...
              00:27, 25 February 2013
            CzechOut
            Closing without prejudice. We can reopen this discussion or start a new one at any time, but for the moment, I'm not seeing even a need to make this decision, since there are always advertisements on the Wikia about various alliances anyway.
            01:21, 11 March 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121256


            Shortcut:
            SOTO
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Days of the year articles" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Wikia Alliance".

            CzechOut wrote: I'll make you a deal. If you clean up the pages — give 'em a proper lead in which you note the biggest things that happened that day — then I'll figure out a way to feature it on at least the main gateway pages. Show me that you're dedicated to making these pages look great and I'll give you the tech to feature 'em.

            As you start to think about how to make these pages better, you might find yourself wanting to open up a debate about whether we want to split each of these pages in two and have two 1 January pages — 1 January for in-universe events and 1 January (real world) for real world events. You might also think about what kind of pictures might illustrate these pages, since most have nada. Or you might think about ways to improve the appearance of information. Should, for instance, births and deaths be in a sidebar? Is there a particular year's events that deserve highlighting in a sidebar?

            Again, if you can make these pages look great, I guarantee you they'll be featured prominently.

            The above was from New Homepage - 2013. I replied with the following:

            SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I think we should recruit several editors to aid in this process. I agree that the date pages have a lot of work to be done. Even if I were to do it alone, though, and commit to doing 10 of them per day, it would only take me about a month.

            As far as sections are concerned, I believe on the Wikipedia date articles, they have an "events" section, then "births," then "deaths." I think we could benefit from something similar. So, if we're going with splitting the articles (brilliant suggestion; never thought of it - maybe I shall indeed open up that debate), on the out-of-universe pages, we'd have any big events (like 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who) in the introduction, then a "Releases" section with all the releases, then a "Births" section, then a "Deaths" section. In the in-universe pages, we might have the most key event or aspect of the day in the introduction, an "Events" section, then "Births" and "Deaths" sections. I think, though, that if we split up the articles, it'd be harder to come up with leads for the real world date articles. Should I open a new discussion in the Panopticon about date pages so we can get onto this new project as soon as possible? I feel like this is getting off the topic of the new homepage.

            So this is me, bringing this discussion to its own forum. Let's start off with the first two questions:

            1) Should we put subtitles like "Births" and "Deaths" as suggested above?
            2) Should we split date articles into two, as per Czech's suggestion? This would mean, for example. 31 May and 31 May (real world).

            What are your thoughts?

            04:58, 1 February 2013
            Edited 04:59, 1 February 2013
            Edited 21:35, 1 February 2013
            Edited by SOTO 21:38, 1 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 21:57, 1 February 2013
            Edited by SOTO 20:40, 3 February 2013
            Edited by Amorkuz 14:10, 26 May 2017
            • SOTO
              Also, in relation to lead, if there are multiple events for one date, what's our rule for what gets priority as the lead? Do we prioritize the TV episodes over everything else? Events over births? Major parts of story arcs over small stories? Newer stories over older ones? We need to establish rules for this, as well.

              Take 7 February, for example:

              The first event's a birth, the second's a rather major event for Earth's history, except it's from a Doctor Who annual, and the third is from a major television episode, except we never even see it happen. The Blink event was in a way only mentioned, although it was narrated and crucial to the story.

              So... Which one would we choose as the lead?

              05:51, 1 February 2013
              Edited by Shambala108 03:07, 28 August 2019
            • SOTO
              I also petition we get rid of this on articles:

              Events[[edit] | [edit source]]

              to be added

              If the dates come, we can add the section ourselves. I think it looks unprofessional.

              18:29, 1 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              I agree.
              19:47, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO

              Shambala108 wrote: I agree.

              I'm assuming you're agreeing to get rid of the empty "Events" sections?

              Anyways, as of yet, there are four things I'm implementing on all the articles:

              1) As long as an article has at least one in-universe event, I'm adding leads. See my second post and respond to tell me how we should prioritise events.
              2) Changing from "{Actor's Name} ({Character's Name} in {Media Type}: {Story Name}) died in {date}" to "{Actor's Name}, who played {Character's Name} in {MT}: {Story Name}, died in {date}." I find unnecessary brackets like that look unprofessional.
              3) Changing things about actors births from either of the above two, to "{Actor's Name}, who would play {Character's Name} in {MT}: {Story Name}, was born." They hadn't played the character yet, so it seems wrong to say that they "played" in in past tense.
              4) I haven't started yet, but I'm going to start getting rid of empty "Events" section.

              I'm now going to restart from January before I continue, since I've added a couple of things to my to-do list on date pages. If anyone has any objections to the above four... things... I'm implementing, please state your objection and why below as soon as possible. If you guys disagree with anything, and give a good reason for it, I'll just undo the "bad" edits. Thanks.

              20:11, 1 February 2013
              Edited 20:23, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I have another suggestion, though I have a feeling it will gain opposition. To have something similar to on story page - previous day and next day. Yes, I know, at the moment, we already have a calendar there. But we hardly put every episode of the season on Midnight (TV story), now do we? Plus, let's say you're on 31 January. How do you get to 1 February? At the moment, you'd have to either type it in yourself, or click on February and then click on the date on the calendar there. That is hardly as convenient as it should be.

              Also, I just want to reiterate that it is really getting on my nerves and I would like to put subtitles for "Releases," "Births," and "Deaths." It feels really disorganised having them all mixed together as they are now. However, I obviously can't just make this decision on my own. This is a big issue that makes a difference on about 365 pages. I cannot implement this until (or unless) I get general approval. Opposition would also be appreciated, as it would help me better understand the situation.

              20:59, 1 February 2013
              Edited 21:27, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I unfortunately can't give this important project my full attention at this precise moment. So I might miss various nuances of this discussion. Forgive me if I come back later than you'd like to squash something you've already done.

              Let's concentrate on the one thing that's non-controversial that you can be getting on with immediately: the emplacement of leads. You've already started on that, and I'd probably make that my major focus over the next few days.

              • When there aren't that many things that happen, I think you can safely dispense with the bulleted lists and just turn things into a proper paragraph. Just remember to use bold according to T:BOLD and to obey T:TENSES by keeping things in the strict and simple past tense.
              • When there are multiple things that happened, and one of them seems clearly more important than the other, use a construction like 26 June. There, the Amy and Rory's wedding in 2010 is the centrepiece. Most of the other events require that first event to happen. So you highlight the big events, then drop the others into a bulleted list under a full sentence like:
              Amongst the other notable things that occurred on this day were:
              Of course, it's not always that your lead event needs to be causal, as it is on 26 June. But there are going to be days where the events of one year dwarf the importance of events on the same day in other years.
              • When there are multiple things that happened with none of them seeming dominantly important, your lead should be something vague, but which nevertheless brings order to the page. Something like:
              7 September was notable for a number of highly varied events on Earth and its parallels:
              And then you just launch into a bulleted list

              I'd recommend, for now, that you make this your primary task. Of all the things that need to be done to these page, the one "emergency" is that they don't have leads.

              I'll be back in other posts to respond to other things that you've talked about above.

              21:15, 1 February 2013
              Edited 21:16, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I just caught myself making an error common to these pages. In fact it's so common that it's the category name, which I will now change. These pages are about days, not dates. When we speak of 1 January, without a specific year, we're talking about a day of the year — not a fixed date. So while I change the category name, please make sure the pages themselves do not make this elementary error.
              21:18, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The new category name is category:Days of the year. Please continue making chronologically sequential edits in order to minimise edit conflicts. Just passed 17 January. Process will take about 45 minutes from the time of this post.
              21:23, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Pleas immediately suspend your practice with respect to your point 2, above.

              There is no need for elaborate constructions like:

              As partially explained on your talk page, these articles should be wholly in the past tense. None of this conditional nonsense. Actually, we don't need the dependent clauses at all. This is a wiki. If people don't know who William Mervyn is, they can just click the links. We want them to click the links. The construction should simply be:

              Done.

              These are articles about days of the week, not about the people born on those dates. Birth and death information — indeed all BTS info — should be as minimal as possible.

              21:32, 1 February 2013
              Edited 21:32, 1 February 2013
              Edited 21:33, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Thank you, Czech, for responding. For the record, I did 26 June myself just yesterday, in case you didn't realise. I like your idea with a vague lead if there's nothing specifically more important than the others. It's a really good idea, which I will as of now start using. It seems you're suggesting (or implying) that I get rid of the "Events" section entirely, and just replace it with the words,
              Amongst the other notable things that occurred on this day were:

              after my lead in the introduction.

              As far as the days/dates issue, now that I know, trust me, I won't make that mistake.

              ...Is there a way to change the name of the thread?

              21:32, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              You can change the name of threads by editing the first post. But I've done that for you.

              We're on 5 April, btw.

              21:36, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Two things (well... maybe three...)
              1) You want me to get rid of all that unnecessary information in the births/deaths points. Consider it done.
              2) When you say "Please continue making chronologically sequential edits in order to minimise edit conflicts," I'm going to assume you meant the exact opposite and wrote continue instead of stop. That would only be logical.
              21:36, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              No, I meant continue. Don't want to stop your momentum. As long as you do things in chronological order, you won't interfere with the bot. It's at 1 May now, btw. At roughly the top of the hour it'll be done. If you want an up-to-the-minute check on progress, just go to Special:Contributions/CzechBot.
              21:40, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              BTW, the reason for stripping away all that irrelevant info from BTS is that it makes Special:WhatLinksHere more useful. If you do a WLH on the current state of 24 April, you'll see that Snakedance is linked there. That makes it seem like 24 April is of importance to Snakedance. But it's not. It's only of relevance to Preston Lockwood, who was in Snakedance.

              WLH searches, and other reports that utilise WLH, are only as good as the care with which we link.

              21:46, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              BTW, totally agree with the complete elimination of the "Events" subhead. It's really ambiguous, and isn't as effective a demarcator of IU and OOU information as simply having no section head except for the BTS one.

              (But since we may soon divorce the BTS section, anyway, the issue of demarcation may well be moot. Still, "Events" would be pointless even if there were no split. The whoel page is about "events".)

              21:49, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh. Got it. Cool cool cool. Bot's pretty quick.

              Anyways, I edited your edit of the name of the thread, since "Day of the week" means Sunday, Monday, Tuesday..., not January 1st, January 2nd...

              Two more things while I still have you:

              1) I'm going to assume that the format of 5 April, for example, is the British format. If not, it's a bit weird that we call the articles that. But I'm fairly certain that is the British format.
              2) I've noticed an inconsistency that's not specifically about day pages:
              On 4 January, for example, it says:
              There are two problems here. The first is: episode or part? (or is this just because it switched from Episode to Part after Hartnell left?) The second is: 2 or two? How do we represent numbers here in this case: numerically or with words?
              21:52, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              BTW, I'm noticing now on 24 April that there's this awkward refusal to just link to Hartnell episode names. When you come across Hartnell episode air dates, just link to the episode name and don't worry about including the serial name.

              So

              Good Bad 
              * [[1965]] - "[[The Space Museum (episode)|]]" was first broadcast.
              		 
              * [[1965]] - "The Space Museum", Episode 1 of [[TV]]: ''[[The Space Museum]]'', was first broadcast.

              Remember, per T:ITAL, Hartnell episode names get put into double quotes. So "The Space Museum" is the ep, The Space Museum is the serial.

              21:54, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Agreed. The whole page is about "events." Funny, and true.

              On the subject of WLH searches, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now how to go about searching for all pages that link to a specific page. I figured it would be a logical type of search to have. It would be especially useful when I notice that a lot of people are making common spelling mistakes in links, which I could find in two seconds with this search. So... off topic, but how do you go about doing this kind of search?

              And thank you for the brief on things I should look out for in regards to Hartnell episodes. Should I get rid of "Part one" in post-Hartnell pre-McGann episodes as well?

              22:02, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh, you got the Bot to get rid of "events?" Well that's save me some work. Did you do anything about the annoying "to be added" in those sections? Now it'll seem even more out of place if you didn't think of that.
              22:07, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Snap! Looks like we hit on one issue simultaneously. As for the episode/part thing, this derives from people being precise. I don't think we've ever ruled on whether we should attempt harmonisation between the two systems, because the show itself used "episode" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and switched to "Part x" sometime in the Pertwee era. So it really is "Episode two of The Krotons and "'Part one of Castrovalva."

              For the moment, let's assume that the editors who placed this information on the pages did so very carefully. I think it's a fair assumption that they did so accurately.

              But I think we should convert all numbers to lower case words. So you should use the format in your 4 January example and place the word part or episode at the beginning of the sentence, capitalise it, and then add the word form of the number: "Part one", "Episode six", "Part three", etc.

              As implied before, when naming any Hartnell episode prior to The Savages, episode one, you should only use the episode name. So just "Bell of Doom", not "Bell of Doom" (part 4).

              22:08, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Oh, you got the Bot to get rid of "events?" Well that's save me some work. Did you do anything about the annoying "to be added" in those sections? Now it'll seem even more out of place if you didn't think of that.

              I think I have in the past eliminated Events and to be added, but people keep adding it back. I haven't made that bot run today, no. I wouldn't have thought it was on every page again, so I'll leave it to you this time.

              22:11, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Technical side note:

              Each category declaration on the pages of days of the year has a sort key code which allows the pages to display in chronological order in a category listing. Please don't delete this key. If you accidentally do, it's a four digit code, where the first four digits are the month and the second two are the date. So: 

              [[Category:Days of the year|0101]] is on 1 January
and
[[Category:Days of the year|0930]] is on 30 September

              If we do go on to split up these pages into RW and IU pages, we'll need to remember this trick when building the new pages.

              22:17, 1 February 2013
              Edited 22:19, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              You didn't run that bot today? That's weird... Look at the edit history of 26 June. Latest edit by CzechBot. Was that you personally, then? It seems to be in conjunction with the category change.

              In response to the "technical side note," got it.

              22:20, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh. Wait... I think we meant that you did run the above mentioned Bot but didn't get rid of "To be added"s, right?
              22:25, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Given what you know of me so far, do you think I'd ever intentionally remove a section head but leave behind to be added?
              22:27, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Given what you know of me so far, do you think I'd ever intentionally remove a section head but leave behind to be added?

              True true true. :-) But, in that case, please explain away why the edit history says that the Bot got rid of the section head on February 1st at 16:49?

              .....Or did I misread you again? Do you mean that you did do it, and obviously wouldn't forget? I am really bad at this...

              22:40, 1 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, there's not much distinction between me and the bot. It's not like it runs wild in an unsupervised way. I think you're not reading the revision history carefully. Select your edit at :31. Then select CO edit at :06. Then press "compare selected revisions". Then walk your way through each subsequent edit and you'll see that CO took away "Events", while CB changed categories. Not sure where you're getting this straggling to be added thing from.

              Hmmmm, looking through the edit history, I guess CB never did clean empty sections from this category. Sorry for that element of confusion. But I do regularly run such scrubbers elsewhere, and they do take away both the header and the to be added. You can see an example of this at this diff.

              22:51, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oops. You're right. I was comparing mine and CB's. That only happened because I opened the difference from an email update. Sorry about the confusion.
              23:09, 1 February 2013
              Edited 23:10, 1 February 2013
            • SOTO
              What about other extra information, like where they were born? For example, on 1 January, where I was about to restart my editing chronologically before my computer froze for an hour:

              Should all that extra information be considered useless and, like you said, making WLH more useful, or is this good information that important to the sentence that's a good product of editors' efficiency? I mean, 1 January doesn't really have anything to do with in-universe Birmingham and in-universe England.

              00:17, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I'd say keep a one word description of the person (actor, writer, producer, director, whatever their highest position was) and the name. Job title pages have so many links that WhatLinksHere can never be terribly meaningful. So:
              00:31, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              1) I agree that including a one word description of the individual would be extremely useful, and, especially now that we got rid of what they wrote/who they played, etc..., it helps you get a basic sense of what they did and who they were/are. I think it would add a lot to the clarity of that section. Do you object to me adding job titles to all births and deaths?

              2) I'm assuming the above applies to how they died too, right? So instead of:

              I'd just put:

              Right?

              01:20, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah. Though if you wanna throw in a professional title there you can. So it could be:
              01:55, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              T:SPACING warns against putting extra vertical spaces into articles.
              Good Bad 
              *Point 1
*Point 2
              		 
              *Point 1

*Point 2
              05:53, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              As a matter of record keeping, you should probably add
              {{delete|This article has no in-universe information, and should be moved to [[{{PAGENAME}} (real world)]], then deleted until such time as in-universe information can be found about this day}}

              to pages like 31 January.

              Since these articles are in-universe articles, they cannot exist with only a behind the scenes section like 31 January.

              By marking with {{delete}}, you'll be creating a list of all the pages that need in-universe information found.

              06:01, 2 February 2013
              Edited 06:03, 2 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              To pick up on a question of SmallerOnTheOutside's and to expand on CzechOut's explanation the last story to have their individual segments to be called "Episode" was Invasion of the Dinosaurs ever story after that its segments were known as "Part".

              Words for these Episodes/Parts is better as that's what's used in the title sequences.

              14:18, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: T:SPACING warns against putting extra vertical spaces into articles.

              Thank you for telling me about this. I was wondering which was correct.

              14:49, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: As a matter of record keeping, you should probably add

              {{delete|This article has no in-universe information, and should be moved to [[{{PAGENAME}} (real world)]], then deleted until such time as in-universe information can be found about this day}}

              to pages like 31 January.

              Okay, will do. Most day articles don't have any in-universe information, which is the main reason why I want to have a discussion with several people on whether or not we should split all the articles into in-universe and real world.

              14:53, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, there's no discussion needed on that point. They will be split. We can't have in-universe articles without in-universe information.

              There might be questions of exactly how the split occurs or what we call the new pages, but the fact of splitting is non-controversial.

              15:36, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              No, I was referring to having a discussion as to whether all day pages, whether or not they have in-universe information, should be split. Number one, it keeps it consistent. It also helps with linking, so anything out-of-universe that takes place on a date will always link to Date (Real World), and anything in-universe always just Date. Otherwise, linking would get confusing since you don't know which articles are split.

              I've got plenty of reasons but there's no point in listing them until we have several people having the discussion. When that time comes, do you think I should start a new thread, considering this one is already so long and we haven't even discussed this topic?

              15:43, 2 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Is there a reason we can't just continue the way we have been with a behind the scenes section and a in-universe section?

              Will it be helpful to readers for us to split the pages?

              15:48, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              We don't need a discussion on whether to split this information. If an article has no in-universe information, it gets deleted. So if we want to keep the BTS information at all, it must go into a separate article, and one with a dab term attached.

              And there's no doubt about which gets the un-dabbed term. This is already covered by long-standing policy. Let's say you have Brian Cox. You know that this person is the the in-universe character with that name. Brian Cox (actor) is the actor. The in-universe term always "wins" the un-dabbed version of the PAGENAME.

              Similarly, 1 January must be an in-universe article.

              Now, how we might split the article and what the dab term might be for real world stuff — yes, that might the subject for debate.

              But that we should delete an article called 15 September because there's no in-universe material about that particular day? Nah, that's just a straightforward application of existing rules.

              15:52, 2 February 2013
              Edited 15:53, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
              15:57, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Tangerineduel wrote: Is there a reason we can't just continue the way we have been with a behind the scenes section and a in-universe section?

              The point is that many of these day articles don't actually have an in-universe section.

              Will it be helpful to readers for us to split the pages?

              Yes, because it's the only way to preserve the BTS information and hold true to our disambiguation policy.

              15:57, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Czech (it seems) brings up a good point. It's only according to Tardis policy. In the same way that we need to have Dalek and Dalek (TV story) (since one's a species and one's an episode, but both have the same name), but still have Closing Time (TV story) rather than Closing Time. That's just the way we do things, and it makes sense.
              16:07, 2 February 2013
              Edited 16:07, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

              Reread what you've typed. Your two "options" are actually the same thing.

              If we have an article that has nothing to do with the DWU, we delete it. Someone creates Bob Nobody. We delete it, because there is no such person in the DWU. We don't ask anyone. We don't hold a debate. We just do it. That's completely uncontroversial.

              Dates are absolutely no different. If there is no in-universe information about 14 September, we delete it. We've long carried out this practice with respect to years. For instance, we don't have a year 7 page or a year 2689 page. It's not because these years don't logically exist within the DWU. It's because the basic tenet to the creation of any article here is that it must be mentioned (or at least explicitly shown on a calendar) in a DWU story.

              With years, we've already been through the deletion of articles that were solely comprised of {{timeline}}, or the useless lead, "The year 3456 was the 56th year of the 35th century."

              There is absolutely nothing controversial about deleting a day of the year page where no in-universe event is known to have occurred. If that page happens to have only production information on it, then the only way to save that information is to put it onto a page of its own.

              16:07, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry, put the wrong emphasises:
              I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

              Note now the emphasis on all. This means "including articles which do have in-universe information." I think all of them should be split up (and, obviously, we can hardly have a page about an in-universe date if there's no information) into Date and Date (Real World.

              See my last post. Now it occurs to me that it's actually policy to do such a thing. Once we're making 31 January (Real World), we have to make 30 January (Real World), whether or not it's specifically needed in that one case.

              16:14, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              In the word of our own Disambiguation Policy:

              Rather than requiring editors to memorise a changing chart of which titles got dab terms and which didn't, we now simply require all story names to have a disambiguation term attached.DAB policy

              The same applies to dates, the way I see it.

              16:17, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Czech (it seems) brings up a good point. It's only according to Tardis policy. In the same way that we need to have Dalek and Dalek (TV story) (since one's a species and one's an episode, but both have the same name), but still have Closing Time (TV story) rather than Closing Time. That's just the way we do things, and it makes sense.

              Well, you're looking at something similar and coming to the wrong conclusion about how we got to those titles. You're basically saying, "These titles have dab terms in parentheses, so therefore the reason they do must be the same." There are many reasons why something might get a dab term — or, perhaps more to the point, there are many reasons why an un-dabbed term might be a redlink.

              Closing Time is just about the only example you'll find of a redlinked name of a televised story, so don't use it as your guideline. All stories are dabbed by rule. But stories are allowed to keep their undabbed name as a redirect, as long as it doesn't conflict with any in-universe term. The only reason "Closing Time" remains a redlink is because it's believed that the common term "closing time" must exist in the DWU and that, therefore, the undabbed term should remain open for the use of a potential in-universe article.

              However, you'll find that just about every other story name doesn't behave like this. Colony in Space, Pyramids of Mars, The Caves of Androzani, The Gunfighters — they're all redirects to the dabbed term. Story titles are universally dabbed because the normal application of T:DAB left us with some stories that were dabbed and some that weren't, which was a) confusing to new users (evidenced by the huge number of wrong links — Castrovalva, I'm lookin' at you) and b) a bitch to program around.

              So, in effect, the reason that the serial Castrovalva is at Castrovalva (TV story) is because in-universe terms get precedence. The reason that Four to Doomsday is at Four to Doomsday (TV story) is because Castrovalva is at Castrovalva (TV story) and it overall makes better sense to have all stories follow the same pattern.

              Only the reasoning behind the Castrovalva move applies to the day of the week situation.

              16:27, 2 February 2013
              Edited 16:30, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              No, I disagree with the way you've quoted Dab policy and are saying it universally applies to all day of the year articles. Again, as I've pointed out above, stories are a specialised thing.

              I don't think we should just say, "all dates must be dabbed". The broader thrust of dab policy is that undabbed terms mean in-universe articles. If we just dabbed every day of the year PAGENAME, we'd be losing something of syntactic importance.

              And the point is that if you're using a link to 15 January on a story page to indicate broadcast date, you don't mean the in-universe date anyway. You mean the real world date. Thus, having 15 January and 15 January (real world), allows us to more accurately link to dates.

              16:36, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I think you're misunderstanding. I'm in no way implying that the Dab policy in regards to stories also applies universally to all dabbed articles. That would be stupid. But look at the rest of the page.

              Before it, you're talking about how, for example, the serial Castrovalva (TV story) must be Castrovalva (TV story since Castrovalva has its own article. Then you go on to say that editors cannot possibly know which stories get (TV story) and which don't. Which is why it was decided that all stories get the dub.

              Which means, in regards to day articles, there are two solutions:

              1) Have 31 January redirect to 31 January (Real World) until such a time when we have in-universe info on 31 January. (Upon rethinking, this seems most logical)
              2) Do what I suggested, which is split up all day pages, so that editors know that whenever they link to a date in an out-of-universe page or a BTS section (unless it happens to be referring to something in-universe), they always add the "(Real World)" tag.
              16:52, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              So. Unless anyone can find another reason why we need to split them all up, I conclude that we leave redirects to Day (Real World) on Day, and don't split up the pages until such a time when there's actually a need. I'm pretty sure that's what Czech wants too.
              17:08, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: And the point is that if you're using a link to 15 January on a story page to indicate broadcast date, you don't mean the in-universe date anyway. You mean the real world date. Thus, having 15 January and 15 January (real world), allows us to more accurately link to dates.

              Wait. I'm confused. Now you're agreeing with my original position? Just to clarify, my original position was that we should split up all day articles into, for example, 31 December for the in-universe day and 31 December (real world) for real world day, because it, in exactly your words, "allows us to more accurately link to dates." So... was that an agreement? A misunderstanding?

              17:14, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Please point the an example of where you think I disagreed. Look at the very first post where you quoted me from another thread. The way I see it, I introduced the notion of splitting the articles into this discussion.

              Note that I am not saying that you should go ahead and split the articles. At this point, you do need to remain focused on getting a lead for each and every day's page, and marking those pages that have no in-universe info.

              Indeed, lemme make super clear that you cannot split the articles. You don't have the necessary permissions from the software to do it efficiently.

              When you've gotten to 31 December with your rewrites, then it'll be time to think about how we make the split, whether "real world" si the dab term we wanna use, what sort of plan the bot should use to change links in the articles, etc.

              17:33, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I was never planning on going ahead with it, and I know it's actually impossible for me to do so. Just, once we got into the discussion and Tangerineduel addressed the issue, I started getting into the topic, hoping we could get to a semi-conclusion. It was only when I reread the dub policy that I thought that it's actually policy to do such a thing, and wanted to point this out. After I thought it through, I realised I wasn't necessarily right.

              If I work straight pretty much without break, I should be able to finish the entire year by the end of the day (Right now, in my time zone, it's 12:45 pm). If I take more breaks, by the end of tomorrow. I'm proceeding at a pretty high speed.

              But... Just for the record, what's your personal opinion on whether or not we should split up all the record? Obviously, this merits full discussion, which will happen once I'm finished the whole year. But what do you personally think?

              17:44, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Man, sometimes I think you're moving so fast you're not actually reading what's being said.

              I'll say it one more time. Please read carefully, cause I am, yanno, kinda busy:

              All in-universe pages must have at least a sentence of in-universe content. If they don't, they must be deleted. That's policy.

              Since we probably don't want to lose the BTS information on pages that have no IU content, our only option is to create a RW version of the page. and delete the empty IU page.

              This does not merit "full discussion", since it is obvious application of a fundamental policy. That discussion has already occurred a long time ago, long before you joined us.

              The only thing that really needs discussion is what should the dab term be. But we needn't worry about that now. Just finish the IU side of things and the marking of what articles need deletion.

              18:10, 2 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. Sorry. Continue... doing... stuff...

              I'll just finish off the articles...

              18:12, 2 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I just did 8 May cause I found a new fact to put there. Hope that doesn't mess you up.
              01:34, 3 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Don't worry. If you're ever wondering whether or not you can do something to a day page, just check my contributions to see where I'm at. Since I had a terrible migraine today, I haven't done much since for several hours. But, have no fears, I'll work on it tomorrow (and take more breaks so I don't get more migraines) and I'll probably finish by the end of tomorrow (in my time zone - 04:00:00 UTC).

              Nulla Sollicitudo

              02:02, 3 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I was only letting you know because I'm aware that some people work on pages offline, and then import them all at once. So I just wanted to gie you a heads up in case you were that kinda editor.

              There's no strict timeline for completion on any of this. Get over your migraine. The wiki will still be here.

              02:05, 3 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm not one of them. But that could be useful some time. Out of curiosity, how would I be able to access the page if I'm offline. That would work if I was working on one page only; I'd just copy the entire text into a Word document and work on it there. Which I would definitely do if I were to write several paragraphs, so that I wouldn't lose all my work. Which has happened... all too many times...

              But how might I do it with several articles? This could be useful in the future.

              02:11, 3 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well I don't recommend it because it goes against the whole idea of wiki editing. The notion is that we should all be working collaboratively. By going to an offline editor what you're effectively doing is bypassing any intermediate edits between the time you dump to your word processor and then return your changes to the page.

              I strongly advise against it, but there are still people who do it.

              If you must do it, thoguh, please make sure that your word processor is set to plain text. Don't just import to .doc (Word) format and then export from there again.

              .doc and other rich text formats tend to introduce strange characters that we later have to clean up.

              Also, if you're going to edit an article offline, I strongly advise you to put up the {{inuse}} tag so that you discourage intermediate edits. If that fails to discourage people, though, please make sure you check what intermediate edits have happened since you started working offline, and incorporate them into your offline version as much as possible.

              If you're going to work offline, you must also be mindful of any preloaded formats associated with the pages you're creating. You must use the latest preloadable format available. That's why I think it's best simply to start your articles online, using the preloadable formats from the pulldown list to start the first one of a series. Then, if you make more of a similar type, use the custom page input box to type in the name of the page whose format you're duplicating.

              So let's say you're adding a bunch of days of the week (just to bring this discussion back on topic). Create [[1 January (real world)] using the pulldown for the default timeline page. Then, start 2 January (real world) by putting 1 January into the custom preload box. Then, let's say you get to 25 February you take a break for a few days. When you return, start 26 February by using the pulldown to make sure that the format for timeline pages hasn't changed. Start 27 February based on 26 February and continue on until you need another break. Rinse and repeat.

              02:59, 3 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Got it. I was just wondering. I know you're probably going to get mad at me for asking this, but doesn't adding (real world) still merit discussion? I know, it's not relevant until I'm finished what I'm doing now, but now we seem to have drifted onto that topic.

              Also, I'm now in the habit of checking each date on WLH before I apply the delete tag just to make sure that no one forgot to add something to the page. Please note that I only started doing this at 28 February so any day before that is not final. I'll check those once I've reached 31 December.

              Oh, and one more thing: don't I have the power to move the articles without in-universe material myself using the feature that used to be called "rename?" From what I understand, that button moves the contents of the article to the new page and leaves a redirect at the old page, which is exactly what we want, unless you're planning on running the bot to change every 5 January to 5 January (real world) and every 6 January to 6 January (real world) and so on. So why am I just adding the tags, as opposed to just "moving" them myself, barring, of course, the fact that it hasn't yet been discussed what we call them. Knowing me, I probably completely misunderstood what the "move" feature does and you are now about to correct me.

              03:14, 3 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Not retyping it:

              CzechOut wrote: The only thing that really needs discussion is what should the dab term be.

              As to your second graf: good thought, but it might get very tedious, depending on the length of the report returned by WLH. Don't let it distract you from the central mission of getting what's there now into proper shape. The WLH reports aren't going anywhere.

              As to your third: you honestly don't have the power. That's no a "convenient lie" or a "white lie" or any kind of a lie. Moving a page isn't about one little click. It's about making sure that the result doesn't add confusion.

              If you move the page, you'll create a bigger mess, because you will necessarily leave behind a redirect, which is wholly undesriable in this case. Our goal here is to consistently use 1 January as a link for in-universe pages, while 1 January (real world) becomes the link for out-of-universe pages. This requires a delicate touch — and a bot — that you just don't have. It's no reflection on your skill set, but the permissions you have in the software that underpins the wiki.

              You flatly have no realistic shot at manually moving all the links to the old page. That's not a challenge to your abilities or hyperbole when it comes to mine. By adding {{delete}} you're giving me a list by which I can easily have the bot change all the links as necessary.

              Remember the change we made on the category? It's like that. Think how long it would have taken you to make that change manually and compare it to the 45 minutes or so it took me.

              It is simply a waste of your time as an editor to move pages. Literally, it's beneath you. What I've found in my twelve-ish years of wiki editing is that you should always let a bot do the maintenance so that you can spend your time with the hard work of creativity.

              06:19, 3 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Further to the above, the only time you — or any other non-admin — should move a page on this wiki is when it's okay to have a redirect.

              For instance, let's say that the name of an upcoming episode is "The Next Episode". You should start the page at "The Next Episode" and then immediately move it "The Next Episode (TV story)" unless:

              • there is another story called "The Next Episode"
              • there is an in-universe concept called "The Next Episode"

              In these cases, you should start the page at "The Next Episode (TV story)" and immediately slap a {{you may}} note at the top of whatever page on the wiki is called "The Next Episode". That way, people can enter "The Next Episode" into the search bar and either easily see where to go because of the auto-suggest, or have a back-up signpost on top of the page that has the un-dabbed term.

              06:28, 3 February 2013
            • SOTO

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Knowing me, I probably completely misunderstood what the "move" feature does and you are now about to correct me.

              Caught it. I figured you'd give a multi-paragraph response explaining how I don't have the capabilities. Predicted that.

              As far as WLH reports, maybe you're right: I should be concentrated on the main stuff. I'll do that later. But, for the record, if I were just adding the delete label to every page without in-universe information, it would probably take it 10-20 minutes. Excluding the odd page that I spend close to two hours working on that you proceed to delete immediately afterwards. :-(

              So should I just do so and then you'll run the bot and move those pages? Then, once the bot's finished, I'll continue editing?

              06:31, 3 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Just to let you know, I've been unexpectedly busy and probably will be again tomorrow. I will resume this project full force on Wednesday. I will also update my signature, once I figure out how to use your suggestion without it being too long for Wikia to accept. And figure something out about my new user page, considering you got rid of my pictures. Anyways, I'm getting off topic. Goodbye. If there are any issues, just post here or on my talk page, and I'll stop to respond, as I'll get an email notification.

              - The Doctor Detective Arch Architectural Bishop Baker Intern Inspector (do you at least like my new name?)

              23:37, 4 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yes.
              04:09, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'll do it after I reply to you. I'll let you know once I've reached December 31st.
              04:18, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Completed. Finito. Reached 31 December. A whole year in just over an hour. Please run the bot now to delete the pages and move the information to [ [ { { PAGENAME } } (real world) ] ]. I'll work on the new articles in the morning. Now I can give leads to the real world articles!! I'm excited I finally get to do something other than deleting and adding delete labels. Anyways, as they say, allons-y! I'm going to sleep.
              06:01, 5 February 2013
              Edited 06:01, 5 February 2013
              Edited 06:02, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, we're not really close to making the real world pages yet.

              We will now take a one week interval in which other people may register any reasons why (real world) is a bad dab term, and offer others the chance to give a better one. (Those wishing to contribute to this discussion may click through to Thread:121578.)

              In the intervening time, SOTO, you now have to do a little bit of research. Please go to http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=42551331&ics=1&pid=a. In the "exact phrase" box, make separate searches for each of these terms:

              • 1 January
              • 1st January
              • January 1
              • January 1st
              • January the first
              • first of January

              Using the results of each of these searches, improve our article 1 January, on both the in-universe and BTS sides.

              Rinse and repeat for the remaining days of the year.

              17:28, 5 February 2013
              Edited 17:58, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The other thing is that you really haven't finished the first pass yet. Don't get me wrong: what you've accomplished so far is very much appreciated. But you said:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I also petition we get rid of this on articles:

              Events[[edit] | [edit source]]

              to be added

              And then we talked about how it was silly for there to be such a section, since everything on these pages was an "event" of one kind or another.

              Well, a number of pages still have this structure, such as 25 December.

              Also, you've failed to convert any number of the existing behind the scenes sections along the lines we agreed. 18 October, for instance, still has constructions like

              • 2010 - TV: The Vault of Secrets Part 1 was first broadcast.

              Remember that we said upthread we were going to change that to:

              • 2010 - Part one of The Vault of Secrets was first broadcast.

              Further, there any number of pages like 28 April where we're still giving far too much information on birth/death lines.

              Remember how we said upthread that things like:

              would be converted to:

              This task is still largely undone on most pages.

              But most importantly, you still don't have leads on all the in-universe pages yet. 8 April, for instance, has no lead at all, and the history shows you haven't in any way touched it.

              So, even if we didn't have to wait for others to agree to the dab term, we'd still be a bit away from doing any kind of page move.

              17:56, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That's because I haven't gotten that far. I only stopped towards the beginning of April and just deleted all the to be addeds and added the delete tag. I just don't think time should be wasted. While the discussion is going on, I can still be working on them. And, don't worry, I'll definitely be finished all of the above (and probably also a lot of research and adding information too) by a week's time when the discussion's closed. As I said, though, I will be busy today, as I was yesterday, so I can't do much on this very day. Tomorrow, however, as I said earlier, I will be back on this project in full force.

              Also, I'm extremely surprised I missed 8 April. I'm actually on 14 April. Please, note, though, that once I complete my process on all day of the year pages, I will flip through every page again to make sure I didn't skip any and to fix any mistakes I made.

              The only reason you'll see my name in the edit history of an uncleaned-up page is either because I've added information in the past, or because of me adding the delete tags. Please note, once again, that I am, in reality, still on 14 April.

              I remember full well what I've been doing all this time. Please note that I'm also cleaning them up in ways that we haven't discussed, liked keeping other things consistent and short, and applying new-ish policies (like adding "(TV story)|" and the like) to the neglected pages.

              Anyways, as much as I'd love to get back to work this second (which I really really would), I'm very busy. If you notice any mistakes I've made prior to 14 April, please notify me here.

              19:59, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Update: I've gone until 22 April now. It needed a major rewrite. Take a look at the difference. It's now probably the most unique lead you're ever going to find on a day of the year article, given as the day itself actually has quite a bit of significance in-universe. I added a lot of information there and made it more clear.

              You can thank me later :-). More importantly, though, shouldn't we open a discussion on whether or not to split all the pages into two now too (also over in a week), so that we can do it all at once? The way I see it, it wouldn't hurt to have two discussion on a similar topic at once.

              21:22, 5 February 2013
              Edited 21:25, 5 February 2013
              Edited 21:26, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: More importantly, though, shouldn't we open a discussion on whether or not to split all the pages into two now too (also over in a week), so that we can do it all at once? The way I see it, it wouldn't hurt to have two discussion on a similar topic at once.

              I've answered this several times now. See posts 56 and 64, the very first post, and several others in between. The fact of needing a BTS version of every day of the week — all of them, every single one of them, each of the 366 possible days — is non-controversial, and an obvious application of existing policy.

              The only matter up for discussion is the nature of the dab term itself. We do not need a discussion to split the articles. Splitting the articles is the only way that we can both obey policy and keep the BTS information on the majority of pages.

              Please do not ask this question in the same way again. If you feel that I have not answered your question, please rephrase your question.

              22:46, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, we're obviously not understanding each other on this matter, but I nevertheless have a feeling that we're both talking about the same thing regardless. Just to clarify, I mean that we should split up articles that do have both in-universe and out-of-universe information in into Date and Date (real world), as opposed to just moving the articles that don't have in-universe information to Date (real world). I'm sure you think that this is a given, but I just to want clarify.
              22:53, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The prefix TV is unnecessary in constructions like:

              You only need prefixes for clarity. In this instance, no other form of Doctor Who is "broadcast episodically for the first time", so therefore we must be talking about a television episode.

              It would actually be far more helpful if you could add the network than the prefix. Thus:

              This would then allow us to specify (later, as it becomes important) the premieres of various episodes on other national broadcasters. For instance, there's significance to the broadcast premiere of "The Bride of Sacrifice" both on BBC1 and BBCA.

              Note that the premiere networks are:

              23:12, 5 February 2013
              Edited 23:14, 5 February 2013
              Edited 23:15, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. So I don't need TV: . I was meaning to ask you about that, but I noticed that, for the most part, the TV: was used everywhere, including in sentences. So I just made an assumption.

              On the topic of the BBC channels, are you suggesting I add the specific channel? I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of your last point.

              23:20, 5 February 2013
            • Tybort
              I'm pretty sure only part of Torchwood series 2 premiered on BBC Three, with the early episodes and Exit Wounds being on BBC Two.
              23:25, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I can tell you just by going through the month of January with WhatLinksHere reports that we are missing a lot of in-universe dates — not to mention BTS ones.

              Just to give you one example, a good deal of The Witch Hunters happens on specific dates. The chapters are in fact titled by date. So we know what happens on 14 January 1693, 16 January 1692, 11 January 1692, 15 January 1691, and a host of other specific dates.

              A lot of what you're currently marking with {{delete}} just needs a little bit more research.

              23:32, 5 February 2013
              Edited 00:15, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I made that exact point a couple of days ago, and you told me I should concentrate on worrying on what's already there. If I may quote:

              CzechOut wrote: As to your second graf: good thought, but it might get very tedious, depending on the length of the report returned by WLH. Don't let it distract you from the central mission of getting what's there now into proper shape. The WLH reports aren't going anywhere.

              01:19, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yes, that was the first phase: "getting what's there now into proper shape". But it's not the final phase before we move on to article separation.

              When I pointed out that you weren't actually finished with phase one, you then said that you were working back from the top again and that you'd gotten down to mid-April. You then asked for comments about how to improve what had been done through April.

              My comments were for January pages, which, by my estimation, are now in phase two: finding a way to avoid deletion of the articles that you've already marked for deletion.

              I am not saying that you should suspend your current activity of finishing phase one.

              By all means, get to 31 December on this "second pass of phase one" before you worry about my comments about January.

              I'm just saying that on your next pass through, your primary goal should be checking the WLH and the search page I gave you in order to make sure that we're not a) deleting pages that actually do have easily-discoverable in-universe significance or b) missing really basic out-of-universe information (such as premiere broadcast dates and release dates).

              Don't get frustrated. You're doing a great job. It's just a mutli-phase project and we have to make sure that it's being completed in a thorough and careful way.

              01:58, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm not kidding; I was actually just about to post just that. I've developed a plan, actually:

              P1: Fixing what's there. I have a lot of things to implement and I'm now taking into account the last two things that you brought up.

              P2:

              1) Fixing mistakes I'd made
              2) Applying new things that you tell me to fix
              3) Doing research, which would include:
              a. WLH
              b. Real world birthdays and Real world deaths
              c. Searching on the website you gave me

              Then I'm sure I'll have to repeat.

              02:07, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              By the way, to keep it consistent, should I for example be putting "BBC1" or "BBC One?" I know they both work as links, but which should I go with? I'd like all the articles to be perfectly consistent.
              06:18, 6 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Okay, so I find most of this to be unnecessary. But besides that point...

              Would this change make it so that non-valid sources could be added to pages? For instance, could the page 2013 say 

              ==Behind the Scenes==
*The non-valid story Dimensions in Time was set partially in the year 2013.
              08:13, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Certainly not "non-valid." Possibly "non-canonical" or something along those lines. Hmmm...

              Actually, I have an idea: Since we're splitting the pages, the real-world pages only include real-world information. So I suppose we can still have a behind-the-scenes section of the in-universe information, where we have information not considered part of the DWU by us. For example, we can include dated information from the Brilliant Book 2012. Obviously, we're not there yet. But I just wanted to put the idea out there in advance so you can think about it.

              15:02, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              One more question: when did we start broadcasting on [[BBC America] regularly? I'm not American - I watch in on Space - so I'm not sure about this. Once I'm adding what channel they were broadcast in, wouldn't it be helpful to include all the main channels - not just the main one in the UK. Would it be edging on over-the-top to include BBC America? I don't think so, but maybe you do. I've seen it several times, including both, but it's hardly constant. What are your thoughts?
              15:13, 6 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I don't remeber exactly when it was, but it started around series 2 or 3. I'll research later.

              Also note that our wikia avoids using the word "canon"

              15:38, 6 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              The Sci-Fi channel broadcast the first runs of series 1-4, then BBCAmerica took over during the 2009/2010 specials and onwards.
              16:04, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Let's end this talk about Dimensions in Time, The Brilliant Book and any other invalid sources right here and now. These are not valid sources, which means that they cannot be used to write our in-universe articles. Normally, we would say that information from these sources are then allowed in the behind the scenes section.

              But because we're splitting to a full page of behind-the-scenes stuff, there simply isn't any other place to put it.

              Invalid source information may therefore not be used in any capacity whatsoever on any page within the larger category of category:dates.

              This position is not up for debate. We will not in any way try to accommodate the narratives of these 20 or so licensed-but-invalid stories within our date pages. Of course, as licensed material, it's fine to mention the release dates of any BBC product on the BTS day of the year page. But you will not introduce any narrative material from these stories on any date page — day, month, year, decade or century.

              16:14, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I won't. But what about the BBC1/BBC One issue? Which one?
              16:24, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              And should I be saying
              ...was broadcast on BBC One and Syfy.

              for Series 1 to Series 4

              and

              ...was broadcast on BBC One and BBC America

              for the Specials to present?

              16:27, 6 February 2013
              Edited 16:27, 6 February 2013
              Edited 16:28, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              BBCA's broadcast of Doctor Who began on 21 November 2006, when it broadcast Rose. It then was the US national network for reruns of Doctor Who, which premiered on SciFi up to and inclduing Journey's End.

              During this period, BBCA was the US premiere network for Torchwood, which it always was until Starz took over that role with The New World.

              The first DW episode that actually premiered on BBCA was The Next Doctor,[4] and the network has had premiere rights ever since.

              16:31, 6 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              That's a bit different from what I found, but since I wasn't watching the show back then, I'll take your word for it :)
              16:37, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Thank you, Czech. I suppose afterwards we'll add the BBCA reruns (aka. ... premièred on BBCA.). At the moment, though, everything post-The Next Doctor should now say
              ... was first broadcast on BBC1 and BBCA.

              Or

              ...was first broadcast on BBC One and BBC America.

              You still didn't address that tiny issue.

              17:07, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, I won't. But what about the BBC1/BBC One issue? Which one?

              What do you mean which one? I gave you a very explicit breakdown. Follow it exactly, please.

              17:20, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, thank you. I think I understand. So BBC1 for a good majority of the old series and BBC One for the new series? Did they like change the name?
              17:22, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: And should I be saying

              ...was broadcast on BBC One and Syfy.

              for Series 1 to Series 4

              and

              ...was broadcast on BBC One and BBC America

              for the Specials to present?

              Definitely not. Lotsa issues here.

              In the first pace, DW was never originally broadcast on SyFy, only on SciFi. (The network was called SciFi until March 2009, several months after their contract to be the original broadcaster of DW in the US had expired.)

              In the second place, no story prior to A Christmas Carol ever premiered in the US and the UK on the same day. So you can't really use the construction "premiered on BBC One and SciFi" – ever — and you can only use the construction "premiered on BBC One and BBCA" in some (maybe most) cases post-2005.

              17:27, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. That does make sense. Then we'll add the American premières later. Still, not priority at the moment.
              17:34, 6 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              CzechOut wrote: Let's end this talk about Dimensions in Time, The Brilliant Book and any other invalid sources right here and now. These are not valid sources, which means that they cannot be used to write our in-universe articles. Normally, we would say that information from these sources are then allowed in the behind the scenes section.

              But because we're splitting to a full page of behind-the-scenes stuff, there simply isn't any other place to put it.

              Invalid source information may therefore not be used in any capacity whatsoever on any page within the larger category of category:dates.

              This position is not up for debate. We will not in any way try to accommodate the narratives of these 20 or so licensed-but-invalid stories within our date pages. Of course, as licensed material, it's fine to mention the release dates of any BBC product on the BTS day of the year page. But you will not introduce any narrative material from these stories on any date page — day, month, year, decade or century.

              I was suggesting that we put it in a behind-the-scenes section. I still fail to see the logic in completely eradicating "non-valid" sources is still an insane idea. Not putting them in the main section? Yeah, that makes quite a bit of sense. Completely eradicating it all together? A bit much.

              Never the less, I apparently lost that discussion (by your decision, there were actually quite a few people who went to my side) so I suppose that I will have to move on to bigger and better things.

              18:09, 6 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Just mentioning on the whole BBC America issue etc, it will probably be a bad idea to include the releases from non-UK countries because one you start, where would you stop? If you have info from the US, then logically you could have info from Australia, Canada, Brazil, Denmark, Korea, Israel etc... Do we want to include the broadcast from all countries, because imo it should either be all or only UK (which would be the original world release).
              19:22, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That is true. Except BBCA is actually a branch of BBC, the host. Space, where it's broadcast in Canada, isn't either. Also consider that this is an English wiki. Our Hebrew version can have information on where it was broadcast in Israel. Our Danish in Denmark. Etc. The UK and the US are not only the most prominent English countries, but also the countries with the most Who viewers. Adding Canadian information is stretching it, but not infeasible. How many Israeli Whovians are going to be coming here? They can go to the Hebrew version (not that we actually have date pages there... yet...). The main two Whovian, and Anglophone, areas are Great Britain and the States. Let's say that our viewers are split half-half between the two. Those are the two main areas we should cover. Just putting in my two nickels (it's hard to find two cents in Canada now...).
              19:33, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I'm actually inclined to side with Imamadmad on this one. Country of first origin only. There is an entire wiki devoted to the broadcast dates around the world. I can make up a little template that will squeeze a link to http://broadwcast.org into the story's infobox, and that'll be that.
              19:42, 6 February 2013
              Edited 19:55, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. I'm outnumbered, then. I won't add American broadcasts any more. I'll delete the ones already there in the next run. I still stand by my own points, but no one else is agreeing with me. I guess the link might work. As long as you include the link, I'm fine with only including British broadcasts.
              20:25, 6 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Think if it's notable we should list it. BBC America airing the Aztecs and that one time PBS aired the Five Doctors special edition despite everyone claiming that it was never aired are notable and thus should be noted.
              20:35, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Well I suppose special 2013 reruns might be notable. Also, the exclusive-to-US documentary (forgot its name) is especially notable. It's its country of origin.

              Or the first ever broadcast of Doctor Who in America. The Five Doctors you mentioned is also notable, in my opinion.

              20:42, 6 February 2013
            • Baziel

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Except BBCA is actually a branch of BBC, the host.

              Perhaps aside from the main thrust of the conversation, but I think you'll find BBCA is not actually a part of the BBC. Operated by a commercial subsidiary of the BBC proper, yes - but it's fully independent and has to bid for BBC proper programs like anyone else. Essentially, BBCA is just an American cable network with an obsession for British TV shows.

              20:50, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The bot is now emplacing the {{dwcast}} template, which at least partially obviates the need for specific mentions on day of the year pages. If people really wanna know when The Ark in Space debuted in their neck of the woods, they just have to go to The Ark in Space (TV story)#External links.

              I disagree that we need to make mention of things like The Aztecs in the day of the year pages. It's not particularly notable — from the perspective of the day of the year page — that an audience of under a million got to see the serial in the US in 2013. It's notable enough to put on The Aztecs, of course, but it hardly makes the particular day of the year noteworthy.

              The Five Doctors and the TV movie are somewhat special cases in that the technical global premiere were on local TV stations. These should be noted, and then the generally accepted global premieres should be noted on the appropriate day page for those events.

              However, we shouldn't use the day pages to note the British premieres of the TVM, Miracle Day, K9 or anything else that quite clearly did not premiere in the UK. That information can be on the story page, of course, but in order to avoid clutter on day pages, only the global premiere should be recognised (with, again, the special exceptions of Five and the TVM).

              And Baziel's BBCA point is well taken.

              21:09, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Wasn't it at least originally a proper branch? In the same way as HMV?
              21:10, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Obviously, The Doctors Revisited is a notable mention, though. So... pretty much everything in only the time and channel in which is was originally broadcast. Once again, makes sense.

              Are these tags/templates on only the story pages? Or are there also going to be tags on the day of the year article with a link to all broadcasts of that day?

              21:17, 6 February 2013
            • Baziel

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Wasn't it at least originally a proper branch? In the same way as HMV?

              I don't believe so - the BBC proper is funded by the British public and government and is controlled by a charter - they must serve British public interests, not commercial purposes.

              As such any commercial activity (including vids/dvds and anything with ad breaks) is generally controlled by the subsidiary company BBC enterprises/worldwide (as the government wouldn't allow the British public to foot the bill of a commercial venture) and is pretty much independent of the BBC proper. The decision that the BBC proper would not pay for or be directly associated with worldwide enterprises seems to have been taken around a decade before BBCA even existed.

              That only took a little research ;-)

              22:35, 6 February 2013
              Edited 07:58, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I see that the TV prefixes remain, even after you've made it crystal clear that you're talking about "broadcast on BBC1. It would be helpful if you could remember to delete the TV at the same time you add BBC1.
              01:09, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I believe I've been deleting TV consistently since you made the suggestion. I didn't go back and apply that to the older pages yet; I'll do that in the next run. Still, I'm only human; I make mistakes. Can you please give me an example of where I neglected to delete TV?
              01:12, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              21 May, 18 May, 15 May, 14 May . . .
              02:23, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'm a bit clumsier than I thought. But, as I said, I'll be restarting and fixing mistakes like that in the second round. I'll be more attentive in future edits, but, don't worry, I'll be fixing any mistakes I made next time 'round. Thank you for noting it, though. I'll pay extra attention to this in the next stage.
              02:28, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Okay, what's going on with 26 May and then 1703. Are you sure that Planet of the Spiders actually gives Samuel Pepys' date of death? I mean, can you tell me precisely where in POTS this mention occurs?

              I think it's a red herring, and a violation of T:NO RW. See, what you don't know is that there was a time when all these date pages were riddled with information that came from a conflation of real world and in-universe facts.

              A typical scenario was: Leonardo da Vinci is mentioned in City of Death. We know from history that he was born on 15 April 1452. (Ah! Add 15 April to your remove TV list.) Therefore, 15 April would then bear the line "1452 - Leonard da Vinci was born. (TV: City of Death)

              But of course City had said no such damned thing. I got a lot of these buggers outta the system, but you may have just unintentionally resurrected one.

              So unless you can tell me exactly where we get Pepys' death date from, we need to delete 1703 and your line from 26 May.

              02:31, 7 February 2013
              Edited 02:31, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              One sec, let me look over the script quickly.
              02:32, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              It does not. Sorry. I figured there was some validity in the statement. Please delete the page again. I'll get rid of the statement in 26 May.

              PS: Don't worry; I added your Datemove tag

              02:36, 7 February 2013
              Edited 02:39, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, I don't think you'll encounter the T:NO RW-offending statements too often these days. But a big tip-off is if there's a previous deletion of the year page from me or Tangerineduel. We spent several weeks combing over the years pages back in 2010-11.
              02:44, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              The main difference is 26 May had a source, whereas the deleted 1703 had a [source needed] tag. I figured the new source was correct. Next time when I see that you or and Tang deleted it, I'll check the script myself for verification.
              03:13, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, the other question is, of course, what do you mean by "script"? Most scripts haven't been released officially, so there's still some question as to the veracity of fan-made scripts. They're probably okay, but they're no substitute for actually watching the ep yourself. I use the various online scripts as a way to narrow down what scene I need to be looking at, but I always try to work off the serial itself.
              03:50, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Not usually official scripts, no. Fan-made. Not necessarily perfectly accurate, but accurate enough to search for tid-bits of information. I'd usually just find the spot and then actually watch that scene, but I don't have that specific serial on hand at the moment. But Pepys only gets a small mention - just to check if his death is mentioned doesn't necessarily warrant a re-watch of the entire serial. If, however, he was a major character in the story, then I'd re-watch the episodes for any mentions.
              03:55, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              What do I do about pictures? Like main articles images? Take a look at 2 June, which is where I'm stopping now to go to sleep. There's a picture (not yet some sort of main image) that's now under the date navbox. In fact, it looks like it's part of the BTS section (which, of course, won't be a problem for long, as there will soon be no such thing as the BTS section)! Number one, which should go first? Number two, if you want to have main images whenever possible, how would they be formatted on the day pages (considering there's no infobox) and how would they be distinguishable from just regular images demonstrating small points?

              Anyways, something to think about. I'll leave you with this question for the night. I think I'll try going to sleep.

              04:43, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              {{DateNav}}, {{Timeline}} or any variant in that family is always the very first thing on the page. This means that, from a pure design standpoint, the next graphical element on the page would need to be on the left, somewhere below the bottom of {{DateNav}}. Since 2 June (a page which incidentally needs TV removed) cannot bear the photo, it must be eliminated from the page altogether.

              Very few of these in-universe day pages will have enough text to justify a picture. But those that do, perhaps like 22 April, should be illustrated.

              15:13, 7 February 2013
              Edited 17:21, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. Okay. I always thought that pictures were preferable no matter what. But, I suppose, considering it's pretty much a one sentence article (excluding the BTS section), the picture's unnecessary. Thanks for the response.
              15:18, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Right. Okay. I always thought that pictures were preferable no matter what.

              This is a common mistake, leading to pages being jam-packed with pictures. It's important that our pages, at least in the Wikia skin, obey certain basic rules of layout and design. One of the biggest is that of using pictures to break up text and to move the eye downward, compelling readers to scroll down the page. If you have two graphical elements on parallel to each other, that effectively stops momentum and registers in most people's eyes as "weird".

              A good rule of thumb, therefore, is that if the page displays entirely on most desktop browser screens that are opened to more or less maximum size on a monitor at standard resolution — you probably only need one graphical element in the body of the text. You can take two only when the body of the text below the bottom of the first graphical element for more than 150% of the height of that first graphical element.

              So let's say that the graphical element is 200 px high. You can only add a second graphical element if you've got 300 px of text below the bottom margin of the first graphical element, when your browser is fully open to right around 1200 X 900.

              18:15, 7 February 2013
              Edited 18:19, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. I think I understand that. So, back to specifically the topic of day of the year articles, articles like 22 April or 26 June. Articles like 25 December or 1 January, where a lot happens, we'd probably have several pics. But tiny articles like 2 June that have a line or two of text don't get images.
              19:42, 7 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              If you think you'd have "several" pics at 1 January, you've totally missed my point. 1 January, if it were kept in its current form, but had the BTS section divorced, wouldn't be capable of supporting a single pic, much less "several".
              20:16, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry; I hadn't looked at 1 January when I made that statement. I actually considered editing it out afterwards. I haven't looked at that page in a while. I had made the assumption that, since it was a major holiday, there would have been a lot of things happening like on 25 December. The reason I didn't check is because my computer ran out of battery and I won't be able to retrieve my charger for at least another hour. So I've been posting on my phone, which is, for the record, really difficult to do. The length of this thread keeps on making it crash. I apparent ally don't have electricity either, so I can't even charge my phone. Anyways, point is: I won't be able to work on the pages for at least an hour.
              20:34, 7 February 2013
              Edited 06:04, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I'm back. I got rid of the following on 23 June; I just want to clarify that this is the position we're standing by:

              I did this because I believe we agreed that we're not including repeats, or premières on other channels. I will continue doing this. Just putting this here in case there's any objection.

              22:19, 7 February 2013
              Edited 22:20, 7 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Also, what's our view on DVD releases and their regions. Would I say "... was released on Region 2 DVD" or would I just get rid of it entirely. Are we going to go with what we do with broadcasts, and only talk about the native region of the ep, or the first region it was sold in?
              06:06, 8 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Releases on DVD should be included. It's useful in part for people searching for releases on the year.
              18:11, 8 February 2013
            • Tybort

              CzechOut wrote: Note that the premiere networks are:

              Can someone confirm that Reset through Fragments aired originally on BBC Three (and not BBC Two), hence the two episodes on 13 February, and the lack of any episode being mentioned airing on Friday 28 March? I seem to recall that's how it was, especially considering my edits on 16 April.

              18:41, 8 February 2013
              Edited 18:48, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, I'm back. I got rid of the following on 23 June; I just want to clarify that this is the position we're standing by:

              I did this because I believe we agreed that we're not including repeats, or premières on other channels. I will continue doing this. Just putting this here in case there's any objection.

              Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

              19:42, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, what's our view on DVD releases and their regions. Would I say "... was released on Region 2 DVD" or would I just get rid of it entirely. Are we going to go with what we do with broadcasts, and only talk about the native region of the ep, or the first region it was sold in?

              Eh, does this matter, really? I'm inclined to believe that since we are now moving close to creating whole new articles that focus on the DVD releases that most people won't be looking for this information on the day of the year pages. I for one would cut DVD/VHS releases altogether, save for maybe the ones that are the important ones — first in the media type, last in the media type. In other words, I'd mark the coming and passing of the ranges, not the individual titles.

              19:45, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Tybort wrote: Can someone confirm that Reset through Fragments aired originally on BBC Three (and not BBC Two), hence the two episodes on 13 February, and the lack of any episode being mentioned airing on Friday 28 March? I seem to recall that's how it was, especially considering my edits on 16 April.

              Perhaps it would be easier for you to give us your source, and then we can run that to ground. I always thought it was straightforward: BBC3 for season 1, BBC2 for season 2 and BBC1 for season 3. That was the big press at the time which I seem to remember, and that's frequently how it's described in retrospect.

              19:48, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

              Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired most of those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

              19:49, 8 February 2013
              Edited 19:55, 8 February 2013
              Edited 20:31, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Eh, does this matter, really? I'm inclined to believe that since we are now moving close to creating whole new articles that focus on the DVD releases that most people won't be looking for this information on the day of the year pages. I for one would cut DVD/VHS releases altogether, save for maybe the ones that are the important ones — first in the media type, last in the media type. In other words, I'd mark the coming and passing of the ranges, not the individual titles.

              I'm not sure I understand completely. Can you please give examples of what you think should be kept?

              19:57, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Nevermind, Tybort. The source is barb.co.uk, which is hard to disagree with. I guess we go with the chart as given at wikipedia:List of Torchwood episodes. I've checked a few of the weeks of that season, including the ones you mentioned, and the WP:DW seems (predictably) sound. For instance, the week ending 30 March 2008 shows TW only on BBC 2, with a ratings figure of 2.976, and nothing on BBC 3. Though Barb don't give ep names, this is consistent with there being no new episode this week, as the WP:DW chart states.

              Hmmm, interesting. That was a wrinkle I'd totally forgotten about, if I ever knew it. That double-broadcasting was quite a clever way for the BBC to sort of artifically cushion TW against an inevitable ratings decline. I don't think I'll ever quite look at series 2 quite the same way again. Thanks for catching this, Tybort.

              20:09, 8 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

              Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

              Precisley what I was thinkng.

              20:11, 8 February 2013
            • Tybort
              ...the reason I asked for confirmation was that I didn't have a source. I just sort of "knew" because I was there.

              BBC's episode guide for series 2 backs up the BBC Three "premiere" for all those episodes. It looks to me that on 13 February 2008, Adam aired at 9pm on BBC Two, and then Reset was on at 9:50 on BBC Three.

              Not sure what the best analogy for that sort of thing is. I know the Australian soaps air on 5* immediately after the preceding episodes show on Channel 5. Maybe it was similar to that?

              20:17, 8 February 2013
              Edited 20:18, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

              Well, no, not exactly. See BBCA exists on reruns. Indeed, every broadcaster out of the UK depends on reruns of Doctor Who, since they don't originate the programme. So Imamadmad's point is well-observed: BBCA is not demonstrably more special than Space, ABC, TVNZ, CBC or any other national re-broadcater.

              The difference with the November 1963 rebroadcast of "An Unearthly Child" is that it happened on the originating channel, and one that almost never reruns anything. As North Americans, you and I don't have too much experience of this phenomenon. If ABC reruns an episode of Castle, or SyFy shows us BSG one more time, we might be disappointed. But we don't think of it as extraordinary. It's a part of the everyday television experience in North America. It's what our broadcasters do because none of them actually has original content to fill their schedules for 365 days of the year.

              But this isn't so with the BBC, and it especially wasn't true with the original version of Doctor Who. Most Doctor Who stories have, to this day, never been rebroadcast on BBC1. That's why BBC tv and BBC1 reruns of The Evil of the Daleks are worth noting, while BBC2 and BBC3 repeats of The Family of Blood are not.

              20:50, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, and the other thing is, there's an entire wiki devoted to noting broadcast dates, to which we now can link with {{dwcast}}. So, since our research will never compete with theirs, it's best just to make it easy for our readers to find that information and leave it at that.
              20:52, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Well, no, not exactly. See BBCA exists on reruns. Indeed, every broadcaster out of the UK depends on reruns of Doctor Who, since they don't originate the programme. So Imamadmad's point is well-observed: BBCA is not demonstrably more special than Space, ABC, TVNZ, CBC or any other national re-broadcater.

              The difference with the November 1963 rebroadcast of "An Unearthly Child" is that it happened on the originating channel, and one that almost never reruns anything. As North Americans, you and I don't have too much experience of this phenomenon. If ABC reruns an episode of Castle, or SyFy shows us BSG one more time, we might be disappointed. But we don't think of it as extraordinary. It's a part of the everyday television experience in North America. It's what our broadcasters do because none of them actually has original content to fill their schedules for 365 days of the year.

              But this isn't so with the BBC, and it especially wasn't true with the original version of Doctor Who. Most Doctor Who stories have, to this day, never been rebroadcast on BBC1. That's why BBC tv and BBC1 reruns of The Evil of the Daleks are worth noting, while BBC2 and BBC3 repeats of The Family of Blood are not.

              You make a very good case. BBC1 re-broadcasted The Unearthly Child during the hiatus, right? Was it in 1993? The 30th Anniversary? The only reason I think that the episode/Doctor reruns are significant is because they're in celebration of the 50th, a huge event, and the first time America, now a fairly large Who audience, gets to see some of them.

              So far, Space hasn't been doing anything. They'll probably do a marathon or something in November. What about other countries outside of the UK? Can anyone tell me what they're doing?

              'Cause I agree, yes, regular American reruns aren't important. But this is the fiftieth. A giant mark in our history. I think it's notable to mention what the Americans, I'd guess second in place for most percentage of Whovians (after the UK, of course), do to celebrate it.

              21:03, 8 February 2013
              Edited 21:03, 8 February 2013
              Edited 21:04, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, no. Lol. You think the US is that big an audience? Nah, it's tiny. As a percentage of population that knows about Doctor Who, it's probably New Zealand that's the winner. That's why Tom Baker as the Doctor in the 1990s was a big enough draw to warrant his use in commercials about, of all things, financial instruments.

              Next up is Australia, where it's broadcast on a real national broadcaster and gets about 1/16th-1/20th of the whole population each episode. Then there's Canada, where it has a tradition on the CBC and now is pulling numbers on Space that are roughly BBCA-like. So, yanno, 1 million viewers in a country of 30+ million versus 1 million viewers in a country of 300+ million. (Obviously DW's reach in the US is a little more once you factor in iTunes and DVD sales, but still, you're talking somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of the population — and a little more if you factor in all the people who have seen it at some point and are still alive.

              It's total hype that DW is a big deal in America. It's, at best, a bigger deal, amplified by the multiplicative effect of the American media's outsized footprint on the internet. It's a bigger deal, now that there's an actual network in charge of its broadcast (rather than individual PBS stations). But that network only covers about 75% of the country, and its reach is severely limited by the fact that it's on cable, but not basic cable.

              Yes, there are ways to paint the story of DW on BBCA so that it looks great: fastest growing network on cable, biggest ratings on that fastest growing network, biggest downloads of seasonal TV on iTunes, advertisement in New York City, cover of TV Guide.

              But you've gotta keep your eye on the ball: raw numbers of people who are watching the show. And when you put all of the numbers together, you're nowhere close to the bog-standard episode of Castle — or even Lost or Heroes, really. Remember, in the UK, DW rates favourably compared to even huge, once-in-a-lifetime sporting events. In the US, the very worst and most insignificant NFL game beats DW's rating by a factor of 20 or 30.

              Also, the fact that DW does not stream for free in the US — even for the limited time of a couple of weeks after broadcast — is pretty unusual and is certainly limiting its reach.

              The situation is improving in the US, but the words Doctor Who still elicit blank stares.

              22:29, 8 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I don't care if no one watches it, it's rare (to quote your post above) and notable. Your apparent prejeduce against American audiences doesn't make the country or reruns any less noticable.
              23:12, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              You realise I am American, right? How could I be prejudiced against my own people?

              I was responding to SOTO's specific statement that the US must be the second-biggest percentage of Who watchers, and pointing out the demonstrable untruth of that.

              And I'm just backing up Imamadmad's point that if we start listing American premieres on day of the year pages then we'll have to logically list Rhodesian, New Zealand, Kenyan, Italian, Russian, French and everyone else's premiere dates. That takes up too much space, and it's completely unnecessary, given that there is another, very well-researched wiki for that.

              23:18, 8 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              And I'm backing up Smaller's point that if we list "rare" reairings of classic episodes on BBC1 then we should list "rarer" airings of classic episodes on BBC America.
              23:25, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, and you aren't quoting my post just by using the word rare. You're taking my definition of rarity out of context and misapplying it. If BBC1 replays an episode of Doctor Who, that's rare to the point of near-uniqueness. It goes against their remit. They're supposed to have something new to transmit at every hour of the day, particularly back in the 1960s and 1970s.

              If BBCA transmits The Aztecs, that's nowhere near as big a deal because a) it's not the American debut and b) transmitting old episodes of DW what BBCA does.

              Granted, it might have been the BBCA debut of The Aztecs. But that's about it. It's not even the first time BBCA have run so-called "classic" episodes of DW.

              23:27, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, and we know that it's not even the 21st century North American airing of The Aztecs because that was done on Space prior to the coming of series 1 on CBC.

              I mean, you really have to squint your eyes hard to find what's so groundbreaking about The Aztecs on BBCA.

              Remember, there's a difference between surprising and noteworthy.

              23:31, 8 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I disagree. BBC America airs classic who so rarely that it is very noteworthy.

              I actually fail to see why we need to diferentiate between these things.

              23:40, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              You have a short memory, or are simply young. Classic DW used to be a regular feature of their schedule. Used to be a part of SciFi's, too.

              So lemme prepare you in advance for the month of August. It will not be fair or true to say that the BBCA broadcast of the TV movie (if they do it) is the first American broadcast of that movie since 1996. This popped up pretty regularly on SciFi, since SciFi is owned by Universal, co-owner of the TVM.

              23:46, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I've just spent 20 minutes trying to get this to load, then ten writing a response, then my computer decides to crash and lose my entire response. I don't even remember what I wrote. I'll try again, though:

              My point, despite what you might think OS, isn't about rarity. It supports it, yes, but it's a side note. My point is that it's a big thing for the viewers in celebration of the fiftieth.

              In fact, I agree with Czech for the most part. I don't want small things like reruns in America (even if it's the premiere in the States) in the articles. As he said, we can provide a link for that.

              What I do think is that we should include whatever each country does in celebration of the 50th, the biggest mark in Doctor Who history so far. For every country that does so. I think it's very notable. As I said, it's the biggest event is DW History and it would be both useful and interesting for future visitors to look back (or even present-day viewers from different countries) and see what everyone did to celebrate.

              BBCA shows The Aztecs - not noteworthy.

              Americans get to see The Aztecs in celebration of Doctor Who's 50th anniversary - noteworthy.

              If someone can give me a reasonable argument why it's specifically wrong to talk about countries' celebration, then I'll change my mind. Until then, this is my opinion.

              23:46, 8 February 2013
              Edited 23:48, 8 February 2013
              Edited 00:05, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              It's wrong to characterise this as "Americans get to see The Aztecs for the first time". It's not the American debut. It's not the North American network debut. It's not the first time available in NTSC format so that it could be viewed in America.

              It's a rerun with some hype surrounding it, designed to get you to watch it. That's all.

              23:53, 8 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry. Scratch "for the first time." But, at the moment, I'm still standing by my opinion that 50th celebrations are noteworthy. I'd stress more the words "in celebration of Doctor Who 's 50th anniversary," rather than "for the first time."
              23:56, 8 February 2013
              Edited 23:57, 8 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I don't know, man. It seems really problematic. I can kinda see it as a point on The Aztecs (TV story) page, in the sense that "this was the story chosen by BBC America to represent the William Hartnell era during their 50th Anniversary celebrations." That's fine. As long as it's not in the lead of the piece and is just one of the story notes, fine.

              But it's not something that makes the day of January the 27th very notable. It's not a "we gotta write this down on the calendar" kinda thing. If it had been aired on the 50th anniversary of The Aztecs itself — 23 May 2014 — then you'd have something you could put on 23 May.

              What's actually notable about 27 January is the BBCA debut of The Doctors Revisited - The First Doctor.

              Starting down the path of noting when a particular serial was re-run on one network other than BBC1 implicitly means that all of them are fair game.

              00:12, 9 February 2013
              Edited 00:13, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Good point. But isn't the purpose of the date pages to record what happened on that day? If I wanted to know what happened on 27 January, 2013, I wouldn't know to look on The Aztecs (TV story). (unless I went to the trouble of using WLH - which I shouldn't have to) I'd look at either 27 January or 2013 (or both) and the information wouldn't be there. In ten years, someone who's really young now will want to know what happened on that day. He'll find The Doctors Revisited but he'll never know that, in conjunction with the documentary, BBCA also broadcast The Aztecs.
              00:20, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I see you reworded the sentence in The Aztecs. Appreciated, but who would know to look there?

              You want to know when The Aztecs reaired? You check The Aztecs (TV story).

              You want to know what happened on January 27th? You check 27 January.

              I think it'd be useful to include the information on both, so that, no matter from which direction you're looking for it, the information can be found.

              00:26, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?
              02:07, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO

              Imamadmad wrote: I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?

              Well, you know what, once we're at it, since it's easier, let's just delete every article on this wiki, so we don't have to go to the trouble of editing it!! (that was sarcastic by the way - but pretty much your logic)

              I don't think we should take the lazy route and just delete things mindlessly.

              Also, by your logic, we shouldn't even be displaying any broadcasts at all, so that we don't have the rule "some from certain channels and times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't." Because that is exactly the rule we're reinforcing for original broadcasts.

              02:13, 9 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              Imamadmad wrote: I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?

              Well, you know what, once we're at it, since it's easier, let's just delete every article on this wiki, so we don't have to go to the trouble of editing it!! (that was sarcastic by the way - but pretty much your logic)

              I don't think we should take the lazy route and just delete things mindlessly.

              You have well diagnosed a proplem that I have noticed on this site recently. Good job, sir.

              02:21, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              That's completely unfair, SOTO. Imamadmad is thinking in terms of broader policy. You should, too.
              02:22, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              First broadcast is noteworthy. Subsequent broadcasts of those same episodes are not. That's what I'm saying.
              02:22, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I just don't think we should take a one-size-fits-all approach. Not all information is the same, and we shouldn't treat them the same, either. It could just as easily say in our policy, that we include {such and such} repeats, but not anything else.
              02:25, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO

              Imamadmad wrote: First broadcast is noteworthy. Subsequent broadcasts of those same episodes are not. That's what I'm saying.

              See. That's logical and well-based. "Wouldn't it be easier...," in my opinion, isn't.

              02:28, 9 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              To be fair Czech, Smaller is just thinking of individual pages and what people needed when visiting them. You should too.
              02:32, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I can feel another fight come along. And I'm in the middle of it. Please, instead of attacking each other, let's have something resembling a debate. Anyways, we're looking at the problem from different sides. I'm looking at it mostly from the stand-point of what user will want to find on the pages, and Ima - can I call you that? - is looking at it from the standpoint of the simplicity of policy for editors. How about we address this on all sides?

              So. First. Viewers (priority IMO): I think that viewers will come to day of the year pages and want to find reruns and releases, especially the special ones (redundant...) like the ones celebrating the 50th, and the rare ones. What do you guys think about this?

              02:39, 9 February 2013
              Edited 02:41, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Please don't call me that. My username doesn't have spaces for a reason.
              02:42, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Fine. Imamadmad.

              Second. Policy: I actually agree mostly with Imamadmad on this one. We obviously can't have a really broad policy that means every single broadcast and release requires debate. We need to make one definitive rule. The simplest way is to just say no to everything post-original-broadcast. I don't think we should do this. We need to discuss the other notable broadcasts and create another definite rule.

              02:46, 9 February 2013
              Edited 02:47, 9 February 2013
              Edited 05:59, 9 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              But just how many people go to dates pages looking for non-first releases of stories? Original releases, yes, birth and death dates, yes, other important historical notes, yes, but re-releases, not really notable in my opinion.
              03:06, 9 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              Shambala108 wrote: But just how many people go to dates pages looking for non-first releases of stories? Original releases, yes, birth and death dates, yes, other important historical notes, yes, but re-releases, not really notable in my opinion.

              It doesn't matter what "they are looking for" it matters "what we can give them."

              03:12, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              OttselSpy25 wrote: It doesn't matter what "they are looking for" it matters "what we can give them."

              Absolutely, positively not. It is our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. We could give them so much information that they just don't read the page at all.

              Remember, we are editors. It's our job to present material in a comprehensible way — not just dump everything, willy nilly, onto the page.

              03:22, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              And again, there is another wiki that does nothing but list global rebroadcast dates, and has access to many more reliable sources than we likely ever would. We're not depriving anyone of information: we're directing them to a better source.
              03:26, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Absolutely, positively not. It is our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. We could give them so much information that they just don't read the page at all.

              Remember, we are editors. It's our job to present material in a comprehensible way — not just dump everything, willy nilly, onto the page.

              True. But it's a question of what's important enough to be displayed, and what the viewers will look for.

              In response to Shambala, I'm sure lots of people would go looking for first releases in their areas. Apparently, http://broadwcast.org has this information. Czech, correct me if I'm wrong, wants to put a link to this wiki.

              03:27, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: And again, there is another wiki that does nothing but list global rebroadcast dates, and has access to many more reliable sources than we likely ever would. We're not depriving anyone of information: we're directing them to a better source.

              Right. What I said. Once again, need to reload page more often. Anyways, now that I've looked through the site, I don't see any pages on dates. I'd understand how the template would work on story pages, but how would it help us on the day pages themselves?

              03:30, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: ... how would [broadwcast.org] help us on the day pages themselves?

              It doesn't. It's not important to day pages when a rebroadcast happens. Given that you could claim that just about every episode of Doctor Who has been rebroadcast — somewhere — on every day of the year, rebroadcast dates are completely trivial to day of the year pages. They're only slightly significant to story pages, so that's where the link to broadwcast.com can be found.

              03:39, 9 February 2013
              Edited 03:43, 9 February 2013
              Edited 03:45, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: It doesn't. It's not important to day pages when a rebroadcast happens. Given that you could claim that just about every episode of Doctor Who has been rebroadcast — somewhere — on every day of the year, rebroadcast dates are completely trivial.

              Yeah, that's a really good point...

              Anyways, yes, agreed, regular rebroadcasts are trivial and should never be included in the day of the year pages.

              But what about first broadcasts in other countries? Personally, this is a maybe - if you do one, you have to do all. Still. Could be discussed.

              What about celebrations of the 50th? Personally, I find these important and I think we should feature these on the pages. All the rebroadcasts specifically in celebration of the Fiftieth of every country should be featured, IMO.

              We have to look at every unique broadcasting instance and decide if that group gets the okay or not. You want to include the unique repeat on BBC1? Discussion. I want to include the unique repeat on The Aztecs on BBCA? Discussion. After all this, we'll have decided what outside of first broadcasts, if any, will be featured. So, what other examples of uniqueness am I missing?

              03:48, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Not just no, but hell no. We will not have a situation whereby we have to discuss every single premiere broadcast around the world to determine whether it belongs in a day of the year page.

              This needs to be simple and understandable. There will be people down the road who won't have participated in this conversation, and they shouldn't need to refer to this conversation to understand the rule.

              The rule needs to be simple, like Imamadmad said. The only thing that the day of the year pages should have is the premiere broadcast in the country of origin, with exceptions only for those stories which technically premiered on local channels prior to a network debut.

              05:54, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              No, I was actually suggesting that we go through every possible situation now so that we can create a clear and simple rule. I was in no way suggesting that we leave it up for debate every time. Refer to one of my previous comments:
              "We obviously can't have a really broad policy that means every single broadcast and release requires debate. We need to make one definitive rule."

              Anyways, what you say is true and highly logical. I still think we should include celebrations of the fiftieth, but it's hardly my choice. But, barring that, I agree that the most logical solution is to include only the first broadcast in the country of origin. Any objections? (that means outside of us four - we all pretty much know where we stand)

              06:05, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Maybe there can be a page dedicated specifically to 50th anniversary celebrations around the world somewhere on this wiki
              06:12, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That is actually an amazing idea, Imamadmad!! We could have a Doctor Who Fiftieth Anniversary page. Then we could have sections on all the different celebrations - 50th Anniversary Special (but now yet... Spoilers!!), The Doctors Revisited, the e-books, reruns in celebration of the 50th, etc... Of course, the special and TDR get their own pages, anyway, though.
              06:18, 9 February 2013
              Edited 18:41, 9 February 2013
            • MrThermomanPreacher
              I like this idea. On RangerWiki, the Power Rangers and Super Sentai wiki, they have a page on the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of Power Rangers, its called Power Rangers 20.
              13:25, 9 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: That is actually an amazing idea, Imamadmad!! We could have a Doctor Who Fiftieth Anniversary page. Then we could have sections on all the different celebrations - 50th Anniversary Special (but now yet... Spoilers!!), The Doctors Revisited, reruns in celebration of the 50th, etc... Of course, the special and TDR get their own pages, anyway, though.

              Yeah, then we could also just list off all the crazy Anniversary stories this year - Prisoners of Time, Hunters of the Burning Stone, A Big Hand for the Doctor; the works.

              15:55, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I'm a little dubious of this latest proposal. I tend to run like hell from "list of" pages which are not automated in some way, and automation is only possible with categories or SMW.

              So since a category is virtually required any way, why would a list page with an awkward title that implies, "Hey, this is the official name of something," be preferable to just a category page? Everything we could possibly mention on the page would surely have its own page, so why not just slap these 50th anniversary releases into their own category and call it a day?

              If people wanted to find all the 50th anniversary releases, all they'd have to do is click on category:50th anniversary releases.

              16:17, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              But there are also things that won't have their own pages. Like the one episode/Doctor on BBCA (yes, I'm still on about that). Unless we put that as a section on The Doctors Revisited (page yet to be created). In fact, I think I'll create a mock-up later today when I have time. Then we can discuss more fully.
              16:52, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Also, unique case:

              Notable enough for a day of the year page?

              16:59, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, unique case:

              Notable enough for a day of the year page?

              Absolutely not. No such peripheral stuff should be in any page in the broader category:dates. We're only about events in the DWU or events about licensed DWU stuff.

              22:00, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure before I deleted it. I'm on the case...
              22:02, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: But there are also things that won't have their own pages. Like the one episode/Doctor on BBCA (yes, I'm still on about that). Unless we put that as a section on The Doctors Revisited (page yet to be created). In fact, I think I'll create a mock-up later today when I have time. Then we can discuss more fully.

              You really need to get off this anniversary stuff and return to the main work of the pages, please. We're spending so much time on this relatively minor stuff that we're losing momentum on the project proper.

              22:03, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I haven't been working on it. I've been busy with other stuff lately. I'm still considering creating a mock-up, but certainly not now.
              22:05, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Just a progress report:
              Sorry. Computer hasn't been working. I've managed to do a couple edits and responses on my phone, but I haven't really been able to continue this project. Now I'm borrowing someone else's computer, and I'm back in the game. I am currently on 10 September. 112 days (approx. 3 months, 20 days) to go.
              00:25, 15 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Cool. Keep on keepin' on.
              04:17, 15 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Some job titles are starting to get out of hand. Take a look at 21 October:

              That takes up a lot of room. Plus it's wordy, and it draws more attention to his death than anyone else's, or to episode four of The Abominable Snowmen's broadcast. Perhaps we should only pick one job, and one job alone. But which job would that be? Which of the above should be considered more noteworthy? The one that he served in for the longest period of time? The one that he contributed in the most? The one that's the highest position? The one that gains the highest authority? And which one of the above applies?

              23:28, 18 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yep, only one. The highest one, which in this case is PUM. (Generally speaking, the highest position is also the one that gives the most authority and the one they had the latest in their career. Most people don't become a director and then accept a role as a production assistant.)
              00:27, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm guessing it's PUM because he's not an assistant. Still, Mark Gatiss, for example, is both writer and actor. I guess writer would be the highest, as writers have more control over the process. I remember there being a case where I literally could not choose one over the other. I'll let you know if I come across it, or a similar case, again in the future.
              00:36, 19 February 2013
            • Tybort
              From that, I'm guessing that executive producer/head writer, editor (in the comic strip sense), co-producer and script editor are "higher up" than just writer.
              00:47, 19 February 2013
            • Tybort
              Also, for instances of people playing themselves, they seem to mention on day of the year pages their usual profession, such as TV personality Alan Sugar. Is that fine?
              01:05, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That is what I have been doing. If someone's a DJ and made an appearance as himself, he's not an actor; he's a DJ.

              I also find writer to be more notable than script editor, as the writers do the real job - they provide us with the stories. The editors are simply crew who clean up after them. Call them their cleaning ladies. :-P

              01:59, 19 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, look, I'm probably not going to be able to give you a rule that fits in every case. But if a person has risen to great heights in different departments, go ahead and give the highest credit in each department.. There aren't too many people like Gatiss. So there's little problem calling him "writer and actor Mark Gatiss". That's fine.

              The issue with D'Oyly-John is that all those credits were from a single department.

              Just use your best judgment. Is it sensible to say, "production assistant, location manager and director Graeme Harper"? No, he's just "director Graeme Harper". Is it "prose author and television writer Russell T Davies"? No, it's just "show runner Russell T Davies" (or, if you're talking about him in connection with Torchwood or The Sarah Jane Adventures only, then it's "creator Russell T Davies").

              You shouldn't have too much problem with this, because I doubt we really have too many people at D'Oyly-John's level on day of the week pages.

              That observation sparks the questions, "How senior do you have to be to get noted on a day page? Are we doing to start noting the birts and deaths of practical electricians? Cyfle trainees? I mean, where does it end?"

              And those questions make me think, well, why should we have births and deaths on day of the year pages — at all? Why not just have the info at real world birthdays and be done with it? I'm not really seeing the advantage of noting birthdays on these day pages at all.

              I mean, fine, keep the real world birthdays and real world deaths pages for those who really are into that minutiae. But let's keep 1 January (real world) for genuine production information. After all, the day of someone's birth is not actually relevant to the production of Doctor Who, is it?

              02:58, 19 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I also find writer to be more notable than script editor, as the writers do the real job - they provide us with the stories. The editors are simply crew who clean up after them. Call them their cleaning ladies. :-P

              That is the case in the BBC Wales series, but certainly not in the old days. From 1963 to 1989 the script editor was one-half of the "production team". Along with the producer he (cause it was always a he) was the only permanent part of Doctor Who's above the line staff. Script editors back then are what we would today call the head writer.

              03:03, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: That is the case in the BBC Wales series, but certainly not in the old days. From 1963 to 1989 the script editor was one-half of the "production team". Along with the producer he (cause it was always a he) was the only permanent part of Doctor Who's above the line staff. Script editors back then are what we would today call the head writer.

              With that in mind, then:

              That makes sense... I hadn't known that script editors were the equivalent of the head writer, in the old days. Good to know.

              Also, maybe we shouldn't include births and deaths of actors who only appeared once or twice in tiny roles. We should definitely include major Doctor Who personalities, like Doctor actors, companion actors, Head Writers, recurring writers, recurring directors, founders...

              But I don't think we should include every single actor. We already have two pages for births and deaths. You have no idea how many actors have appeared in Who! Which is why I started adding "who portrayed the Third Doctor," for example, to highlight the actors that played the Doctor. I also added this for the first writer, the first director and the founders. But maybe we should not even include the less significant actors at all.

              05:42, 19 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The phrase "who portrayed the Third Doctor" is really not necessary.

              I dunno, man, the more I think about this, the more I think day pages shouldn't have any births or deaths. It's entirely irrelevant to the production of DW.

              05:53, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I can definitely see where that's coming from. I still think we should have the births and deaths of people important to Who, but I can definitely see the logic in your opinion. So then it'd only be release dates? I suppose we could leave a link to the section at real world birthdays and deaths at the bottom of the page...
              05:59, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Though I think that we should include pretty much everyone that's in bold in the birthdays and deaths pages. That's Doctors, companion s, major recurring villains, and producers and writers etc... that played a major role in Who. That's practically word for word from the pages. The rest should go. We can put links there, as I suggested in my last post.
              06:05, 19 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I don't see the point in removing this information.
              17:04, 19 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              I agree with Ottselspy25. Apart from makin the pages emptier, what would it achieve? The links are sending people to the actor pages, which will send them to the character page which will send them to episode pages which... You get my point. They're a starting point for sending people around the wiki. Therefore they are useful to have, and interesting as well. Also, putting the info back would be one hellofa job, especially as the information is already there now.
              20:38, 19 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I know quite a few people who come to this site for info. My friend runs a Doctor Who fan site and comes here for his fact files. Why remove info that people are looking for? I don't care how it looks, it's what's there that matters.
              20:52, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm always against getting rid of useful information. But, if we must shorten the lists, then I'd include what I mentioned above. I definitely do not think we should get rid of all births and deaths. In fact, I'd personally prefer it if we kept all of them. If we do, however, I suggest we highlight the major players - by saying things like "who played the Third Doctor" or "who directed An Unearthly Child, the very first Doctor Who story, or "who brought back Doctor Who after its 18-month-long hiatus." These people are crucial to Doctor Who and should be highlighted.
              21:20, 19 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I'm always against getting rid of useful information. But, if we must shorten the lists, then I'd include what I mentioned above. I definitely do not think we should get rid of all births and deaths. In fact, I'd personally prefer it if we kept all of them. If we do, however, I suggest we highlight the major players - by saying things like "who played the Third Doctor" or "who directed An Unearthly Child, the very first Doctor Who story, or "who brought back Doctor Who after its 18-month-long hiatus." These people are crucial to Doctor Who and should be highlighted.

              This is a very slippery slope. One day it'll be "Let's only add really notable actors to date pages" and the next day it's "You know, audio and book releases are not really that necissary," and then it's "I think we should remove all non-TV info" then it's "you know, I think we should only cover TV stories..." I'm exagerating for the later two, of coarse; but I still dislike the idea that any info is "more notable" or "important" than others and thus the others should go. I also fail to see why we must seperate episode pages, but apparently this has passed out of reach.

              22:11, 19 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Nah, I'm not buying it. There's no reason to duplicate the information. All of it is on the birthday and deaths pages. All of it is easily accessible. It wouldn't be getting rid of anything. Rather, it would be focussing attention on it and presenting the information in a much less haphazard way.

              Again, it does not matter to the production of Doctor Who what some actor's birthday is. It doesn't matter one bit when JNT died, because he wasn't in production of DW at the time. Putting all this information on a dedicated page gives people a focus for their enquiries.

              It means that the real world day of the year pages have a natural limitation point. We would be saying, this is where we put production- and broadcast-relevant information only. It would be "this day in DW history", not "this day in DW birth and death days".

              Imamadmad is quite incorrect when she asserts that this move would leave us with a lot less information. Far from it — we'd be freeing the page up for the tons and tons of interesting, date-related info about the production of Doctor Who that we've only barely started to cover. I could fill up these pages with information solely from the Hartnell years.

              What's interesting about links to actors is not what their birthday is, but:

              • on what day were they hired?
              • on what day were they first/last in front of the cameras?
              • on what day did they formally submit their resignation?
              • on what day did they audition?
              • on what day did they first meet their co-star or producer?

              There's just a ton of information that these articles are missing because we quite mistakenly believe that their birth/death day matters one single iota to Doctor Who history.

              22:20, 19 February 2013
            • SOTO

              OttselSpy25 wrote: This is a very slippery slope. One day it'll be "Let's only add really notable actors to date pages" and the next day it's "You know, audio and book releases are not really that necissary," and then it's "I think we should remove all non-TV info" then it's "you know, I think we should only cover TV stories..." I'm exagerating for the later two, of coarse; but I still dislike the idea that any info is "more notable" or "important" than others and thus the others should go. I also fail to see why we must seperate episode pages, but apparently this has passed out of reach.

              You misunderstood. I'm actually agreeing with you. I'm not saying we should begin only including certain people. What I'm saying is that the majority, let's face it, are actors who've appeared in tiny guest roles in one or two stories. I simply think that the people most crucial to Who should be highlighted, so that they can be pinpointed in the sea of somewhat less important (no offence to them) people to Who. So actors who've played the Doctor, the first this, the first that, creator of Doctor Who, creator of Torchwood, the guy who brought Who back to our screens in 2005, etc... These people ought to be highlighted in the articles by adding a little bit of information on what makes them special on their birth and death points. While most people would have only [job] [name] was born/died, Tennant might, for example, get, Actor David Tennant, who portrayed the Tenth Doctor, was born. It makes his birth stand out, as it should, given as he's has provided to Who much more than, say, Harold Innocent, who was born on the same day.

              After reading Czech's comment, though, I can feel my opinion swaying. He's brought up some interesting info topics, and some good points. We could always consider only including what's in bold in the birthday and death pages, although I'm sure Czech'll be completely against including any births/deaths at all.

              Can you create a template that'll go at the bottom of every real-world day page, and link to its section in both the birthday and death pages? I don't mean now, but do you think that would be a good idea? It would tell you to go there to find out who was born and who died on that day.

              22:32, 19 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              OS25, I haven't proposed the actual removal of any information. I'm just concerned about delivering in a clearer fashion. Consolidating all birth information on a page called real world birthdays isn't destroying information; it's making it easier to find.
              00:28, 20 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              I disagree with Czech's statements that info shouldn't be added because it belongs somewhere else. That's the thing; people get interest through what's on a page. A reader may see "JNT was born in the year blahblahblah". Then they'll go "Gee, I don't know a lot about JNT. I THINK I WANNA KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT JNT!" Then they research JNT on our cite and we're happy. The info belongs on both pages, because info sparks interest. The way I see it, there's no reason for both 23 November and Real world birthdays should both have info on the birth of the guy who played Frankenstein.
              00:42, 20 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              • on our site
              00:42, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              As a compromise, what do you think about having a third set of date pages, in the format 1 January (births and deaths)? We could then create a little template that would allow the user to easily flick back and forth between all the days of the year pages.
              1 May in

              the DWU • production history • vital statistics

              SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I

              Apr

              May

              Jun

                          1
              2 3 4 5 6 7 8
              9 10 11 12 13 14 15
              16 17 18 19 20 21 22
              23 24 25 26 27 28 29
              30 31          
              01:18, 20 February 2013
              Edited 01:21, 20 February 2013
              Edited 01:23, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              That's actually brilliant!! I'm going with this. That would definitely facilitate moving between versions of the day pages. Plus it's nice and simple. It also separates the two completely separate types of information. Believe me, this is the perfect guide for the viewer: the DWU, the production history, and the births and deaths. I'm all for this and (births and deaths)!
              01:23, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              And, don't worry, I'll have no trouble creating the pages and separating the info if we end up going by this. I'll finish up stage one right now.
              01:26, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Not to press my luck, but since we're creating 366 pages at a time anyway, I kinda think there should be yet a fourth set — 1 May (releases). This will let us further focus the pages and make them even more useful to our readers.
              01:27, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: And, don't worry, I'll have no trouble creating the pages and separating the info if we end up going by this. I'll finish up stage one right now.

              Well, again, the pages should be created by bot/admin, as discussed a llllllllooooonggggg way upthread.

              01:29, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Might as well since we're already going down that path. So what sort of information's left for 1 May (real world)?
              01:29, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Well, again, the pages should be created by bot/admin, as discussed a llllllllooooonggggg way upthread.

              Right. But if created by bot, I can still go through and sort the information into the four pages.

              01:31, 20 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              That seems like a good layout and system.
              01:33, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Might as well since we're already going down that path. So what sort of information's left for 1 May (real world)?

              What's left? What's left? You make it sound like it's slim pickings. Well let's see:

              ... and so on.

              01:36, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              We might want to change (real world) to (production), though, since 3 of the 4 proposed variants are also "in the real world".
              01:39, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Got it. I was just wondering. Does "releases" mean both original broadcasts and DVD releases? (for example - or website releases, magazine releases...)
              01:39, 20 February 2013
              Edited 01:40, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: We might want to change (real world) to (production), though, since 3 of the 4 proposed variants are also "in the real world".

              I was going to suggest that, but I figured it might complicate things as we'd agreed on that name. But, I agree, (real world) would be too broad, as the name encompasses the other pages as well, meaning it's not a good name. (production) sounds fine to me.

              01:42, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, I would tend to think that it's in the spirit of our guiding principle of media equality that (release) would contain all primary releases of all media.

              I'm a little wary of DVD releases being included though, because we have, in principle, an agreement on another thread to create pages that will thoroughly cover home video releases much more deeply than these day pages can. I think it's probably best to just consider the release of An Unearthly Child to be 23 November 1963, period.

              01:43, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. I'm actually kind of excited that our ideas are actually going somewhere... :P

              These new ideas feel much more organised than the original plan. I think, for now, I won't get rid of the DVD releases, but I won't be adding new ones either. We can get rid of them later, when the home video plans start to shape. For now, they're information, pending possible future deletion. That's how I've been handling them.

              01:47, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well let's sit with this change of tack for a day or two and see if any other day range ideas come to us. Then I suppose we'll have to, as it were, "break it out of committee", and put it to a specific vote that attracts the attention of the whole community.

              I think at this point many users have probably started ignoring this thread because it's rather like a whiteboard between those who are actively interested in the minutiae of day article editing. A massive change in day of the week organisation like this deserves another, separately highlighted discussion, which I'll put forward once we've had time to sit and think for a full day or so about all the changes we want to implement.

              01:51, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Do you think there's enough date information out there about toys and other non-narrative merchandise, to justify 1 May (merchandise)?
              01:55, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Well let's sit with this change of tack for a day or two and see if any other day range ideas come to us. Then I suppose we'll have to, as it were, "break it out of committee", and put it to a specific vote that attracts the attention of the whole community.

              Okay. Sounds cool. In the mean time, I can clean up my own mistakes, and start doing a little research and adding all information I can find.

              As far as merchandise, it would take a lot of research, but I would not be surprised to find we can fill up all the day pages easily (except the extreme difficulty of finding the info) with merchandise information. There has been so much merchandise, it's... unbelievable....

              01:58, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, the trick is whether we can actually find the release date of Doctor Who wholewheat pasta shapes in tomato sauce, or Doctor Who Frubes or even the precise release date of particular sets of Character Options figures.
              02:24, 20 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              What about magazine releases? Sense those have stories in them (usually), shall we treat them as story releases themselves?
              20:29, 20 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Magazine releases are a bit tricky, especially when it comes to the pre-1991 DWM. After that, we hit a point where we know exactly when DWM came out, because it's on the cover. (Well, it can be extrapolated correctly from the cover, at any rate.)

              But before that, DWM might not be so easy to precisely date. It might be something purely for the January (releases) page, for example.

              Americna comic books are going to be a bit of a bitch, too, especially Doctor Who (1984). We can probably still find solicitation dates for most IDW issues, but we'll likely have to do some hard core research there.

              For DWBIT and DWA, I suspect user:The Librarian might be able to help us sort out the meaning of the cover date, if he chooses to respond to messages on his talk page, which he frequently doesn't. However, he's put in a lot of false information about cover dates in the past, so we might need to ask him then verify elsewhere.

              21:04, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!
              21:09, 20 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!

              Precisley what I was asking.

              21:28, 20 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I notice you made a badge for this. Smart - it'll attract users to edit these pages. I was going to suggest it a long while ago, but completely forgot.

              It was a bit weird when it told me I made my first edit on a Days of the Year page though... Hardly my first.

              00:11, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Coupla points for you today:
              • Game of Rassilon badge thing is only in beta. :) It's now turned off, cause I don't want it attracting a lot of new people in the process until we get the split done. But I did want it in place and working so all I have to do is flip a switch once the whole thing is set up.
              • The badges are a part of the answer to a question I think you had earlier. Eventually there will be five categories — one for each of the separate ranges of days, in addition to the overarching category:days of the year category. Eventually, days of the year will be hidden and every single page having to do with a day will eventually belong to days of the year and it's own more specific category (like category:Production calendar, category:Release calendar, whatever) so that the contest can be run from it. (We do this same sort of thing with category:vehicles and category:Earth mammals.)
              01:13, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Now, have you come up with any additional calendars, or are we ready to make our proposal to the rest of the community with:
              • in universe
              • releases
              • vital stats
              • production history
              • merchandise
              01:17, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I think we're ready to make the proposal.

              But why does merchandise get its own calendar? Shouldn't it just be part of "releases?"

              01:22, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Also, just to confirm, "production history" includes things like filming, hiring, auditions, etc... Does it also include announcements to the public? If not, we need to choose which other calendar it should be part of.
              01:24, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Um, we talked about merchandise yesterday, upthread. You seemed to be okay with it. Have you changed your mind?

              And yes, public announcements are made by, or at least under the ægis of, the production team.

              01:41, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, I was there yesterday, and, yes, I did agree with including it. But, if you look upthread, you'll notice that both OS25 (who suggested it) and I questioned whether or not it deserves its own cal. If I may quote...

              OttselSpy25 wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!

              Precisley what I was asking.

              Just wondering, do we have any reasons for it to have its own calendar? If so, I'm all for it. I just presently feel it'd be a waste of a cal.

              01:45, 21 February 2013
              Edited 01:47, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Which is technically correct:
              On 21 December, 1981, ............

              or

              On 21 December 1981, .............

              I've been consistently including the comma, but I'm curious to know if I'm actually right.

              02:02, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              If DD MM YY, comma only after YY.

              If MM DD, YY, comma after DD and YY.

              02:04, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Got it. I'll fix that in the next round.

              But it should never be MM DD, YY here. That's American.

              02:07, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Eh, that's not strictly true. And I mean both sentences of your final paragraph. It's not really "American" and it's not forbidden here to use MM DD, YY.

              I draw your attention to T:DATES, the last paragraph of which does allow for what is erroneously thought of as the "American" method of MM DD. It's allowed, but we discourage the creation of redirects on that format.

              The key is that you use the same format in any single article.

              02:32, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, I read that, but, considering it's the preferred format, it's the one I'm using. Yes, it's not technically disallowed, but I'd prefer to have consistency between all the day pages, not just within each individual one.
              02:36, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I don't want to jump the gun, but should we start planning the format for the new calendars? I have plenty of ideas. That way, once the public makes a decision, we can get started right away on the pages without having to have a discussion first.
              02:38, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              That's your option, of course. Just please don't correct uses of what you're quite wrongly calling "American" and suggest to other users that you're doing the right thing while they have done the wrong.

              And don't misread what's meant by "preferred". T:DATES is largely talking about the preferred way of titling the article — not of actually using dates in articles. There is no preference when it comes to actual usage of dates in articles. Date format is in no way policed by bot.

              02:44, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Received. But, considering that's what's currently being used in the day articles, I can still fix it if someone uses the American, as it would be inconsistent in that specific article.

              Anyway, can we discuss the format or should we wait?

              02:47, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              If you wanna start listing some of your ideas for the next phase, sure, go ahead.
              03:00, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. Number one:

              For "vital stats," things like "was born" and "died" would get extremely redundant. Unless you want to start adding information like where they died/were born, we'd have to do something like this:


              1 May in

              the DWU • production history • releases

              SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I

              Apr

              May

              Jun

                          1
              2 3 4 5 6 7 8
              9 10 11 12 13 14 15
              16 17 18 19 20 21 22
              23 24 25 26 27 28 29
              30 31          

              Previous day • Next day

              On 1 May, many people were born and many died. The following is a list of every birth and death of individuals who have appeared in, or have connections with, the Doctor Who universe and its related media:

              Births[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Deaths[[edit] | [edit source]]

              SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I


              Yes, the first sentence could do with a rewording, and, yes, you might say that there isn't enough info to constitute a whole section. (1 May doesn't have anywhere close to as many births and deaths as certain other days) But consider the alternative:

              Redundant, no?

              03:23, 21 February 2013
              Edited 03:23, 21 February 2013
              Edited 03:29, 21 February 2013
              Edited 17:15, 21 February 2013
              Edited 17:15, 21 February 2013
              Edited 21:14, 21 February 2013
              Edited 21:18, 21 February 2013
              Edited 21:55, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              If you're creating the pages by bot, then empty pages would automatically be made. See 19 July, for example. There should only be two pages for the moment: 19 July and 19 July (vital stats). In my eyes, there are two solutions:
              • While I sort the information, I can add delete tags to these empty pages.
              • Before we create the pages, I put tags on the day pages to signify which pages should be created. Like a tag for every calendar. Then you set the bot to create "broadcasts" pages only for those with the broadcasts tag. The tag can even be a hidden message with [[5 June (vital stats)]], for example. That way you can create pages at [[{{PAGENAME}} (vital stats)]] to every page that links to it. If that makes any sense...
              05:18, 21 February 2013
              Edited 05:18, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              • Please continue using full sentences for births and deaths, but use exactly the full sentence that we agreed before: [title] [name] was born (or died). You've already done the majority of the pages this way, so it would be a ridiculous waste of time for you to go back and convert them. As things stand T:FULL SENT still applies. If at some point in the future we wish to strip down to what you suggest we can do that easily through bot run, because you've used the same sentence structure repeatedly.
              • Pages for all real world days will be created. We can assume that real world days exist, but that we currently don't know anything about it. The rules are a lil different for in-universe pages. I'll probably create all the real world pages with a template that says we don't know of any info for that date, and then, as you add in the info, you'll remove that template. What's left behind will be those days we trulyknow nothing about. But we won't erase delete real world dates simply cause they're empty.
              19:13, 21 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh and there won't be a previous day/next day thing like you've mocked up. There's a fully linked calendar. Why on Earth do you need prev/next day functionality in addition to that? (That's just a rhetorical question, cause the answer is, "You don't.")
              19:14, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, thanks.

              And the reason I added next/previous day is because you can't easily travel from the last day of one month to the first of the next. {{DateNav}}, as it stands, does allow easy travel between 31 January and 1 February. Maybe there's something we can put only on pages for the end of a month?

              19:24, 21 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Maybe a previous month/next month feature instead of previous day/next day feature?
              19:35, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              No but we already sort of have that feature in the calendar itself. Note the very top of the cal. Thus, the only way to get from 31 January to 1 February is to click on February and then click on the 1 in the calendar there. A bit of a hassle.
              19:41, 21 February 2013
              Edited 19:49, 21 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Then it's only 2 clicks. Hardly that much of a hassle.
              19:49, 21 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Not to you, it isn't. But I'm thinking of the viewers with bad Internet. I, for example, have extremely poor Internet connectivity, and that extra "click" can mean up to one extra minute of load time. Which is why, personally, while editing, I simply type in "1 February" in the URL, as opposed to having to wait the additional time. I would, as would, I'm sure, many other people, appreciate it if there was a quicker method of going from the end if a month to the beginning of the next.
              20:03, 21 February 2013
              Edited 20:05, 21 February 2013
              Edited 21:58, 21 February 2013
            • Doug86
              I have a proposal for how to make it unnecessary to have two pages for calendar dates. We could do it the way that Memory Alpha and Memory Beta do it and have all in-universe references to calendar dates on the month articles, and reserve the individual date pages for real world events.

              Also, I do not think it is necessary to have separate pages for production and releases, just separate sections on each page. Doug86 ☎ 02:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

              02:14, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Hey, guys. If anyone's been watching Wiki Activity, you may have noticed that I've created mock-ups, as sub-pages of my user page, for 1 May (a generic day) in all calendars (except "Merchandise," so far). Here's a directory for (and notes on) these pages:
              This is the in-universe page. Pretty much the same as what's already at 1 May.
              Production history. For this one, I haven't yet found real information, so I fed it with information from DWTV (which, yes, I know, is not a valid source). Please note that this piece of info will not appear in the actual version of this page; it's merely there as an example of what's to come... (I like the sound of that!) It's also, for the record, not technically correct, as the DWTV article, which can be found here, states that the filming took place that week, meaning sometime before 1 May.
              Here, I tried something new: adding publisher for books and short stories, and comic book series for comic stories. Since we've been adding channel of initial broadcast for television stories, why not publisher of initial release for prose? It only makes sense.
              Vital stats. Pretty much what I posted above. I kept the sections for "births" and "deaths," for now.

              Anyway, as we discuss, anyone is free to edit and/or update these pages to make them the perfect exemplary day of the year pages. Obviously, once we actually create the new pages, we can forget about this, and progress without it, but we should use these pages, at the moment, to demonstrate what it is we want for these pages, and to test out our ideas. In case there's any sort of complication stemming from the fact that it's a branch of my user page and not any of yours, I hereby grant anyone the right to edit the above pages.

              02:47, 22 February 2013
              Edited 02:49, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO

              Doug86 wrote: I have a proposal for how to make it unnecessary to have two pages for calendar dates. We could do it the way that Memory Alpha and Memory Beta do it and have all in-universe references to calendar dates on the month articles, and reserve the individual date pages for real world events.

              Also, I do not think it is necessary to have separate pages for production and releases, just separate sections on each page. Doug86 ☎ 02:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

              I'm personally against removing the in-universe information from day pages. It sort of defeats the purpose. Plus, considering our policies regarding out-of-universe information, it would seem odd to have day of the year pages, which clearly exist in the DWU, reserved for non-DWU material. That goes against all our core values!! We put dab terms on the out-of-universe pages over the in-universe ones - now all of a sudden we're pretending like days only exists outside of the DWU!? I personally see this as going against everything this Wiki stands for...

              03:25, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I think that's a little strong, SOTO. Doug's suggestion isn't "going against everything this wiki stands for". As a frequent user of MA, I understand their organisation system well. Indeed, Sulfur once proposed the MA system in our forums.

              And it went over like a lead balloon.

              The reason is pretty simple. Most Star Trek fiction uses stardates, so they don't have a lot of in-universe "normal" calendar days to deal with.

              The DWU only uses days of the year, and precise dates are often crucial to the telling of DWU stories. Consequently, there's often enough information about in-universe days of the month to justify a page under our usual article-creation rules.

              In short, the MA "all on a month page" approach won't work just because of the inherent difference in the franchises.

              Really good idea, though.

              03:46, 22 February 2013
              Edited 03:48, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry, you're right - a little too strong. Anyways, do you agree with me adding the publisher for prose, and the comic book series for comic stories, in the same vein as adding the station in which a television story was first broadcast? Also, did you take a look at my mock-ups? Can you fix 'em a little, if you feel it's necessary?
              03:50, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I'll get around to them as I can this weekend. The one thing I'd ask you not to lose sight of is fully completing this first round. I just discovered some NO RW violations yesterday on day pages as they currently stand. And several still had superfluous TV prefixes. Please, let's worry first about examining every single line that presently exists. In particular, let's make sure that everything having to do with a real world personality, thing, place or concept actually has the date attached in the DWU.

              Let's also now have another round where we beef up what's there by doing the searches that I mentioned waayyyyy upthread. Let's really get the in-universe page done before moving fully on to the proposed pages.

              But, yes, I'll be reviewing your mockups and pitching in ideas as they occur to me.

              03:58, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.
              03:58, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yes, obviously, the (releases) range will contain info from all media, to the extent that it's known. I think, however, that we should eschew prefixes on the releases page altogether and use other words to convey meaning. Otherwise you're going to end up with a metric ton of TV, PROSE, AUDIO and [[COMIC}], which might not be the most helpful thing to readers. We might consider phrasing things like:
              • The short story [whatever] was published in [Anthology].
              • The TV Comic story [whatever] concluded in issue [whatever].
              • and so on
              04:04, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: I'll get around to them as I can this weekend. The one thing I'd ask you not to lose sight of is fully completing this first round. I just discovered some NO RW violations yesterday on day pages as they currently stand. And several still had superfluous TV prefixes. Please, let's worry first about examining every single line that presently exists. In particular, let's make sure that everything having to do with a real world personality, thing, place or concept actually has the date attached in the DWU.

              Let's also now have another round where we beef up what's there by doing the searches that I mentioned waayyyyy upthread. Let's really get the in-universe page done before moving fully on to the proposed pages.

              But, yes, I'll be reviewing your mockups and pitching in ideas as they occur to me.

              Thank you. Yes, I'm currently reviewing the day pages and fixing things. Also note that I only started deleting TV: and adding was broadcast... in April, I think. That is, I'm actually taking a break from that to add DWM releases. Then, once I've cleaned up the pages as they stand, I'll start adding in more information and doing research. I would recommend you bring up the subject of the split calendars to the public soon, though, so that there can be enough time for full discussion before we create the pages. I want to be able to open the new pages as soon as we're ready.

              04:05, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

              Whoa whoa whoa. Explain what you're doing.

              04:10, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Yes, obviously, the (releases) range will contain info from all media, to the extent that it's known. I think, however, that we should eschew prefixes on the releases page altogether and use other words to convey meaning. Otherwise you're going to end up with a metric ton of TV, PROSE, AUDIO and [[COMIC}], which might not be the most helpful thing to readers. We might consider phrasing things like:

              • The short story [whatever] was published in [Anthology].
              • The TV Comic story [whatever] concluded in issue [whatever].
              • and so on

              Got it. I'll start implementing that right away. Also, I'm assuming that I'd be able to add something extra for firsts and lasts of a series? For example:

              04:11, 22 February 2013
              Edited 04:19, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

              Whoa whoa whoa. Explain what you're doing.

              On all Doctor Who Magazine pages, from DWM 1 to DWM 456, have a "published on" date in the lead. This is presumably taken from the cover date, hence the day it was published, or printed. I'm adding the information to all those days, which will add a lot to the (releases) pages. Why, are these dates wrong?

              04:15, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Wait. Hold on. What are you doing? In-universe is our focus now. Please don't go down these rabbit holes just yet. You are getting way ahead of yourself. All you should be worried about actually doing is what's in post 267.

              As things stand right now, all we have are pages that are primarily in-universe. They need to be right before we move on to anything else.

              I think you might believe that you've already done the in-universe part. But your application of the template saying the page needs to be deleted may not be right. All that template means is that we don't currently have in-universe information about that date. I know for a fact that you're missing at least 10 days from The Witch Hunters and God knows how many from Managra.

              04:17, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I do not think I'm finished; I just wanted to get the DWM dates out of my way before I forget about them.

              Okay. I put a reminder on my computer. I guess I'll get back to the in-universe info now, then. I'm currently doing Day article clean-up – Phase Two (I know - I use umbrella edit terms. Umbrella edit terms are cool) Phase Three is Day article additions.

              04:21, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

              CzechOut wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

              Whoa whoa whoa. Explain what you're doing.

              On all Doctor Who Magazine pages, from DWM 1 to DWM 456, have a "published on" date in the lead. This is presumably taken from the cover date, hence the day it was published, or printed. I'm adding the information to all those days, which will add a lot to the (releases) pages. Why, are these dates wrong?

              Again, your focus right now needs to be on in-universe articles. So I'm only telling you the following so that you will understand what to do in the future.

              You have no idea what you're messin' with if you believe that DWM dates are "published on" dates. They aren't. A lot of DWM dates have been cleaned up, but I don't fully trust them at all. See Forum:DWM issues: please help (re)write leads.

              Most editors have badly misunderstood what the date means on DWM. Since DWM 164, the date on the cover is not the publication date at all, but rather the expiration date. It's the date when newsstands are supposed to remove the magazine from their shelves. So if issue, say, 200 has the cover date of 1 Jan, and issue 199 has the cover date of 7 Dec, then it means that the publication date of issue 200 is 8 Dec — not the 1 Jan that it bears on its cover.

              It honestly is gonna take quite a bit of research to get all the DWM comic release dates absolutely correct. I'd rather you just didn't mess with DWM comics for quite a while. It's better for the information not to be there, than for it to be wrongly there.

              04:27, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Again, for future use: 
                Cover date of previous DWM issue 
+ 1 day
  ========================
  Publication date of present issue
              04:31, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'll leave it alone for now, but, assuming it wasn't half-fixed inconsistently (which would rather be a hassle), I could just track them one off.
              04:32, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Again, for future use: 

                Cover date of previous DWM issue 
+ 1 day
  ========================
  Publication date of present issue

              Oh plus one day!!! Got it. Once we create the pages, when I'll get back to this, I'll go by this. Thanks for the brief.

              04:34, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The problem has been that they were fixed up to a certain point and then people didn't believe that was the way the dates worked, so maybe some of them got wrongly "corrected".

              So I can't guarantee now what's right and what's wrong. I imagine that the current round of expansion of DWM issues has probably not correctly represented publication date. I'm hoping, though, that they've at least been using the right cover date.

              04:35, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I really don't want you to mess with DWM dates, though. It's not what this project is about at all, and it's a nightmare. That's a whole separate project, and I need to come up with some way of enforcing the correct date so that we have a list somewhere that's always known to be correct. It needs to be enforced through calculation in the template, so that all people have to do is add the correct cover date, and the rest is automatically generated, period. For whwatever reason, people have just never understood DWM dates at all, and as soon as I turn my back, the earlier work just goes down the toilet.

              And I have no idea how to reliably find the precise release dates for anything while DWM was truly monthly — so between the end of Weekly and DWM 164. I mean we have dates for DWW, obviously, but after that, all we have are months, unless someone kept a better record of things.

              04:40, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Flipping through, majority seem to be correct. You can usually tell when they're wrong as they wouldn't include different dates for publication and "pulled from shelves," right? If so, then, as a sentient life form, I think I can manage to figure out the rest.
              04:42, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. I'll leave the DWM dates for now. Once you do get around to creating the template (at least do it for the ones we know), please tell me and I can start adding it in to the day pages.

              Anyways, I've been looking through the Internet, and got a mislead at http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/dwm, but then found something that could help us a lot with merchandising dating (at least since 2009) if we decide to consider this a valid source: http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/releases/. Look at it. At their bottom, there's links to every other year since 2009. Can we use this as a source for merchandise releases?

              04:51, 22 February 2013
              Edited 04:51, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm putting this here as a reminder for myself for later:
              Five days are depicted, Robespierre states in the next-to-last day that the following day will be 27 July 1794. The final day includes Robespierre's gunshot wound to his face, and his arrest; both are recorded in history as having occurred on 27 July 1794. The previous statement proves that The Reign of Terror does indeed take place between the twenty third and the twenty seventh of July. Must add information from that story to those five days.

              If anyone reading this had seen the story recently, and wishes to add the information themselves, by all means, you'll probably do a better job than me. I'm currently busy on cleaning up -- I just don't want this piece of information to be lost among my many many tabs.

              05:27, 22 February 2013
              Edited 05:27, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Flipping through, majority seem to be correct. You can usually tell when they're wrong as they wouldn't include different dates for publication and "pulled from shelves," right? If so, then, as a sentient life form, I think I can manage to figure out the rest.

              Again, please don't mess with this. DWM release dates are not important to this project.

              20:02, 22 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I did a little simple research on 1 May, using only WLH, and uncovered plenty of new information. Just think of what I'll find for the other pages!! The information has been added to my mock-ups.

              I also noticed something that we've been missing: CON broadcasts. They simply go after the episode broadcast statements that are already in use, with all episodes from Rose to The Wedding of River Song. Please note the wording on the mock-up, which I will now be employing on the real day pages:

              Any problems with the wording? Any better suggestions?

              22:44, 22 February 2013
              Edited 22:44, 22 February 2013
              Edited 22:49, 22 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Should probably be something like:

              Your version seems to imply that Confidential is on BBC One.

              00:02, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry - CON episodes air on BBC Three.

              How about this?

              00:04, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh - you said the same thing... at the same time... weird...

              Is my new wording fine?

              00:08, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              It's not the same thing. Look more carefully.
              00:20, 23 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              CzechOut wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Flipping through, majority seem to be correct. You can usually tell when they're wrong as they wouldn't include different dates for publication and "pulled from shelves," right? If so, then, as a sentient life form, I think I can manage to figure out the rest.

              Again, please don't mess with this. DWM release dates are not important to this project.

              As long as they're not flat out removed I'm fine with that.

              00:21, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Removed? Whatcha mean?
              00:22, 23 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25

              CzechOut wrote: It's not the same thing. Look more carefully.

              Yeah, but you both had the same point to make.

              00:23, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: It's not the same thing. Look more carefully.

              Are you referring to CON: as opposed to Doctor Who Confidential episode? The only other difference I see is that yours is slightly more poetic.

              00:24, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              OttselSpy25 wrote:

              CzechOut wrote: It's not the same thing. Look more carefully.

              Yeah, but you both had the same point to make.

              Only vaguely. I was also trying to point out that we didn't need the words "Doctor Who Confidential", since we have a perfectly serviceable prefix. And, I thought it important to stress the fact that CON is "later" on that day than DW, since that may be a fact that is forgotten as we move significantly past the era where everyone remembers what CON was. Finally, it's important, I think, to use two sentences here.

              00:27, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I only employed the full thing instead of the prefix, because you've been telling me to replace the prefix for prose and comics, and get rid of it for TV stories. Also, I never got Confidential on TV here in Canada - did it air immediately after the episode or a few hours later?

              How about:

              Otherwise, I'm fine going with your exact wording - I just find it unpoetic to write something poetic and mass copy it everywhere. Poetic sentences work for single occurrences only, in my opinion.

              00:49, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              The difference with CON is that it'll likely appear only once on any given day page, whereas TV, AUDIO, PROSE and COMIC will almost certainly appear multiple times on any given page.

              Your wording is fine.

              00:57, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Arrgh. No it's not. I hate starting a sentence with a prefix. Minor change, then, to:
              01:00, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh. Right. Got it. Now employing new wording. I also noticed something else when I started things of the day pages as actual articles: I've been over-wikifying. Big time. I've been wikifying every single channel, including BBC1, which appear sometimes 10 times on a page. Is this a problem?
              01:07, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I kind of want to word it in a way that implies the relationship between the Confidential and the episode - that the CON's about the episode. But I can't think of a wording that does this...

              The current wording makes them seem like two completely unrelated episodes of two different shows that just happened to air on the same night. And it will look even more so in ten years when the next generation will not be as fluent in Confidential as we are now.

              01:10, 23 February 2013
              Edited 01:15, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Heh. I got news for you. This site won't be around in ten years' time.
              01:16, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Depressing, but true enough. Still it's been around for 8 years already. Not bad, eh?

              Can you still not think of a better wording? I mean, it's fine, but I'd prefer something that links them a bit more.

              01:23, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Why? They're linked adequately on their own pages. Infoboxen make it pretty clear how they're linked. I don't think the wording needs to include some sort of better linkage so I honestly haven't — and won't — be thinking of a "better" wording.
              03:27, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Yeah, after I gave it a little time to breathe in my head, I realised that it's fine. I don't really see what I used to see wrong in the wording.

              Is there anything wrong with linking in every instance of BBC1?

              03:31, 23 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              It's hard to tell whether it's truly problematic because we don't really have a good grasp of how much material is going to be on the page ultimately. I'd say just go ahead and link.
              05:09, 23 February 2013
              Edited 05:10, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Well take a quick look at User:SmallerOnTheOutside/1 May (releases). It ain't really all that far off from what the future release pages will look like. From what it looks like right now, that is.

              By the way, do I have to wait until the stories air to write about interviews where the interviewee gives spoilers? Because that's technically a past event: the interview. I'd assume that would go against the spoiler policy. Should I just write those out and save them on my computer, to put them on the day pages when they no longer spoil anything?

              05:24, 23 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I would suggest you start the discussion soon, Czech. Yes, I still have research and a little bit of cleaning up to do, but I think we should start the train of splitting up the pages. We've delayed long enough, and we clearly don't have any new calendar ideas.
              02:41, 25 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, I thought of another idea that will probably be unpopular, due to the fact that we've never done it before here: tabs. Take a look at User:SmallerOnTheOutside/Sandbox/1_May_(alternate). I can't show it directly here.

              This would make linking to day pages easier, as you wouldn't have to think about which category the link falls under. It also presents well to readers, in my opinion. I have a feeling everyone will hate this idea, but... thoughts?

              00:20, 26 February 2013
              Edited 00:21, 26 February 2013
            • Digifiend

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Depressing, but true enough. Still it's been around for 8 years already. Not bad, eh?

              I'd guess he was joking. This is a wiki, if the current staff leave, someone new will just take over. Wikia are notorious for not letting wikis die. Remember what happened to Wikisimpsons? They left Wikia, the existing wiki became a fork with new staff instead of getting shut down. This wiki's only going offline if Wikia itself goes bust.
              03:25, 26 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Wow, I think that would probably be the ideal way of presenting the information. It's all there and organised, however it is still clear and easy how to get to the rest of the information. My vote goes to doing it all this way, unless there is some hidden technical difficulty which will make this more work than it's worth. But from a surface perspective it seems good!
              03:31, 26 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Thanks. It's fairly simple, actually. The text of the tabs would be in subpages. Of course, we'd have to modify {{DayNav}} slightly, to not include {{Wikipediainfo}} (it just makes it easier - no double wikipedia things, no weird links...). We might also want to consider putting {{DayNav}} on the main pages themselves, as opposed to the subpages.

              Anyways, there'd be one generic text for all main pages: 

              :'''''{{PAGENAME}}''' in...''
<tabview>
{{PAGENAME}}/DWU|the DWU||true
{{PAGENAME}}/Production|production history
{{PAGENAME}}/Releases|releases
{{PAGENAME}}/Births and deaths|vital stats
</tabview>

              Or something along those lines... Of course, we might want to play around a bit with the visual. But I can't see any hidden technical difficulty in the near future - if anything, this'll make our work much easier!

              04:00, 26 February 2013
              Edited 03:05, 28 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Uh, no. It wouldn't be subpages, as subpages are technically challenging to new users and therefore shouldn't be used in the main namespace. And we're not using tabview, since that tech is under review by Wikia and could soon disappear. It'll just be parenthetical dab terms as discussed earlier.
              00:34, 27 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Digifiend wrote:

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Depressing, but true enough. Still it's been around for 8 years already. Not bad, eh?

              I'd guess he was joking. This is a wiki, if the current staff leave, someone new will just take over. Wikia are notorious for not letting wikis die. Remember what happened to Wikisimpsons? They left Wikia, the existing wiki became a fork with new staff instead of getting shut down. This wiki's only going offline if Wikia itself goes bust.

              No, I'm not joking. I do think it likely that Wikia itself will go bust, or they will change the underlying software, or some other seismic shift in internet technology will occur. I mean, it's a challenge these days just to get a proper desktop computer from a retail outlet. By 2023, I think it's at best a 50/50 proposition that Wikia will be around in its current form. You can already tell that they would love to get rid of MediaWiki if it were at all possible to do so while retaining the content.

              00:39, 27 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Ever the optimist!

              Been waiting for you to come and break down the idea, somehow coming up with faults. I personally still think that tabview is the better idea, but it seems I don't have much of a voice in this matter.

              Also, how are subpages "challenging?" Either way, I was only suggesting subpages to keep it more organised for the tabs idea, which you just cut down.

              CzechOut wrote: Now, have you come up with any additional calendars, or are we ready to make our proposal to the rest of the community with:

              • in universe
              • releases
              • vital stats
              • production history
              • merchandise

              Considering you seem to be taking charge and disregarding my idea, can you just start the discussion about the separate calendars? I still have loads of research to do, and a little spot of cleaning along the way, but I'd rather get the discussion out of the way, and give it a little air to breathe. It's been a full week since that post, and we haven't come up with any additional calendars - we are ready to make the proposal.

              03:03, 28 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: "Been waiting for you to come and break down the idea, somehow coming up with faults."

              That's not really a fair assessment, is it? Czechout made two good points about why the tab idea won't work. He knows more about the tech side of the wiki and what wikia is up to than most editors on this site. If wikia is thinking of getting rid of the feature, then we definitely should not use it.

              04:53, 28 February 2013
            • SOTO
              One good point, but no matter. That's why I don't have a say in the matter - since he clearly knows the tech side more and is more up-to-date. But I gathered that, rather than Wikia actually planning on getting rid of it, he meant that the feature isn't quite yet fixed, and has the possibility of simply disappearing sometime in the future. That we should stick to permanent features. Obviously, if Wikia was actually planning on getting rid of it, then we wouldn't use it. While he does have a point, technically, the tabs would be better. Best wait and see if they become a permanent feature, though, by which time, we will no longer be having this discussion! :-(

              I suppose, given the circumstances, we don't have much choice but to give up the better format (IMO)...

              06:18, 28 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Subpages are actually quite a bit confusing for new users. They have been completely disabled on Wikipedia for about a decade, and for very good cause. See this rationale. In fact, it would be better if we disallowed subpages in our main namespace to allow for titles which actually include a diagonal slash.
              19:44, 3 March 2013
              Edited 19:45, 3 March 2013
              Edited 19:51, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh, welcome back! Haven't seen you in a few days...

              Anyways, I read the Wikipedia clause (is that the right word in the context?), and, while I don't agree that it applies to day pages (because, unlike the Wikipedia page suggests, the way we'd be using it does work as a hierarchy, as the subpages cannot possibly belong to another in this case), I can see your argument that it might be confusing. So I guess I'll simply leave it at that.

              But, about tabs: are they actually physically planning on removing the feature, or are you just suggesting that it's possible?

              20:36, 3 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              I don't know what you mean by "physically planning". I refer you to my earlier comments. We won't be using tabs. Move on.
              20:40, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Uh, no. It wouldn't be subpages, as subpages are technically challenging to new users and therefore shouldn't be used in the main namespace. And we're not using tabview, since that tech is under review by Wikia and could soon disappear. It'll just be parenthetical dab terms as discussed earlier.

              What exactly do you mean by "could soon disappear?" Is it likely to disappear? Are they planning on getting rid of it? Or are you just saying that it's not established and it has the potential to disappear?

              Either way, you seem to be pretty insistent that we not use tabs, so I'll have to abandon it. Too bad... It seemed perfect...

              20:46, 3 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              Oh, tabber is not new. It's well established. But it's under active review by Wikia and could soon disappear. I can't give percentage possibilities of its removal. But the very fact that it could disappear means that we should stay well away.

              Even if the chance of removal were zero, though, we still wouldn't use it.

              See, the problem that you seem to be ignoring is one of linking. If we use parentheticals, you'd end up with 23 November (releases). By using a pipe trick you can easily reduce to 23 November by typing [[23 November (releases)|]].

              But a slash trick doesn't work like a pipe trick. You can only use a slash trick on the parent page — in this case 23 November. So if you wanted to link to 23 November/Releases, you'd have to type [[23 November/Releases|23 November]]. In other words, we'd be massively increasing the typing burden on everyone.

              21:53, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh. I hadn't known that.

              Except that people wouldn't be linking to the subpages at all: the subpages are just in the background, for editors' use only - they're just a way of editing the text that appears in the main page. So we'd always be linking to 23 November, in which the reader would simply choose which tab they wish to visit - therefore actually massively reducing the typing burden. We would never have to think about which 23 November we want to link to - everything's on the one page!

              Of course, we'd have to leave some sort of note on the parent pages so that editors know how to edit. See, that's the problem: making sure they know where to go to edit the text. Of course, we could always leave a hidden note, but that doesn't seem like enough...

              That's my main problem with the idea.

              22:01, 3 March 2013
              Edited 22:04, 3 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well of course you want to be able to target your link. Otherwise there's no point to this whole exercise. So, again, tabber: not ideal.

              And you've once again confused me. If even you are admitting that it would flummox editors to figure out what page they're editing, why are you at odds with my contention that tabber is challenging?

              See, tabber is actually meant for front pages. It's not actually meant for interior articles. It's fine for it to be slightly confusing if it were on the front page, because we don't actually want the front page changed too often.

              But this is a basic article. We don't want to make it confusing for people to edit those. We want them to be able to hit a button that says "edit" and just ... edit. We do not want them to edit a page that then presents them with unusual markup.

              22:25, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, I am admitting that. It's a fact. I'm not trying to win a debate here - I'm trying to find the best possible solution on all sides, just as you are. I don't make one-sided arguments and stick to that one side stubbornly.

              But, yeah, that's the reason I'm kind of opposed to it after some post-thought (is that a word?).

              Is there maybe some way to redirect or link to a specific tab? I know there's the whole "true" tab thing, but are you able to customise that depending on the link? Or would we have to create separate pages with different true tabs, which would be stupid. Still, it would be hard to do with the Bot, I suppose...

              22:32, 3 March 2013
              Edited 22:33, 3 March 2013
              Edited 22:36, 3 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              No idea what you're talking about. Again, tabber is not something that's worth a whole lot of our time since it could well be deleted from the code base, or at least significantly changed. Let's move back to discussing the substance of the articles, please.
              22:56, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Whatever. I'm not re-explaining - we're never going to end up using tabber anyways, the way it looks. I will continue the project tomorrow (I'm rather busy today).

              Whenever you have the time, please take a look at the mock-ups linked upthread and even make corrections.

              23:02, 3 March 2013
            • SOTO
              It's starting to get annoying how, once in a while, someone comes along and effectively undoes my work and makes me clean up after him. [[User:

              81.144.34.196|this IP user]], for example, has a habit of adding birth information, which is great and much appreciated, but also "fixing" things that aren't mistakes, giving me more clean-up work. Obviously, you can't blame the people that do things like this - they're simply not up-to-date on what was decided on this thread. Given that they're all IP users, I can't even contact them. Should I just live with it or is there something we can do about this?

              14:05, 5 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              If you'll recall, this was something that I mentioned way upthread when you asked why they weren't all fixed yet. People do come back and undo work. It's a wiki. You simply have to maintain a vigil. Your "followed pages" feature can help, particularly if you set it to send you an email any time someone changes one of these pages.
              17:37, 5 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Yes, I figured. And I am following all day pages, and I do get emails, which is how I always know to fix as they go along.

              But, I've been thinking... Where is he getting his spelling from? He consistently does "Episode 3" and "Part Three." Does this possibly have a valid origin? Maybe "3" was the official spelling by the BBC, which then changed to "Three" along with "episode" to "part..." Just a thought. I honestly have no idea - I'll look into it.

              18:35, 5 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              It could be that they're using the actual on-screen title cards for the numerical spellings.

              To take a random set of stories;

              The War Machines uses numbers; "Episode 1"

              Inferno spells it out in full "Episode One".

              As does Logopolis "Part One".

              13:32, 6 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Wait. Are you just guessing or is that fact? Of its fact, can you please tell me when the switch occurs? We might consider changing it of we're wrong...
              13:38, 6 March 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Well, when I said "could" I was presuming that was what your IP editors were doing.

              I also need to correct what I've said upthread as I've rechecked and The Green Death is the last story to be titled as "Episode One" and The Time Warrior is where it the individual segments begin to be known as "Part One" etc.

              While I can't check every story for you I can present a slightly larger random selection and draw some conclusions based on the information.

              The War Machines writes it as "Episode 1".

              The Tomb of the Cybermen and The Mind Robber write "Episode 1".

              However The Invasion, The Krotons, The Seeds of Death and The War Games writes it out as "Episode One".

              Inferno and The Sea Devils both write it out as "Episode One".

              Invasion of the Dinosaurs write it out as "Part One".

              The Seeds of Doom, The Deadly Assassin, Warriors' Gate, Logopolis, Castrovalva and Survival all also write it as "Part One".

              So based on the info I have at hand I think I can say that:

              • The Savages to The Mind Robber use "Episode" followed by a numeral.
              • The Invasion through to The Green Death writes it out in words as "Episode One" etc
              • The Time Warrior to Survival writes it as "Part One".
              15:04, 6 March 2013
            • CzechOut
              We're not going to be changing to reflect the onscreen title cards. That's madness – and will look like a format/spelling error on our part. That's specifically why I said the language should be:
              • Episode/Part one of Serial Name

              I don't mind changing between the words episode and part, as appropriate. But the numerical designation should be in lower case and followed by "of Serial Name" so that there is no necessity to follow the on-screen title cards. Note that this a big enough problem, anyway, since there are times when the title cards have it in ALL CAPS, Title Case, and simply using numerals. Given that these day pages will undoubtedly have serials from various eras on the same page, we want it to look like ordinary, consistent English usage. Switching between part and episode will look like simple variation of word choice to the uninitiated, but switching between case usage, or between numerals and words, will just seem like we have a lack of editorial will.

              We have chosen to to go with Sentence case in headers, so the logical extension is that we formulate our sentences in a way that sentence case is confirmed.

              It is not correct — ever — to say "Part Two" in an ordinary sentence because we write in English, not German. Equally "Season 3" should actually be "season 3", but people get lazy with autosuggest, I suppose.

              17:24, 6 March 2013
              Edited 17:27, 6 March 2013
              Edited 17:28, 6 March 2013
              Edited 17:30, 6 March 2013
              Edited 17:31, 6 March 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, just checking. I agree, incidentally - just wanted to make sure we weren't making any mistakes.
              00:47, 7 March 2013
            • Anoted
              Wow...this discussion thread has got a little off course. I can't absorb it all, not close. Moving a bit closer to the original topic, are we only discussing splitting day of the year pages into in-universe and real world or are we considering doing this with all date pages?

              Splitting 1993 into 1993 and 1993 (real world)? Splitting the 1990s into 1990s and 1990s (real world)? Splitting 20th century into 20th century and 20th century (real world)?

              Also, is it just me or are the calenders on day of the year pages emulating 2010? If so, why? Also, can we put days of the week onto day of the year pages?

              I saw the thread about hiding info and the link to the GOT website, and it is fairly fantastic. I know that it's not a wiki, much less a wikia wiki, but year pages were one place where I thought this could really work. Not in terms of source (prose, tv, etc), but in terms of in-universe and real world. It would be fairly awesome to go to a year and be able to see only what happened in-universe and only what happened in the real world, and both at once. So, forgive me, I'm going to bring tabbing back up for a mo'.

              I don't see how linking to the page is made harder by the use of tabs. If I hyperlink 4 May in an article while discussing something that happened that day, is it really important that I be taken to the exact part of the page that discusses that? The article is already telling me what happened on 4 May that's relevant to the article. The purpose of linking to 4 May is for the reader to be able to see what-else happened that day. And we don't really know what the reader is interested in. Just because they came to the page via a link regarding a release doesn't mean that they are interested in other releases. I understand that there are problems inherent in the tabbing system. It's under review by wikia and it's not the most editor friendly system. But it's incredibly reader friendly and I think that it has enough benefits that we should at least explore the possibility of using it, trying to pinpoint what the potential problems are and if they have solutions, not dismiss it entirely out of hand.

              11:57, 10 May 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121413


            Shortcut:
            Mini-mitch
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Home media releases" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Days of the year articles".

            I think the home media (or video, as it is sometimes called) releases needs to be updated to reflect the number of media formats an episode can be viewed on/as.

            Ideally, it should be renamed from home video release to home media release. A number of other stuff also should be included.

            1. iPlayer details. It first time it is on iPlayer should be detailed on the page. How long is it available for? When was it available until?
            2. DVD, Blu Ray and video release - obviously. This should include all 'vanilla' DVDs, DVD boxsets, special release etc.
            3. Availability on Netflix, Lovefilm etc.
            4. Releases across the world, not just region 2 - as many of the latest episode show.

            Thoughts?

            00:24, 3 February 2013
            Edited by SOTO 06:10, 13 January 2014
            • Digifiend
              Getting all the old details for iPlayer is going to be difficult. Sometimes it's available for a week, sometimes longer (usually until a week after the last episode, but I think a rerun usually resets it back to a week from the re-airing, unless the series isn't finished and it would remain available longer anyway).
              02:43, 3 February 2013
              Edited 02:44, 3 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I think it's getting to be a drag on articles. In the same way that novelisations have now been pulled out of articles and linked in the infoboxen, I think we should create articles that are solely about the releases. This will give us a couple of advantages.
              • It'll focus the story page on the story itself
              • It won't end the page in a wall of galleries
              • It will bring further logic to our organisational scheme. It means that (TV story) means just the story — not all the home media attached to it.
              • It will greatly speed the load time of the pages about stories, which our mobile users will appreciate. The worst part of our site, from my own somewhat anecdotal tests, is that if you're just trying to check a point about a story, you've gotta wait longer than seems reasonable for a TV story page to appear. I'm sure getting rid of these galleries will help with that.
              03:08, 3 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              I agree that the Home video sections do slow the pages down, with most of them holding a gallery of 3+ images it's a lot of…not so much non-information at not story relevant information.

              How would we name these articles? Do we just sub-page them off of the current articles like An Unearthly Child (TV story)/Home media or a dab them Un Unearthly Child (home media).

              15:38, 4 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              While I moving the home media' to a new page is a good idea, I am having concerns about how we would the information for Torchwood and SJA - is we were to go with TD's suggestion.

              Torchwood and SJA really only had boxset released (apart from Torchwood series one) as well as released on both Lovefilm and Netflix. If we were to create a separate page for each home media release for each episode SJA and Torchwood, we would end up with duplicate, if not near enough identical, pages.

              I would suggestion splitting by series/season.

              00:39, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              I don't think this is a "one size fits all" approach. I think for DW serials we definitely do Name (home media), because these are the pages that have the most "stuff". (And yes, to answer TD, definitely a separate page, not a subpage. Technically that's just easier.)

              For BBC Wales stuff, we put the information on the series page, and then make the link in the infobox to Series X (franchise)#Home media.


              The only thing that bugs me a bit is the actual dab term. I mean, (home media) is likely the best we're gonna get, but I don't like the imprecision of that. After all, novelisations are "home media", too.

              I'm thinking it might be wiser to have two dabs — (home video) and (home audio) — because this might make citation easier, especially because there is a difference audio of a televised story and the novelisation audiobook. "Home audio" would mean the soundtrack, as distinct from (audio story).

              For instance, the most complex case is I guess Stones of Blood. Or State of Decay.

              You'd end up with:

              03:13, 5 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Technically yes, I suppose home media can mean novelisations. But it's not often used like that. But "home video" is also an imprecise term for digital distribution, which isn't limited to the "home" the same way VHS and DVD are.

              How about as a video dab term "video media"?

              As to MM's concerns and CO's solution about the the BBC Wales Series pages. Would having just a section on the Series pages make those pages too image heavy? Would this be for all BBC Wales productions DW included? As MM mentions they do were digitally distributed. Covering all that may add significant bulk to the pages.

              15:23, 5 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Tangerineduel wrote: Technically yes, I suppose home media can mean novelisations. But it's not often used like that. But "home video" is also an imprecise term for digital distribution, which isn't limited to the "home" the same way VHS and DVD are.

              Could you develop that point a li'l more, please? Are you saying you'd like to try to use the page to categorise known instances of theatrical (i.e., not home) releases? If so, that would seem to me to be pretty difficult due lack of adequate sources, and something that affects only an extreme minority of episodes, anyway.

              00:50, 6 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Home video by its name implies that it is a video consumed within the home. Digital distribution means that really isn't a limiter. If we're to cover things like digital streaming and digital downloads calling it "home video" is a bit of a misnomer.

              If we're to split off the "home video release" sections on the articles then we should be going for a focused yet broad term and I think that including "home" in relation to the video releases is too narrow.

              04:53, 6 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              Why can't we just call it "releases"? This could include audio, video, DVD, iTunes, etc versions of a televised story.

              Novelizations of a story wouldn't be included in this because they are not releases of the story.

              This way you would have, for example,

              05:14, 6 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              Or what about "video releases" to specify we're only referring to the video medium (as opposed to novelisation or audio adaptation [or any other kind of adaptation]). And it could still technically include audio from TV stories on the basis that the sound was ripped from a video.
              05:22, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Tangerineduel wrote: Home video by its name implies that it is a video consumed within the home. Digital distribution means that really isn't a limiter. If we're to cover things like digital streaming and digital downloads calling it "home video" is a bit of a misnomer.

              If we're to split off the "home video release" sections on the articles then we should be going for a focused yet broad term and I think that including "home" in relation to the video releases is too narrow.

              I don't think that's strictly true. When you download from iTunes, you still have a "home" license. You are not allowed to exhibit it in public.

              22:55, 6 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              Here is a mock up of the page. It does not contain any images as yet and only details region 2, but I think it gives us a good direction to go in.

              As for Netflix, Lovefilm etc - we need to watch how we word these. The content they have changes from time to time - meaning they might not always have Doctor Who, Torchwood etc available for showing.

              01:58, 9 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay, we're not advertising. The price doesn't matter. What's been excluded from your example is when they were released. Very important information. Anyways, it's just a test.

              What would you call the article?

              02:08, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              For the online distribution, are those the only 4 that will display on each release's page? I'm assuming they were chosen because they're the big sites. I just want to ask, what do people think of international iPlayer kinds of releases? Should they get a mention? I know that the Australian ABC has something similar called iView which is allowed to play certain Doctor Who episodes, especially immediately after they're first released in Australia on the ABC TV channel. In fact, it is especially noteworthy for series 7 as those episodes were released on iView only hours after their UK release, about a week before they were shown on the ABC's TV channel. Do any other countries have sites such as this connected to the channel airing Doctor Who, and if so, should we include info from them under the info from iPlayer?
              02:20, 9 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              I like it so far, but I agree with Smallerontheoutside about the prices. We don't really need them.

              Also, I'm assuming (hoping) that the pages for the classic series serials will include details on the DVD special features?

              02:51, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Shambala108 wrote: Also, I'm assuming (hoping) that the pages for the classic series serials will include details on the DVD special features?

              Details? No. A simple list, sure. Special features have their own pages.

              05:29, 9 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              Yeah I realize that I wasn't very clear. I did mean the lists, that currently appear on the story pages, not the details that we find on the individual documentary pages. Thanks for getting back to me on that.
              05:34, 9 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              Mini-mitch wrote: Here is a mock up of the page.

              My main problem with the mockup is that it's about a story that will never have such a page. New series pages will simply be linked to the home video section of the series article. (It would be exceedingly tricky, I think, to have a separate article about home video per series, because there's no easy way to name it. What would we do? Series 1 (Doctor Who) (home video)? Clearly not.)

              05:44, 9 February 2013
              Edited 05:44, 9 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch

              Imamadmad wrote: For the online distribution, are those the only 4 that will display on each release's page?

              Probably not - as I said these are current all Region 2 release details - your suggestion of iView sounds good - as long as it is legal and not breaching copyright laws.

              11:37, 9 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, we're not advertising. The price doesn't matter. What's been excluded from your example is when they were released. Very important information. Anyways, it's just a test. What would you call the article?

              We absolutely are advertising. We advertising for the BBC, Doctor Who, Big Finish, Quick Reads, DWM, Torchwood, Space, Five etc right now. We are advertising for quite a high number of things, so price is only adding a small amount of additional detail.

              If we don;t have price - we must state it is a subscription service - not only will it mean we stating they are not breach copyright laws - but it means we are not falsely advertising them. If we put:

              • Rose is available to view on Netflix at any point

              That is wrong. Cause it is not. You need to subscribe to Netflix in order to watch content online: legally.

              11:42, 9 February 2013
            • Imamadmad
              No no it's legal. The ABC are the ones with the rights to broadcast DW in Australia, but they always do it on a Saturday night, which means because of time zones Aussies usually have to wait a week (because the UK premier the equivalent of Sunday mornings in Aus) and so to cut down on people pirating the videos illegally they put the videos up legally on their website starting this year almost immediately, kinda like iPlayer but just before the episodes aired in the country on TV (as well as for a bit after. Previously they only had it after TV broadcast in Aus like iPlayer does with the UK). There's probably a news article somewhere about it if you want proof. It was kinda a big deal to fast track international episodes that fast.
              11:44, 9 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch

              Shambala108 wrote: I like it so far, but I agree with Smallerontheoutside about the prices. We don't really need them.

              Also, I'm assuming (hoping) that the pages for the classic series serials will include details on the DVD special features?

              I personally think it should - just a link to the articles. However, if we are including all the 'special featurings' from all the DVDs in all the regions, it might get a bit out of hand.

              We could go down the path of stating notable special features - but who is it notable to? You? Me? We both probably have different ideas of what is notable and what is not. So it is not the ideal path to go down.

              11:44, 9 February 2013
            • Mini-mitch

              CzechOut wrote:

              Mini-mitch wrote: Here is a mock up of the page.

              My main problem with the mockup is that it's about a story that will never have such a page. New series pages will simply be linked to the home video section of the series article. (It would be exceedingly tricky, I think, to have a separate article about home video per series, because there's no easy way to name it. What would we do? Series 1 (Doctor Who) (home video)? Clearly not.)

              This is purely a fault on my behalf - I miss read you original post about how we should split them up - but as you can see from the page: that's one story in one region. Region 1, 3 and 4 haven't been added yet (I'm not sure about regions 5 and 6, if they have any Doctor Who home media releases).

              As for a name, the only one that pops into my head right now is:

              Series One:Home media (Doctor Who)

              Or something along those lines.

              11:49, 9 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              @CzechOut. iTunes' T&C's wording is that "You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products only for personal, noncommercial use." The word "home" doesn't even appear in their T&C.

              Personal likely just means for personal consumption, which isn't limited to the home. Likewise digital distribution like the ABC's iView and the BBC's iPlayer are avaliable on various portable devcies meaning you don't need to be remotely near your "home" in order to consume the media on these devices.

              Just to match MM here's a mock up of a classic story "home media" page for Terror of the Autons.

              There's a basic introduction and then I've copied the "home video release" section from the article page with some minor re-writing. I've added the "digital distribution" section with an introduction and a table of the prices of the story in the Australian, US and UK iTunes stores.

              We don't really need the prices, but I think it's useful, as much as it is having the price on any other article for any other item.

              As to what to call the articles for the classic stories that's been mentioned and for the new series pages. I'd advocate making them sub-pages of the current articles as allows us to keep them linked to the current pages and means we don't need to add dab terms.

              That is of course if we don't want it on the Series pages themselves, it would depend how much information we want to have about the home media releases on the Series pages.

              16:03, 9 February 2013
            • Shambala108
              Yes Tangerineduel that's what I meant for the DVD special features for the classic stories. Thanks for the example.
              01:04, 10 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Not sure if this needs to be a separate discussion.

              Where does broadcast end and digital distribution begin?

              I refer to on-demand players provided by the broadcast rights holders of DW, namely the BBC's iPlayer in the UK and the ABC's iView player in Australia.

              Both have the shows available for watching following (or in the case of the ABC's iView prior to) broadcast. They are free (practically) and they are essentially an extension of the broadcast. In the UK, I believe the viewing figures are counted towards or counted separately (I'm not sure) to the final ratings of each story.

              While these are "digitally distributed" they're not sold/available in the same way that things from iTunes, AmazonVideo, Netflix etc are.

              Should we then have the information from the broadcast holder's on-demand players in the Ratings section of the article (and perhaps rename "Ratings" to "Broadcast") or should it be included in the "Home media release" section?

              13:42, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Home media, definitely. From a legal standpoint, that's what it is. You don't own the iPlayer download. You have the same rights to it as if you actually bought it on iTunes. Which is to say that you have it for private, non-commercial viewing (i.e. "home viewing").

              On-demand viewing still doesn't generally pre-date (maybe pre-empt is a better word) the actual broadcast of something. I'm pretty sure there's never been an episode of DW which has been (legally) available on iPlayer prior to the time of its broadcast on BBC One. The only time in DWU broadcast history that something like that happened was with The New World, when Starz — by accident or design — released it to their website prior to its actual broadcast.

              Remember, for simplicity's sake, we need to be concentrated upon the country of global premiere only. So ABC's iView is largely irrelevant, and entirely irrelevant to ratings. Ratings are given only for country of origin. I can see giving split ratings for those parts of the DWU that were under a co-production agreement. So, ABC ratings for The Five Doctors are totally important. But there's never been an ABC co-production in the modern era; there's only been Net10 for K9.

              22:17, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Where are we on this one?
              01:57, 11 March 2013
            • ComicBookGoddess
              How about "personal media" or even "personal video media" and "personal audio media"?

              Some additional thoughts:

              • Wasn't Dreamland available on Red Button before it was broadcast?
              • Some thoughts on Simplicity's Sake and Global premiere...
                • A lot of the release information is VERY muddled, and getting more so. You guys are some of the few places that keep it understandable. But fiddly bits on different release methods in different countries can make it clear if somebody needs to use "HOMEVID" or "TV".
                • Now, I know this is not necessarily a problem within the scope of the wiki, but properly sources and accurate additional release information are valuable to people. I don't have BBC America as an option in my television service, and I'm currently quietly freaking out about the quickest legal way to watch the new episodes, as all the official info seems to point to BBC America. I have no way of verifying the information in alternate sources but you guys seem trustworthy. It would be a shame if we're ignoring a chance to keep a reliable, accurate record of a topical issue.
                • "Rose is available by subscription to Netflix" would actually need to be "Rose has been available by subscription under Netflix's streaming video plans". There is a contract between Netflix and the content owner that may have a defined end date (like Miracle Day), be renegotiated to remove the episode, or may even be dropped by Netflix for other reasons. That being said, the knowledge that you MAY be able to get it on Netflix is important to people who may be searching frantically for a legal way to watch it.
              18:52, 11 March 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              Bumping, again. Where are we with this?
              20:52, 16 May 2013
            • CzechOut
              I thought we were at least in basic agreement that we needed to move the home media stuff off onto its own page, like An Unearthly Child (home media). Let's restart the conversation by at least agreeing to that point, and then we can worry about the "fiddly bits and fjords", to quote Adams, later.
              21:27, 20 May 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              How would we do it for Torchwood and SJA? - discussion earlier seem to lean towards having just one page for their releases.

              However what we should include is:

              • All video releases in all regions
              • All DVD releases in all regions
              • All Blu Ray releases in all regions
              • All other optical media releases
              • Netflix, Lovefilm etc
              • iPlayer

              Any thing else?

              23:34, 20 May 2013
              Edited 21:48, 23 May 2013
            • SOTO
              What about soundtracks? In my day of the year editing, I've found plenty of Classic Who soundtrack releases. Do they go on the (home media) page as well?
              00:05, 21 May 2013
              Edited 00:07, 21 May 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah I think for TW and SJA, we'd just do Series 1 (Torchwood) (home media), except of course this points up an obvious flaw in our series nomenclature. We might need to do a move to a new nomenclature like DW series 1 and TW series 1 and SJA series 1, to then allow for TW series 1 (home media). However, this would just be a simple move to a "formal" new name. We'd obviously keep the old nomenclature as a redirect so that we could still pipe trick the name of the series away.
              00:26, 21 May 2013
              Edited 00:27, 21 May 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: What about soundtracks? In my day of the year editing, I've found plenty of Classic Who soundtrack releases. Do they go on the (home media) page as well?

              What do you mean by soundtrack? Do you mean score, or full soundtrack, as with missing episodes? Full soundtracks would be considered a home media release. But scores get their own pages.

              00:29, 21 May 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry, I meant the score. Where does that info go?
              00:49, 21 May 2013
            • SOTO
              Oh. You answered that already. Anyway, what would the page be called? Like, if there's no title on the cover?
              01:24, 21 May 2013
            • SOTO
              No real title

              For example the soundtrack (score) whose cover can be found at right is called Pyramids of Mars (soundtrack) at Wikipedia, and the page Pyramids of Mars lists it as Pyramids of Mars: Music from the Tom Baker era.

              If you look at this picture, you'll find that neither of these are correct. While Pyramids of Mars might be prominent on the cover, but it's most certainly not meant to be the title. And dragging "Classic music from the Tom Baker era" all the way towards the so-called title is just pushing the limits — not only was "classic" omitted, but if those two segments were meant to be the title, they'd be together on the cover.

              Anyway, this is one of many cases of soundtracks of a seemingly random array of serials. What do we name them?

              01:35, 21 May 2013
              Edited 01:38, 21 May 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, I don't really want to divert this thread down the rabbit hole of case-by-case studies. But I'm not sure why you're so adamantly opposed to that title. It really is the title. (You can kinda tell because the huge, dominant illustration is entirely from Pyramids.) Or if you prefer, you could use the Amazon title of "Pyramids of Mars: Classic Music from the Tom Baker Era".

              In the 1990s, Silva Screen often titled their albums with the story they thought would get the greater rise out of sales. So it's Terror of the Zygons in big letters (and The Seeds of Doom in small letters).

              02:15, 21 May 2013
              Edited 02:17, 21 May 2013
            • SOTO
              So the page would be called Pyramids of Mars: Classic Music from the Tom Baker Era? Or would it just be Pyramids of Mars (soundtrack) like Wikipedia has it? Should we maybe just stick to story most prominent (soundtrack)?
              02:18, 21 May 2013
              Edited 02:18, 21 May 2013
            • CzechOut
              Wikipedia actually has Pyramids of Mars (album). But again, this thread isn't for the discussion of soundtracks at all.
              02:19, 21 May 2013
            • SOTO
              Well, I was just asking if soundtracks would feature in the home media pages. If not, then we should apply the same to soundtracks. Maybe Pyramids of Mars (soundtrack) with the other stories +(soundtrack) redirecting there.
              02:22, 21 May 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              Just had a thought:

              Could we use slideshows or something similar?

              It would save on space instead of having galleries for all DVD, Blu Ray and video covers...

              21:52, 23 May 2013
              Edited 21:52, 23 May 2013
            • CzechOut
              I honestly don't know the answer to that. I mean, sure, it's a technical possibility. But I would tend to think that we probably wouldn't want to, if we're going to have a page devoted to media releases. I'd tend to think people would want to be able to see all of them at once, instead of having to wait for a slideshow to cycle. And I think people would probably want to compare one cover with another, which would be harder with a slideshow.
              22:06, 23 May 2013
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Yeah I think for TW and SJA, we'd just do Series 1 (Torchwood) (home media), except of course this points up an obvious flaw in our series nomenclature. We might need to do a move to a new nomenclature like DW series 1 and TW series 1 and SJA series 1, to then allow for TW series 1 (home media). However, this would just be a simple move to a "formal" new name. We'd obviously keep the old nomenclature as a redirect so that we could still pipe trick the name of the series away.

              Why would we use TW instead of Torchwood and DW instead of Doctor Who? Shouldn't it be:

              with the abbreviations as redirects? Then again, we do abbreviate magazines when we name issues...

              22:12, 23 May 2013
            • Digifiend
              Wouldn't surprise me if that name format is often used as a search term.
              01:22, 24 May 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              May. Seriously?! We last discussed this then?

              I have summed up everything we talked about in this discussion in a earlier post, so I won't be repeating myself. I think this is something that we could get the ground work started with - and hopefully soon.

              Thoughts?

              18:39, 28 November 2013
            • CzechOut

              As far as I can tell by reading the thread we basically were in agreement about this:

              All home media releases should be shunted off into their own page that follows the same nomenclature as series pages.

              The question was really about the nomenclature. There are two parts to that question: BBC Wales and BBC London.

              BBC Wales series[[edit] | [edit source]]

              With BBC Wales home releases, they're pretty much all done by season, though the odd special is released individually. So what nomenclature do you use? I strongly favour a move to: 

              Name series n

              but we would move whilst retaining the old links. There's great utility in being able to pipe trick away the show name, as in: 

              [[series 2 (Torchwood)|]]

              and we don't want to sacrifice that.

              So: Torchwood series 2 becomes the official PAGENAME, but series 2 (Torchwood) is retained. This then clears the way for Torchwood series 2 (home media).

              I had proposed earlier that we go with DW series 1, TW series 1 and SJA series 1. I'm prepared to concede that Digifiend is correct that using the whole name is the most common search term.

              However, it was long ago agreed by discussion that The Sarah Jane Adventures shall in general be abbreviated "SJA"

              So for me it would have to be SJA series 1 and SJA series 1 (home media).

              BBC London (or old series)[[edit] | [edit source]]

              The original series is of course released per story, and this immediately leads to the problem of "double disambiguation". Are we really prepared to go with The Ark in Space (TV story) (home media)? I'm not. So we should go with The Ark in Space (home media)

              Is "home media" good enough?[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Although I've given examples in this post for (home media) being the disambiguation term, I don't think that's what should be done in every single case. Yes, certainly, (home media) is what we do with BBC Wales stuff.

              But for BBC London, I had argued that we neededtwo things: (home video) and (home audio). I'm going to back away from that earlier point and say that (home media) is sufficient for all. The Stones of Blood example is moot now that the infobox handle adaptations a lot better. We can just send people off to The Stones of Blood (audio story) via the "adapted into" line.

              So, one disambiguation term.


              "home media" or "(home media)"?[[edit] | [edit source]]

              But I'm still left with nagging doubt as to the utility of the page name. If you have SJA series 1 (home media), you can't really pipe trick that into anything useful. You'd be left with "SJA series 1", and therefore no obvious discussion from simply SJA series 1 itself. Equally, with old series stuff, The Ark in Space (home media) would pipe trick into just The Ark in Space, which would be confusing.

              I'm kind of thinking, now, that it may be better to drop the parentheses, because then you'd be left with The Ark in Space home media, which at least parses well. Unfortunately, it also leaves you with the need to pipe trick to proper italicisation, which is laborious: 

              [[The Ark in Space home media|''The Ark in Space'' home media]]

              So maybe that means the quickest typing exercise would be: 

              ''[[The Ark in Space (home media)|]]'' home media.
              which renders as The Ark in Space home media. Is that good enough? It seems to be, but I dunno if people want to have the word "home media" blue-linked as well.

              I mean, is the only link to these pages going to be the one on the (TV story) page itself, or maybe templates? If so, the name is less important. But if there are instances of linking directly to the (home media) page from the body of an article, then we need to think about the impact of pipe tricking on the eventual name.

              "home media" or "releases"?[[edit] | [edit source]]

              Of course, Shambala108 has suggests the word releases instead. And I don't have a problem with that. It's slightly shorter. The dab term could just as easily be "releases", if that's what others prefer.

              00:16, 29 November 2013
              Edited 00:17, 29 November 2013
              Edited 00:18, 29 November 2013
              Edited 00:25, 29 November 2013
              Edited 00:26, 29 November 2013
              Edited 00:27, 29 November 2013
            • Lego Whovian
              I don't think that the TARDIS Data Core should have home media pages. This wiki is an encyclopedia about the Whoniverse, not a Doctor Who collector's site, unlike the Doctor Who Collectors Wiki.

              I mean, just look at Doctor Who and the Day of the Daleks at the Doctor Who Collectors Wiki. I doubt that the TARDIS Data Core will ever be that precise about releases.

              01:09, 29 November 2013
            • Digifiend
              That's a book. We're talking about DVDs. Are you saying that books shouldn't be covered here either? And sorry, but as far as I can see, both wikis have info the other does not regarding that book.
              01:25, 29 November 2013
              Edited 01:26, 29 November 2013
            • CzechOut

              Lego Whovian wrote: I don't think that the TARDIS Data Core should have home media pages. This wiki is an encyclopedia about the Whoniverse, not a Doctor Who collector's site, unlike the Doctor Who Collectors Wiki.

              I mean, just look at Doctor Who and the Day of the Daleks at the Doctor Who Collectors Wiki. I doubt that the TARDIS Data Core will ever be that precise about releases.

              Lego Whovian is now an admin at DWCW.

              Lego Whovian, I'm afraid we've rather moved passed the point of figuring out whether we should have these pages. We're going to. We're only dealing with administrative issues of what we might name these pages.

              And we tried to involve the DWCW community in this question back in 2012. As of this moment, I'm the last to post at your forums. I gave you guys an opportunity to comment on this very matter — and not a single soul bothered to answer. That thread went up on 9 July 2012.

              The matter was also brought up at Tardis, and we decided that we would indeed continuing covering merchandise.

              04:16, 29 November 2013
              Edited 04:17, 29 November 2013
            • SOTO
              What about a template? [[The Ark in Space (home media)|''The Ark in Space'' home media]] may be laborious to type but {{HM|The Ark in Space}} isn't.

              Both would result in:

              The Ark in Space home media
              14:04, 29 November 2013
            • Shambala108
              The main problem with a template is that most users are not familiar with their use, and your example is a little non-intuitive.
              14:26, 29 November 2013
            • CzechOut
              Yeah, sure, we could do that. The question is whether there are any use cases for actually having a full link like that. I'd tend to think the only links we'd need to the home media pages would be limited to:

              If we don't actually have a need to create a visible inline link, then there's no reason to create the template.

              Has anyone ever actually created a link to the home media section of a TV story page? If so, could you let me take a look at it?

              14:37, 29 November 2013
            • SOTO
              Well, we'd link to home media pages instead of the TV story page whenever discussing the VHS/DVD/etc releases of that story. So, erm, release days, box set pages... That's all I've got.

              Whether or not they should stay is a completely different discussion, but release days currently list DVD and VHS releases.

              So instead of

              * [[1997 (releases)|]] - ''[[The Masque of Mandragora (TV story)|]]'' was released on [[VHS]].

              We might have:

              * [[1990 (releases)|]] - ''[[The Masque of Mandragora (home video)|]]'' was released on [[VHS]].

              And

              * [[2011 (releases)|]] - ''[[Doctor Who series 5 (home media)|Doctor Who: The Complete Fifth Series]]'' was released on [[Region 2]] [[DVD]].

              Neither case needs a pipetrick like Doctor Who series 5 home media, so I suppose the template is not needed. Other pages that might link to the home media pages are List of BBC VHS releases, List of BBC DVD releases and List of BBC Blu-ray releases. All I can think of at the moment.

              14:59, 29 November 2013
              Edited 21:14, 29 November 2013
            • CzechOut
              Hmm, okay, your date page examples are conclusive to me. The format should be Name (dab term), because it makes sense to pipe trick the dab term away, and yet be left with the serial name, in that instance.

              The only question now is whether we have a preference for (release) over (home media).

              17:54, 29 November 2013
            • Shambala108
              We use "releases" for date pages, so it makes sense to use it here as well.
              22:49, 29 November 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, but there's the rub. On date pages, "releases" means everything — books, comics, broadcasts and the home media things contemplated by this thread. So, on date pages, a "release" is a TV story as well as the DVD of that TV story.

              So it might be confusing to use "releases" to mean just home media in this context. I dunno for sure, but it might be.

              02:51, 30 November 2013
              Edited 02:53, 30 November 2013
            • Mini-mitch
              If it was, for example, The Ark in Space (releases) or even The Ark in Space (home releases), I don't see much ambiguity in that - it's all the forms of releases for The Ark in Space.

              For stories that have novelisations - we can have a link to the main page and a couple of sentences talking about it.

              If there are audiobooks released, surely it makes sense to add them to the novelisation pages?

              16:31, 3 December 2013
            • SOTO
              I say (home releases), because (releases) — as others have noted — would include the original broadcast, and maybe even adaptations like novelisations or audios if you stretch the definition.
              16:38, 3 December 2013
            • CzechOut
              "Home releases" is simply using 13 characters where the ten of "home media" would do. It's just more letters for no greater clarity. (If anything, it's a little less clarity because the original "home release" is the one that comes through initial broadcast. The word media implies you're talking about a "piece of media", a physically discrete thing.)

              Also, novelisations have already been moved off classic series pages. I don't see any use in putting "a couple of sentences" back onto the pages.

              What I think this project is moving us towards is complete elimination of info about home releases in the body of the article. As we've done with novelisations, all we'll do is have a link to home media prominently at the top of the infobox.

              As for audio, I think there might be some confusion between SOTO and Mini-mitch as to the definition of the word audiobook. The "audiobook" of the whole soundtrack (i.e., music + dialogue) of The Tenth Planet would go on The Tenth Planet (home media). The "audiobook" of someone reading Doctor Who and the Tenth Planet would go on that page as just another form of the novelisation.

              19:23, 3 December 2013
            • SOTO
              Sorry, I meant (home media). I got confused by Mini-mitch's post.
              21:18, 3 December 2013
              Edited 22:45, 5 January 2014
            • CzechOut
              Okay, people. We've been talking about this for a year. Time to crack on. One week left on this conversation and then we're moving info. All we're trying to decide at this point is the dab term.

              So, shall it be (releases) or (home media)? Everything else adds more characters for no more clarity.

              03:11, 5 January 2014
            • Digifiend

              CzechOut wrote: Well, but there's the rub. On date pages, "releases" means everything — books, comics, broadcasts and the home media things contemplated by this thread. So, on date pages, a "release" is a TV story as well as the DVD of that TV story.

              So it might be confusing to use "releases" to mean just home media in this context. I dunno for sure, but it might be.

              Based on that, I'd go for (home media).

              15:15, 5 January 2014
            • Tangerineduel
              (home media)

              I think the dab needs to be sufficiently different from our other date-based (releases).

              15:18, 5 January 2014
            • CzechOut
              Last calls for replies on this. This thread will be actioned this weekend.
              00:54, 10 January 2014
            • Mini-mitch
              (home media)
              02:03, 10 January 2014
            • Lego Whovian
              I vote no.
              23:31, 12 January 2014
            • SOTO

              CzechOut wrote: Lego Whovian, I'm afraid we've rather moved passed the point of figuring out whether we should have these pages. We're going to. We're only dealing with administrative issues of what we might name these pages.

              23:37, 12 January 2014
            SOTO
            Thank you, Lego Whovian, for your input, but once again we're far beyond that. It has already been decided that we're going forward with this, and indeed we've now also agreed on the dab term — (home media). The matter is closed.

            So within the next few days, all necessary home media pages will be bot-created as basic stubs, and all information concerning non-broadcast releases of television stories will be slowly moved there. The home video and audio sections have really been the bane of our TV story pages for a while now, so this is a great step towards something better.

            Still, don't take this to mean that your help isn't needed — 356 pages will be created, and we'll need all the help we can get to fill 'em all up. So, once this is started, take a look at what's already been done, and please do join in.

            23:39, 12 January 2014
            Edited 06:08, 13 January 2014

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121578


            Shortcut:
            CzechOut
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Dab term for days of the year articles" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Home media releases".

            In another thread it's been demonstrated that the days of the year articles (1 January, 24 April, etc.) must be split into separate articles — one for in-universe (15 March) and one for behind the scenes info 15 March (real world).

            This is because the majority of days have not been specifically mentioned in DWU narratives, and we only start articles for things that have been positively identified, seen or heard. Relevantly, we don't have year articles for years like 7 or 678 or 2609, not because they don't logically exist, but because they've never been mentioned.

            So the question before us now is what dab term makes the most sense to use? The term (real world) has been put forward as logical and fairly brief. But is there another term you would prefer as shorter or better? Would (real) or (BTS) or (production) or (OOU) be an improvement?

            Please post your thoughts below.

            Due to the arbitrary nature of this decision, this thread is tentatively scheduled to close in one week.

            17:40, 5 February 2013
            Edited 17:41, 5 February 2013
            Edited 20:23, 18 February 2013
            • Cult_Of_Skaro
              (real world) works, is nice and concise, and is easy to understand. I vote (real world)
              18:07, 5 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I vote (real world) too. It's sounds right and it's not over complicated. It's also nice and short. Who would want to have to type in 23 November (out-of-universe)? Or 23 November (behind the scenes)? Unless someone can think of a dab term that's one word only that works just as well, maybe even better, (real world) will remain the best option.
              19:24, 5 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Well, I really don't think that this is entirely necisary.

              Despite this, I would go with real world.

              21:57, 5 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              (real world) is fine by me too.
              23:49, 5 February 2013
            • Tangerineduel
              Real world.

              While "behind the scenes" has some merit as it's the same term we use within in-universe articles, "real world" is the term we use on our "real world" templates and as the dab term I think would fit more as a designating term rather than an in-article term that "behind the scenes" is.

              04:40, 6 February 2013
            • Moreno12
              hi
              18:43, 17 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              ...hi... What do you need?
              13:33, 18 February 2013
            • Moreno12
              hi
              18:28, 18 February 2013
            • OttselSpy25
              Right...
              18:57, 18 February 2013
            CzechOut
            Hearing no dissent, all category:days of the week articles shall now have a companion article created in the form of 1 Jan (real world), and all production material shall be moved there. In cases where this leaves the original, un dab-ed page without any information, the un-dab-ed page shall be deleted, awaiting re-creation at such time as the day is found to have been specifically mentioned, or directly implied.

            For clarity, this means that if a story specifically identifies a day — 3 July, say — and then has a character saying, "Yesterday, I did such and such" or "The next day, the Doctor and Sam did something they'd never done before," then we can start articles at 2 July or 4 July. But the logical existence of days is not enough to justify an in-universe about every day of the calendar. As was decided in the last major revamp of category:years articles, a date must be mentioned or directly implied for there to be an article about it.

            Put simply, we want all our pages to say something of actual relevance to the DWU — not merely:

            3 July was the third day of July.

            Also, note that this decision obviously means that we will also be splitting up other pages in category:dates. So expect in the near future to have 1963 (real world), 1990s (real world), and even November (real world).

            20:22, 18 February 2013
            Edited 20:23, 18 February 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121616


            Shortcut:
            Josiah Rowe
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Flight attendant category" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Dab term for days of the year articles".

            I just noticed that Category:Flight attendants is the only subcat of Category:Humans by profession which isn't titled "Human such-and-such". Should it be? All the members of the category are human, as far as I can tell. Should they be moved to Category:Human flight attendants, which would then be the sole subcat of Category:Flight attendants?

            I'm willing to make the change (on the member pages of the category), but I didn't want to do it if there was some reason why it is the way it is.

            05:26, 6 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 22:34, 6 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 02:53, 11 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I think it should be moved. It should fit with the others. In fact, looking at the pages in the category, it only includes humans. If it's part of Category:Humans by profession and rightly so, then, by definition, everyone included must be human. Therefore, it should be Category:Human flight attendants.

              Actually, rereading your post, yes, they should be moved to Category:Human flight attendants, which would in turn be a subcat of both Category:Flight attendants and Category:Humans by profession. That way, if we ever encounter flight attendants that are not human, they have a category waiting to welcome them. But make sure that Category:Flight attendants doesn't remain subcat of Category:Humans by profession, since that doesn't apply.

              05:36, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              Hmm... I started to make the change, and then went to Category:Human flight attendants, which I discovered had previously been deleted by Czechbot, with the edit summary "Robot: Category was moved to flight attendants". I'm guessing that was a mistake?
              05:44, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Hmmm... Weird... Either a mistake or there was actually a reason. Not sure which...

              Well Czech's active. Do you want me to leave him a message on his talk page to attract his attention? Or you can do it.

              05:48, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              I dropped him a line.

              I've gone ahead and recreated Category:Human flight attendants. I left Air stewardess and Janie Collins in Category:Flight attendants, the former because it's presumably not a job limited to humans, and the second because I haven't read Terminal of Despair and although the name sounds human, I don't know whether she's described as such in the book.

              05:54, 6 February 2013
              Edited 05:54, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I looked over all linked pages to the story; no mention of Earth or humanity, or any species for that matter. I guess now let's just wait for Czech to come by and explain why he got the Bot got rid of the category.
              05:59, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              If I recall correctly, I got rid of the word human because there aren't likely to be any other kind of flight attendants, as airplanes are — without any known exception in the DWU — exclusive to Earth. You might say, well, what about the chick from Midnight? But she's a hostess, not a "flight attendant". Splitting hairs? Maybe — but categories frequently split hairs.

              The whole "human" thing on category names needs badly to be re-examined, since people went crazy creating them before they figured out there were non-humans doing the work of the category in question. A category name should probably be no longer than it actually needs to be, and it definitely shouldn't imply the existence of other things that don't exist. "Human flight attendants" fails those two tests, and hence was deleted.

              06:12, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              It never occurred to me that airplanes were exclusive to Earth... but we have the examples of Janet (Terror of the Vervoids), who is a flight attendant on a spaceship (the Hyperion III), and of Janie Collins, who is apparently a flight attendant on a commercial space flight. (However, as I said above, I haven't read that book.)

              Since some spaceships do have flight attendants, presumably there could be non-human flight attendants. Is that enough to justify the split? Or should I undo what I did earlier?

              06:18, 6 February 2013
              Edited 06:22, 6 February 2013
              Edited 06:22, 6 February 2013
              Edited 06:22, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              By the way, you should never assume there's some kinda weird "bot error" with respect to most any of its edits, but particularly those involving categories.

              Category runs are comparatively manual and they always reflect an intentional change on my part. Every category bot run is individualised — meaning that I have to decide what's the old category name and what's the new. It's not some regex thing where maybe I've programmed the pattern recognition code the wrong way. I'm literally saying to the bot, "Take 'human flight attendants' and change it to 'flight attendants'."

              So, if you see a bot-made category edit that you disagree with, please assume that I made the edit — not the bot.

              06:23, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              Good to know.

              So, given the existence of flight attendants on spaceships, do we want to retain the "human flight attendant" category, or not? (I edited my previous reply, so you might not have seen it.)

              06:27, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Okay. So are you still standing by your edit, then? Have you read Terror of the Vervoids? 'Cause information on that would be useful in this decision.
              06:28, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Well, see, the other question here is whether there are enough people to justify having a non-human category. As a general rule, we have said for a while that you need to have at least 3 pages to start a category. And there aren't 3 definitively non-human flight attendants.

              In fact a part of the reason for dropping "human" was because of the examples you cited where species was indeterminate. This is another reson why all the human-prepnded cats need re-examining: there are tons and tons of people who are only assumed to be human lurking therein.

              Incidentally we obviously do have a few categories which don't meet the 3-article ideal, but that's because either they're very likely to have at least 3 articles — but those articles haven't been written — or they provide vital "glue" in the category tree.

              Non-human flight attendants — which would be necessary to justify the existence of human flight attendants — wouldn't qualify for either exception.

              06:33, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Sounds reasonable. I'm with Czech on this one. Once we have 1 or 2 non-human flight attendants, we can re-add the category.
              06:38, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              OK, so I'll undo that change. And presumably, at some point we'll need to go through all the members of Humans by profession to see what other ones need pruning in this fashion — for example, we don't have any non-human receptionists, so I suppose Category:Human receptionists ought just to be Category:Receptionists.
              06:43, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay. So are you still standing by your edit, then? Have you read Terror of the Vervoids? 'Cause information on that would be useful in this decision.

              I assume you have actually seen Terror of the Vervoids, or read its novelisation? If so, you'd understand why I stand by it. Janet is, according to both the script and the novelisation, a stewardess not a flight attendant. By that, it's meant to be inferred that she's like a ship's steward, a position of somewhat greater responsibility and certainly duration than a airplane flight attendant. The Hyperion III is much more akin to a naval vessel — or indeed the long distance Orient Express train for which it is an obvious metaphor – than an airplane.

              06:47, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              So you're saying she really belongs in Category:Stewards? Are there any other stewards/stewardesses?
              06:54, 6 February 2013
              Edited 06:56, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Further info for you, Josiah:

              Categories are super easy to change with a bot. So even if we do find ourselves on opposite sides of a category rename, I'll never use the rationale, "Oh, it's so hard to change them; let's just leave them."

              No, if you've got a good case, there's no reason in the world not to change a category name. Equally, therefore, if we make a change one day, and then find a few weeks later that the change wasn't such a great idea, it's an easy fix. You may be used to thinking of category changes as a total pain on MediaWiki installations, even for admin — but that's only true if you've not got a bot at your disposal.

              06:55, 6 February 2013
            • Josiah Rowe
              I thought that "flight attendant" was just a gender-neutral equivalent to "steward"/"stewardess". For what it's worth, on Wikipedia "stewardess" redirects to "flight attendant".
              06:57, 6 February 2013
            • CzechOut

              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: So you're saying she really belongs in Category:Stewards? Are there any other stewards/stewardesses?

              Yes, she does. I don't know if there are any other ones beyond those already so categorised. But since you're supposed to be engaged on another project what say we leave that question in abeyance for the moment?
              06:58, 6 February 2013
            • SOTO
              I'm just passing by, answering a simple question. Then I got interested in the topic. I was actually going to sleep, which I will do now. Goodbye.
              07:02, 6 February 2013
            CzechOut

            Josiah Rowe wrote: I thought that "flight attendant" was just a gender-neutral equivalent to "steward"/"stewardess". For what it's worth, on Wikipedia "stewardess" redirects to "flight attendant".

            I'm sure stewardess does redirect there, under the theory that the most common usage gets the redirect. Since more people alive today have flown on planes than taken a ship or a train, then we tend to think that all stewardesses must be air stewardesses.

            The usage I'm thinking about, and the one I feel is much more appopriate to Janet's case, is that she's a member of the chief steward's staff. I get such a strong Agatha Christie vibe outta Terror that I've never thought the Hyperion III was supposed to be a metaphor for an airplane.

            07:13, 6 February 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:121960


            Shortcut:
            0TheTenthDoctor0
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/The Master's disapperance in The End Of Time" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Flight attendant category".

            First I apologise if this has already been discussed but I would still like to raise an issue. I have noticed that various pages have different accounts of what happened to The Master at the end of End Of Time, my belief is that he DID NOT get taken back into the time war but merely burnt up his body, here is my evidence:

            1. While there are no remains of him even clothes it seems logical to assume that he burnt up his body and the subsequent energy burnt up his clothes too as just using his "energy bolts" against The Doctor caused the latter's clothes to be burnt, as can been seen in the same scene and the deleted scene of The Doctor waking up xmas day.

            2. Some people have said that The Master got taken back into the time war because he was a timelord but so is The Doctor and he remained.

            3. There is no clear explaination for what happened to The Master so instead of writing that he was sent back into the time war or he was presumably sent back, or burnt up, as there is no canon evidence as far as I'm aware i.e. words from writers, producers or scenes that DEFINATELY show that The Master burnt up or was sent back into the time war, why can it not just be put that his fate in unknown?

            Unless actually evidence such as visible quotes or visual evidence can be used to support a theory I think "fate unknown" would be the best thing to put.

            21:51, 10 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 01:28, 11 March 2013
            • SOTO
              I agree on this one. I actually cleaned up that sentence just yesterday to make it more ambiguous.
              02:45, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              Um, guys, the visual evidence is as conclusive as it gets without insulting the viewers' collective intelligence. He visually appears to have exactly the same fate as the other Time Lords. It's usually a good idea to apply Occam's Razor rather than creating rather baseless doubt.

              Euros Lyn depicted the event in a way that we have to respect. There is absolutely no visual distinction between the fate of Rassilon and that of the Master. They both fade to white, in the same frame, after Tennant says, "Back into the Time War, Rassilon. Back into hell!" The obvious read of the scene is that the Master goes back into the Time War, too.

              There is zero visual or scripted ambiguity about what happens.

              17:02, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Agreed. But the visual also shows us the Doctor disappearing in the same way. Bright light; it seems everyone disappeared. But then the Doctor woke up and was surprised that he was still there. It's quite possible that the same happened with the Master, and he just escaped before the Doctor woke up.

              But, still, if you think about it, he was one of the links holding them there. He was more linked to them than the Doctor. This was said explicitly when the Doctor could have sent them back by shooting the Master. He was the connection. So, yes, it is greatly implied that the Master shared the same fate. But the reality is: in-universe, the Master's disappearance isn't even mentioned. All we do know for sure is that the Master attacked Rassilon, broke the link, and there was a bright light. Everything in between the bright light and the Doctor waking up is completely unknown.

              17:14, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              No it doesn't. There is no fade-to-white on Ten. Rewatch.
              17:17, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              There isn't? Oh. I thought there was. Okay, so it is pretty definite that the Master shared the same fate as the Time Lords, then.
              17:19, 11 February 2013
            • CzechOut
              And you've totally — I mean totally — missed the narrative point of the scene. I don't know how you've missed it, since RTD goes to incredibly great pains to make it, and Euros Lyn delivers it in the clearest cinematic language possible. But you've missed the central point that the link is broken because the mysterious woman indicates that the Doctor should shoot the machine, not the Master. That is what breaks the link. It's the Doctor who sends Gallifrey back. The Master's act is to prevent Rassilon from killing Ten with the gauntlet.
              17:20, 11 February 2013
            • SOTO
              Right. I knew that. Surprised I forgot it. But considering that both Rassilon and the Master are linked (as well as the machine), it would only stand to reason that both would be sent back.
              17:23, 11 February 2013
            CzechOut
            0TheTenthDoctor0: could you please point to these other pages that characterise a different fate for the End of Time Master? We need to bring them into harmony with what the Master page currently says.
            17:26, 11 February 2013

            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:122009


            Shortcut:
            Witoki
            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/An Adventure In Space And Time" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/The Master's disapperance in The End Of Time".

            Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but should we have a page for "An Adventure In Space And Time", the film about the creation of Doctor Who? A good chunk of the Who team are directly involved, and we already have some casting info. Thoughts?

            18:21, 11 February 2013
            Edited 18:41, 11 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 21:56, 11 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 21:57, 11 February 2013
            Edited by CzechOut 01:17, 11 March 2013
              CzechOut
              Nope. T:OFF REL applies.
              21:56, 11 February 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:122404


              Shortcut:
              SOTO
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Separate page for Yana" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/An Adventure In Space And Time".

              This has probably been discussed before, but I've looked through the Master's talk page archives and the Panopticon archives and haven't found anything. So, to make sure this gets attention, I'm posting this here rather than on the talk page:

              John Smith (Tenth Doctor) and John Smith (Seventh Doctor). Why not Yana? Or, to keep it consistent, Yana (Master)? In the same way that John's a different person to the Tenth Doctor, Professor Yana is different to the Master. They're not even the same species. We also have two pages for Rory. Similar case. If John and Rory deserve their own pages, so does Yana.
              20:03, 15 February 2013
              Edited 22:46, 15 February 2013
              Edited by Mgailp 01:01, 16 February 2013
              Edited by Mgailp 01:02, 16 February 2013
              Edited by Mgailp 01:02, 16 February 2013
              Edited by Digifiend 16:11, 16 February 2013
              Edited by Digifiend 16:11, 16 February 2013
              Edited by Digifiend 16:14, 16 February 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 17:30, 16 February 2013
              • Tybort
                Looking at the page history of Yana (which did used to be a page in of itself prior to the Master mergers), User:CzechOut gave this reason: converting to a redirect. most text moved to the master. there's not really enough about each to have separate articles.

                Also, there's more than one John Smith, and not just the Human Nature ones either. As far as I can tell, there's only one Yana, so I'm not sure if the consistency rule is necessary. Relatedly, John Smith (Master)'s dab term is based on the story the identity's from, not (just) that he's the Master.

                22:50, 15 February 2013
              • SOTO
                No offence intended, but can you try taking a look at John Smith (Tenth Doctor)?
                1) It's only on that one John Smith that we meet in the Tenth Doctor version of Human Nature. Hence the dab term. Why would we mix everyone named John Smith into one article?
                2) Yana actually has a full episode of screen time, being a rather major character even as a human. There is actually a lot of information on him. Plus, we have pages on people like "that guy who walked across the street" sometimes. The good majority of our character article don't have anywhere close to a third of the amount of information Yana would have.
                3) Czech was referring to the prior discussion about merging all the Master incarnation pages. "Yana" is simply another name we use to indicate that Master and have the opposite party understand.

                Anyways, to the point, do you or do you not think Yana should have his own page? Why or why not?

                22:59, 15 February 2013
              • Tybort
                I'm in favour of reinstating at the very least. I'm not sure how the human identity would completely overlap with the Derek Jacobi Master, though maybe I'm missing something. I'm just against using Yana (Master) instead of just Yana for a Professor Yana page, and explaining why Yana (Master) isn't consistent as a dab term. If there was only one Human Nature by Paul Cornell, the John Smith identity would probably be John Smith (Human Nature).

                Plus, even though I don't pay attention to them, the old Yana had a personality section. You can't really place it anywhere on the current Master article.

                If we have the other chameleon arch human, as well as Rory Williams (Auton) not being merged with the human Rory, then I'm okay with the Professor Yana identity being separate from the Master.

                23:09, 15 February 2013
                Edited 23:12, 15 February 2013
              • SOTO
                I wasn't actually suggesting we use the dab term. Why would we need it? I was just going through all the options.

                And, yes, the other chameleon arch human and Rory Williams (Auton) both get their own pages.

                Also note that, if you go into the history of the old Yana page, you'll notice that it has just as much, if not more, information as John Smith (Tenth Doctor). And, of course, it's missing info anyways, which can be easily added.

                Not we just have to wait for someone else to come along so that they can voice their opinion. Unless you still have something to say, that is.

                23:16, 15 February 2013
              • Mgailp
                Instinct says yes, but following this logic, we would need to make separate pages for each of the 20 incarnations of The Master listed the last couple times this was argued. If you do go with a Yana page, you also need a Harold Saxon page as those are both fairly hefty non-master Masters.
                01:01, 16 February 2013
              • SOTO
                No. Not what I'm saying. Harold Saxon wasn't his own entity; he was merely a disguise. Yana was a completely different person. Human. Different consciousness.
                "Harold Saxon" is simply a name employed by the last Master, not its own being.
                We don't have pages for every alias, do we? No. It goes in the infobox.
                01:04, 16 February 2013
              • Mgailp
                It is not letting me add to the 'pages most relevant' section:

                [[2008/2010 Argument]http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Master]

                [[2011 Argument]http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Master_-_1_article]

                01:05, 16 February 2013
                Edited 01:05, 16 February 2013
              • SOTO
                It's fine. Doesn't matter. Anyways, those discussions are dead and gone. As concluded, all incarnations of the Master are to be on one page. We're not going back on that decision.

                But Yana's not an incarnation. He's not even the Master. He simply dwells in a human version of the Master's body. Yes, memories are retained afterwards, but the same goes to both John Smith and Auton Rory.

                01:09, 16 February 2013
              • Digifiend
                Valid point. If John Smith from Human Nature has an article, so should Professor Yana.

                Mgailp wrote: It is not letting me add to the 'pages most relevant' section:

                [[2008/2010 Argument]http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Master]

                [[2011 Argument]http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Master_-_1_article]

                Works for me. Just added them as a test (then removed them per the above comment).
                16:12, 16 February 2013
                Edited 16:13, 16 February 2013
                Edited 16:14, 16 February 2013
                Edited 16:15, 16 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                No. It was specifically agreed that all Masters be collapsed into one article. If we recreated the Yana article, what would be left at the Master in the Jacobi section? The final minute of Utopia.

                The amount of information we have on John Smith is simply much greater than the amount about Yana-as-distinct-from-the-Master. While the two situations are somewhat analogous, they are completely different in terms of the amount of information we have to hand.

                It is better to present all information about the Jacobi Master in one place than to split up the tiny meal into even tinier fractions.

                17:04, 16 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                The other thing is that at no point have we ever treated Yana as two parts. Even when the Master was being broken apart, the entire Jacobi performance was kept on one page. As can be seen at Forum:The Master, the 2008 rationale from Stardizzy? was: "I don't think he features enough and I think the Professor Yana page will do."
                17:17, 16 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                And the third — and most conclusive — reason why this proposal won't be adopted is because it's been tried before, and it failed. The original edit summary for the now-deleted the Master (Yana) was:
                The Tenth Doctor and John Smith each have their own articles, so Professor Yana should have a separate page from the Master.

                Indeed, at this early stage, the article was called Yana. But within a week it was about the incarnation of the Master. Why? Because there's just not enough information to separate the two. People inevitably conflate the two for lack of anything better to do.

                17:28, 16 February 2013
              CzechOut
              This proposal has failed, and the thread will now close.
              17:29, 16 February 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:122816


              Shortcut:
              Bold Clone
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Regeneration: is it death?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Separate page for Yana".

              Recently I have been arguing with OttelSpy25 over the nature of regeneration; the reason this started is because I believe that "Death" is not a proper heading for the end of the individual pages of the Doctor's incarnations. The Doctor doesn't die, he regenerates. OS25 says otherwise. Our discussion can be found here and here, but since we haven't reached an agreement, we decided it would be best to open up the discussion to the wiki at large to discuss the matter. So? Does the Doctor die and then regenerate, or does he regenerate to avoid death? That's the question OS25 have been discussing, and whether it is thus more appropriate to say that an incarnation "died" or "regenerated." (If this is in the wrong section, I apologize; I've never needed to do this before.)

              03:43, 20 February 2013
              Edited 03:44, 20 February 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 15:29, 20 February 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 21:35, 20 May 2013
              Edited 00:39, 2 April 2017
              • Mini-mitch
                The Tenth Doctor states in The End of Time that is feels like death - not that is actually is death.

                I would say he regenerates to avoid death - I havn't any close by the properly back this up - but the way he talks about in to Wilf seems like they avoid death...

                11:26, 20 February 2013
              • TARDIStraveler
                I agree with Mini-Mitch. There are a couple other episodes - the Doctor drowning and dying too fast to regenerate in Turn Left; River telling the Doctor that linking to a computer would burn out both his hearts and kill him, rendering regeneration impossible, in Forest of the Dead; the astronaut suit taking another shot to kill the "Doctor" as he was regenerating in The Impossible Astronaut. The Tenth Doctor says it's like death because that particular body and personality are gone, but that comes directly after Wilfred Mott reminds Ten that he explained regeneration in the context of escaping death.
                13:21, 20 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                Having read the Bold Clone/OttselSpy25 conversation, I'm not convinced by BC's argument that it would somehow be "confusing" readers if we described regeneration as "death".

                The show itself is confusing on this point, because there are two levels of death in any sort of transformative being. There's the death of the individual phase, and then there's the death of the overall, gestalt being. I think that readers who encounter a section called "Death" on a page labelled "Sixth Doctor", will understand that we're talking about the "Death of the Sixth Doctor", and not be overly confused. Certainly, I think this is less confusing than "Regeneration", because there's regen in and regen out. Even a label like "Post-regeneration" is a tad confusing because to me the phrase "post-regenerative Sixth Doctor" could mean the Seven that's in episode 1 of Time and the Rani. (Granted, this isn't how I use the phrase, personally, but it could mean that.) I'd much prefer that first section on an incarnation page be called "Rebirth", since that's wholly unambiguous, and the word can be sourced to the Utopia regeneration.

                It's not that I don't understand Bold Clonee's central thrust. The gestalt Doctor hasn't died, so why should we describe the incarnation as truly dying? I think the reason is that this is the most consistent description that it's ever had.

                The problem, of course, is that we don't have a lot of data to work with. A lot of regenerations we've seen have actually happened before death. Regen #2 and Romana have nothing to do with medical emergency. Regen #6 is useless. Regen #8 is unknown. Regen #1 isn't even called "regeneration" but "rejuvenation". Regen #4 works differently to any other ever seen. The Watcher thing is just damned odd.

                So that leaves us only with #3, #5, #7, #9 and #10.

                Regen #3 is the closest to flatly denying the "death" thing, because Cho-Je explicitly says, "the Doctor is alive". Maybe you could throw Regen #5 in there, too, as a sorta refutation of death, because Davison asks, "Is this death?", and we find out in a matter of moments that it's not. (But that's really flimsy, because Five is clearly talking about the death of the gestalt Doctor, not just him individually.)

                RTD uses the language of death much more consistently. Ten says of Regen #9: "I was dying. To save my own life, I changed my own body, every single cell". Regeneration in general is then later described as "death" in TEOT — but it had been pre-figured, don't forget, by the Odd saying "your song is ending" and the whole "knock four times" thing. So in Waters of Mars we get this notion that he might be nearing death. I personally think the common sense reading of the Wilf/Ten café scene is that we're to take it at face value. The Doctor is saying that when he regenerates, the old body — in every practical sense – dies. You can't go back to the old body, as we learn in the 2005 CIN special. This is actually new information. The Doctor can't go back to an old body — so how, practically, is that different from death?

                The clearest case, though, is the television movie. It's the ultimate regeneration story, because it takes us every step of the way. There's no metaphor, no "like death". There's just death of the individual incarnation.

                The Master flatly states to Chang Lee:

                "That body had died. But now he's regenerated into another one. My body can do this twelve times." So the Master flatly calls it death.

                Eight later confirms this language, saying:

                "I was dead too long this time. The anaesthetic almost destroyed the regenerative process."

                I just don't see how it's possible to get around these two bits of dialogue. To emphasise, we've got two different Time Lords on record as calling it death.

                And if that weren't enough, we see it, and there is no doubt of death.

                Seven flatlines on the operating table. Multiple doctors back up Grace, who declares him dead while he's hooked up to any number of devices that would have been able to detect the faintest of heartbeats. He gets sent to a morgue where he ain't movin' at all. Seven's cadaver gets wheeled into a refrigeration unit, but we see no breath. Time quite clearly passes. Then the regen happens and only now, from Eight, do we see breath.

                Later, Grace says, "You can't cheat death", to which the Doctor says, "Yes you can". And indeed, this is echoed later in the movie when Grace, too, is resurrected and the Doctor reverses the line by asking her how it feels to have cheated death.

                Then there's the directorial choice to have intercut the Doctor's regeneration with the Frakenstein reanimation sequence. Why do that unless you're trying to say, "Hey, this guy died, but like Frankenstein's monster, he's comin' back to life."

                So I have zero problem with the word death. The one story that fully examines regeneration makes it crystal clear that death does occur then there's a regeneration. And every regeneration since has strongly used the language of death to describe what a regeneration is like.

                17:10, 20 February 2013
                Edited 17:11, 20 February 2013
                Edited 17:15, 20 February 2013
              • Bold Clone
                You make a good argument for regeneration as death in the TV movie, Czech, but my response to that is the same as the Doctor claiming to only be half-human on his mother's side--can we really trust the movie? Is the movie's continuity reliable? Aside from that, what other evidence do we have that regeneration is death? If the movie is suspect, which I feel it is (primarily because of continuity botches like the Doctor being half-human), then how well can we trust it? I'm not denying what the movie said, I'm just questioning the "continuity integrity" of the movie, so to speak.
                17:50, 20 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                The TV movie is a valid source for this wiki. So while any fan is of course at liberty to do what they want with the TVM, you can't just chuck it to one side here.

                And I don't think it's an island of information that you can just disengage from the body of Doctor Who fiction. The way I see it, RTD has sorta rejected teh Barry Letts Buddhist "he's not dead" thing to say, "Nope, these are discrete parts of the gestalt Doctor's life, and the way it works is in every way like death."

                There's literally no regeneration sequence for a true Time Lord since 2005 (so, not including River Song) where some form of the word "to die" doesn't appear.

                It strikes me that the half-human comparison you wanna make is a bit irrelevant. The half-human line is a tiny detail with only marginal plot relevance, later beautifully clarified by The Forgotten. So from the wiki's perspective of taking all media equally, the half-human thing is a total non-issue. (In fact, I'd argue that the TVM alone takes care of it, since Eight says he can in fact change species during regeneration — just like we see Romana doing in Destiny of the Daleks — so there's every reason in the world to think that maybe one of the Doctor's regeneration was half-human, while leaving the gestalt Doctor wholly Time Lord.

                As between the "half-human" and "death" thingies, there's no doubt but that the death idea is absolutely the more integral to the plot. Take that out and you've lost about a third of the whole film. Take out the half-human thing, and the Master merely has to find a different way to open the Eye of Harmony.

                The TVM lets us look at regeneration in a clinical setting, in a way that no other story does. We've got the Doctor hooked up to medical monitors throughout so that we can actually say, "Yes, he died."

                This is something obscured by the fact that Harry Sullivan arrived late for Regen 3, and there are swirling SFX for Regens 4, 5, and 6. For all we know, Five's heart could have stopped and the "Day in the Life" boom is supposed to indicate his heart restarting.

                In any case, the CIN special ends the debate really. Is there a practical difference between "not being able to go back to Nine" and "Nine is dead"? If there is, I wouldn't know how to articulate it. Regeneration obviously means that the gestalt Doctor is not dead. But there is a finality to the process — which we didn't know until the CIN special — that acts as an actual, hard barrier between two phases of life. Moreover CIN and TEOT and LKH all show us that there is a physiologic difference between the incarnations ("New teeth", "I've got a mole", "Slight weakness in the dorsal whatever") So this isn't, as could have been supposed previously, the shedding of skin or trick of the lights or metamorphosis of an exterior or something similarly superficial. It is the ending of one life and the beginning of another.

                19:25, 20 February 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Other than the "half-human" thing, the TV film handled continuity fairly well. (Besides, the movies twist of the Doctor being half-human has nothing to do with continuity, so...)
                21:18, 20 February 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123010


              Shortcut:
              ComicBookGoddess
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Do we really need separate pages for the Cult of Skaro members and a write up of each on the Cult of Skaro page?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Regeneration: is it death?".

              Sorry if it's in the archive somewhere, but I noticed character pages for each of the Cult of Skaro, and a significant write up of each member on the Cult's page. Three options:

              (1) Individual character pages are combined onto the Cult's page with a redirect for each. (2) The write-ups on the Cult page are split out and merged with the character pages and linked clearly from the Cult of Skaro page. (3) They're both left pretty much as is, but we link the pages together more obviously, because a silly person like me didn't see them at first.

              Oh, okay, FOUR options: (4) Shutup, CBG, I don't see any problems. ;)

              06:43, 22 February 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 19:42, 22 February 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 01:53, 11 March 2013
              • Shambala108
                I think I'm voting for your (2) when I say, keep the individual pages, keep the Cult of Skaro page, but remove the Members of the Cult of Skaro section on the Cult page.
                07:05, 22 February 2013
              • SOTO
                Me too. Option 2.
                13:12, 22 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                2. And it doesn't require forum agreement, because 2 would represent our standard operating procedure. I'm guessin' what happened in this case is that the Cult of Skaro page was started around the broadcast date of Doomsday. Then, by the time that Evolution of the Daleks finished broadcast, there was a more urgent need for the individual pages, but no one went back to edit the Cult of Skaro page to integrate better with the newly beefed up individual pages.

                That happens a lot around here, unfortunately. People tend to be so caught up in stories immediately after broadcast that they forget about going back to edit pages relevant to the way that topic was presented in the past.

                19:42, 22 February 2013
                Edited 19:47, 22 February 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Ok. I'll take care of it later tonight (for me).
                20:29, 23 February 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123403


              Shortcut:
              81.153.85.222
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Big Finish production codes" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Do we really need separate pages for the Cult of Skaro members and a write up of each on the Cult of Skaro page?".

              I'm on a BF audio marathon, and using this wonderful site for collation and general organisation of the task.

              I have noticed that the Production codes listed vary in form.

              some are short form e.g. 8X (Scaredy Cat)

              others have the long form e.g. BFPDWCD6PC (Singularity)

              is there a standard? Which should be used?

              21:23, 28 February 2013
              Edited 20:34, 7 March 2013
              Edited 20:40, 7 March 2013
              Edited by Amorkuz 08:49, 28 May 2017
              • 81.153.85.222
                Should add that I am happy to do the work to fix, (a lot of Ctrl-V-ing) either way, though will attend to the ones I haven't got to in my marathon as I go
                21:44, 28 February 2013
              • CzechOut
                We've not really been consistent here, but it certainly seems to me that the "BFPDWCD" bit is standard and therefore meaningless.

                Anyone have any particularly strong feelings about this?

                20:34, 7 March 2013
                Edited 20:37, 7 March 2013
                Edited 20:39, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                The real issue here would be whether there are any other ranges where the alpha-numeric part of the production code would be reused.

                For instance, in the above example for Singularity, are there any other Big Finish audios in any range which have the production code of 6PC? If not, we could safely truncate the "BFPDWCD" bit, and explain what we're doing at the list of production codes page.

                20:39, 7 March 2013
                Edited 20:46, 7 March 2013
              • 81.153.85.222
                Truncation would work for the main range, but....

                other ranges tend just to be number order and only distinguished by the prefix.

                BFP - is almost constant and could possibly be dropped

                DW -is only for those ranges featuring the Doctor (main monthly, Comp Chron, 8DA's), but not eg "Dalek Empire" or "I, Davros" or "Gallifrey"

                CD - is well....

                But there is CC for the Comp Chrons, MG for the 8DA's. etc; followed by a 1, 2 or 3 digit number, perhaps with a decimal point.

                those released with DWM have DWM, other Bonus releases seem to conform to the main range either in short or long form; or their own special code (Maltese Penguin (SS), or Death to the Daleks (given a DE code as part of Dalek Empire))....

                The basic format trying to use production codes to fit with the TV codes used and as a basic (though flawed) time line for the Doctor is great, but its a nightmare!

                Longform? but would that mean adding a "BBCTV" code to the tv eps? and "BBCWEB" or "BBCDVDXTRA" for consistency?

                19:54, 8 April 2013
              Amorkuz
              Production codes differ from one production company to another. This decision only refers to those by Big Finish Productions.

              Production codes are created to suit the needs of the production company. These needs are not always transparent to the customers and may be influenced, among other factors, by information about the copyright holder, the original production company in cases of distribution deals, desire to mimic production codes of another production company, etc. Removing parts that are deemed too regular would amount to second guessing the intent while simultaneously concealing information indicative of it.

              In addition, Big Finish Productions has since released audios with non-BFP long production codes, e.g., FREUD004.

              Like phone numbers, email and web addresses, ISBN numbers, credit card numbers, etc., production codes are intended to be used as is rather than decomposed into constituent parts, even in cases when such a decomposition might be possible.

              Thus, production codes for Big Finish audios should be copied verbatim from the Big Finish website.

              00:02, 28 May 2017

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123468


              Shortcut:
              Imamadmad
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Problems with Howling and Theory forums" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Big Finish production codes".

              I was just checking out Howling:The_Howling for the first time in a while when I noticed it wasn't working. The threads aren't appearing and there is something saying "Invalid tag extension name: forum" above it as well as some weird code. I looked in the archives for that forum next and saw it had a similar problem. Also, both the Theory forums and the Theory index page are also either showing the exact same problem or have weird code instead of saying Invalid tag. Refreshing the page and clearing my cache isn't helping. So, basically, what's going on and can it be fixed?

              01:53, 3 March 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 17:49, 3 March 2013
              • Digifiend
                This is a global Wikia issue. Same thing is affecting the old style forums on other wikis. http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Site_discussions?t=20130302153836

                Send a bug report via Special:Contact

                02:57, 3 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Thanks, I'll go do that now.
                02:59, 3 March 2013
              • Digifiend
                Also, just found this thread: w:c:community:Thread:495011
                03:00, 3 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Special:contact message has been sent.
                03:09, 3 March 2013
              • Digifiend
                Wow! I did not expect that, but editing the page without changing anything fixed it! Weird.

                Turns out that's because it was fixed about 20 minutes ago, but the cache has to be purged.

                03:25, 3 March 2013
                Edited 03:26, 3 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It's working on my end, too.

                Weird...

                03:27, 3 March 2013
                Edited 03:30, 3 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Working for me now too.
                03:29, 3 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                I'd sent an email to wikia. They'd said that they were having JavaScript issues on their end.
                04:45, 3 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                An email has been sent, a reply has been received, and the problem has been fixed. If you still see the problem, you need to clear your cache.
                05:51, 3 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Cleared the cache. Now I've got the archives back, but there's a post I put in in the category that isn't showing on the howling main page.
                06:25, 3 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Is that the one about the 10th and 11th Doctors? Cause I can see it. Try clearing your cache again.
                06:42, 3 March 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123493


              Shortcut:
              Trebligoniqua
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Move/Merge/Rename request" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Problems with Howling and Theory forums".

              Hi. I put up a couple merge/move requests on Talk pages, but no one has responded. Is there somewhere I can make a formal request?

              06:27, 3 March 2013
              Edited by CzechOut 09:05, 3 September 2013
              • SOTO
                Did you put tags?

                If not, they're:

                • {{delete}}
                • {{merge}}
                • {{rename}}

                As long as you put the tags, someone will probably get around eventually to either respond or do the action.

                06:55, 3 March 2013
                Edited 06:55, 3 March 2013
              • Tangerineduel
                Also, when adding any of these tags please put a note in the edit summary that you've added the tags so we know when these tags were added.
                15:06, 7 March 2013
              • Trebligoniqua
                Are there instructions on how to use the tags?
                17:43, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yes. {{delete}}, {{merge}} and {{rename}} all come with instructions, as most of our templates do.
                18:38, 8 March 2013
              • Trebligoniqua
                Thanks. I tried to look for the tag, but I didn't know how to search for it.
                19:26, 8 March 2013
              CzechOut
              Ahhh. When you see {{whatever}}, it means [[Template:Whatever]], so you look it up by typing Template:Whatever into the search box.
              19:48, 8 March 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123537


              Shortcut:
              CzechOut
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Celebrating the 50th: Wordmark project" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Move/Merge/Rename request".

              We have an opportunity to get greater prominence for the wiki around Wikia during the 50th anniversary period, and around 30 March for the beginning of 7b.

              But what should we do, exactly?

              If anyone has any ideas for special things we can do around here until and through the anniversary itself, please place your thoughts below.

              02:43, 4 March 2013
              Edited 02:47, 4 March 2013
              Edited 23:10, 11 April 2013
              Edited by Amorkuz 22:10, 29 May 2017
              • SOTO
                This is a bad idea but all that's coming to me: we could host quizzes. To celebrate the anniversary, people can come and try to answer difficult questions about every era of Who. And by difficult, I mean difficult enough that it would force the great majority of people to do a little research on our wiki.

                This would get more people searching through and clicking on links, as well as getting new people interested in reading our articles in the future, and possibly even editing them.

                There would be a points system of some kind, and a leader board. If we make it competitive, we can attract people here. Just a thought, though... Anyone else?

                02:49, 4 March 2013
                Edited 02:50, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                In terms of names, since the Game of Rassilon's already taken, I suppose it would be the War Games... Are there any other "games" in the DWU?
                02:52, 4 March 2013
              • SirBanstead
                Maybe to appeal more to the new who fans, call the competition satellite 5, and the different eras different game rooms?
                06:52, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I was thinking of maybe something related to that episode... The Game Station...

                Anyways, do you like the idea itself? Do you have any other suggestions?

                06:56, 4 March 2013
                Edited 07:04, 4 March 2013
              • SirBanstead
                I think it is a great idea to bring attention to the wiki and the articles. The only idea I had was, we dedicate the site to the first doctor for one week, then the second doctor for a week etc. All leading up to the 50th anniversary special.
                07:08, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmmm... So the eleventh week would be the week of 17 to 23 November... Meaning we'd start on 1 September... Perfect - the start of the school and work years!

                But the question is... what exactly would we do?

                07:12, 4 March 2013
                Edited 07:13, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Well, if we wanted to, we could always combine our two ideas, and have the quizzes split by Doctor, and switch Doctors at the end of every week, starting at 1 September. Then, on the Sunday, we would post the results and the leaderboard for that week. It would make it more competitive.

                We would probably do the Doctors backwards (ie. starting with 11 and ending with 1), as, that way, it would become more and more difficult as time went on, as well as viewers finding out new information on our legacy, hyping up the 50th even more. Then, on 23 November itself, we'd do some sort of amalgamation of sorts that would be bigger than all previous quizzes, as if the others were building up to it. We want the 50th itself to seem like a big event, not the end of the celebration - rather, the amalgamation of it.

                07:20, 4 March 2013
                Edited 07:21, 4 March 2013
              • SirBanstead
                I'm not entirely sure. Maybe incorporate your idea about the quizzes, and have a quiz revolving around one doctor and their adventures. So there could be a champion for each doctor and an overall one at the end of the eleventh week.

                Also the incarnations picture could cover the homepage, and their most notable stories from all the media linked on the homepage.

                07:20, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                We've developed a good sense of timing, haven't we?

                I like where you're going about the homepage... it'd have all sorts of information (and links) on the featured Doctor, his companions, and his era.

                07:22, 4 March 2013
                Edited 07:29, 4 March 2013
              • Mini-mitch
                As much as quizzes sound good - we are on a wiki, which makes it very, very easy for people to cheat.

                Before we do anything like that - we need to promote the wiki as much as possible...

                10:45, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Well, the point of the quizzes in the first place is to get people to go reading through the Wiki for answers. But it all really depends on what software/template we can get ahold of/make. The ideal would be some sort of counter, the amount of time it takes you being subtracted from your points. I know Wikia has that unused PlayQuiz feature... I don't know much about it, though.
                12:43, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                I like the quiz idea. Maybe we could stretch it out with the quizzes being on a different series/season every week? That would make 33 weeks. Though come to think of it, that may be too long. Maybe two seasons/series every week?
                16:42, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SirBanstead wrote: I think it is a great idea to bring attention to the wiki and the articles. The only idea I had was, we dedicate the site to the first doctor for one week, then the second doctor for a week etc. All leading up to the 50th anniversary special.

                This is a great idea and a must do!

                17:51, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I would LOVE to help design the backgrounds! (With various publicity photos)
                17:53, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                It's not practicable to have weekly backgrounds. Changeable backgrounds, as you can tell, aren't really a part of the site's design at this time.
                20:41, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Speaking of backgrounds, I know this is mostly off-topic but - whatever happened to them? Is there any chance of a return? I quite miss those backgrounds with the promotional images...
                20:44, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                What if we... Change the site logo at the top to correlate with the Hartnell era... Perhaps making a "Totter's Lane" sign or something...

                What if we make a new badge for editing "Classic" pages or something? No, I don't know what that means, but it's an idea! Then after 2013 is over we could turn it off... A new badge only avaliable for the Anniversary that would eventually turn off. That'd contract editors...

                22:18, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Although we're late in starting, what if we made it so that the only badges available in the Game of Rassilon had to do with the stories of the Doctor related to the number of the month, plus those which had come before.

                Thus in March, we'd have badges for only the audio, comic televised and other stories of the first three Doctors. In April, we'd add Fourth Doctor stories. In May, Fifth Doctor, and so on?

                22:27, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Ooh...I like it.
                22:35, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmm... Not a bad idea...

                The thing I have against it, though, is that I don't really see how it would culminate and "get greater prominence." Well... slightly, but how would restricting the badges attract more people to edit? Also, does your idea only apply to stories, or does it also apply to DWU pages (ie. we'd introduce "Third Doctor enemies" or "Third Doctor characters," "Third Doctor concepts," "Third Doctor companions..." So the only badges available would be those of the month's Doctor?

                22:35, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I enjoy that idea, expecially as most 60s pages are sure stubby. But we'd have to start that soon if we do.
                22:37, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                12 months in a year... 11 Doctors... We're in february... You do the math...
                22:38, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote: What if we... Change the site logo at the top to correlate with the Hartnell era... Perhaps making a "Totter's Lane" sign or something...

                The wordmark has just been through a pretty rigorous re-design. And while I'm not saying it can never change again, I certainly feel that the reason that the current design "won by attrition" was that it was a sort of "back to basics" approach, emulative of the original TARDIS font. And of course, it takes a professional typographer to articulate the difference between the Hartnell logo font and the original police box font.

                22:38, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                We're in March, actually. We missed the First and Second Doctors already.
                22:39, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah, but again, this idea isn't that we've missed what came before. We'd just be adding them onto the extant Third Doctor GOR editing tracks.
                22:40, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote:

                OttselSpy25 wrote: What if we... Change the site logo at the top to correlate with the Hartnell era... Perhaps making a "Totter's Lane" sign or something...

                The wordmark has just been through a pretty rigorous re-design. And while I'm not saying it can never change again, I certainly feel that the reason that the current design "won by attrition" was that it was a sort of "back to basics" approach, emulative of the original TARDIS font. And of course, it takes a professional typographer to articulate the difference between the Hartnell logo font and the original police box font.

                I was thinking that maybe, for the Fiftieth, for whatever time period in which we're featuring a Doctor, instead of the contour of the TARDIS, it'd be a contour of the featured Doctor, in the fashion of the Puffin EShorts, if the imagery helps. Then, after the Anniversary, we'd revert back to the original with the TARDIS.

                22:42, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Ooh, lovely idea!
                22:43, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Indeed.
                22:45, 4 March 2013
              • Shambala108
                I'm against the idea of doing anything badge-related to celebrate the anniversary. The badges tend to encourage some of the worst kind of editing in new users, and is the last thing we want if we're trying to make the wiki more prominent.

                I like the idea of some kind of quiz/scavenger hunt that sends users looking for stuff all over the wiki.

                22:46, 4 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Shambala108 wrote: I'm against the idea of doing anything badge-related to celebrate the anniversary. The badges tend to encourage some of the worst kind of editing in new users, and is the last thing we want if we're trying to make the wiki more prominent.

                I like the idea of some kind of quiz/scavenger hunt that sends users looking for stuff all over the wiki.

                Although I like the idea of a scavenger hunt, I think that we do need to do something with the badges at least.

                22:48, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I was thinking that maybe, for the Fiftieth, for whatever time period in which we're featuring a Doctor, instead of the contour of the TARDIS, it'd be a contour of the featured Doctor, in the fashion of the Puffin EShorts, if the imagery helps. Then, after the Anniversary, we'd revert back to the original with the TARDIS.

                Reality check: who's gonna do it?

                22:52, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                I would do it, but it has to be an admin...which makes for problems.
                22:52, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                Shambala108 wrote: I like the idea of some kind of quiz/scavenger hunt that sends users looking for stuff all over the wiki.

                Details please. Need a proof of concept page.

                22:53, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Reality check: who's gonna do it?

                I happen to be fairly good at these things, and I would be more than happy to give it a quick go as a test.

                22:54, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                Cult Of Skaro wrote: I would do it, but it has to be an admin...which makes for problems.

                It only needs to be an admin who makes the physical swap. Admin certainly don't need to create the logo.

                22:54, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                CzechOut wrote: Reality check: who's gonna do it?

                I happen to be fairly good at these things, and I would be more than happy to give it a quick go as a test.

                No, no: not test. I need a wordmark that's upload-ready.

                22:55, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I meant that I'd be willing to do the thing itself, but first a quick version just for basic approval. No need to go full-out if we don't even end up using it.
                22:56, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                CzechOut wrote:

                Cult Of Skaro wrote: I would do it, but it has to be an admin...which makes for problems.

                It only needs to be an admin who makes the physical swap. Admin certainly don't need to create the logo.

                ITC...I could have one ready by wednesday, hopefully.

                22:57, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Wordmarks need to be 250 X 65 px exactly. In .png format only. Fully — that is, 100% — transparent.
                22:57, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I meant that I'd be willing to do the thing itself, but first a quick version just for basic approval. No need to go full-out if we don't even end up using it.

                No, no: I need to know that the person assigned to the task can actually do it.

                22:58, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                When you say transparent, do you mean the background?
                22:58, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yes. Curiously, a transparent foreground wouldn't be that helpful.
                22:59, 4 March 2013
                Edited 23:06, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Right. So, how about: both Cult of Skaro and I will do it, and we'll vote on which one, if at all, to use.
                22:59, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Sounds good.
                23:00, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                It must use the current typography of the wiki name. The only thing you'll be changing is the graphic itself.

                Also, I want to see the Sixth Doctor, not one that's already been done.

                23:02, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay.

                ...I seem to be having trouble locating the current pic. I had it opened earlier... Anyway, would you mind terribly linking me there?

                23:03, 4 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Ah, so the TARDIS DATA CORE stays the same. Good you mentioned that, as I would've put the proper logo font. :D
                23:03, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Current pic? Of what?
                23:04, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Of the current logo. You know: the one that you can change. I want to upload the original, so that I can re-use the words.
                23:05, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Due to overlap, you won't be able to use that. One moment while I upload a blank for you.
                23:07, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Thank you. Would you want a side view like the EShort covers, or a front one with a bit of costume. Entirely vague contour, of course. You know what, I'll do both...
                23:09, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                There ya go. File:TardisDataCoreBlank.png.
                23:14, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I'm afraid you'll have to wait until Gimp finishes downloading on this new computer. In the meantime, I can begin beginner-style on PowerPoint.
                23:25, 4 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                PowerPoint imagery will not be accepted. Please return to your work on days of the year.

                By the way, it is not necessary for you to become involved in every single forum discussion. Your work on days of the year is much, much more important.

                23:27, 4 March 2013
                Edited 23:28, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay. It'll finish installing soon. I'll post all versions as I complete them.
                23:29, 4 March 2013
              • SOTO
                This is proving more difficult than anticipated - I'd forgotten about the extreme difficulty brought on by the tiny size. Anyway, these are my first two rough drafts (and, no, I did not spend 3 hours making them - more 30/40 minutes):

                TardisDataCoreSix1.png

                TardisDataCoreSix2.png

                (They look better on the blue background) I'm not particularly proud of my creations. Can you specifically define him as Six? In fact the first one kind of looks more like the Fifth...

                I just realised that Six, compared to the other Doctors, has close to no defining characteristics. I'll have to try other Doctors and then get back to this one with more experience.

                First, though, I will take a break from this and working on my days of the year project. If Cult of Skaro wishes to try in my absence, have fun!

                02:44, 5 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Surprisingly, the second one actually looks more like him on the blue background that'd be there if it were to be used:

                TardisDataCoreSix2 blue.png

                03:26, 5 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I thought we were trying to do something like this

                Thanks for the effort, but it's not quite what I thought we were aiming for. That's not a profile or an outline. That's simply a monochromatic, low-res picture.

                Well, actually, it's not even monochromatic, is it. It's merely low-res and desaturated. Yeah, I know you're not happy with that, but — appreciative though I again am of the effort — I don't think it's really close to the concept as originally presented.

                05:37, 5 March 2013
                Edited 05:40, 5 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Another thing we could try is to do simple representations of things that are iconic to each of the Doctors. Like, we could do a simple scarf for Four, a cat badge for six, a cricket ball for five, etc. That may prove easier than trying to do a true silhouette of the actor's face.
                05:46, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                Here's what I came up with.

                07:10, 5 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Tardis logo suggetsion OS24.jpg

                Okay, so the background isn't invisable, and it's obviously far too big, but there's my idea of what we could do. Not directly the "shadow" design, but clevery close.

                13:08, 5 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Blue background OS24 design.jpg

                Here's it on a blue background...

                13:11, 5 March 2013
                Edited 13:11, 5 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I'll be able to make a transparent image once I get home. (I did all this on my iPad!)
                13:14, 5 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Thanks for the effort, but it's not quite what I thought we were aiming for. That's not a profile or an outline. That's simply a monochromatic, low-res picture.

                Well, actually, it's not even monochromatic, is it. It's merely low-res and desaturated. Yeah, I know you're not happy with that, but — appreciative though I again am of the effort — I don't think it's really close to the concept as originally presented.

                No, no, no, Im not at all offended. I actually agree with you. (On a side note, I actually created it from scratch - it's not an adapted picture). Anyways, as a said: first rough draft that I was in no way happy with that Im posting anyways. And I was originally planning on doing something like the ebooks. Apparently, that's not what happened. I was just testing different things out and showing you that it wouldn't work. Unless you'd rather I didn't show you guys the fails.

                Anyways, I quite like your idea of illustrating a symbol of the Doctor instead, as its hard to represent a face in such a low resolution picture. I also like OS's idea of everything but the face.

                13:46, 5 March 2013
                Edited 18:20, 5 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I'm afraid I have to discount OS25's efforts entirely as he didn't follow the instructions on the exercise. It's really important that we see designs in the actual size of 250 X 65. Also, guys, no colour. This must be a monochromatic design in blue (#012C57) and white. Cult of Skaro's effort is closer to what was originally proposed, but it doesn't quite fill the space vertically like the current TARDIS graphic. He'd almost certainly want to put a thicker (2 or 3px) white outline around the figure, in the same way that the current TARDIS graphic has a white outline. Otherwise, it won't really show up. Note the differences:
                Wiki-wordmark.png

                You might find it helpful when exhibiting your designs not to put a blue background on the image itself. Instead, leave the design transparent but do this: 

                <div style=background-color:#012C57>[[File:Filename.png]]</div>
                17:27, 5 March 2013
                Edited 17:32, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Gotcha. Let me try again.
                18:22, 5 March 2013
              • SOTO
                There can be zero colour? Didn't know that... In that case, OS's idea can't really be used very well...

                All things considered, I'm more for the idea of an object (ex. 2=flute, 3=Bessie?, 4=scarf, 5=celery, 6=umbrella, 10=glasses?, 11=fez, etc...)

                18:26, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                It's a bit rough around the edges still, but how's that?

                18:34, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                Or maybe this?

                18:35, 5 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I can't even tell which side is the face! :P

                Also, besides the fact that it shouldn't get that close to the borders, shouldn't it be looking to the right? ie. Towards the wiki and the articles? Or is it...?

                18:38, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Good point. That actually'd look better anyway, IMO.
                18:39, 5 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                Better?

                18:41, 5 March 2013
              • SOTO
                But, yeah, something like that sounds good. it would look better a little smaller and covered a bit more by the words, in my opinion. I quite like it, basically - it's nice and simple and, despite the curly hair with makes it difficult to recognise which is the face and which is the hair, does bring Six to mind.
                18:41, 5 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Cult Of Skaro wrote:

                Better?

                Frankly it doesn't look like Colin anymore...

                18:42, 5 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I'd have to agree. It's close in spirit to what I think is being proposed, but it doesn't look like anyone particularly. I really think that things associated with the Doctor might be easier to portray in monochrome than the profiles themselves. Try making a monochrome version of the coat. Or a cat badge.
                00:51, 6 March 2013
                Edited 00:51, 6 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Ooh...and he has a blue coat! O.O
                00:52, 6 March 2013
              • 70.52.66.59
                What about his umbrella?
                00:54, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorry; the IP user was me. Forgot to log in on my phone.
                00:56, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I was thinking a bunch of stuff for each Doctors.

                For One we could do the Totter's Lane sign (In blue luckily)

                For two we could a a recorder (again, blue)

                For three we could do the Metabelis Chrystal (Wow, I'm not even trying!)

                For Four we of coarse would do Jelly Babies

                For Five we could do Celery maybe

                For Six we could do cat-broach-thing

                For Seven we could do his Umbrella

                For Eight we could do his... Um... Hair I guess? That was beautiful enough to celebrate... Possibly his shoes? I don't know...

                For Nine we could do his Phycic Paper

                For Ten we could do his Brainy specs

                For Eleven we could do a bow-tie and Fez.

                02:12, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Four can also be his scarf. Three should be Betsie, in my opinion. I can't think of anything good for Eight and Nine... Otherwise, I mostly agree. I would usually go against Totter's Lane being for One, but it represents how it all started, which is just what we're celebrating.
                02:22, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Come to think of it, Eight could be his shoes.... "They fit perfectly!!"
                02:23, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Four can also be his scarf. Three should be Betsie, in my opinion. I can't think of anything good for Eight and Nine... Otherwise, I mostly agree. I would usually go against Totter's Lane being for One, but it represents how it all started, which is just what we're celebrating.

                By "Betsie" I presume you mean "Bessie", unless your a Polystyle fan.

                The propoblem with 4's scarf is that it may be unrecognisable in all blue.

                02:50, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                :D Yes, I mean Bessie.

                About 4, I suppose you're right... But it's not "all blue" - there's white and blue. Two distinct colours. As long as you can tell that it's a scarf, and it's as long as Four's, 4 would come to mind instantly.

                What would you do with jelly babies, anyway? Just have them scattered all over the place? The paper bag certainly isn't recognisable!

                02:54, 6 March 2013
                Edited 02:55, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: :D Yes, I mean Bessie.

                About 4, I suppose you're right... But it's not "all blue" - there's white and blue. Two distinct colours. As long as you can tell that it's a scarf, and it's as long as Four's, 4 would come to mind instantly.

                What would you do with jelly babies, anyway? Just have them scattered all over the place? The paper bag certainly isn't recognisable!

                Frankly yes. The bag would be open and little blue Jelly Babies would be spilled over the logo.

                02:59, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote: Frankly yes. The bag would be open and little blue Jelly Babies would be spilled over the logo.

                Okay, scratch what I said earlier. That would be awesome!!

                Would you like a jelly baby? [...] Good, we have a vast array in our logo. Which would you like?

                03:01, 6 March 2013
                Edited 03:02, 6 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Cat Badge Logo.png

                Hows this with the cat badge for 6? If anything needs adjusting, that can be done with relative ease. So, thoughts?

                06:49, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Imamadmad wrote:

                Cat Badge Logo.png

                Hows this with the cat badge for 6? If anything needs adjusting, that can be done with relative ease. So, thoughts?

                It's a good start, but it's not what I would call a good "final product"

                19:42, 6 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I quite like that, Imamadmad. Try your hand at a few other of the Doctors, please.
                21:07, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It's good as a starting point. Not quite a finished product, but I quite like it!
                21:08, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I want to try out the jelly baby idea. Don't do it just yet. I'm not currently at home.
                21:11, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Awww, man... I wanted to do that...

                I claim Totter's Lane!

                21:32, 6 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Feel free to contribute competing ideas for the same Doctor. No one has the right to "claim" a Doctor.

                SOTO, why do you feel that Imamadmad's is only a "starting point"? To my eye, it's the single most "finished" design to date.

                21:36, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                To date, yes, obviously, I agree completely with you. But I still think it could do with a little improvement, a few touch-ups. An example of a minor change that's coming to mind is making it a tiny bit smaller, and fitting it just nicely into the inner top right corner of the left side of the 'T.' I have others, too. All I meant was that it wasn't so perfect that it didn't need to be touched at all. Having seen this as inspiration, I think I'll try out a few Doctors.
                22:03, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                CzechOut wrote: Feel free to contribute competing ideas for the same Doctor. No one has the right to "claim" a Doctor.

                I was being ironic... Sorry...

                22:36, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Totter's Data Core.png

                Here's my first Doctor design, which I think we should use the week of the 23rd.

                It's probably not Blue enough, and it may be based too much off a publicity photo, but it's a good start in my opinion.

                22:37, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Second doctor logo.png

                There's my contender for the second Doctor...

                23:18, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Fez and bow tie logo.png

                Here's an image of the "Fez and Bowtie" idea... I forgot that we were only using blue and white, but I never-the-less think that it's a good start.

                Tie could use some work...

                23:31, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Five red.pngFive blue.png

                Again, I used red on the first one, but it was to make it more recognizable as a cricket ball. The second I turned blue.

                I know most of these aren't amazing but they're just previews.

                23:42, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Czech, would we be able to, for example, instead of white, use a bright red for the Eleventh Doctor? It's still two different colours. If so, we could possibly change the colours for each different Doctor.

                If not, OS25, the fez and bowtie should be white. Also, the cricket ball should be in white, the handle in the same blue as the background, with a white contour.

                23:50, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's what ended up happening with my jelly baby one:


                Does any one have any suggestions to make it more clear that they're jelly babies? If we were able to use several colours, making every jelly baby a different colour would do the trick. Unfortunately, as we can't do that, can anyone think of a better idea? OS, you try doing it too - let's see what yours ends up like. Then maybe we can think together to create something that specifically looks like jelly babies.

                I'll try a few others.

                23:53, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Czech, would we be able to, for example, instead of white, use a bright red for the Eleventh Doctor? It's still two different colours. If so, we could possibly change the colours for each different Doctor.

                If not, OS25, the fez and bowtie should be white. Also, the cricket ball should be in white, the handle in the same blue as the background, with a white contour.

                Yeah, I noticed that. I didn't notice the handle issue though....

                23:54, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Yeah, I guess I could try it now.
                23:54, 6 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Thanks.

                Sorry, I forgot to upload the actual image. Here it is:

                TardisDataCoreFour.png
                23:58, 6 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Totter's Data Core.png

                How does my totter's lane one look?

                00:01, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I love it beyond compare (it's truly beautiful), but, as far as I know, I don't think it's practical. I believe that it can only be two colours, which is also why your flute needs to be reworked. That's the way I understood it, anyways...
                00:03, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Probably, yeah.
                00:12, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Message from OttselSpy25" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Celebrating the 50th: Wordmark project".

                There's my Four logo variation. I'm quite happy with it, actually.

                00:13, 7 March 2013
                Edited 00:14, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                There's my variation.

                00:19, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's my Eleven:

                Similar to OS's, but not quite exactly the same.

                00:29, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                What happened to my post? It disappeared... In any case, here it is again:

                Here's my Eleven:

                Similar to OS's, but, you'll note, not quite exactly the same. I fixed it to the right colours, as well as making the fez look more three-dimensional and changing the bowtie with one that looks closer to his real one.

                00:32, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It did it again! If you're reading this for the third time, please let me know:

                Here's my Eleven:

                Similar to OS's, but, you'll note, not quite exactly the same. I fixed it to the right colours, as well as making the fez look more three-dimensional and changing the bowtie with one that looks closer to his real one.

                00:34, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Here's my "Jelly Babies" rendition.

                00:35, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                My posts aren't appearing with the picture. I posted it three times. Please reply if you see them, or at least this.
                00:35, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Could propably use a few more spilling out the bag...
                00:35, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It doesn't seem to be posting my posts on my computer. I'm testing on my phone. Please disregard, except to tell me that you can read this, or the four other posts I've made.
                00:38, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                OttselSpy25 wrote: Could propably use a few more spilling out the bag...

                there...

                00:39, 7 March 2013
                Edited 00:39, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Here's my variation on 4's logo. Could use a few more around the bag though...

                00:46, 7 March 2013
              • 24.48.59.40
                This is SmallerOnTheOutside. I've been trying to post for an hour. Before I address your version, let me make sure this is working:

                Here's my Eleven:

                I'll post the rest of the message if this works.

                00:51, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                No offence guys but all these are really far away from Imamadmad's work. Let's try to get back to the simple single graphic that in no way changes or obscures the base logo.

                Monochrome. #012C57 and white. Only. We want to retain our basic identity, please. The thing you need to remember is that we're only changing the wordmark. We're not changing the other places where the logo appears, such as the Monobook logo, or the welcome message.

                So the logo must stay essentially the same.

                00:54, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Good. It worked. Is this working?
                00:54, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Excellent. I must be experiencing a Chrome bug.

                On the topic of my Eleven logo:

                Similar to OS's, but, you'll note, not quite exactly the same. I fixed it to the right colours, as well as making the fez look more three-dimensional, and changing the bowtie with one that looks closer to his real one. I'm going to see if I can post on Internet Explorer.

                00:58, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                OttselSpy25 wrote: Here's my variation on 4's logo. Could use a few more around the bag though...

                That's better.

                01:03, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It can only be two exact colours. Period. That blue (the one in the background) and white. To make shapes, we must make them in white, or in blue with a white contour. No other colours. No shading. I believe that's what Czech's saying.

                (PS. This is from Internet Explorer)

                01:08, 7 March 2013
                Edited 01:08, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I'm on Chrome again. It's posting on the day of the year thread - maybe it'll work here, too. I'm going to trying out Bessie...
                01:20, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I guess I could try and change ann the Jelly babies to the background colour...
                01:32, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Fourth Doctor logo alt 2.png

                There, I switched the bag to all white and turned the Jelly Babies all dark Blue (albiet a border). Hope that's better.

                01:44, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I'm on Chrome again. It's posting on the day of the year thread - maybe it'll work here, too. I'm going to trying out Bessie...

                Have fun making a Bessie out of only Blue and White... No seriously, I bet that'll be fun.

                01:45, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                :-) Yes, it was quite fun. Here'd draft one: TardisDataCoreThree.png
                TardisDataCoreThree.png

                Whoops... I missed the inner border if the window. And a border for the wheel. No matter. I'll add it now. Satisfactory?

                EDIT: I updated the picture. Slight fixes of borders.

                01:59, 7 March 2013
                Edited 02:03, 7 March 2013
                Edited 02:10, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Am I allowed to do partial transparency? On the window, I mean - it'd look much better with partially transparent white.
                02:01, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: :-) Yes, it was quite fun. Here'd draft one:

                TardisDataCoreThree.png
                TardisDataCoreThree.png

                Whoops... I missed the inner border if the window. No matter. Satisfactory?

                Very good. Much better than my "Jelly Babies" layout.

                02:02, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I seriously want to do my "Totter's Lane" image in only Blue & white.
                02:03, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Thank you. As far as "Totter's Lane," you can try it, but I highly doubt Czech's ever going to accept anything that changes the word part of the logo. I personally find it a brilliant logo, perhaps the type of logo we'd put on the anniversary itself, but I don't have control over this. Which I'm sure many people are happy about.

                Also, for ten, we could do either his brainy specs or his Converse, in my opinion. Unless you can think of something better...

                02:17, 7 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Bessie is really good!
                02:21, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Totter's Data Core yeessss.png

                There. I remade the "Totter's Lane" image with only the colours white and this site's shade of blue. I'm very happy with myself.

                02:31, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Thank you. As far as "Totter's Lane," you can try it, but I highly doubt Czech's ever going to accept anything that changes the word part of the logo. I personally find it a brilliant logo, perhaps the type of logo we'd put on the anniversary itself, but I don't have control over this. Which I'm sure many people are happy about.

                Also, for ten, we could do either his brainy specs or his Converse, in my opinion. Unless you can think of something better...

                I sure hope Czech takes it, it's sure brilliant...

                I was definatley thinking Brainy Specs for 10.

                I finally realised just now that for 8 we should do that overarching-console-thing. You know, this...

                02:51, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Thank you, both of you. And, for Eight, the one that came to mind is this:
                TardisDataCoreEight.png

                Remember that pocket watch he had? He even has it in his picture on his page on the 50th anniversary website.

                02:56, 7 March 2013
                Edited 02:56, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Thank you, both of you. And, for Eight, the one that came to mind is this:

                TardisDataCoreEight.png

                Remember that pocket watch he had? He even has it in his picture on his page on the 50th anniversary website.

                That's pretty good, and I had thought of that before, but the issue there is when I see a fob watch I think "Human Nature", not 8th Doctor. I think 8's console is more uniquely tied to him.

                03:00, 7 March 2013
                Edited 03:02, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmm. Good point about the fob watch...

                Here's what I did for Five:

                TardisDataCoreFive.png

                I felt that just a stick of celery sitting there would be awkward, so I incorporated a bit of the costume into it. Does it detract from the celery?

                03:30, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmm. Good point about the fob watch...

                Here's what I did for Five:

                TardisDataCoreFive.png

                I felt that just a stick of celery sitting there would be awkward, so I incorporated a bit of the costume into it. Does it detract from the celery?

                "My celery has turned blue. Now I must Eat-The-Celery."

                Little Planet of Fire humour there...

                03:37, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Yeah, but I don't know, I think that Cricket is more 5 than Celery is... I think that we should do something more like I had done previously, you know; with a cricket stick and cricket ball?
                03:39, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmm. Good point about the fob watch...

                Here's what I did for Five:

                TardisDataCoreFive.png

                It absolutely does. Celery only please. I felt that just a stick of celery sitting there would be awkward, so I incorporated a bit of the costume into it. Does it detract from the celery?

                Yeah, it absolutely does. Celery only please.
                03:41, 7 March 2013
                Edited 03:42, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Totter's Data Core yeessss.png

                There. I remade the "Totter's Lane" image with only the colours white and this site's shade of blue. I'm very happy with myself.

                Nope. Fails the basic tenets of the project. Please just keep our logo and add a graphic, for reasons given upthread.

                03:43, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Thank you, both of you. And, for Eight, the one that came to mind is this:

                TardisDataCoreEight.png

                Remember that pocket watch he had? He even has it in his picture on his page on the 50th anniversary website.

                Pocketwatch isn't Eight-only. One, Six and Seven all regularly carried pocketwatches.

                03:44, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: :-) Yes, it was quite fun. Here'd draft one:

                TardisDataCoreThree.png
                TardisDataCoreThree.png

                Whoops... I missed the inner border if the window. And a border for the wheel. No matter. I'll add it now. Satisfactory?

                EDIT: I updated the picture. Slight fixes of borders.

                Doesn't quite work. Bit too busy to be distinct. Try a Three-era UNIT logo. Should work fine in monochrome.

                03:48, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Pocketwatch isn't Eight-only. One, Six and Seven all regularly carried pocketwatches.

                Yes, but I've always found that Eight is more known for it. Look at the attached link: he's holding it in the promotional picture meant to represent his Doctor. You see a pocket watch, you don't think, "It's the First Doctor!" (or the sixth or seventh) as, although they carried it, they're not as well known for it, and it doesn't really define them. For Eight, it feels like more than just an accessory. I can try his console later, though.

                03:48, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Doesn't quite work. Bit too busy to be distinct. Try a Three-era UNIT logo. Should work fine in monochrome.

                I completely disagree on this point, but I'll try your suggestions anyway. Let me finish off Two's recorder first. Give your critisms, which can be helpful, after I've posted it.

                03:51, 7 March 2013
                Edited 03:51, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                CzechOut wrote:

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Totter's Data Core yeessss.png

                There. I remade the "Totter's Lane" image with only the colours white and this site's shade of blue. I'm very happy with myself.

                Nope. Fails the basic tenets of the project. Please just keep our logo and add a graphic, for reasons given upthread.

                That's very, very dissapoining, because I really think that this is an amazing logo.

                Oh well...

                03:52, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Fourth Doctor logo alt 2.png

                There, I switched the bag to all white and turned the Jelly Babies all dark Blue (albiet a border). Hope that's better.

                I note that Czech didn't mention my Jelly Babies logo, which means he either didn't see it or that he approves of it...

                Probably the former...

                03:58, 7 March 2013
                Edited 03:59, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Doesn't quite work. Bit too busy to be distinct. Try a Three-era UNIT logo. Should work fine in monochrome.

                Please explain yourself. In what way is it "too busy to be distinct?"

                04:14, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote:

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmm. Good point about the fob watch...

                Here's what I did for Five:

                TardisDataCoreFive.png

                It absolutely does. Celery only please. I felt that just a stick of celery sitting there would be awkward, so I incorporated a bit of the costume into it. Does it detract from the celery?

                Yeah, it absolutely does. Celery only please.

                Fine, I'll do it with just celery, just to demonstrate how ridiculous that would look. But, seriously, why do we have to be concentrating on the celery, anyways? We're simply trying to use a symbol that truly represents each Doctor, and the above picture, in my mind, represents Five much more than just a stick of celery! It conveys his personality.

                I disagree completely on your mindset on these logos. The 70s UNIT logo, instead of Bessie, which represents Three's Doctor much much more, which wouldn't be able to fit anyways? A stick of celery instead of an edge of his costume, featuring the celery centre-stage, with the rest completely in the background? Pocket watch, I understand. Totter's Lane, I understand, although I personally would choose it as a changed logo to only appear the week/day of November 23rd.

                But what is the purpose of the logos if not to convey each Doctor, their personalities, and their era? While UNIT may reflect Three's era, although only to an extent, Bessie covers all three topics: it shows his personality, it was something that his incarnation cared dearly about, and it was the centre of his life exiled on Earth, aka. the first half, and the most remembered part, of the Third Doctor's era. The UNIT logo in no way describes Three - to absolutely zero extent - particularly as that wasn't the life he wished to lead.

                Now how does the stick of celery represent Five's era? His personality? No, the celery on its own means nothing - the fact that it was on his clothing showed his personality, which affected the atmosphere of the show greatly during his era. Other options, if you don't like what I did, might be cricket or his half-moon glasses.

                04:38, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Totter's Lane, I understand, although I personally would choose it as a changed logo to only appear the week/day of November 23rd.

                But what is the purpose of the logos if not to convey each Doctor, their personalities, and their era? While UNIT may reflect Three's era, although only to an extent, Bessie covers all three topics: it shows his personality, it was something that his incarnation cared dearly about, and it was the centre of his life exiled on Earth, aka. the first half, and the most remembered part, of the Third Doctor's era. The UNIT logo in no way describes Three - to absolutely zero extent - particularly as that wasn't the life he wished to lead.

                Now how does the stick of celery represent Five's era? His personality? No, the celery on its own means nothing - the fact that it was on his clothing showed his personality, which affected the atmosphere of the show greatly during his era. Other options, if you don't like what I did, might be cricket or his half-moon glasses.

                First off, thank you.

                Second, I would agree that Cricket represents 5's era much more than Celery does. It's much more appropriet and much better represents him.

                05:00, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                There's celery in every story featuring Five; half-moon glasses appear in an extreme minority — despite what Time Crash would have you believe. (Plus, One wore half-moon glasses, too — and in more stories — so it's hardly clear whom they'd represent.) If you show a celery stalk, to people who have even casual knowledge about the old series, of course they'll think about "Peter Davison's Doctor". Plus, a stick of celery is relatively easy to portray in outline, in monochrome. Cricket is not actually that associated with Five, certainly not televisually. I know that BF have made a bigger deal about his cricketing, but if we stick to television — and I think we must, in order to keep the casual user on side — he doesn't even mention cricket after his first season, and we only see cricket once. Celery is by far the most constant single feature of the era.

                The point about Bessie was simply that it is not immediately obvious in the graphic currently provided what it is. It's too detailed, and it's shown head-on, which isn't awfully clear. I rather suspect you won't buy that critique, because as you've worked with it, you've lost the objectivity of a first-time viewer. You know it's Bessie, so that's what you see. But it took me a few seconds of staring at it to even see a car — much less Bessie. Your basic problem is that it's got so much detail it's not recognisable. The key here is to not just be monochromatic, but also to be simple — virtually an outline.

                It seems to me that the UNIT logo is such an image. As for whether it's "fair", well, it's fairer than Bessie. I mean, just about every story that has Bessie by necessity also has UNIT/the Brig. And there are more stories with UNIT that don't have Bessie. UNIT is definitely "home base" for Three, from Spearhead right through to Spiders.

                15:17, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Fourth Doctor logo alt 2.png

                There, I switched the bag to all white and turned the Jelly Babies all dark Blue (albiet a border). Hope that's better.

                I note that Czech didn't mention my Jelly Babies logo, which means he either didn't see it or that he approves of it...

                Probably the former...

                Can I again ask of Czech's opinion of this? I feel like every jelly baby needs a better outline but otherwise it's good -- how do you feel?

                16:02, 7 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                CzechOut wrote: The point about Bessie was simply that it is not immediately obvious in the graphic currently provided what it is. It's too detailed, and it's shown head-on, which isn't awfully clear. I rather suspect you won't buy that critique, because as you've worked with it, you've lost the objectivity of a first-time viewer. You know it's Bessie, so that's what you see. But it took me a few seconds of staring at it to even see a car — much less Bessie. Your basic problem is that it's got so much detail it's not recognisable. The key here is to not just be monochromatic, but also to be simple — virtually an outline.

                It seems like this must be just you. I instantly saw Bessie.

                18:09, 7 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 19:35, 7 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 19:35, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CultofSkaro wrote: It seems like this must be just you. I instantly saw Bessie.

                While you are right, Czech, I can't trust my own judgment, the other three people in this discussion recognised it immediately. I'm sure the majority of viewers will too.

                In any case, when I get home, I'll make one that'll please you: sideways and just an outline.

                18:29, 7 March 2013
                Edited 18:32, 7 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 19:34, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote: Can I again ask of Czech's opinion of this? I feel like every jelly baby needs a better outline but otherwise it's good -- how do you feel?

                Fourth Doctor logo alt 2.png

                I didn't think I had to specifically comment upon it. But I guess I do. It again violates the design guidelines we're going for with this project: it obscures the main logo. Also, no offence, but I really have no idea what it's supposed to be. Unless you told me it was "a bag of jelly babies that had been tipped over", I'd have been clueless.

                I'm uncertain why you'd be going for jelly babies to represent Four, anyway. Jelly babies were introduced by Two, not Four. Surely a scarf would make more sense?

                19:33, 7 March 2013
                Edited 19:36, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Once again, Four is KNOWN for his jelly babies. Just like aright for his pocket watch. While other Doctors also had the element, Four's catchphrase pretty much was, "Would you like a jelly baby?" I do agree, though, that we should do the scarf instead.
                19:38, 7 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                CultofSkaro wrote: It seems like this must be just you. I instantly saw Bessie.

                While you are right, Czech, I can't trust my own judgment, the other three people in this discussion recognised it immediately. I'm sure the majority of viewers will too.

                Yes. The other three to whom you'd previously announced you were making a Bessy-based design. Hardly fair.

                And, incidentally, we don't know precisely how immediately they recognised it. Imamadmad's design is instantly recognisable as a cat. There's zero doubt what it is. Various people may not have any idea why that's significant in connection with Doctor Who — but they will at least be able to recognise what it is, instantly.

                If it takes even 3 seconds to identify one of these illustrations they fundamentally do not work as icons. And I just don't think Bessie works as fast as that, particularly if you're not looking for it.

                Conversely, a UNIT badge will be seen as, at least, "some kind of logo about some kind of group called UNIT".

                19:47, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I just showed the logo to around twenty non-Whovians and asked them what it was. They all recognised it as a car instantly. In fact, some of them even told me the model. Only one person took about a second and a half/two seconds - he wasn't really concentrating, though. I suppose people with astigmatism might take a few seconds to recognise it, but I'm fairly sure the vast majority of regular visually healthy people would recognise it instantly.
                21:01, 7 March 2013
                Edited 21:16, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I just asked two more. Same result. I mean no offence in asking this, but do you possibly have slight slight problems recognising dimensions? I'd assume you don't, since you'd have probably said so when you told me that it took you time. Once again, I mean no offence; I just want to understand why it took you time to recognise it.
                21:13, 7 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay, I'm finally home, and I quickly created another two versions of Bessie, on its side, since Czech seems to dislike it from a frontal view. (although the frontal one it looks much much better)

                In the first one, I made the car smaller to fit it in, which meant that, not only is it small, but there's also a lot of empty room above it:

                TardisDataCoreThree2.png

                In the second, I kept it bigger, but cut off half of it, which, in my opinion, makes it almost unrecognisable as a car, much less Bessie:

                TardisDataCoreThree3.png

                I personally like the first one better of the two, but, of the three, by far the first first one:

                TardisDataCoreThree.png
                23:38, 7 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                RE: the Fourth Doctor - Sorry, I had to jump in because my jaw dropped that you were even arguing about this. You gotta go with the scarf on this one. It's one of the Attributes (as in saintly, iconic attributes) of the Doctor that have leaked into the larger geek community that hasn't watched (along with the Tardis, the Sonic Screwdriver, and regeneration). The scarf is associated with the Doctor, and the Fourth Doctor is the one associated with the scarf. I'm only just coming in from the outside, here, and I can tell you definitively that most geeks who are not Whovians will easily recognise the scarf as an artifact of the Doctor when they'd not have a clue about the Jelly Babies.

                Third Doctor - From the little I've picked up about him, some form of Bessie seems most appropriate, so is there something that can be added to the image to make it obvious? I only scanned the posts, and I thought Bessie when I saw it and before I read it.

                Eighth Doctor - Looks great, but New Who viewers are going to think Tenth Doctor, or even YANA/The Master for this one. Isn't there something else appropriate?

                AND lastly - Can we cool this down a bit, SOTO and Czech? PLEASE? We all want them to look nice.

                23:42, 7 March 2013
                Edited 23:45, 7 March 2013
                Edited 23:46, 7 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Yeah...the front view is much more recognizeable.
                23:50, 7 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Four icon eh.png

                After much (or little, your choice on my character) consideration, I've made this one with 4's scarf. It blocks the logo a little, but not too much ?I think. (It's also very funny looking really.)

                00:24, 8 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Erm...Again, it uses too many colors.
                00:33, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Very good, OS!! I like it. It's popping out of the 'A' rather awkwardly, and it should wrap around the 'S' instead of it seemingly ending there. Other than that, well done.
                00:34, 8 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Can the scarf look convincing with only three tones?
                00:41, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Depends: Czech still hasn't confirmed whether or not we're allowed to use transparency. If not, it'd have to be two - which would still look convincing. If yes, we could do three: white, blue, and half-transparent white (which will look like a light blue on the blue background)

                On the subject of Three's logo, I agree: front view is more recognisable. And it does seems that everyone recognised it instantly, except Czech. If it took anyone a moment to figure out what it was, please let us know.

                00:51, 8 March 2013
                Edited 01:06, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Oh and scratch what I said earlier about it coming out from the middle of the 'A' - I just realised that's the end. It's not really clear?

                Do you mind if I create a version directly based off of yours just to fix up a few minor things? (including the colours; I don't think what you did is allowed)

                00:53, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's an alternative for Eight:
                TardisDataCoreEight2.png

                Just to refresh the memories of those too lazy to scroll up, this was the first one:

                TardisDataCoreEight.png
                02:26, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Four icon eh.png

                There's my latest version of four. "scarf" variation.

                02:38, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmm. Besides the colour issue, it should hang loose a little more on the 'S.' It should also probably fold around the left side of the 'D,' as well as resting (on a different angle) on top of 'A' - there's nothing else to hold it up. It looks awkward just floating there.
                02:42, 8 March 2013
                Edited 02:42, 8 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Oooh - I like the new Eight. Of course, very Aickman road, I hadn't noticed that before. :)

                How about draping the "A" end of the scarf over the top of the A, as if it were thrown from the left to the right of the letter, and have the fringe hang in the negative space between the slope of the A and the corner? It will give the scarf a little bit more 3D. Also, for the 3D effect, it should work better if the angle is changed to more horizontal when it "wraps" around the S - visualise it as if the part that continues to the right were wrapped under the part coming in from the left.

                02:46, 8 March 2013
                Edited 02:48, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Yes. It should be wrapped around the S at a different angle than before and after. It should also extend slightly longer, and fold back in.

                And scratch what I said earlier about the D - it should lay on top on the A, then hang down, in front of the left side of the R, and squeeze through the hole. Then it folds over the S, at a different angle, then folding back and going up until the A, where you apply what CBG said above.

                02:52, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Four icon eh 2.png

                There, I updated it to multiple user's suggestions.

                03:15, 8 March 2013
                Edited 03:17, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                It's redlinked. Are you going to upload it or did you simply update the old file?

                EDIT: Never mind, I can see it now.

                03:17, 8 March 2013
                Edited 03:19, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Four icon eh 2.png

                There, I updated it to multiple user's suggestions.

                I like it, but still very one-dimensional. To elaborate: try making the scarf twist into a new angle immediately after the T so that it can sit facing the top (and not us) on top of the R. Also, let the part around S hang loose a little, and then fold back. While you're at it, try using some actual solid blue (ie. the background) in there too. Don't worry about it blending in - it'll look cool.

                03:23, 8 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Or, if it blends, you can outline with the white.
                03:25, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Four icon eh 3.png

                Okay, how's this?

                03:47, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Much better. I'm going to stop hoarding you with suggestions for now, so we can let the logo (and you) breathe.
                03:49, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmm. The problem with with simple logos involving stick-shaped objects (flute, celery, umbrella...) is that it looks so simple (in a bad way) and boring to the eye. I decided to do one as an example.

                Here's Seven's umbrella:

                TardisDataCoreSeven.png

                I tried to add a bit of shape and character to it, but there's only so much you can do. Which is why I'm against having these stick-logos. That's why I added a bit of Five's costume, instead of just the celery (I want your opinions on that one, not just Czech's), and Two's hands playing the recorder (and a bit of his cut-off mouth), instead of just a recorder lying there. (The last one I didn't end up uploading, as the recorder ended up too small to be recognisable.)

                Is there anything else we can do for Seven? Ooh, can it just be a lot of question marks of different shapes and sizes scattered all over next to the words?!!

                04:01, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                To sum up my last comment, I'm completely against logos that have more empty space on the left than the space the actual object takes up.
                04:03, 8 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Hand on the handle, legs in the picture.
                04:07, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                ComicBookGoddess wrote: Hand on the handle, legs in the picture.

                That's what I thought. But Czech wasn't happy when I did that with Five.

                04:09, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Four is KNOWN for his jelly babies. Just like [Eight] for his pocket watch.

                No, this a myth perpetuated by publicity photos. I think you'll find upon a rewatch of the actual film, McGann never wears the pocket watch. Remember, it's one of the possessions of the Seventh Doctor that's in the bag Chang Lee steals. Eight only gets it in the last exterior scene of the movie, and he's not wearing it in that last scene inside the TARDIS. It's not a constant presence in comics, either, so it's hard to make an in-universe case for the pocket watch.

                04:19, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmm. The problem with with simple logos involving stick-shaped objects (flute, celery, umbrella...) is that it looks so simple (in a bad way) and boring to the eye. I decided to do one as an example.

                That's because you're not going in close enough. Put the celery or umbrella perpendicular to the base and zoom in much closer than what you're doing. There's no need to capture the entire vertical length of the object.

                04:22, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote:

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Four is KNOWN for his jelly babies. Just like [Eight] for his pocket watch.

                No, this a myth perpetuated by publicity photos. I think you'll find upon a rewatch of the actual film, McGann never wears the pocket watch. Remember, it's one of the possessions of the Seventh Doctor that's in the bag Chang Lee steals. Eight only gets it in the last exterior scene of the movie, and he's not wearing it in that last scene inside the TARDIS. It's not a constant presence in comics, either, so it's hard to make an in-universe case for the pocket watch.

                That is a good point. He's known for it in publicity photos, but it barely appears in the movie itself. I haven't read enough of his comics and books to say much about the watch there, though. Apparently, it has no presence there, either. Note my new Eight design.

                04:22, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: That's because you're not going in close enough. Put the celery or umbrella perpendicular to the base and zoom in much closer than what you're doing. There's no need to capture the entire vertical length of the object.

                Good idea. Don't know why that didn't come to me instantly. I'll try that with the umbrella.

                04:24, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Four icon eh 3.png

                Okay, how's this?

                I don't know what it is, man, but you're not following the simple instructions. Look at Imamadmad's cat. It's completely to the left of the logo. It doesn't obscure the title in any way. All you need here is the last little bit of the scarf completely perpendicular to the baseline. And you're also using a greyscale here, not monochrome.

                Please keep it simple and obey the general design ethic of our current logo.

                04:25, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's an alternative for Eight:

                TardisDataCoreEight2.png

                No.

                Eight's a toughie cause there's so little to work with — but this ain't it. You might try a silhouette here, because the wig is unique.

                Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, you might be able to find a silhoutte of Christ on the cross from some religious site and use some portion of it. I mean that Christ move at the end of Act 2 of the movie is one of the more enduring images.

                04:32, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, I'm finally home, and I quickly created another two versions of Bessie, on its side, since Czech seems to dislike it from a frontal view. (although the frontal one it looks much much better)

                In the first one, I made the car smaller to fit it in, which meant that, not only is it small, but there's also a lot of empty room above it:

                TardisDataCoreThree2.png

                In the second, I kept it bigger, but cut off half of it, which, in my opinion, makes it almost unrecognisable as a car, much less Bessie:

                TardisDataCoreThree3.png

                I personally like the first one better of the two, but, of the three, by far the first first one:

                TardisDataCoreThree.png

                No to all three. Let's move on to other ideas since the month of March is slipping away. Please try UNIT logo or a tight shot on a ruffled shirt.

                (To answer your oh-so-close-to-a-personal-attack-but-not-quite: Yes, I had an eye infection a couple of weeks ago. But, no, it didn't permanently damage anything. My eyesight is once again 20/20 with completely adequate depth perception. You were here for the whole discussion about the new site design. Remember how I had to get other people to tell me that the site wasn't working for their astigmatisms? I would have been happy going with just the light-on-dark design, which is apparently bad for people who have sight problems. So, no, I don't have a medical inability to see the design. I just think it makes a mistake that a lot of icons make: it's simply too "fiddly".)

                04:40, 8 March 2013
                Edited 04:44, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: No to all three. Let's move on to other ideas since the month of March is slipping away. Please try UNIT logo or a tight shot on a ruffled shirt.

                (To answer your oh-so-close-to-a-personal-attack-but-not-quite: Yes, I had an eye infection a couple of weeks ago. But, no, it didn't permanently damage anything. My eyesight is once again 20/20 with completely adequate depth perception. And I actually have documentary evidence of this fact, obtained in the last week.)

                I will once again repeat that I meant no offence by asking the question; I simply wanted to understand the circumstances. As for the UNIT logo, can you please direct me to a picture of the logo from Three's era? I'm having trouble finding it.

                04:46, 8 March 2013
                Edited 04:47, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I just showed the logo to around twenty non-Whovians and asked them what it was. They all recognised it as a car instantly. In fact, some of them even told me the model. Only one person took about a second and a half/two seconds - he wasn't really concentrating, though. I suppose people with astigmatism might take a few seconds to recognise it, but I'm fairly sure the vast majority of regular visually healthy people would recognise it instantly.

                Dude. Do you realise how much work I and others went through to make this site good for people with astigmatisms and other visual acuity issues?

                Why would you in any way believe that I would abandon that practice now, and on our logo?

                This is precisely why I'm being such a hard-ass about all this. We must keep it simple and bold. The person I'm most concerned about is the guy you've just thrown under the bus. What I must demand of all these designs is that they work for the guy with an astigmatism who's not really concentrating.

                04:50, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote:

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's an alternative for Eight:

                TardisDataCoreEight2.png

                No.

                Eight's a toughie cause there's so little to work with — but this ain't it. You might try a silhouette here, because the wig is unique.

                Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, you might be able to find a silhoutte of Christ on the cross from some religious site and use some portion of it. I mean that Christ move at the end of Act 2 of the movie is one of the more enduring images.

                Not really getting the Christ thing. I don't remember Eight doing a move like that... Can you explain more fully?

                Silhouette could work.

                04:50, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Dude. Do you realise how much work I and others went through to make this site good for people with astigmatisms and other visual acuity issues?

                Why would you in any way believe that I would abandon that practice now, and on our logo?

                This is precisely why I'm being such a hard-ass about all this. We must keep it simple and bold. The person I'm most concerned about is the guy you've just thrown under the bus. What I must demand of all these designs is that they work for the guy with an astigmatism who's not really concentrating.

                Okay. I can't fight that - too logical and humane. I just feel like we're losing a really good design... I also don't really think that the UNIT logo represents Three, but I guess I don't have much choice. Once again, where can I find this logo?

                04:54, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                The zoom-up looks more like it represents Captain Hook than the Seventh Doctor, but no matter:
                TardisDataCoreSeven2.png

                I think Two's recorder will go better...

                04:57, 8 March 2013
                Edited 04:58, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Not really getting the Christ thing. I don't remember Eight doing a move like that... Can you explain more fully?

                You may not be the right person to tackle the Eight logo, then. Seriously, you've now said that Eight is typified by a pocket watch he never wore and you can't remember the Christ-like imagery from the film.

                I'm not entirely sure at this point that you've actually seen the movie — or at least not recently.

                The very clear Christ imagery comes most obviously from two scenes. Immediately post regeneration, he stumbles around with a white sheet wrapped around him and goes into a room under construction that conveniently has a lot of broken mirrors around. He then lets his arms fly out, parallel to the floor, thrusts his head all the way back and says, "Who. Am. I."

                The other main "Christ scene" is when the Master it sputting the device on his head to suck the lives out of him. This device is clearly a "crown of thorns".

                Honestly, it's some of the most hamfisted Christ imagery ever committed to film, and is always remarked upon whenever the movie is seriously discussed. See the info text, the latest commentary, various "making of" documentaries, various Gallifrey Base threads, and I certainly hope our own page on the film, since it is so easy to document with valid sources.

                05:02, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: The zoom-up looks more like it represents Captain Hook than the Seventh Doctor, but no matter:

                TardisDataCoreSeven2.png

                I think Two's recorder will go better...

                Try umbrella open, not closed, so that it spreads across the distance between left margin and left edge of text. Also, I think your proportions are wrong. It's a much thicker handle than you're portraying.

                Another thing you could try is a pullover with question marks. That should be neatly vertically oriented.

                05:07, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: You may not be the right person to tackle the Eight logo, then. Seriously, you've now said that Eight is typified by a pocket watch he never wore and you can't remember the Christ-like imagery from the film.

                I'm not entirely sure at this point that you've actually seen the movie — or at least not recently.

                The very clear Christ imagery comes most obviously from two scenes. Immediately post regeneration, he stumbles around with a white sheet wrapped around him and goes into a room under construction that conveniently has a lot of broken mirrors around. He then lets his arms fly out, parallel to the floor, thrusts his head all the way back and says, "Who. Am. I."

                The other main "Christ scene" is when the Master it sputting the device on his head to suck the lives out of him. This device is clearly a "crown of thorns".

                Honestly, it's some of the most hamfisted Christ imagery ever committed to film, and is always remarked upon whenever the movie is seriously discussed. See the info text, the latest commentary, various "making of" documentaries, various Gallifrey Base threads, and I certainly hope our own page on the film, since it is so easy to document with valid sources.

                Actually, I happened to rewatch it about four days ago. Sorry, I'm not Christian - the word "Christ" didn't immediately bring the scene to mind. Now that I remember it, the Christ imagery was immense. As a non-Christian, I'm not getting the Master similarity, but that doesn't matter. I'll see if there's anything I can do to do with the "WHO! AM! I!" scene.

                05:08, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote:

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: The zoom-up looks more like it represents Captain Hook than the Seventh Doctor, but no matter:

                TardisDataCoreSeven2.png

                I think Two's recorder will go better...

                Try umbrella open, not closed, so that it spreads across the distance between left margin and left edge of text. Also, I think your proportions are wrong. It's a much thicker handle than you're portraying.

                Another thing you could try is a pullover with question marks. That should be neatly vertically oriented.

                Okay. That all sounds good. I'm going to check out for the day. I'll implement all your suggestions pertaining to this logo and others in the morning (otherwise early afternoon).

                05:18, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                I also don't really think that the UNIT logo represents Three...

                Could you reiterate and amplify your point here, please? I'm not aware of that many Third Doctor stories where there's literally no UNIT. Remember, Jo and Liz are both UNIT employees, so the only televised stories without UNIT are Death to the Daleks and The Curse of Peladon.

                Bessie, conversely, misses a number of televised stories. Basically, there are UNIT stories without Bessie, but there are no Bessie stories without UNIT.

                You can find the simple, easily-convertible logo at http://www.unit.org.uk

                05:20, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay. Thanks for the link. I'll elaborate later.
                05:22, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I've always heard that the Christ symbolism was accidental...
                12:27, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Could you reiterate and amplify your point here, please? I'm not aware of that many Third Doctor stories where there's literally no UNIT. Remember, Jo and Liz are both UNIT employees, so the only televised stories without UNIT are Death to the Daleks and The Curse of Peladon.

                Bessie, conversely, misses a number of televised stories. Basically, there are UNIT stories without Bessie, but there are no Bessie stories without UNIT.

                You can find the simple, easily-convertible logo at http://www.unit.org.uk

                Here's what I think: while UNIT was central to Three's era, it's appeared not only in the Third Doctor's era, but also in the Second's (technically), Seventh (Battlefield), Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh. By the logic that you applied to jelly babies and pocket watches, UNIT doesn't represent Three specifically.

                Is the picture directly on the page you linked to the logo you mean?

                17:05, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                If it is the right one, I simply adapted it into the logo. I don't think it's anywhere close to as visually pleasing as my first Bessie, or even the subsequent ones. Here's what you wanted:
                TardisDataCoreThree4.png
                17:25, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                In case it's redlinked, here it is again:
                TardisDataCoreThree4.png
                17:31, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's what I think: while UNIT was central to Three's era, it's appeared not only in the Third Doctor's era, but also in the Second's (technically), Seventh (Battlefield), Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh. By the logic that you applied to jelly babies and pocket watches, UNIT doesn't represent Three specifically.

                Yes but neither is as neatly specific to Three as one would like. Bessie was driven by Four and Seven onscreen, and by several other Doctors in other media. Like I said before, onscreen, all Bessie stories are also UNIT stories. Of the two, though, UNIT is clearly the more dominant presence, having appeared in all but two Pertwee stories.

                If you're looking for indisputable Third Doctor, you've gotta do a ruffled shirt.

                The pocket watch analogy doesn't apply here because you were trying to use it to represent a Doctor it actually doesn't represent much at all. And, well, there's no real comparison between jelly babies and scarf as to which more clearly represents the Fourth Doctor era, is there? Even you said a scarf was the way to go.

                18:42, 8 March 2013
                Edited 18:46, 8 March 2013
                Edited 18:49, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Yes but neither is as neatly specific to Three as one would like. Bessie was driven by Four and Seven onscreen, and by several other Doctors in other media. Like I said before, onscreen, all Bessie stories are also UNIT stories. Of the two, though, UNIT is clearly the more dominant presence, having appeared in all but two Pertwee stories.

                If you're looking for indisputable Third Doctor, you've gotta do a ruffled shirt.

                The pocket watch analogy doesn't apply here because you were trying to use it to represent a Doctor it actually doesn't represent much at all. And, well, there's no real comparison between jelly babies and scarf as to which more clearly represents the Fourth Doctor era, is there? Even you said a scarf was the way to go.

                Yes, I do agree. I'm just applying your logic. You're right; the only indisputable one would be a ruffled shirt, but that would probably be much harder to clearly represent. In my mind, the UNIT logo and Bessie can be seen equally as far as representing Three. While the UNIT one frankly looks more like a snow tube with the letters "U," "N," "I," and "T" on it, any one of the Bessies can be seen as a car. The first one is instantly recognisable as Bessie specifically. (though, I've been told, instantly is disputable. Not for the select few.)

                I want other people to have a go at Three, see if they can produce something better. March is slowly running out and we should try and concentrate on this one Doctor so that we can get the new logo up and... sitting there... as soon as possible.

                20:53, 8 March 2013
                Edited 20:55, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Nah, the priority is not really on the Third Doctor. We need to have all of them done fairly quickly, or there's no point to even starting. So far, only Six is a true lock.
                20:58, 8 March 2013
                Edited 20:58, 8 March 2013
              • Revanvolatrelundar
                Why don't we just use the silhouettes that the Puffin Books use, one Doctor for each month (obviously skipping 1 & 2 now). They can't exactly get us for copyright on images of the actors from the show, who they don't own.
                20:59, 8 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Yes, but I would much rather have the Third Doctor out of the way, so that it's ready to be uploaded the moment we're ready, or close to it. Yes, once we change it to Three, we're pretty much bound to do the others. I suppose we should get to a certain level with the others before we do that. But, keep in mind, the clocks are ticking, and, if we spend too much time, we won't even be needing a logo for the Third Doctor! (Of course, I'm exaggerating; judging by our progress already, we should be able to complete fairly quickly)
                21:01, 8 March 2013
                Edited 21:02, 8 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Why don't we just use the silhouettes that the Puffin Books use, one Doctor for each month (obviously skipping 1 & 2 now). They can't exactly get us for copyright on images of the actors from the show, who they don't own.

                Well, I think the problem there is availability. We only know what the next Doctor's design is going to be a few weeks prior to the start of the next month. We therefore won't have that much time to react if the profile doesn't fit the space available to us. And there is some doubt as to whether the Puffin images will fit the space we have available and still be recognisable.

                21:40, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                CzechOut wrote:

                Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Why don't we just use the silhouettes that the Puffin Books use, one Doctor for each month (obviously skipping 1 & 2 now). They can't exactly get us for copyright on images of the actors from the show, who they don't own.

                Well, I think the problem there is availability. We only know what the next Doctor's design is going to be a few weeks prior to the start of the next month. We therefore won't have that much time to react if the profile doesn't fit the space available to us. And there is some doubt as to whether the Puffin images will fit the space we have available and still be recognisable.

                I think I saw a shirt or something with all the heads somewhere on the internet...

                Against the idea anyways.

                22:15, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                1st doc.png

                There's my design for the First Doctor. My main issue would be that it's hard to recognize what it is.

                23:55, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                1st doc 2.png

                Second version.

                23:56, 8 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Second doctor icon.png

                Here's my Second Doctor icon.

                00:02, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I like them. But, depending on what schedule we're posting the different logos, I don't think we'll even have a First and Second Doctor run. If we do, though, I really like Two's and the first One one (see what I did there?)
                00:10, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Four please take it.png

                Here's my submission for 4. (See what I did there?) I went with both Jelly Babies and his scarf in the end.

                I hope that Czech accepts my submission.

                00:30, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Four please take it.png

                Here's my submission for 4. (See what I did there?) I went with both Jelly Babies and his scarf in the end.

                I hope that Czech accepts my submission.

                While I definitely like the scarf, I would never know that they were supposed to be jelly babies, had I not been participating in this discussion. In fact, had you not specifically said they were jelly babies, even after participating in the discussion, it would still take me a few seconds to figure it out.

                00:39, 9 March 2013
                Edited 00:40, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                While we're still discussing and creating the logos, we should also discuss what we're actually doing, as opposed to just decoration. I initially suggested a sort of quiz/scavenger hunt. OS brought up special badges, which Shambala quickly turned down, saying that they inspired the worst kind of editing in new users. Since then, we've only been discussing the logo. While logos are still priority, as we have to get them done immediately, whereas we might have a bit more time with everything else, I still should get back to discussing how we can gain more publicity, and attracts new viewers and new editors.

                Also, what logo designs are currently in demand?

                00:48, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I decided to do my third try at Eight. As per CzechOut's suggestion, I did a silhouette:
                TardisDataCoreEight3.png

                I don't see how it can be mistaken with anyone else, but any criticisms?

                01:42, 9 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I think we're getting close on Eight now, SOTO. But, I do wanna think about a slight change. What if we took that silhouette, increased its height (proportionate with its width, obviously) by 150% and then fit it into that space? This would mean that it'd cut off portions of the image, but it would focus squarely on the bottom of the wig and the ascot, which are the two more recognisable parts of the image.
                01:54, 9 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Four please take it.png
                Here's my submission for 4.

                Sorry, but that's not still not it. Don't do the loop. Just concentrate on one end. Make it straight down, perpendicular to the bottom margin. Have just the tassles and a few strips of the pattern. Don't use graduated transparency, because that creates a murky sort of greyscale. And please have a 2px white border.

                01:59, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorta like this?
                TardisDataCoreEight4.png

                ...Oh my god, Czech, you are a genius!

                02:05, 9 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Close. But maybe even closer than that. Less blank face, more ascot.
                02:21, 9 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                And more pronounced hair tips. His hair is generally much "pouffier" around the collar than that.
                02:22, 9 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Try grabbing the outline of his hair on the left hand of this image maybe:

                File:EightDestriiUroboros.png

                02:24, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorry about the delay. Here's the current:
                TardisDataCoreEight5.png

                Just so you know what you're dealing with, you can find the full versions of the original, as well as the one with the modified hair, here and here. (I'd upload them here, but the page loads slowly enough as it is!)

                03:37, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I'll try the new scarf later tonight.
                18:45, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                4 logo like, waht 7 now.png

                There, changed as per Czech's suggestion. Had fun on this one.

                20:18, 9 March 2013
              • SOTO
                1. Once again, jelly babies not clear. I'll refer you to my comment upthread on your last draft. I'd recommend getting rid of it.
                2. You're starting to get the idea as far as the scarf. I would do a little less wibbly (ie. more straight), but aside from that, it's very good.
                20:49, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                1. Once again, jelly babies not clear. I'll refer you to my comment upthread on your last draft. I'd recommend getting rid of it.
                2. You're starting to get the idea as far as the scarf. I would do a little less wibbly (ie. more straight), but aside from that, it's very good.

                The Jelly Babies aren't really the focus, and furthermore I think most people familiar with the Baker era would recognize that's what they were, particularly after seeing the scarf.

                The reason it's so wobbily is that I based it off a real picture. I update change it later.

                20:51, 9 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Ummm... I know you're working really hard on this, and I don't wanna be insulting but I really really really don't have Jelly Babies in even the top 10 of the things that I think that looks like...
                20:56, 9 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                OS, sorry, but even once I knew what they were supposed to be, I still couldn't figure out how on Earth they looked like Jelly Babies. Sorry. :(
                20:57, 9 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                I think Jelly Babies is more of a verbal meme than a visual one.
                21:03, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Yeah, prop should make them bigger. they were only two pixels long...
                21:07, 9 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                The problem really isn't size.
                21:08, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                4 logo like, waht 8 now.png

                There we go...

                21:11, 9 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                How's that now?

                And yes, the problem was size.

                01:45, 10 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Seriously, man, they don't look like jelly babies. It kind of looks like mined coal... as well as a few other things.

                It's not your skill, man, it's the space available. It simply can't get large enough to define the graphic in a way that says candy more strongly than.. well, other less appetizing things..

                01:52, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay, number one: if I got your implications, ew. Please tell me how to un-see that.

                Number two: I do agree with you - not only is it impossible to represent jelly babies in the space provided, but it also doesn't have to be there anyways. In fact, it detracts from the scarf. What we want to concentrate on is the scarf. Please make of less wibbly and possibly slightly bigger. We won't get anywhere with the addition of jelly babies.

                01:59, 10 March 2013
                Edited 02:01, 10 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                If I knew that I would have done it myself. :(

                I was trying to be delicate...

                02:16, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                4 logo like, waht 8 now.png

                There we go...

                This is very much closer. Please make the width fill the space a bit more — increase width probably 100% and you'll be there.

                But get rid of the jelly babies. I actually think you don't know what a jelly baby looks like at this point. It's not just a formless lump. It's kinda in the name that it has a humanoid shape.

                02:19, 10 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                4 logo like, waht 9 now.png

                There's the latest design... 100% didn't exactly work to well so I went with something a little smaller... This is probably closer to 80% or so. But yeah.

                Okay, so I didn't know Jelly Babies had arms, can we move on?

                04:51, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Almost there. Any chance of reducing the fringe by half and adding one more horizontal stripe on the body of the scarf proper?
                05:05, 10 March 2013
                Edited 05:06, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                4 logo like, waht 9 now.png

                Also, please recreate it at some point, instead of just stretching it. It looks very blurry. (By that, I mean just go over it again with a brush and recreate it on top of the old one. Preferably delete the old layer.)

                05:13, 10 March 2013
                Edited 05:13, 10 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                4 logo like, waht 10 now.png

                That better?

                06:14, 10 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Love it!
                06:20, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah we're done on Four. Well done! But we really do need to get all these done before the programme can be put into action. Keep 'em comin' please, so that this hard work won't have been in vain!
                07:02, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                4 logo like, waht 10 now.png

                That better?

                Perfect. When we do final revisions, though, I want the white outline to be sharper. Nevertheless, all things considered, fantastic!

                Once again, what designs are needed?

                09:15, 10 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                4 logo like, waht 10 now.png

                That better?

                Perfect. When we do final revisions, though, I want the white outline to be sharper. Nevertheless, all things considered, fantastic!

                Once again, what designs are needed?

                I'm presuming 3 and 5-11

                20:07, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Once again, what designs are needed?

                Only 4 and 6 are locked at this point. There's progress on 8, but it's not been locked. Which is pretty clear by reading the thread. But why read the thread when you can just ask other people to do the work for ya?

                20:41, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Only 4 and 6 are locked at this point. There's progress on 8, but it's not been locked. Which is pretty clear by reading the thread. But why read the thread when you can just ask other people to do the work for ya?

                Yes, I have been participating in this thread. I am well aware of all this. I was asking specifically which designs were in need, not which Doctors. Like, for example, a bowtie design for Eleven.

                20:45, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Anyways, I linked to the full pics of the two silhouettes of Eight above. What should be fixed with Eight next, since we're getting close to a lock?
                20:46, 10 March 2013
                Edited 20:47, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Again, it's important that you ask questions as precisely as possible.
                20:48, 10 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Okay, I'll do my best. Next fix on Eight?

                Also, what's going on with Three? You've rejected everything so far. What should be try next?

                20:54, 10 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                The hashmarks in the inner circle of the UNIT badge need to be a bit more prominent. Also, try doubling the size but only including that arc of the circle which actually bears the initialism. You may have to try different rotations of the badge to find the right way of displaying the U.N.I.T.
                00:56, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                TardisDataCoreEight5.png

                This is pretty close — even almost locked. The main problem I'm having is that there's no white outline on the hair.

                Try also increasing the size by another 50-100%, and allowing only half of horizontal width of the facial oval. What we really want to sell is the right outlinee of the hair and the ascot. The left hemisphere is pretty unimportant.

                00:59, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                It may be difficult to get the ascot in, but the left side of the face out. I dunno; hard to tell without actually doing i myself. If so, there's no particular reason that the image be at right angles to the bottom margin. Try rotating the whole image by 20-45 degrees. and getting some of that blank face off the side.

                Again, the basic deal is just to get the ascot and hair around the shoulders, while reducing the amount of blank face. Emphasise the things that scream "Eighth Doctor"; de-emphasise the graphically meaningless.

                01:04, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Do we need a first Doctor? Because I have two design ideas:
                1. The ring above
                2. Totter's Lane (to the left of the logo)
                01:26, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Psycic paper logo.png

                i'm thinking this for 9.

                01:36, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I forgot the white outline...
                01:51, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                At a wild guess, that is the psychic paper. Am I right? Barely recognisable. Plus, I don't really think the psychic paper really represents his Doctpr. Perhaps we can do something with his leather jacket? Any ideas?
                01:54, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                There we go...
                01:57, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Much more recognisable, but still not quite Nine. Ten and Eleven (more so Ten) used the paper just as much. In fact, more. I do like the simplicity of it though. Do you want to try another option, like his leather jacket? Otherwise, I can do it tommorow...
                02:22, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's the most I think I can zoom up on Eight, with it still remaining recognisable:
                TardisDataCoreEight6.png

                I can always try rotation...

                Also, let me note again the full versions of the silhouettes: File:Silhouette-Eighth Doctor big.png and File:Silhouette-Eighth Doctor big2.png. If you want, you can choose either a different side or a different version of the hair to be displayed in the icon. Currently, it's right side of the second one.

                02:33, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                At first I made this:
                9 logo 3.png

                But just in case you guys wanted it bigger I also made this:

                9 logo 2.png

                I also wanted tried it with his shirt partially transparent, but I'm still not 100% sure if we're aloud to do that. Here's that draft:

                9 logo 4.png
                03:10, 11 March 2013
                Edited 03:12, 11 March 2013
                Edited 03:13, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                We can cross off Nine; second one is a lock. That's what the Eighth should be, too. Any chance of getting Eight in this kind of pose? We're still not quite there with 8.

                Also, I really like that one, and may adapt it for other purposes. I can see putting "Happy Holidays" on that and using it in December. (Having writing on it would probably eliminate any doubt as to what it is.)

                03:21, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                OS25, wanna try your hand with the UNIT logo one?
                03:22, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Also, can you please upload just the psychic paper graphic — I assume you have that drawing on a separate layer — so that I can manipulate it a bit for future logo changes? Thanks :)
                03:24, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                So, we're currently still looking for 3, 5, 7, touchups on 8, 10 and 11.
                03:25, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                CzechOut wrote: Also, can you please upload just the psychic paper graphic — I assume you have that drawing on a separate layer — so that I can manipulate it a bit for future logo changes? Thanks :)

                Tomomorrow yeah.

                03:26, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                CzechOut wrote: OS25, wanna try your hand with the UNIT logo one?

                Sure! :)

                03:27, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Again though, tommorrow.
                03:27, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Very good, although... is his neck really that long?

                Anyway, I prefer the first one, possibly with a partially transparent shirt. Actually, scratch that: I prefer the first one, but higher up. We don't want the ears/head. Just the neck.

                03:30, 11 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Ummm... Nobody else thought the psychic paper was a laptop or the scanner screen? Maybe a different orientation?
                03:34, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Well, again, I think with writing on it, it will help to more instantly differentiate it from a laptop. I do think there i a bit of danger of that in its current form. But for the holidays, I might fiddle around with it a bit. December's a bit away, though, and that psychic paper design is really just a happy byproduct of this discussion, not really a part of it moving forward. To be clear, it's a rejected design for the 50th anniversary series.
                03:47, 11 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Well, except for you kind of see writing on the scanner or on a laptop, too, and we never actually see writing on the paper.

                I think the key might be to fold the other half of the blank holder back behind, or to reorient it so the fold is to the left or the right.

                Or put a shadow of a hand or something.

                03:59, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                What it needs is the pocket on the bottom bit that I couldn't really illustrate in two colours.
                04:16, 11 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                ComicBookGoddess wrote: Well, except for you kind of see writing on the scanner or on a laptop, too, and we never actually see writing on the paper.

                Sure we do. New Earth just for a start.
                05:21, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                What kind of pose for Eight, Czech? You didn't upload a picture.

                Also, OS, I would much prefer of you'd wait a tiny bit with the UNIT one, as I have a specific vision that I think will look brilliant that I really want to accomplish. Of course, you can do as you please, but I would much rather you work on other Doctprs for now. Five, for example, is a close-up on the head of a stick of celery, perpendicular to the base. I know we said "no claiming," but I just asking a favor of you. Once again, I can't exactly stop you from getting work that needs to get done, done. Can you maybe have a go at fixing the umbrella for Seven or doing the brainy specs for Ten? Thanks.

                11:26, 11 March 2013
                Edited 11:27, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: What kind of pose for Eight, Czech? You didn't upload a picture.

                I think he meant the pose I put 9 in.

                13:20, 11 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                Psycic paper logo.png

                i'm thinking this for 9.

                I will say, I instantly recognized it.

                14:17, 11 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                I hadn't been reading that it was supposed to be the psychic paper, and I didn't think that. I thought "laptop". *shrug*

                In any case, I usually think of the blank paper when the Doctor's using it on people. I totally forgot that when the Doctor sees the writing on the paper, we do, too. So maybe if it says "Help" in the proper font or something then it would be recognisable.

                16:00, 11 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I think the scene where the Doctor gets a message on it is very recognisable and memorable. Thus putting scribbly writing on it makes sense.
                16:04, 11 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess

                OttselSpy25 wrote: I think the scene where the Doctor gets a message on it is very recognisable and memorable. Thus putting scribbly writing on it makes sense.

                Oh! I didn't mean the scene wasn't memorable! Just that it didn't jump to mind without the visual. (You don't want to know what kind of day I had yesterday. :) )

                16:21, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's a draft of UNIT:
                TardisDataCoreThree5.png

                When I have access to my computer, I'll do it properly. I just realised that it would be impossible to do the closeup I was planning on doing, since I wouldn't be able to get the letters in. Should I make them closer together?

                17:40, 11 March 2013
              • SOTO
                How about something along the lines of this for Ten?
                TardisDataCoreTen.png


                TardisDataCoreTen2.png

                I was planning on doing brainy specs, but then this came to mind.

                00:19, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I was thinking... all our logos seem to be articles of clothing, or symbols from them. They're all from the costume. I think it would be cool if we could keep that consistent, and do frilly shirt, instead of UNIT, for Three.
                00:20, 12 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                I don't think the coat works at all...I thought it was a dress.
                00:21, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO

                Cult Of Skaro wrote: I don't think the coat works at all...I thought it was a dress.

                Well, you clearly figured out that it was a coat. I made sure not to mention what it was, to make sure it's recognisable.

                Also, note how it's open at that fringe. It's based off of this publicity photo.

                00:24, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                In case anyone wants a resize, here's the full-sized graphic so that you can properly visualise:
                00:40, 12 March 2013
                Edited 00:40, 12 March 2013
                Edited 02:29, 12 March 2013
                Edited 02:53, 12 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 16:29, 13 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                If you saw more of the pants - if they were the pinstripe, maybe?
                01:02, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO

                ComicBookGoddess wrote: If you saw more of the pants - if they were the pinstripe, maybe?

                Good idea. I'll try that out.

                01:05, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorry; got distracted.
                TardisDataCoreTen1-2.png


                TardisDataCoreTen2-2.png

                Do the added patterns work?

                02:21, 12 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Gotta be up and down on the legs, and I really think the coat needs to be more open to give the right impression. The first thought has to be the doctor.
                02:27, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's how that one turned out...
                TardisDataCoreTen1-3.png


                TardisDataCoreTen2-3.png

                I know it's not quite what you were looking for, but I hope it's at least slightly closer. (I can open the coat more later - I don't have enough energy now)

                Anyways, before I get caught up in the lining, is the design even acceptable?

                02:50, 12 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I frankly don't think that this whole 'legs' thing is working too well.

                I took a swing at 7 today, but it didn't turn out too amazing so I didn't post it. Tommorrow I want to try again as well as do an 11 that I thought of today,

                03:15, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Yeah, I'm inclined to agree... :P

                I'm really looking forwards to seeing your Eleven idea!! I think tomorrow I might see what I can do with Three's frilly shirt...

                03:40, 12 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Nah, make Ten just the shoes. Strike that, make it just a shoe. The pin stripes, the coat — that's just complicating things. One clear shot of a Converse high top and we're done.
                03:51, 12 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's a draft of UNIT:

                TardisDataCoreThree5.png

                When I have access to my computer, I'll do it properly. I just realised that it would be impossible to do the closeup I was planning on doing, since I wouldn't be able to get the letters in. Should I make them closer together?

                Rotate this by about 10 degrees counter-clockwise and we're done. Don't bother with the frilly shirt; we're seriously done here.

                03:53, 12 March 2013
                Edited 03:53, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Ten: Perfect. I'll get it done tomorrow.

                Three: Once again, probably tomorrow.

                03:56, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Actually, it'll have to be tomorrow, as I don't have a copy of the file on my computer. (I did it on someone else's.) I'll look for my USB key, where I saved it, tomorrow. Otherwise, it'll take five/ten minutes to recreate.
                03:58, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Oh and, just to clarify, do you want the 'T' and the 'U' to be in line with each other, perpendicular to the base?
                03:59, 12 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Still, that doesn't stop me... (What does stop me is an incredibly slow computer!!)

                This fine for Three?

                TardisDataCoreThree6.png
                04:31, 12 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah, that's fine. Let's keep movin' on.
                05:03, 12 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=561200763912831&set=a.111295035570075.8930.110298935669685&type=1&theater

                I knew I saw this somewhere...

                There are all the puffin covers. I know that's useless now, but just incase anyone needed to find them

                22:10, 12 March 2013
                Edited 18:26, 13 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I've been really busy today, but I managed to squeeze in one logo between breaks:
                TardisDataCoreTen3.png
                00:23, 13 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 16:28, 13 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                I think we might want to be careful about using the actual Converse logo. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be covered under fair use.
                02:15, 13 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Obscures too much of the logo, is a bit too "busy" with fine line detail, and, yes, can't possibly have the Converse trademark. Also, please don't give us a blown up image of the graphic. All we want is the final picture. If it doesn't work at 250 X 65 it doesn't work at all.

                Try again, please. A possibility might be to pull the shoe to the left such that the shoelace is the left-most border, the Converse star is converted to a simple circle, and those places where you have two blue lines running parallel to each other are just simple, solid blue lines.

                06:42, 13 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                By that las sentence I mean only the "piping", or the bits to the left and right of the eyeholes.

                It might also be that you'll need to completely reorient the shoe so that it's more vertical than horizontal. I'd try cutting off the left side of the shot first, but if that doesn't work, you may need some fairly heavy rotation.

                06:45, 13 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Actually, there are two reasons we can't use the Converse logo.
                • It would bring up legal issues
                • The Tenth Doctor didn't have it on his shoe, due to advertising issues.
                13:58, 13 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Here's my spin on SOTO's design:
                14:16, 13 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I feel like that this isn't exaclt what we need... I may take a swing at this later.
                18:25, 13 March 2013
              • SOTO

                Cult Of Skaro wrote: Here's my spin on SOTO's design:

                Your "spin"... Heh heh.....

                Anyways, I made a few using a modified version of my original graphic, but none of them are that great. As soon as I get Internet access on my laptop, I'll try redoing the graphic completely on a better angle.

                18:32, 13 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Mostly it doesn't work because of the amazing gravity defying shoelace, I think. It might look better at a 30° to the right, provided the fabric is skewed a bit.
                20:15, 13 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Maybe try doing a 180 so the bottom of the runner is against the edge of the image?
                20:34, 13 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's the eight drafts I made in the last hour. I tried it literally every possible way. Finally, I just made a new design:
                TardisDataCoreTen4.png TardisDataCoreTen5.png TardisDataCoreTen6.png TardisDataCoreTen7.png TardisDataCoreTen8.png TardisDataCoreTen9.png TardisDataCoreTen10.png TardisDataCoreTen11.png
                21:21, 13 March 2013
                Edited 21:26, 13 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Let's try the last one, but tucked behind the logo.
                00:38, 14 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's the last one, exactly as it was, tucked under the logo:
                TardisDataCoreTen12.png

                As I don't think it's as clear, I'd clearly have to adapt it in some way. Suggestions?

                01:14, 14 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Can you make the top of the shoe a bit more floopy?
                01:28, 14 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Okay, let's try keeping it in front but reducing by 25-35% such that it doesn't obscure the "A".
                04:09, 14 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Think that we could do better. It in no way says "10" to me.
                12:19, 14 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 07:15, 15 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                It does to me, I mean seriously, almost every scene with ten, the thing that stands out to me are his shoes.
                17:31, 14 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                No, I think that we should represent 10 with 10's shoes... Thing is that these don't scream "10's shoes" to me.
                17:42, 14 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Hmm, I actually agree: it doesn't really scream 10's shoes to me, either. Would you mind directing me to a picture of what you think would "scream" just that?

                Here's what I believe Czech wanted:

                TardisDataCoreTen13.png

                I think, at this point, it's starting to lose its recognisability.

                21:35, 14 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Because it's changed from a high top to a low top. Gotta be high top.
                21:38, 14 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Think that it's more the angle. I think the shoe needs to be head-on straight to us. Like the 'legs' shot above.
                22:28, 14 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 07:15, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad

                Here's my contribution, just to try something different. The image can be shifted to the left if you would prefer it, although right/up/down will be harder because of the picture I did this over. I tried jut doing the glasses before, but I couldn't make them fit and look good, although I can upload if you would like to see.

                06:39, 15 March 2013
                Edited 06:40, 15 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Hmmm, maybe. Let's try a profile, left facing, nose and most features well off the side of the page. Focus: sideburns and a bit of spiky hair.
                07:17, 15 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Meanwhile, we still don't really have 8 locked, and 7 and 5 and 11 are dangling.
                07:18, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Here's profile, right facing (couldn't find any good left facing and anyway, I think right facing works better with the logo), nose and other features on the side of the face. It's based on File:PartnersinCrime.png, and if any other features need to be added/taken away, I still have the original file with the original photo underneath it on my computer (and the same goes for any other logo I might make). Here it is:
                09:31, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                And while I'm in the editing mood, here's my take on the bowtie fez idea, since nothing has been finalised yet on that idea it seems.
                11:03, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I quite like your Ten profile, Imamadmad!

                There does seem to be something missing, though — it's not quite the Tenth Doctor, but still recognisable. The other little problem I have is that it doesn't take up very much space; it's sort of on the side with a lot of blank space.

                Judging from my experience, though, I'm the only one that feels this way, so carry on

                11:28, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                OK, so I'm fiddling around with the celery image, which is so far refusing to look like celery in monochrome, and I'll probably either finish or abandon the attempt in the morning. But in the mean time, since there seems to be a lock on both the 3rd and 4th Doctor logos, covering this and next month, maybe we should put 3's logo up there now before the third month slips away completely. We don't need to have any other images finalised until May, and we'll probably have finished the majority by then, so there's no real reason waiting for them all to be finalised before starting.
                11:31, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                As far as the fez and bowtie, I like it basically (it looks quite a bit like mine from a week ago), but the edges seem very ragged and pixelated. If I had my computer, I'd fix it myself, but, seeing as I can't would you mind going over the outline and reuploading it?
                11:32, 15 March 2013
                Edited 11:34, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                I tried moving it over more to the right, but it looked bad. I think it needs that space so he's not headbutting the site name!

                Anyway, so I'm now fiddling around with the celery image, which is so far refusing to look like celery in monochrome, and I'll probably either finish or abandon the attempt in the morning. But in the mean time, since there seems to be a lock on both the 3rd and 4th Doctor logos, covering this and next month, maybe we should put 3's logo up there now before the third month slips away completely. We don't need to have any other images finalised until May, and we'll probably have finished the majority by then, so there's no real reason waiting for them all to be finalised before starting.

                11:33, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                On the subject of the bowtie and fez, I can't easily make those lines any smoother, although I have given it a try. Those ridges are all a pixel wide, so unless using graduated semi-transparencies, those lines can't be any smoother. I've given it a try though. If you can make it any smoother, it would be much appreciated.
                11:43, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                And I know it looks very similar to the ones upthread, but this is a) monochrome which one of the designs wasn't and b) traced over actual images from the show which the other designs didn't seem to be, which means that this should be neater and more accurate. Well, that's the theory, anyway.
                11:46, 15 March 2013
                Edited 11:47, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Actually, mine was also traced from a proper photo and monochrome, the very reason why our two look very similar (at least in my eyes). The biggest difference is: mine was blue with a white outline. Just white is better.
                12:12, 15 March 2013
                Edited 22:46, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Huh, I guess the only difference is the colouring then, along with a bit of perspective because of different photos used. Well, neither have been locked, so people, please leave your thoughts! Which looks better; white outline or white fill? I'm sure either image could be re-made to fit in with any critique.
                12:18, 15 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Could we have the side profile of Ten but much more zoomed in on his sideburns? At least 100% zoom, but probably it could stand being 200%.

                And I think Eleven should just be the bow tie. The fez thing has been wildly amplified by fandom. He has it for half of one episode. It's not that big a deal, and, when combined with the bow tie, makes neither of them look like the thing they are.

                16:51, 15 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Heh. Bow tie and top hat is actually more appropriate, isn't it?

                I think the chin is the problem with Ten. Without the neck, it makes him look thick, and he never looks thick. So, if you enlarge and cut out the chin by zooming in, should work better.

                17:15, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I'm finally back home. Here's what I've accomplished with Ten:
                TardisDataCoreTen14.png

                TardisDataCoreTen15.png TardisDataCoreTen17.png

                TardisDataCoreTen16.png

                The first one's an adaption of Imamadmad's, the second and third are from a new design, as well as the fourth.

                I just realised that the last three don't have glasses... they can be easily added in, if you guys want.

                EDIT: Here's the first with the hair of the second and third:

                TardisDataCoreTen18.png
                22:42, 15 March 2013
                Edited 22:43, 15 March 2013
                Edited 22:44, 15 March 2013
                Edited 23:22, 15 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I think 1 is near perfect; except maybe the hair could use some work.
                22:51, 15 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                7 logo idea 1.png

                Okay, so it's a bit (for lack of a better word) raggity looking, but never the less this is my basic design for the 7th Doctor's logo.

                There's also a bit of white I accidentally left in...

                22:53, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Good idea. Here's a cleaned up version (yes, it is quite "raggedy"):
                TardisDataCoreSeven3.png
                23:07, 15 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                5 logo 2.png 5 logo 3.png

                5 logo 4.png

                Here are a few of my submissions for 5. The last two I like the most, because they're making a clever reference to The Caves of Androzani (It's turned purple...). I would go with the last one.

                23:19, 15 March 2013
                Edited 23:20, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                :D (about the reference)

                As far as the logo itself, the first thought that came to my mind was "duster?" Try a close-up on just the head, perpendicular to the base. And add a bit of internal detail, just to clue us as to what exactly it is.

                23:25, 15 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                I like SOTO's #4 for Ten. He doesn't always wear the brainy specs.
                23:35, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                I like OS's first celery design the best, and the cleaned-up question mark is really good. As for Ten's head, I think SOTO's last one (the one under the word "Edit:") is the best of the available options.

                The thing with doing just the bowtie for Eleven is the fact that it's an image that kinda needs to be landscape, but having it in that orientation leaves loads of empty space to the top or bottom of the image. The problem with rotating it is that it makes it look more like a hair bow than a bowtie. If there is going to be a bowtie, there needs to be some sort of hat as well, or something else, to help balance the image. Anyway, Eleven is known for his taste in silly hats! But maybe a stetson or a top hat might be more appropriate.

                23:41, 15 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Speak of the devil — I was just uploading two drafts for Eleven! Here's they are:
                TardisDataCoreEleven2.png TardisDataCoreEleven3.png

                For the first, instead of leaving empty space, I made it so only half fitted in the space on the left. I guess I can cross off the second one, since you said it looks more like a hair bow.

                23:51, 15 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                Well, just a little bit. But I guess anyone coming to a Doctor Who site will understand that it's Eleven's bowtie.
                23:54, 15 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo 6.png 7 logo idea 2.png

                I've decided to leave the teeth marks on the celery (I mean, come on, it's blue, we have to make that joke!), and I've also cleaned up 7's logo a little

                01:28, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                7 logo idea 2.png 7 logo idea 3.png

                The cane thing really wasn't working for me so I tried to do a profile

                01:40, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Good idea. Here's a cleaned up version (yes, it is quite "raggedy"):

                TardisDataCoreSeven3.png

                Ha, I didn't see this before... :)

                01:53, 16 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                I wish the First Doctor had a little more to work from...
                03:53, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Cult Of Skaro wrote: I wish the First Doctor had a little more to work from...

                I have two design ideas that I can work on if they're needed. But as far as I know (which, granted, isn't very far) we aren't doing 1 or 2.

                04:10, 16 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                11: For the angled bow tie, try putting the neck ribbon, or maybe just the collar flaps, too. Might help.

                5: Seriously does not look like celery. Much too leafy and the leaves are both the wrong shape and notate ached correctly. Also, the stalk doesn't have that distinctive celery shape. Might not be possible at this resolution.

                7: shrink the handle to show the edge of the top of a closed umbrella, I think

                05:20, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                ComicBookGoddess wrote: 11: For the angled bow tie, try putting the neck ribbon, or maybe just the collar flaps, too. Might help.

                5: Seriously does not look like celery. Much too leafy and the leaves are both the wrong shape and notate ached correctly. Also, the stalk doesn't have that distinctive celery shape. Might not be possible at this resolution.

                7: shrink the handle to show the edge of the top of a closed umbrella, I think

                Oh, what, we just gonna ignore by beautiful and well-made full-body image of the Seventh Doctor?

                7 logo idea 3.png

                That beats any 'just umprella' pic we could ever make.

                And for 11 I frankly don't think we can accurately represent him with just a bow-tie. Using Czech's logic of Jelly-Babies and wrist-watches, a blue Bow-tie is more "Second Doctor" than "Eleventh". Furthermore, 3 also had a thing for ties in the form of bows. Frankly, despite what Czech says, I really think we need a Fez for this one.

                05:29, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                7 logo idea 3.png7 logo idea 4.png

                I zoomed it in a bit in the second one, although I prefer the first.

                05:47, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo 7.png5 logo 8.png5 logo 9.png5 logo 10.png

                Here are a few new variations on the '5' logo.

                05:59, 16 March 2013
                Edited 05:59, 16 March 2013
                Edited 06:01, 16 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                I prefer just the umbrella head for 7. When I was looking at it not zoomed in on my phone earlier (in full site mode), when you had the two designs next to each other, the umbrella handle by itself was much clearer to see and interpret at a glance than the busy one with the body in it as well.

                As for the celery, making celery look like celery in small monochrome is hard! I was trying it yesterday, but then gave up, so I can understand the difficulty there. I think the first lot of celeries looked better than this second lot though. The image just seems to flow together more in my opinion.

                08:24, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo 6.png

                I agree. I'd still go with this design.

                7 logo idea 3.png

                Although I'd have to say that I prefer this logo.

                09:08, 16 March 2013
                Edited 09:09, 16 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Let's try closer in on 7 — by at least 100%. Just sweater and question mark umbrella.

                Oh and the handle should probably be white.

                16:56, 16 March 2013
                Edited 17:00, 16 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                On the celery, I think it should be perfectly perpendicular to base, zoom in by 50%, with a top that actually looks like celery leaves. (Sorry, but that's not what celery usually looks like.) I also think the leaves should be predominantly white, with blue lines only suggesting the detail.
                16:58, 16 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Speak of the devil — I was just uploading two drafts for Eleven! Here's they are:

                TardisDataCoreEleven2.png TardisDataCoreEleven3.png

                For the first, instead of leaving empty space, I made it so only half fitted in the space on the left. I guess I can cross off the second one, since you said it looks more like a hair bow.

                These two bow ties look comical, largely because the edges are too rounded.

                Try basing on the image of an actual bow tie, which tend to have sharper lines and a certain lack of symmetry. Click here for a good example.

                17:04, 16 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                7 logo idea 5.png 7 logo idea 6.png7 logo idea 7.png

                Here's three designs set closer to the screen. I think the last one is the best.

                03:46, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Oh, I just realised I didn't post this earlier:
                TardisDataCoreSeven4.png TardisDataCoreSeven5.png TardisDataCoreSeven6.png

                I quite like the basic design of your last one. I'll clean that one up.

                EDIT: Scratch that. I'm happy enough with my last one for now.

                03:50, 17 March 2013
                Edited 03:51, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's one similar to the last one, but fixing the problem of covering the 'T':
                TardisDataCoreSeven7.png
                04:18, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Or perhaps more like this:
                TardisDataCoreSeven8.png
                04:39, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: These two bow ties look comical, largely because the edges are too rounded.

                Try basing on the image of an actual bow tie, which tend to have sharper lines and a certain lack of symmetry. Click here for a good example.

                Actually, I based it directly off one of Eleven's bow ties specifically, and — I can assure you — his bow ties look nothing like that! I'll link you to a good picture in the morning. At present, though, I think that the above looks exactly like Eleven's ties. (By the way, the picture at the link you gave me is the one that looks comical, it being oversized and all)

                I guess I'll have to redo in the morning, basing it off a different pic of Matt's bow tie.

                04:47, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO
                For Eleven:
                TardisDataCoreEleven5.png TardisDataCoreEleven6.png
                16:50, 17 March 2013
              • ComicBookGoddess
                Oooh. I like the bottom one.
                19:06, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Me too — I surprised myself with that one. I'm just hoping Czech will okay it...
                19:08, 17 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                He's not a big fan of half-whites. And he'll propably ask it to be bigger.
                19:47, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I guess I'll have to redo in the morning, basing it off a different pic of Matt's bow tie.

                Yeah could you base it off the one(s) I linked to, please? You gotta remember that Eleven has a lot of bow ties. I'm thinking the ones I gave you will actually translate better in monochrome. Rounded edges are really season 5. Since Barbara Kidd, they've been much cleaner lines (largely because she moved him to proper bow ties, not pre-tied jobbies.)

                Take a look at The Angels Take Manhattan, for instance. He's clearly got a real bow tie on there (you can see the bulk of the material under his collar) and the bow tie is consequently less rounded and droopy than what you've been portraying.

                Seriously, it's fine to use a closup pic of a bow tie on a white background as your base. A properly-tied bow tie looks pretty much the same whether it's on Matt's neck or not — now that he is actually wearing proper bow ties.

                20:12, 17 March 2013
                Edited 20:12, 17 March 2013
                Edited 20:20, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's one similar to the last one, but fixing the problem of covering the 'T':

                TardisDataCoreSeven7.png

                Lock. It's only the Seventh Doctor. Let's move on.

                20:13, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                TardisDataCoreTen15.png

                Lock. Moving on…

                20:16, 17 March 2013
                Edited 20:17, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                5 logo 7.png5 logo 8.png5 logo 9.png5 logo 10.png

                Here are a few new variations on the '5' logo.

                Why do all of these look like a bite has been taken out of the leaf? Again, this really isn't close to being locked. Leaf should be white with occasional blue lines giving definition.

                And: perpendicular to the baseline, please.

                20:19, 17 March 2013
                Edited 20:19, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                So we're still down 5, 8 and 11.
                20:22, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Yeah could you base it off the one(s) I linked to, please? You gotta remember that Eleven has a lot of bow ties. I'm thinking the ones I gave you will actually translate better in monochrome. Rounded edges are really season 5. Since Barbara Kidd, they've been much cleaner lines (largely because she moved him to proper bow ties, not pre-tied jobbies.)

                Take a look at The Angels Take Manhattan, for instance. He's clearly got a real bow tie on there (you can see the bulk of the material under his collar) and the bow tie is consequently less rounded and droopy than what you've been portraying.

                Seriously, it's fine to use a closup pic of a bow tie on a white background as your base. A properly-tied bow tie looks pretty much the same whether it's on Matt's neck or not — now that he is actually wearing proper bow ties.

                I based it off more the costume that might be considered spoiler-y now, but won't be in 2 weeks, and certainly won't be in November when the logo'll be up!

                Also, what are your thoughts on the latest one?

                TardisDataCoreEleven6.png

                If what you definitely want is a real bow tie, despite him not wearing it in 7B, then I'll get it done later.

                20:33, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Look, SOTO, I'll give you my specific critique on this one, but I don't want to have to keep doing this. If I say we're still looking for 11 that means that previous designs have been rejected.

                This drawing has way too much blank face it and the implication of your shoulder line is that face of Smith is sitting on the body of Orson Welles — in his later years. You've blown the proportions completely, and turned a thin man corpulent, in my opinion. That is not a challenge to correct it. I don't like it at all anyway. The bow tie concept is nearly there.

                20:49, 17 March 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Look, SOTO, I'll give you my specific critique on this one, but I don't want to have to keep doing this. If I say we're still looking for 11 that means that previous designs have been rejected.

                This drawing has way too much blank face it and the implication of your shoulder line is that face of Smith is sitting on the body of Orson Welles — in his later years. You've blown the proportions completely, and turned a thin man corpulent, in my opinion. That is not a challenge to correct it. I don't like it at all anyway. The bow tie concept is nearly there.

                Okay. I won't ask you again — I was just surprised you disliked that one. And I took it directly from a photo, although your Welles analogy is quite amusing. I'll have a go at your suggestions on the bow tie tomorrow (or in a few hours, depending on when I can find the time)

                23:31, 17 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Don't know if this would be any easier to do than celery, but we could go with a closeup of a middle and leg guard, too. That's neatly vertical, and should fit the blank space.
                • This shot…

                  This shot…

                • …from this angle (without the guy behind the stumps)

                  …from this angle (without the guy behind the stumps)

                00:18, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Okay, just so we don't completely waste the Third Doctor one, I'm going to go ahead and put that one up today. But if the outstanding ones aren't set by 1 April, then I'm scrapping the whole project. So let's concentrate on 5, 8 and 11 over the next week and get this project completely locked, please. I'm very impressed with everyone's dedication and quick work.
                00:22, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Thank you. I promise we will get it over the next week. I look forward to actually seeing these logins on my screen!
                00:31, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Okay, I need a slight touchup to the UNIT logo, SOTO. The circle needs to be completely within the 250 X 65 dimensions. It's not really a problem on the main wiki-wordmark area at the top left of pages. But it looks pretty rough when the logo is on a light background, as with {{welcome}}. So please just reduce the diameter of the circle by like 5% and make sure the circle isn't clipped by the margins of the rectangle.

                Wiki-wordmark.png See how the top, left and bottom apexes of the circle get slightly clipped when viewed on a white background?

                00:32, 18 March 2013
                Edited 00:33, 18 March 2013
                Edited 00:37, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Also, while you're at it, the T in TARDIS seems to be half in front and half in back of the medallion. Let's make it firmly all in front, please.
                00:40, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                This better, or does it still need top be fixed?
                TardisDataCoreThree7.png

                TardisDataCoreThree7.png

                00:56, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I noticed you still haven't changed it yet (weird seeing it at the top there)

                TardisDataCoreThree7.png

                01:23, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah, need it pulled down by like 1-2%. It's almost there.
                01:57, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                This seems perfect to me:
                TardisDataCoreThree7.png

                TardisDataCoreThree7.png

                Or does it need to be shrunk further?

                02:02, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Also, why don't we just upload a better-quality pic actually made for 500px for the front page? Is there some sort of complication? 'Cause I've always found it looks really unprofessional, stretched out like that.
                02:10, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Well "always" is a big word for a condition that's existed for only a few weeks. The main reason is just that I view the front page living on entirely borrowed time.
                04:28, 18 March 2013
                Edited 20:10, 18 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Well, I don't personally visit the front page very often, so I wouldn't have noticed that it's only been like that for a few weeks. But, for the moment, wouldn't it be better to have a better quality version for the front page? It don't look so great as it is, all stretched out.
                04:33, 18 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Let's concentrate on finishing up with 5, 8 ad 11 please.
                04:36, 18 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I can work on my 5 when I get home.
                18:36, 18 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo idea 102.png

                5 logo idea 103.png

                There are my 2 five ideas.

                17:16, 20 March 2013
                Edited 17:17, 20 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                They're really blurry...
                17:20, 20 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Again, perpendicular to baseline please. And please make the celery leaf white, and the stalk a bit thicker. The top design has the better celery leaf.
                22:00, 22 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                Totter's Data Core 79.png Totter's Data Core 80.png Totter's Data Core 81.png Totter's Data Core 83.png

                I think for the week of November 23 we should change it again... The idea of having a main icon of 11 or a bow tie on the day of the anniversary isn't a pleasant one... Thus, here are a few ideas of how we could use the "Totter's Lane" design.

                17:11, 24 March 2013
                Edited 17:11, 24 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Interesting, but no. Way too busy and hectic; it's really hard to make out what it is! But I don't know; maybe you can change my mind by cleaning up the third one! Also, reverse the colours. Maybe those two suggestions will improve it...
                17:16, 24 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Once I'm on here, I've noticed that this discussion is dead. As soon as I'm finished my little Series 1 marathon, I'll work on the three needed logos and get us back on track.

                As far as Eight, Czech, I'm not sure what you want with it now. I believe you said you wanted it to be like the finalised Three, right? Can you perhaps give me a picture of exactly what you want. I'm a bit lost on this one...

                17:21, 24 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                BTW, we should probably archive this discussion and make a new thread. This one takes ages to load, due to all the pictures.
                01:49, 25 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Yeah, I've been thinking the same for a while... I can't even load the page on my phone without it crashing!
                01:51, 25 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                It doesn't load particularly slowly on a desktop. I'd rather keep it all together.

                Let's concentrate on getting a good design for Five. I don't really feel confident in continuing this project after next week unless there's something already set for the month of May.

                I would hate to have to scrap this whole project just because we can't represent a stick of celery or something cricket-related.

                03:32, 25 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Yeah, but it's still mighty annoying having to scroll down every time you have to reload or load the page!

                Anyway, concentrating on Five. Once we get that done, please tell me what you want with Eight, although I don't really think we have to worry about either him or Eleven for now.

                03:37, 25 March 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Anyway, concentrating on Five. Once we get that done, please tell me what you want with Eight, although I don't really think we have to worry about either him or Eleven for now.

                I do. I already think this project has run way over time. i don't want it dragging on. Either we have all of them finalised by the 1st April, or we don't go ahead. It needs to be completely done and dusted.

                So the Eight thing is, as said upthread, looking for Eight in the pose and framing of the locked Nine design.

                03:49, 25 March 2013
                Edited 03:56, 25 March 2013
              • SOTO
                One week... This can definitely be done...

                Just look at the speed in which the others were produced! For some reason, though, the project's died down over the last few days...

                To bring it back, I'll get to work on Five!

                03:51, 25 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                Believe me, I'm not looking for a reason to shut the project down. As I said upthread, I'm very impressed with the way everyone has rallied to this cause. I just don't want to get caught later down the road without a monthly wordmark.
                06:13, 25 March 2013
              • 170.185.224.17
                I'm os25, just it took me forrever to get to the bottom of the page and I'm not logged in.

                I think what he said was that he wanted 8, but in the same pose as my 9 image.

                16:59, 25 March 2013
              • 170.185.224.17
                Seriously, could we move to a second discussion?
                17:02, 25 March 2013
              • CzechOut
                I appreciate that if you're on a mobile device, getting to the bottom of this thread is a bitch. But the load time is not inconvenient on a desktop and all you have to do is press the "end" button to get to the bottom.

                This is a discussion about materially changing the wiki, and it requires a genuine computer to contribute the designs. The benefits of keeping it all in one place outweigh any need to make this easy on finger scrollers.

                18:17, 25 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                It's having trouble loading on desktop for me.
                19:13, 25 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Totter's Data Core 666.png

                There. Cleaned #3 up a bit.

                20:24, 26 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                How does that look Czrch?
                02:28, 28 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Let's concentrate on the monthly ones, please. We don't need a special one for the fiftieth; one a month is enough. Once we're finished all the Doctors, we can get to this. For now, maybe have a go at Eleven. Or you can find me a picture that represents what Czech's looking for. Or try again with Five.

                Here's my opinion on the 50th one, though: reverse the colours. It's quite good, but make the doors white (blue letter), as well as the bicycle and pole. Just switch all the colours, aside from the wordmark.

                02:47, 28 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's another go at Eleven:
                TardisDataCoreEleven7.png
                02:54, 28 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's an attempt at something different for Five:
                TardisDataCoreFive3.png
                03:27, 28 March 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's two more:
                TardisDataCoreFive2.png TardisDataCoreFive4.png

                Looking at them, I think the second one is a bit too detailed. Looks almost like a bundle of flowers.

                03:50, 28 March 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's two more:

                TardisDataCoreFive2.png TardisDataCoreFive4.png

                Looking at them, I think the second one is a bit too detailed. Looks almost like a bundle of flowers.

                Yeah, it does to me too. Try removing some of the lines.

                04:32, 28 March 2013
              • Imamadmad
                OK, my opinions here on the latest designs.

                So to start with, OS25, about your one for the anniversary week: If I didn't already know what you were trying to represent from reading this conversation, I would have no idea what that was meant to be. Sorry, but I just don't think that particular idea is working. Maybe something else along a similar line of thought though?

                On SOTO's bowtie: I think CzechOut wants everything to be behind the name, so maybe if you put the bowtie behind the "T" and then maybe shift it a bit to the left maybe it might be better?

                On SOTO's 5s: The first silhouette looks good. Easily identifiable. The one with the glasses I honestly couldn't identify when I was scrolling up from the bottom of the page to find the latest post I hadn't read, so I would say no to that. And I agree with Cult Of Skaro that the celery is a bit overly detailed. The first one is the best of this new batch for 5.

                06:01, 28 March 2013
              • SOTO
                I agree with you about Five. As far as Eleven, with that design, that's the best possible option, except maybe shrinking it. Czech's oppose to all my other bowties, and this one is what I believe he wanted.

                The only reason I made the other two Fives is because Czech said that he "just [didn't] like [my Eleven silhouette] at all."

                06:10, 28 March 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Are we ready to switch to the scarf design?
                01:12, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo new idea.png

                There's my submission. Took a long time, and I'm pretty happy with it myself.

                02:02, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                5 logo new idea.png

                There's my submission. Took a long time, and I'm pretty happy with it myself.

                I'll take it. Lock. See below.

                02:37, 1 April 2013
                Edited 02:42, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Actually, unlocked. It's not quite there. But it's really close. You can't really see celery at all, and the hat's brim, up against the chest, has very little definition. Need a heavier line there.

                Also, let's zoom in about 100% and vertically cut the image above the fingers.

                02:42, 1 April 2013
                Edited 02:44, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                OttselSpy25 wrote:

                5 logo new idea.png

                There's my submission. Took a long time, and I'm pretty happy with it myself.

                That. Is. Amazing!!

                Although the lines could be a little thicker...

                Anyway, I cleaned up your Four a bit:

                4 logo like, waht 10 now-cleaned.png
                02:42, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Four was already locked. Waste of time, SOTO.
                02:43, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Where are we on Eight?
                02:45, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Let's try orienting the bow tie completely vertically. The massive intertwine with the letters is a bit too cute.
                02:47, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Four was already locked. Waste of time, SOTO.

                I disagree. Not a waste of time — yes, it was locked, but the edges were quite blurry. As it's now the dawn of Four's month, I'd rather a clearer image be up there. Anyway, I didn't change anything — I just make the outline more concrete.

                02:53, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Where are we on Eight?

                My next question exactly. I'm not entirely clear on what you want for him next.

                02:55, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Here's another go at Eleven:

                TardisDataCoreEleven7.png

                While you're at it, what did I do wrong with the bowtie this time? :D

                02:58, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Let's try orienting the bow tie completely vertically. The massive intertwine with the letters is a bit too cute.

                Oh, didn't see that. The problem with that is its hardly recognisable sideways:

                TardisDataCoreEleven8.png
                03:10, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Try putting it the other ways sideways.
                03:41, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                5 logo new idea - 2.png5 logo new idea - 3.png5 logo new idea - 4.png

                I wasn't sure exactly what Czech wanted, so here's three different ideas... I think that the last one was what he wanted... or maybe the next-to-last.

                03:47, 1 April 2013
                Edited 04:27, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Yeah, but he also wanted you to make the lines thicker and the celery more visible (ie. make it blue instead of white)
                03:49, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                I made the celery's line more thick as well as made it bigger. Frankly, if I made it a blue celery I'd have to make some joke about poison or something... (Go watch Caves of Androzani)
                04:26, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                What I'm trying to say is that the Celery is much more visible now. Plus I think white is more visibly pleasing.
                04:27, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                CzechOut wrote: Where are we on Eight?

                My next question exactly. I'm not entirely clear on what you want for him next.

                Last thing I remember Czech ahd said that you were almost there but not quite... When I posted my nine image he said something like "Could you do your 8 in more of a pose like this?" and you seemed to think that he was talking about your three logo... Perhaps you cold try again with another image; like maybe this?

                04:34, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah, I really don't think that Five design is gonna work out now. By the time you get in close enough for it to be a simple icon, the thing spreads all the way to the "R" in TARDIS, which is undesirable. There's no celery there. If there could be celery on the lapel, we might have something, but it doesn't look like much of anything once you get in close.
                05:17, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                TardisDataCoreFive.png

                Okay, so this is SOTO's earlier effort that was rejected. At this point, we need to crack on. So this kind of pose, but I think OS25's lines on the coat are better and crisper. So, OS, take the design you have and try to put it into this sort of position—maybe slightly closer in. And then give us a much clearer stick of celery.

                05:24, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Actually, you know what: never mind. This is fine, but maybe SOTO you could zoom in just a little bit—15 or 25%—and then we'll be done. I really thought we'd be able to get a clear celery stick, but at this point, it's fine to just take this one so we can move on.

                So, SOTO, if you can just deliver a slightly tighter closeup on the celery stick, I guess we'll call it a day.

                05:28, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Well then. Back to my review.

                I swear I'm gonna win Best Youtube video! >:)

                05:56, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorry — I didn't notice this message. This fine?
                TardisDataCoreFive5.png

                If not, I'll fix any problems tomorrow. Let's call it a day for now.

                06:40, 1 April 2013
              • OttselSpy25
                Frankly doesn't look even remotely like 5 anymore. When I saw this i thought "sailor maybe?" Looks more like a badly dressed Ben Jackson to me.
                06:50, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Yeah, I can see where you're coming from... I think there's something to gain in getting the unique pattern on his shirt in...

                Anyway, as I said, in the morning.

                06:57, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                I was actually looking for OS25 to continue on with his design, SOTO. His work seems to be closer; it just doesn't have any celery.
                13:14, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: I was actually looking for OS25 to continue on with his design, SOTO. His work seems to be closer; it just doesn't have any celery.

                I'm confused...

                CzechOut wrote: Actually, you know what: never mind. This is fine, but maybe SOTO you could zoom in just a little bit—15 or 25%—and then we'll be done. I really thought we'd be able to get a clear celery stick, but at this point, it's fine to just take this one so we can move on.

                So, SOTO, if you can just deliver a slightly tighter closeup on the celery stick, I guess we'll call it a day.

                What did you mean by the above, then?

                23:22, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Well, the first quote you took doesn't matter anymore. Looks like you'll be finishing up this project for us, SOTO.

                Just concentrate on the second quote, please. Basically, go a little tighter and make the celery a little bigger, and we'll be done.

                23:39, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                All we really need is for the celery stick to look like celery and we'll be done.
                23:40, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO
                On mine? His? What? Tell me exactly what you want.
                23:43, 1 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Oh. I see OS25 was banned...

                Anyway, you clearly preferred his, so do you want me to use his graphics?

                23:44, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                At this point, I just want a clear celery stick of some kind. Or cricket wickets. Whatever you think you can deliver. Might be hard to use his graphics since we don't actually have his base layer.
                23:55, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut

                CzechOut wrote: Don't know if this would be any easier to do than celery, but we could go with a closeup of a middle and leg guard, too. That's neatly vertical, and should fit the blank space.

                • This shot…

                  This shot…

                • …from this angle (without the guy behind the stumps)

                  …from this angle (without the guy behind the stumps)

                I'll just quote this again, in case you might want to attempt the cricket idea.

                23:56, 1 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                By the way, I should point out that if you're using Time Crash as your reference for what Davison's celery looks like, you're a bit off base, because they got it wrong there. The true Davison-era celery stick had a huge leaf on it; the one in Time Crash was a more "natural" leaf.

                Take a look here for a typical publicity shot of the era.

                00:04, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Okay, I think I got it.

                Take this public domain image. Make a transparent background. Copy it. Reverse the copy. Put the reversed copy on top of the original, so that you now have a greatly amplified leaf. Make it monochrome. Cut off a lot of the vertical stalk. Shrink to fit the vertical area so that the overlap only goes as far as the left side of the "A" in TARDIS.

                00:13, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                I can't open that link. Not working.

                Maybe link to one of our own pictures?

                00:13, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                I personally don't think that the majority of fans will associate cricket with Five immediately. Anyway, I did a draft. Just wait while I transfer the file to a computer with working internet (don't ask!)

                Tell me if I did the celery wrong.

                00:15, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO

                CzechOut wrote: Okay, I think I got it.

                Take this public domain image. Make a transparent background. Copy it. Reverse the copy. Put the reversed copy on top of the original, so that you now have a greatly amplified leaf. Make it monochrome. Cut off a lot of the vertical stalk. Shrink to fit the vertical area so that the overlap only goes as far as the left side of the "A" in TARDIS.

                Sorry, this draft doesn't include your above suggestion. The next will.

                Anyway, in this one I sort of mixed up all the different graphics that we've accumulated:

                TardisDataCoreFive6.png

                On to check out what you're talking about with the leaf!

                00:22, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I can't open that link. Not working.

                Maybe link to one of our own pictures?

                We don't actually have promotional images of Five, largely because of T:OOUI/T:IUI. Try this.

                00:23, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's two more attempts at capturing the celery (incredibly difficult in tiny monochrome):


                TardisDataCoreFive7.png TardisDataCoreFive8.png

                Now I'm going to try what you suggested an hour ago with only the celery.

                01:00, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Yeah, those are good tries, but let's see what happens when you focus on the stalk.
                01:10, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Sorry, had trouble with my internet source. Needed to find another computer.

                Here's something different:

                TardisDataCoreFive9.png]

                I think I'm starting to get there!

                01:32, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                i dunno. It looks like a thistle or something. Arggh, this is maddening. The problem, of course, is that it was never real celery, except maybe in Castrovalva. So the leaves are only like real celery.

                Try adapting from this very clear shot of his celery, including a bit of the coat: http://www.shillpages.com/dw/davisp16.jpg, Go close enough so that you've only got the distinctive cut of the lapels, and make it no wider than the lapel.

                09:12, 2 April 2013
                Edited 09:13, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                I'm getting a redirect loop from that link. Would you mind either linking me to a different picture or finding another link for the same one? I can't access it.
                09:17, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Just cut and paste it directly into your address bar. That's why I gave you the full URL.
                09:18, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                ...Oh. That surprisingly worked! :)

                A bit odd how that'd make a difference...

                09:21, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Not really. The guy who runs the site is trying to prevent hot linking. Unfortunately, because he's using a sort of older workaround way of accomplishing this, perfectly normal linking is kinda screwed up.
                09:24, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                That actually makes sense...

                Anyway, I tried literally every possible angle and zoom, and it's just not presenting well. Here's what I've achieved:

                TardisDataCoreFive10.png TardisDataCoreFive11.png TardisDataCoreFive12.png TardisDataCoreFive13.png
                10:19, 2 April 2013
              • SOTO
                In short, this (the full graphic) doesn't translate well into a height of 65px.

                Any suggestions?

                10:22, 2 April 2013
                Edited 10:23, 2 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                I think there's just too much leaf detail. Try radically simplifying, by getting rid of much of the interior. I actually think the second one is the best of these four.
                20:57, 2 April 2013
              • 24.0.236.100
                At first I thought that maybe the meta-crisis Doctor would come back, but my friend said that that wouldn't happen. (For some reason, she hates the Doctor Donna.) Anyway, though, I think it would be interesting to see what happened in that parallel universe when the Doctor left Rose and the (ahem) other Doctor. Did they still have that piece of the Tardis that ten gave them? (I'm kinda glad they deleted that scene; it didn't really make any sense. If Tardises could be grown so easily, than what's with all the to-do about the last Tardis?) Thoughts?
                21:27, 11 April 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Er.........Wrong thread,
                21:28, 11 April 2013
              • 24.0.236.100
                I'm gonna give my name at the bottom from now on...If I post more, that is.

                By the way, have any of you guys listened to Chameleon Circuit? The Big Bang Two is especially good. :)

                -Names Have Power

                21:28, 11 April 2013
              • 24.0.236.100
                I should've specified - I'm giving my non de plume at the end of my posts from now on. :)
                21:29, 11 April 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                Still the wrong thread...
                21:31, 11 April 2013
              • SOTO
                We apparently have touch-ups of Eight (please specify, Czech) and we're still working on Five. I'm not quite sure where we are on Eleven. I want to bring this back, and get it all done ASAP.
                21:45, 11 April 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 23:09, 11 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Well, on Five we're where we were as of my last comment. On Eight, we're just looking to see if you can get your basic design for eight tilted at the same position as the locked Nine. And on Eleven, I'm still not wild about the bow tie. Maybe we could take a look at his sonic, since his sonic is uniquely his sonic.

                But clearly the Five thing is the priority. In a pinch, if you're sick of this project, there's usable stuff here for Eight and Eleven. But the Five, I dunno, I'm not convinced it's very clear.

                23:14, 11 April 2013
              • SOTO
                No, no, not sick of this. My computer's been in the shop for a while, but now I got it back, so I can get back to this.

                ...Actually, I'm going to have to retrieve the files, so you may have to wait an extra hour or so.

                Just to be clear, you want less detail on the celery in a pose like my second one? Do you have any other suggestions for me to implement while I'm at it?

                23:19, 11 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Took longer than anticipated to retrieve.

                I don't really know where to start in simplifying the celery... I did my best! Next time, I'll completely redesign in with less detail in mind.

                TardisDataCoreFive14.png TardisDataCoreEleven9.png TardisDataCoreEleven10.png
                00:59, 12 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Well, the only thing I can say is to notice Imamadmad's cat. That's a good level of detail. It's not much, but it's enough that we know what the shape is at these small pixel widths. When you look at the celery you've got so far up close, it's fine. Artistic even. But the attempt at shading and even shadows is stopping it from being iconic. You only need a few strands of blue to suggest the detail between the leaves, I think.
                00:59, 12 April 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro

                SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Took longer than anticipated to retrieve.

                I don't really know where to start in simplifying the celery... I did my best! Next time, I'll completely redesign in with less detail in mind.

                TardisDataCoreFive14.png TardisDataCoreEleven9.png TardisDataCoreEleven10.png

                That second screwdriver is fantastic, SOTO!

                01:14, 12 April 2013
              • SOTO
                TardisDataCoreFive15.png TardisDataCoreFive16.png
                01:14, 12 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Don't think we're there yet on the celery. I think the poblem is that odd splotch of blue on the bottom right of the celery frond. It doesn't have any visual meaning. It's just a splotch of blue. If we can solve that, 'well be closer.

                And now the lapel is starting to make less sense. But the celery is making more sense. So maybe we can get rid of the lapel and concentrate, once again, on just the celery.

                As for the screwdriver, I think this migh tbe a case where we need to go for some greyscale for the "business end". The glow of the sonic might need to be a 25% #012c57 to indicate a little more clearly what it is.

                02:13, 12 April 2013
              • SOTO
                Here's me attempting to carry out your suggestions.
                TardisDataCoreEleven11.png TardisDataCoreEleven12.png TardisDataCoreFive17.png

                I don't really think the celery is any clearer than it was...

                02:36, 12 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Oh. weird. You added light aurora to things. Yeah, that won't work, because it'll show up as an add square. And you enhanced the lesser of the two images. I would have thought you would have enhanced the one Cult of Skaro expressed a preference for. The closer-up one. I think if you take away the halo effect and otherwise apply your alterations to the closer-up one, we'll be done with Eleven.

                And yeah, I'm probably as sick as you of looking at celery. Shall we move on to a simple cricket ball? Here's one that should be easy to adapt. http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/file_download/blogcontent/219.png

                06:29, 12 April 2013
              • Cult_Of_Skaro
                No, he enhanced the one I preferred.
                17:47, 12 April 2013
              • CzechOut
                Ah, you said second screwdriver. I misread and thought you meant the second image of the three. Silly mistake on my part. Yah I don't like that one as well. Because it has more of the body it looks a bit too much like a snake at a glance. I think the closer-in shot would be a bit more easily identifiable, more quickly. I'd certainly liked to compare an enhanced version of that to the smaller image.

                I think that we're almost there, though, with the Eleven, so let's put that on the back burner, and make sure that we get the Five over the weekend.

                20:54, 12 April 2013
              • SOTO
                I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do to demonstrate the glow of the sonic... Can you perhaps elaborate?
                TardisDataCoreEleven13.png TardisDataCoreEleven13-2.png

                As far as Five, here's my attempt at representing a cricket ball:

                TardisDataCoreFive18.png TardisDataCoreFive19.png
                22:52, 12 April 2013
              SOTO
              So, where are we, Czech?

              I made another clumsy logo:

              TardisDataCoreFive20.png

              I personally still prefer the cricket ball I made two weeks ago. I'll have time to work on this tomorrow, so please tell me what to try next.

              01:31, 29 April 2013

              Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123657


              Shortcut:
              24.214.224.96
              Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Is it true the Ice Warriors were Baptists and Lutherans?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Message from OttselSpy25".

              That's what their entry states. I have never heard of this.

              17:40, 5 March 2013
              Edited 01:29, 6 March 2013
                CzechOut
                I can't speak to the whole body of Ice Warrior fiction, but certainly GodEngine does not contain either the word Baptist or Lutheran. Also the book makes a point of saying that Martians had different gods to the Christian God. The book seems to make the point that Oras is one god whom some Martians worship — though this religion may have been viewed as a cult by "mainstream" Martians.

                That line has therefore been removed from the article.

                01:23, 6 March 2013
                Edited 01:27, 6 March 2013

                Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123705


                Shortcut:
                ComicBookGoddess
                Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Raven-what? How do we spell that?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Is it true the Ice Warriors were Baptists and Lutherans?".

                Ok. We've got two different spellings for the name of the planet with 600 foot tall people on the page for The God Complex - Ravan-Skala and Ravenscala. Each has a page. I checked the audio and it even could be "Raven's Gala". I've even seen a few other proposed spellings. As a throwaway line, I'd suspect there weren't any other references to check with. The subtitles (which are, of course, frequently incorrect) use "Ravenscala".

                Can we choose a spelling, add a disambiguation, and delete the spare page?

                07:08, 6 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 01:11, 11 March 2013
                Edited by CzechOut 01:16, 11 March 2013
                • ComicBookGoddess
                  If nobody cares, I suggest we keep Ravenscala, delete Ravan-Skala, and set up a redirect for "Ravan-Skala" or "Raven-Skala" or "Ravenskala".
                  01:43, 8 March 2013
                CzechOut
                Closing as uncontroversial suggestion. Wasn't strictly necessary to start a forum thread on this, since it affects really only one minor page. In such a situation, there's nothing wrong with boldly editing to this extent:
                1. Slap a redirect on the page that has the spelling that can't be supported by anything — in this case, Ravan-Skala
                2. Go to the spelling that will survive −- here, Ravenscala — and add a BTS note saying that the article bears the spelling from the closed captioning because there's nothing better to use as a reference.
                3. Proceed to your next editing project.
                01:16, 11 March 2013

                Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123832


                Shortcut:
                144.183.31.2
                Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Browser Incompatibility" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Raven-what? How do we spell that?".

                I have tried accessing this wiki with IE 9, but the page keeps crashing. It loads ok on IE 8, though. This is only within the past few weeks. Has something changed? I was able to access the wiki with IE 9 previously.

                09:15, 7 March 2013
                Edited 20:42, 7 March 2013
                Edited 21:10, 20 May 2013
                  CzechOut
                  We don't support IE, but what you're describing is extremely unusual. I've never heard of IE 8 working, while IE 9 doesn't.

                  I just had a report yesterday about another matter derived from IE 9, though, so I have to believe it does indeed work in IE 9.

                  If you feel you absolutely must view the site in IE, the only thing I can recommend is that you update to the latest version and try again. However, our usual recommendation is that you avoid IE altogether.

                  14:46, 7 March 2013

                  Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123902


                  Shortcut:
                  Shambala108
                  Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Individual humans category" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Browser Incompatibility".

                  So we seem to have gotten rid of the category "individual humans". What is supposed to replace it? The category "humans" says not to use it for individuals.

                  02:39, 8 March 2013
                  Edited by CzechOut 02:49, 11 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    • bangs head against wall*

                    Do you know how hard it is to get used to these concepts? Maybe some charts or something or if there are charts maybe some easier to find charts?

                    02:57, 8 March 2013
                  • SOTO
                    I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyways, I noticed that the cat was gone, too. Shouldn't it at least be there to hold subcats of more specific human cats (ex: Category:Human teachers)?
                    03:47, 8 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    The Category system is generally well-developed but you can't see how it fits together unless you have their names already. If you do have their names, the uses aren't necessarily intuitive, and you have to open other windows to read the descriptions.

                    And sometimes when I open other windows, I lose my edits.

                    This is annoying. This and sticky keys are some reasons why you see 5 or 6 tiny edits from me rather than one big good one.

                    03:56, 8 March 2013
                  • SOTO
                    Number one: heard of tabs?

                    Number two: What browser do you use? You shouldn't be losing your progress.

                    Number three: Go to Category:Individuals. Note the category tree.

                    04:08, 8 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    I've seen you have enough issues with this before, so I don't believe it's purposeful, but your phrasing on Number one is more than borderline insulting, there. At the very least it put my hackles up. Try to watch for that, and I'll try not to be too sarcastic in my replies.
                    1. Yes, changing tabs in iPad Safari sometimes causes it to reload when I switch back, losing ALL of my editing.
                    2. See question above. Haven't run into it in Chrome yet but I'm not at that machine all the time and I can't watch the episode at the same time there.
                    3. The point remains that I still need to know to look for Category:Individuals in order to find the tree. It's acumen you build up over time working on a project, and I don't have it yet. I'm still playing a game of "what were these people thinking"... And if you want to be welcoming to newcomers and not have them make mistakes you need to keep fixing, well, then, it's something that you might need to look at, and I'm pointing it out.
                    04:16, 8 March 2013
                  • SOTO
                    Sorry. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be more careful.

                    On topic, in on an iPad, yes, that happens to me all the time when I edit on my iPad. Really annoying. Printing out the map would be ridiculous.

                    I suppose you're right, we might need to make it more clear for new editors.

                    04:20, 8 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    (Even if it wasn't ridiculous, I'd have to print it at one of the fire stations...)

                    Yeah, at the moment, even if a new editor has read up on a bunch of categories and sort of gets how it works, they need to try a phrase, then try the phrase with a different word first, then try synonyms for words in the phrase... And then, when they add it, they can still find that in the context of the wiki, the phrase has a specific meaning that isn't applicable! Frustrating to say the least.

                    04:28, 8 March 2013
                  • CzechOut
                    Individual humans was intentionally removed, knowing that it might add some pages to Special:UncategorizedPages. The hope was that people would then try to give these pages better, more specific categories.

                    There is not a one-size-fits-all approach here. You just have to read the pages and try to figure out a better category.

                    Our category system does make sense, but as with any wiki, including Wikipedia, you do have to get used to its nomenclature. A tip would be to add categories only from the category box as it naturally appears on the page. Don't open up an edit window and then try to type in a category there.

                    The reason is that the link suggest in the category module is much more flexible than the link suggest in the edit window. In the edit window, you have to type in the category name in the correct order. In the category module, you can type the words out of order.

                    The practical effect of this is easy to demonstrate. Imaging that you're trying to find a category that has the word time in it. If you put time into the category module, you'll get things like category:Closing Time TV story images, category:Time Lords, Category:The End of Time TV story images and the like. Within the regular edit window, if you want category:Closing Time TV story images, you have to know that the category begin with the word closing and type all the words in that order.

                    This distinction can be very helpful when you're trying to orient yourself to our system.

                    Another thing you can do to figure us out is to go to category:floor 500, and then just spend some time "drilling down" through our categories. If you begin to pick up some of the big parent category, you have a place to start looking if a category name proves elusive. In this case, the category you'd start with is category:individuals, and then look at the various subcats.

                    Additionally, it's very easy to create charts of categories by using the Category Tree extension. It's a flexible extension, so there are all sorts of different output. Here's just one example 

                    {{#categorytree:Individuals|mode=pages|showcount}}
gives us something that looks like this:
                    Individuals‎ (31 C, 29 P)
                    Aliases‎ (7 C, 214 P)
                    Cigarette smokers‎ (3 P)
                    Gestalt beings‎ (1 C, 22 P)
                    Individual shifts‎ (3 P)
                    Individuals by ability‎ (11 C)
                    Individuals by association‎ (138 C)
                    Individuals by biology‎ (8 C)
                    Individuals by employer‎ (44 C)
                    Individuals by familial relation‎ (89 C)
                    Individuals by hobby‎ (4 C)
                    Individuals by location‎ (41 C)
                    Individuals by profession‎ (134 C)
                    Individuals by religion‎ (19 C)
                    Individuals by species‎ (285 C)
                    Individuals by time period‎ (93 C)
                    Individuals from unknown eras‎ (1 C, 166 P)
                    Individuals that were erased from time‎ (35 P)
                    Individuals who have been inside a Dalek‎ (10 P)
                    Individuals who have mental illness‎ (4 P)
                    Individuals who have witnessed regeneration‎ (2 C, 22 P)
                    Individuals with incarnations of varied genders‎ (1 C, 3 P)
                    Individuals with unknown names‎ (30 C, 784 P)
                    Millionaires‎ (19 P)
                    Non-existent individuals‎ (68 P)
                    Personifications of concepts‎ (2 C, 48 P)
                    Pets and mascots‎ (3 C, 110 P)
                    Refugees‎ (2 C, 15 P)
                    Individual robots‎ (9 C, 232 P)
                    Specimens in the Rani's time brain‎ (6 P)
                    Individual time travellers‎ (14 C, 400 P)
                    Unique beings‎ (1 C, 136 P)
                    Anvar
                    Aquanafrahudy
                    Bedloe
                    Bloody Mary (individual)
                    Carol Protraxus
                    Charis
                    Charles (The Adventures of Talbot, Interdimensional Dogtective - Part 1)
                    Dirk Gently
                    Elidh
                    Hoggoth
                    Hoofius
                    Illya
                    Francine Mole
                    Paul Moloneux
                    Nathaniel Dark
                    Nemika
                    Nobody
                    Pete Parnell
                    Carl Payne
                    Roshon
                    The Shimmering Man
                    Simon (The Lost Resort)
                    Worzel Gummidge's sister
                    Ymetry Absinthe Wonglebongle Dooda Dodo Qualactin Rumplestiltskin Borridongdong Smeghead III
                    Mr Spoon
                    Stralos
                    Tarkin (Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor)
                    Trok'larr
                    Yosuki
                    05:49, 8 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    Ok. As a new user, where was I supposed to find out that Floor 500 was the top level category - the place to go start?

                    Because I've been reading the help pages, the category pages, and seeking out the fiddly areas of the wiki for at least the past two weeks and I didn't see it once.

                    06:11, 8 March 2013
                  • CzechOut
                    Um, the front page of the wiki, maybe?
                    06:22, 8 March 2013
                  • ComicBookGoddess
                    Ha ha ha! Would you believe that I never really went there? Google linked from various topics via search, I started reading about the classic series and eventually typos got to be too much for me.

                    I started from the Help pages, and the little thingy automatically put on my Talk page. Never made it back to the main page to see it. Betcha my experience isn't uncommon!

                    06:30, 8 March 2013
                  • CzechOut
                    The other point is that it's relatively easy to figure out what the top level category is by clicking your way up the category tree. From most pages you're no more than six or seven clicks away from Category:Floor 500.

                    It's actually quite unusual for a Wikia wiki to have such an integrated category tree structure. If you go to Memory Alpha, for instance, there are several dead ends in their category structure. Indeed, they effectively don't have a top level category, but several, mostly unintentional, top levels.

                    So yeah, it may be confusing to the new user, but it is a good deal more rational than the typical wiki.

                    08:32, 8 March 2013
                  • Shambala108
                    OK I made a pass through Special:Uncategorizedpages yesterday, but some pages are, frankly, so poorly written that it's nearly impossible to figure out a current or new category for them. Others are characters that have nothing special about them other than they are human. We have "individual species name" for other species, why not humans? Is there a forum discussion that I can check out? Thanks.
                    04:28, 9 March 2013
                  • CzechOut
                    The reason "why not humans" is because humans are the dominant species in the DWU. Thus there were thousands of pages that had this category, making the category useless.

                    What kind of forum discussion were you looking for?

                    06:13, 9 March 2013
                  • Shambala108
                    I wanted to check out the forum discussion where it was decided to get rid of the category. Sorry for the confusion.
                    14:54, 9 March 2013
                  • CzechOut
                    No forum discussion was required because this was an administrative move to highlight a maintenance issue. Think of it as the equivalent of slapping {{update}} on a number of pages automatically.

                    As you've noticed, the pages that were completely de-categorised by this move need help. Keeping them under the category individual humans meant that no one could see how much work needs to be done on them. This way, it's much more likely someone's going to get curious and do something about it.

                    Fortunately, only about 50 pages are in really dire shape from this lazy use of individual humans. Another 30 or so have been added to the list by the removal of category:individuals from individual pages.

                    18:07, 9 March 2013
                  • Shambala108
                    Okie dokie, thanks.
                    19:46, 9 March 2013
                  CzechOut

                  ComicBookGoddess wrote: Ha ha ha! Would you believe that I never really went there? Google linked from various topics via search, I started reading about the classic series and eventually typos got to be too much for me. I started from the Help pages, and the little thingy automatically put on my Talk page. Never made it back to the main page to see it. Betcha my experience isn't uncommon!

                  Yeah, this isn't really your fault. Help on categories is something that's been put off for too long. There will be a whole section of the Tardis Manual devoted to categories, but I just haven't gotten round to it.

                  It's hoped that in this damned front page redesign that I never seem to have enough time to get around to, the category structure will become more obvious, by focusing on the one part of the category tree that is most relevant to one of several "gateway" pages.

                  21:35, 9 March 2013
                  Edited 21:36, 9 March 2013

                  Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:123994


                  Shortcut:
                  67.248.217.244
                  Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/River's upbringing" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Individual humans category".

                  Has there ever been an episode where the Doctor goes to the Gamma Forest? the one where the only water source is a river?

                  18:03, 8 March 2013
                  Edited 18:27, 8 March 2013
                  Edited 18:27, 8 March 2013
                  Edited 18:29, 8 March 2013
                    CzechOut
                    No. And with that simple answer, the question will now be closed.
                    18:28, 8 March 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:124119


                    Shortcut:
                    ComicBookGoddess
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Target Books by Year" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/River's upbringing".

                    The Publishing History sections on these pages looks kinda silly, all run together (example: Target Books (1974)). I think they'd look a lot better like the way I edited this one Target Books (1973).

                    I'm thinking I should ask to do something like this, am I right? How long do I wait if nobody answers? Was I wrong to edit the first one as an example?

                    21:12, 9 March 2013
                    Edited 21:13, 9 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 01:36, 11 March 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:124149


                    Shortcut:
                    SOTO
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Fiftieth Anniversary page" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Target Books by Year".
                    This discussion is not to be confused with the one about our wiki's ways of celebrating the 50th. This thread is about a 50th Anniversary page in the main namespace

                    As you must have gathered from above, I'm here to discuss a potential article in the main namespace about the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who.

                    The idea actually originally came from Imamadmad on another thread:

                    Imamadmad wrote: Maybe there can be a page dedicated specifically to 50th anniversary celebrations around the world somewhere on this wiki

                    You can check out the mini-discussion that was held there for more information. In short, I agreed, MrThermomanPreacher said that RangerWiki does just that with their Power Rangers 20 page and OttselSpy25 expanded on the concept. CzechOut then rejected the idea, saying that he would prefer a simply category, since he didn't think there would be any unique information: only a list.

                    Two weeks ago, I created a mock-up, which demonstrated that the page does in fact get unique information. The way I see it, it should function sort of like a series page. See Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005), for example. The mock-up can be found here. I haven't really touched the page since its creation. Now, I'm bringing the idea back.

                    Basically, the page would include every big thing that's going on in celebration of the 50th: conventions (recently announced, I'll add it to the page later...), merchandise, episodes, books, comics, documentaries... Everything like that. Please note that they must have to do specifically with the anniversary itself, not just something that happened to be released in 2013.

                    Anyways, check out the mock-up, and feel free to offer your comments here, and/or edit my mock-up. I'm currently busy on both my day of the year project and creating 50th anniversary logos, so I won't be able to help much now. I'm just putting the idea back on the table.

                    What do you guys think about having such a page?

                    22:19, 9 March 2013
                    Edited 01:23, 10 March 2013
                    Edited 04:33, 10 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 09:31, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      PS. Puffin Eshorts was created the day after I created the page. I don't think it deserves its own page: it should be a redirect to its section on the fiftieth anniversary page.

                      Also, should we start calling it the "Fiftieth Anniversary," like a proper title, or just a "fiftieth anniversary," like a common noun describing it. I think the Fiftieth Anniversary makes it like it's the Anniversary, rather than just an ordinary anniversary.

                      22:23, 9 March 2013
                      Edited 22:23, 9 March 2013
                      Edited 22:23, 9 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Just to elaborate on my point about it being like a series page:
                      1. It contains spoilers
                      2. It's about the anniversary in general, much like a series in general. While, yes, the specific episodes get their own pages, we still have a page about the series in general. Except this includes several media. I organised the page first by medium, and then by the name of the specific event/story/object/etc. If one company or branch is doing two or more things, then it's organised first by medium, then by company, then by name.


                      Also note that:

                      1. I put bold on all the titles on the different sections, contrary to T:BOLD. This can be undone, if it is so wished.
                      2. As it's only a mock-up, I didn't put sources on everything. If it ends up actually existing, please note that proper sources will definitely be needed, same as a series page. Rumours also need to sourced. Basically, same rules apply as to a series page.
                      22:32, 9 March 2013
                      Edited 22:33, 9 March 2013
                      Edited 00:07, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Please expand upon your rationale for why Puffin eshort would not deserve a page of its own. Are you suggesting it doesn't exist?
                      23:55, 9 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      No, I'm suggesting that it's only there as a directory. There's pretty much only a lead and a table there. There's so little information that, should there be a 50th anniversary page, we might as well just have it there.

                      If we don't end up having such a page, then, obviously, we'll be needing the Puffin page.

                      00:00, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      In the choice between something which does uncontrovertibly exist, versus a page with a name of our devising, the former always wins. Puffin Eshort is a name which can be verified by a valid source. "Fiftieth Anniversary" can't.

                      What does the term "Fiftieth Anniversary" mean? The Fiftieth Anniversary of Donald Baverstock commissioning the report that led to Doctor Who? C. E. Webber and company's initial concept idea? Verity Lambert's hiring? Hartnell's casting? The recording of the Pilot? The recording of the first episode? The transmission of the first episode? Is it the whole year? Is it everything that happened in the year 2013 vaguely in connection with the year 1963?

                      We'd literally be making it all up. It's much better to just have a page on each range or story released in 2013 and then note, as appropriate, that it was a special related to the fiftieth anniversary of the programme.

                      Oh, and pull yourself together, man: we don't take our cues from the freakin' Power Rangers.

                      00:42, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      In what way was I suggested we "take our cues" from there? I just summed up the conversation.

                      And, if you actually take a look at the mock-up, you'll note that it's called Fiftieth Anniversary of Doctor Who.

                      00:44, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Also, it's not like we're the only ones who noticed that it's the 50th, and we're just randomly created a page about something that's not there.

                      The fiftieth anniversary has gained a lot of publicity. It's a known term across the world to signify, specifically, 23 November 2013, 50th anniversary of the broadcast of the first episode in 1963, and, more broadly, the whole year of 2013. As addressed in the lead of the article.

                      The BBC have called it the "Fiftieth Anniversary," they have a special logo for it, they even made a frickin' website!!

                      00:48, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 00:50, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 00:51, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      The idea comes from the Rangers Wiki, remember? And, again, "Fiftieth Anniversary of Doctor Who" is a vague term, capable of admitting several definitions. It doesn't mean anything, and we have no similar page for any other anniversary of Doctor Who.
                      00:49, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Yes, but the 50th is the biggest of them all: a half a century. It also has a lot more publicity than others, due to a recent major growth in fandom.

                      Yes, the term can mean several things, but it doesn't. As I already stated, the entire fandom, all the registered companies, and the BBC call November 23rd, 2013, and the whole year, the "fiftieth anniversary."

                      One more memory refresher: the idea originated from Imamadmad, in response to our argument about including 50th celebration on day of the year articles. Then I agreed and an idea formed. It was only afterwards that MrThermomenPreacher supported it by saying that, on another wiki, the same was done.

                      00:55, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 00:57, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Also note that no one's celebrating the 50th anniversary of the original report, or the day that Verity Lambert was hired. Those events lead up to the actual beginning of Doctor Who, when viewers got to actually see the show on their screens.

                      To put the word "anniversary" into perspective, do we celebrate the anniversary of the day he proposed once they've already been married? Or the day that they first met? Or, worse yet, the day that she failed a test, which ended up leading to her meeting him? Of course not — that would be ridiculous! No, we celebrate only the anniversary of the actual day of the wedding.

                      While it might be cool to look back and say, "hey, exactly 50 years ago, Verity Lambert was hired," we're hardly going to host special conventions, merchandise, episodes, expensive docu-dramas, comic stories, etc... in celebration of the day. 23 November 1963 was the date of marriage. And the whole world is celebrating it, 50 years later.

                      01:05, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Another good reason to have such a page is the admission of spoilers. Technically, for example, the Puffin eshort page shouldn't have information on the upcoming Third Doctor story. According to T:SPOIL, since it's not yet officially released, it can't be there.

                      But, on the fiftieth anniversary page, it can! Just like Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005) can have information on how a certain classic monster is coming back in a certain episode, but we can't put that information anywhere else, especially since we can't create the page for the episode yet. It's the same here: all those future 50th anniversary releases mentioned in the mock-up (spoiler removed) - they can all be put here, complete with rumours, and validated spoilers on what the stories/other things will contain, as well as writers, dates of releases, etc...

                      Remember, when people go looking for information on S7, part 2, they go to Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005). Where do they go for the anniversary?

                      After series 7 airs, the next thing coming up will be the special, and the BBC will give us loads of information on it, and on other celebrations throughout the year. Where do they go? Hmmm...?

                      01:14, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 04:31, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 15:43, 8 June 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      So you want us to create a page with a title that will immediately require {[tlx|conjecture}} simply because you want a place to put spoilers? We allow spoilers on a page like series 7, but we're not required to provide one. You'll note that we don't really have such a place for any other medium. The general rule is just that spoilers aren't allowed.

                      In direct answer to your questions in the above posts: we put that information nowhere until the ep airs. Simple.

                      02:47, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Number one, I'm still not seeing the conjecture. November 23rd, 1963 is officially called the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who not only by the BBC, but by everyone else involved or not in the celebrations. It cannot refer to anything else. Technically, there are other possibilities, but that's not how it's ever used. In fact, more often than not, in the context, it's simply called "the Anniversary."

                      The page isn't only there for spoilers, anyways. Answer me this: why do we have series pages at all? Why not just have Category:Doctor Who Series 7 TV stories and be done with it?

                      02:54, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 02:55, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Yes, the term can mean several things, but it doesn't. As I already stated, the entire fandom, all the registered companies, and the BBC call November 23rd, 2013, and the whole year, the "fiftieth anniversary."

                      Read yourself, man. It doesn't mean several things — but it does mean both 23 Nov 2013 and the whole year. Those are two separate things. So if it means the whole year, does it mean that series 7b is a part of the celebration? Does it mean that only episode 10 is? Does it mean that only episode 14 is? We just don't know at this point.. Although we know that that Big Finish and Audio Go are doing this Destiny of the Doctor thing, are we so certain that the regular, monthly release of November 2013 will be just a regular, monthly release?

                      Nah, this is far too amorphous a situation. Just write articles about the various stories and then note those stories which, in the end, turn out to be in some way commemorative.

                      There is no point to giving a page to the 50th, when we haven't done so for the 20th or the 10th or the 4th or the 39th.

                      02:57, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Number one, I'm still not seeing the conjecture. November 23rd, 1963 is officially called the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who not only by the BBC, but by everyone else involved or not in the celebrations. It cannot refer to anything else. Technically, there are other possibilities, but that's not how it's ever used. In fact, more often than not, in the context, it's simply called "the Anniversary."

                      The page isn't only there for spoilers, anyways. Answer me this: why do we have series pages at all? Why not just have Category:Doctor Who Series 7 TV stories and be done with it?

                      Okay so by this definition — and again you keep changing your definitions — the anniversary is only things that happen on 23 November 2013. So what happens if, as happened with the 10th and 20th anniversaries, the so-called "anniversary story" doesn't air on BBC One on 23 November? Is it not a part of the celebration unless it happens on 23 November 2013?

                      And, obviously, other things that are marked as celebratory are not happening on 23 November. So clearly the "marriage anniversary definition" does not apply.

                      Things that are commemorative are happening throughout the year — yet clearly not everything that happens in the year is a part of the 50th anniversary.

                      And that's precisely why you'd have a hard time writing the page to an acceptable standard. We simply don't know the definition of "the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who" because we don't know in full how the BBC are planning to mark it. And we really won't know until 2014.

                      03:03, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      No, you're misunderstanding me. It's specifically 23 Nov, but, considering that we can't do everything on one day, we also celebrate throughout the year, although to a lesser extent than the day itself.

                      Also, not everything that happens in 2013 is automatically for the 50th. Even if it happens on 23 Nov 2013 itself and the people in charge don't explicitly say that it's to celebrate the anniversary, we can't include it on the page. 7B is not specifically part of the celebration, even though the inclusion of classic monsters does allude to some sort of mild celebration. If the BBC specifically tell us in the future that the inclusion of aforementioned classic monsters (spoiler purged), as well as possible others (note the spoiler notice at the top), is specifically in celebration of the 50th, then, and then only, we'll create a section where we say only that those inclusions were to celebrate the 50th, with a little bit of specific information.

                      There's the catch: we only give information on the page that's relevant specifically to the Anniversary. If DWM publishes an edition dedicated to the 50th, with articles all about it, it goes on the page. If they have an edition published on 23 Nov that has no relevance, or that they don't explicitly say was dedicated, to the fiftieth anniversary, then, "Off with its head!"

                      03:09, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 03:11, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 04:32, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      No, I'm not changing my definitions. The actual anniversary is on 23 November 2013. But the celebrations take place throughout the year. In fact, it has nothing to do with the date - it has to do with the relevance to the Fiftieth. Even if, confused, some company celebrated it in some way in 2012 or 2014, if it's dedicated to the Fiftieth, it merits inclusion.
                      03:16, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      By 2014, we'll have known everything. Until then, this should basically be the rule: 
                      Any celebration or dedication to the fiftieth anniversary of the first broadcast of "An Unearthly Child," hence the anniversary of Doctor Who itself, if, and only if, officially revealed to be a celebration or dedication in a valid source, regardless of date of release or event, is acceptable on this page.

                      You say we "simply don't know the definition." But there it is, staring right at you. We wrote the definition of spoilers and rumours — this time, we're leaving it up to whomever releases and/or host the celebrations to decide. Anything a valid source directly from the distributor says is a celebration, is a celebration in our book. Regardless of date.

                      03:21, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 03:25, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 03:27, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Hold the phone just a second. What's this edit that you've made at the top of this thread? This thread better damn well not contain spoilers. You do not have the ability to violate T:SPOIL, and if you have retroactively added even the slightest spoiler to this thread, you had better remove it, along with that ridiculous note at the top of post 1, or you will be blocked.

                      T:SPOIL was specifically enacted to prevent spoiling in the forum.

                      04:24, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 04:24, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      I added it because we're discussing a spoiler-allowed page. It's extremely hard to discuss such things, and what would be allowed in the page, without divulging a little bit of information in unreleased stories and/or anything unreleased in other media. Fine. I'll have to make extreme effort to direct you to things in the page instead of saying them. This will be difficult...

                      I'll get rid of the message and any spoilers, although it makes explaining a whole lot harder.

                      EDIT: message and the two mild spoilers purged. But how exactly are we supposed to talk about — I can't say it! — um, future releases and broadcasts related to the 50th if we can't even mention them by name? Just the question was hard enough to phrase!

                      04:29, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 04:36, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      I wholly disagree with your contention that "the fiftieth anniversary of the first broadcast of 'An Unearthly Child' [is] the anniversary of Doctor Who itself."

                      That's plainly incorrect. Shows don't just spontaneously appear on television. They require much planning, negotiation and plain ol' hard work. Doctor Who was finally green lit and produced in 1963, so, fine, this year is the fiftieth anniversary of the start of production. And, yes, 23 November is kidna-sorta the anniversary of transmission, except that the BBC publicly committed themselves through audio trailers broadcast on BBC Radio earlier in November.

                      By the time 23 November roles around in 1963, it's really not a "make-or-break" moment, because Lambert was already in production of The Daleks, and she'd already gained a 21-week extension. Those two things have much more bearing on our continued enjoyment of Doctor Who today than the broadcast of "An Unearthly Child". (That's why AUC is actually quite poor but the series continued anyway.)

                      Moreover, the BBC weren't particularly fussed to broadcast The Three Doctors on 23 November 1973, or The Five Doctors on 23 November 1983 or even, heaven help us, Dimensions in Time on 23 November 1993. Granted, they got closer with the 20th and 30th, but The Three Doctors was actually more of a 9th anniversary than a 10th.

                      So what's the anniversary of Doctor Who? It's what the fan, or the student, of Doctor Who wants it to be. If you want to talk about what matters, it's really:

                      • 14 June: the day that Sydney Newman hired Verity Lambert
                      • 24 June: the day that Verity Lambert hired David Whitaker and thus formed the first production team.
                      • 31 July: the day the four principals were formally contracted, and the day that Terry Nation is formally commissioned for the serial that will become The Daleks
                      • 20 August, the day that the first filming for serial A
                      • 27 September, the day of first recording with the principal actors
                      • 30 October: the day that Verity Lambert and Donald Wilson cracked the budget, impressed Donald Baverstock, and returned Doctor Who to genuine production after it had effectively been cancelled
                      • 15 October, the day that "The Dead Planet" is recorded
                      • 22 November, the day that Doctor Who could be fairly said to have gone into "full" production. On this date, one day before the premiere, Lambert actually got an extension for a second group of 13 episodes, bringing the total commitment to 26, with a very strong hint from Baverstock that she'll probably get a third extension soon — before the first episode had even aired. This effectively makes the production team's (justified) lack of confidence in "the caveman story" irrelevant, since they can now be assured of having time to turn things around with better stories.
                      • 23 November, the day that serial A began transmission
                      • 21 December, Dalekmania begins

                      The truth is that every one of these things is a significant milestone, and we possibly wouldn't have had Doctor Who without any of them. But to me the most inconsequential thing for the continued success of Doctor Who is the 23 November date. Nothing happens there that does much to ensure the longevity of the show, since the thing that really makes Doctor Who an institution — the Daleks — is already in production and assured of transmission before 23 November.

                      04:57, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      :) I admire that point of view. But, as I've said, it's inconsequential, as the actual date of broadcast or release doesn't matter - it's the fact that it's dedicated to the fiftieth that's the deciding factor.

                      I actually agree that 23 November is the least relevant, but it's still, in a sense, the "birth" of Doctor Who. No, no, scratch that: that might be a number of days, including 31 July. Fine, call it "puberty" - the day the show became "ripe." While it doesn't have as much weight on the future, it's still an important "first." The very first time an episode of Who was broadcast. While it might not be as crucial as other days, for the fiftieth, that's the day that everyone seems to be celebrating.

                      All that being said, yes, that would mean changes in wording and all that, but it doesn't affect what's allowed in the article. To repeat myself: what's allowed in the article is whatever's in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Who in general, regardless of date.

                      05:08, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Let me try a different tack, because you're just not getting it.

                      An article's name must indicate precise content.

                      • The article stovepipe hat is about a particular kind of hat — not all hats.
                      • The article called Jacksonville, Kentucky is not about Jacksonville and its environs. It's just about Jacksonville.
                      • The Third Doctor Handbook tells us about that volume — not the whole series.
                      • DWM 230 doesn't tell us about the rest of the issues from that year.

                      An article's title must be specific. Fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who is not specific. It means many different things. it means the observation of the several different milestones I've pointed out, and others that I haven't. It means celebratory events. It means the actual story which is meant to commemorate the event, in the same way that "the twentieth anniversary" means to many people The Five Doctors.

                      And then there's the matter of the precedent it sets. I'm extremely wary of allowing this simply because I don't want a page called Tenth anniversary of Doctor Who or Twentieth anniversary of Doctor Who or 45th anniversary of Doctor Who.

                      And beyond that, T:SPOIL will not allow you to do what you think it will. Even if you have this page, it does not fit into the exceptions. it will not be a series page, so spoilers will not be allowed on it.

                      You cannot reasonably imagine that I will allow some poor, innocent user to click on a link to fiftieth anniversary of Doctor who and suddenly be in the middle of spoilers.

                      This idea is totally DOA. Move on, please.

                      05:44, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      But such the page is like a series page, and thus can go under the same category. The current T:SPOIL wasn't written with this new article in mind, anyway. Also, don't forget the new spoiler screen you created. Users have to specifically click to view the page.

                      As far as the title, all the events you mentioned took place in 1963, thus the anniversary cannot be set to a specific date, but we know the year. It doesn't matter exactly which event we're commemorating - the fact is that the anniversary definitively exists, is a huge event throughout the year, and is therefore highly notable.

                      Furthermore, the tenth anniversary didn't have as much going on and as much publicity, thus it does't merit a page. But this does. In fact, perhaps we can have a broad page, say Anniversaries of Doctor Who, that discusses all the anniversaries briefly, with the 50th, which is big enough for its own page, a link to the page. This would prevent people creating pages like Tenth anniversary of Doctor Who in the future.

                      05:54, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 05:58, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Once again, what's the rationale for having series pages in the first place? How can we possibly have series pages, when you manage to completely dismiss this?
                      06:00, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Literally all information in Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005) either can be found in the individual story pages, or are spoilers. Series 6, sans spoilers now, contains only information that can be found in the individual story pages. So why do we have the pages? Let me answer that for you: we have them so that we can have a collection of all the information on the series on one page. It's much more organised. I'm suggesting the exact same thing here.

                      None of your arguments against the page are really concrete, unless you're not explaining properly:

                      • T:SPOIL - if you agreed with me on the other points, you would gladly tweak the wording to accommodate this, just as you would with any new concepts for articles that you approve of. With other "problems" gone, this becomes a non-problem. As I said, the policy wasn't written with this in mind, but the reasons for series pages being exceptions applies here too.
                      • Precedent - I went into that in my last comments - have a general page, even just a page with a table with all the specials like Puffin eshort. This will stop people from creating useless pages like 10th anniversary.
                      • Title - If you want to suggest a better title, I'm fine with that. But the best title at the moment — Fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who — still applies. It's not the fiftieth anniversary of an event related to Doctor Who. It's the anniversary of Who's birth, and no matter what specific event you call its birth, it's still within the year 1963, hence 2013 definitively being the anniversary.
                      06:17, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 15:43, 8 June 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Once again, what's the rationale for having series pages in the first place? How can we possibly have series pages, when you manage to completely dismiss this?

                      I'm really not following you. To my mind, there is no comparison between what you're proposing and a series page. You might as well be asking, "What's the difference between the 50th anniversary and a maple tree?" A series has form and definition which can be easily sourced and understood without much controversy. The term "fiftieth anniversary" means, as I've well demonstrated, many different things. They are really nothing alike, other than that they both have to do with Doctor Who.

                      And please don't mischaracterise my participation in this thread. If I were "completely dismissing" your proposal I would have said "no", closed the thread, and moved on. I'm considering what you're saying, asking questions, but ultimately finding your answers unpersuasive. That's not dismissal.

                      06:17, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 06:18, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                      But such the page is like a series page, and thus can go under the same category. The current T:SPOIL wasn't written with this new article in mind, anyway. Also, don't forget the new spoiler screen you created. Users have to specifically click to view the page.
                      That's not the way rules work. You don't say that because T:SPOIL was written before the existence of Article X that the rule doesn't apply to Article X. T:COMMA applies to our first article just as much as our 45,034th one. Your proposed article is about several different events. People will click on it thinking that it means several different things. They won't know what is behind the spoiler screen as they would with a series page, which is about a discrete set of stories. They won't even necessarily think it's about stories at all. No way is this happening.

                      The fact is that the anniversary definitively exists, is a huge event throughout the year, and is therefore highly notable.

                      Yep, it's notable. That's why it's perfectly appropriate to note it in the lead paragraph of various articles, in the way I suggested upthread.

                      The problem you have, though, is that there is not such a thing as the anniversary. Again there are many different anniversaries. There are many different commemorative events. There are many different anniversary stories. That makes it impossible to have just one article.

                      Furthermore, the tenth anniversary didn't have as much going on and as much publicity, thus it does't merit a page. But this does. In fact, perhaps we can have a broad page, say Anniversaries of Doctor Who, that discusses all the anniversaries briefly, with the 50th, which is big enough for its own page, a link to the page. This would prevent people creating pages like Tenth anniversary of Doctor Who in the future.

                      The main problem with your proposal is its ambiguity. A remedy cannot logically be to make an even more amorphous "super article".

                      06:30, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 06:32, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO

                      CzechOut wrote:

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Once again, what's the rationale for having series pages in the first place? How can we possibly have series pages, when you manage to completely dismiss this?

                      I'm really not following you. To my mind, there is no comparison between what you're proposing and a series page. You might as well be asking, "What's the difference between the 50th anniversary and a maple tree?" A series has form and definition which can be easily sourced and understood without much controversy. The term "fiftieth anniversary" means, as I've well demonstrated, many different things. They are really nothing alike, other than that they both have to do with Doctor Who.

                      And please don't mischaracterise my participation in this thread. If I were "completely dismissing" your proposal I would have said "no", closed the thread, and moved on. I'm considering what you're saying, asking questions, but ultimately finding your answers unpersuasive. That's not dismissal.

                      Yes, that's been my main worry every time I get an email saying you replied: that you closed the thread just because you disagreed with it. By this point, you are mostly dismissing it - you even tried to tell me how none of my points were valid and to "move on." The only reason I'm being stubborn on this, is because of find your answers "unpersuasive," and I'm yet to be convinced that the page shouldn't exist.

                      As far as series, "Series 7" or "Season 7" can mean either Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005) or Season 7. While that's how we distinguish it, I'm waiting to hear how it's not conjectural - we didn't take it from a valid source, at least not to my knowledge. Let's say Moffat or the BBC says that the first episode of 7B is the seventh episode of series 7 - there you go, it's officially series 7. If he says instead that it's series 8, it's series 8 now. Point is — series is defined by what the BBC or anyone official says it is. And the anniversary has been mentioned in numerous interviews (by "numerous," I mean "a lot!").

                      06:30, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      I refer you back to your own comment:

                      CzechOut wrote: Please expand upon your rationale for why Puffin eshort would not deserve a page of its own. Are you suggesting it doesn't exist?

                      Replace "Puffin Eshort" with "Fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who" and you have my rationale. While you're starting to get to me with your "won't know what to expect" argument, the rest of your arguments could easily be applied to series articles, and, by the way you're thinking, we'd be deleting them all. Are you still not getting the anniversary/series analogy?

                      06:40, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 15:43, 8 June 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      An anniversary is not a series. They are in many ways the polar opposite of each other.

                      Of course there's a source for "season" referring to the BBC era and "series" referring to the BBC Wales era. I say a source. I mean hundreds of sources, because I'd wager there isn't an issue of Doctor Who Magazine which doesn't use the word season. All of the Handbooks use that language, so let's see, The First Doctor Handbook, page 54. There's a specific source. The Discontinuity Guide (and therefore the official BBC website). There's another source. Anything written by Jean-Marc Lofficier. There's another handful of sources. Every single info text on every single classic series DVD eventually uses "season x" to tell you the season to which the story you're watching belongs. In DVD commentaries, no less than Barry Letts uses seasons all the time. Verity Lambert certainly used either the words "third season" or "season three" to describe The Time Meddler.

                      The old series has, for as long as it's been discussed, been considered divided into things called seasons which were numbered in whole integers from 1 to 26. There's zero conjecture about the "season for old Who, series for new Who" thing. This is why Paul Cornell, when he talked about that period of time between The War Games and Spearhead from Space, invented a thing he called the "Season 6B theory". Not the "Series 6B theory". Season.

                      I know that it is fashionable today for some British fans to openly rebel against the word season because they believe that it is a North American word. But almost everything that has ever been published professionally has consistently used the word "season" in connection with Doctor Who produced between 1963-89, and "series" for anything made by BBC Wales.

                      06:50, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 06:51, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I refer you back to your own comment:

                      CzechOut wrote: Please expand upon your rationale for why Puffin eshort would not deserve a page of its own. Are you suggesting it doesn't exist?

                      Replace "Puffin eshort" with "Fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who" and you have my rationale. While you're starting to get to me with your "won't know what to expect" argument, the rest of your arguments could easily be applied to series articles, and, by the way you're thinking, we'd be deleting them all. Are you still not getting the anniversary/series analogy?

                      I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you trying to suggest that seasons don't exist? Of course they exist, and are singular and unique, as established by any one of probably thousands of individual sources.

                      06:56, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Time to wrap this up, please. How about we revisit in early 2014 to see if we can make an article out of things that actually did eventuate, rather than trying to guess at what might transpire?
                      06:58, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Well the series/season thing is mostly coincidental - by the time Doctor Who was back on the air, it became fashionable in Britain to say "series" instead of "season." Does a valid source actually say that the definitive difference between the first season of classic Who and of NuWho is season/series. Anyways, straying off topic...
                      06:59, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO

                      CzechOut wrote: Time to wrap this up, please. How about we revisit in early 2014 to see if we can make an article out of things that actually did eventuate, rather than trying to guess at what might transpire?

                      Wait a few minutes. I have an idea that's sort of in the middle of our arguments. Let me try it out...

                      07:00, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well the series/season thing is mostly coincidental - by the time Doctor Who was back on the air, it became fashionable in Britain to say "series" instead of "season." Does a valid source actually say that the definitive difference between the first season of classic Who and of NuWho is season/series. Anyways, straying off topic...

                      Here we go with you not reading again. Yes, hundreds of sources say this. Certainly almost every issue of DWM since 2004 has made this distinction. The official website uses this language. It's not "coincidental". It's the standard and accepted way of differentiating between discrete, consecutive transmissions of televised stories.

                      07:08, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Here:
                      07:14, 10 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Okay, I believe you about the series/season thing. As I said, off-topic from the anniversary.

                      Anyways, two hours later, I got around to doing aforementioned "idea." Here's the outcome. I'm in the middle of an edit, but that's basically what I have in mind: a lead (yet to be properly written) and a table, much like Puffin eshort, which you so quickly defended. The "Notes" section would include, well, notes — specific information on the stories/other media that relates to the anniversary. Also a place to note first or last appearance of long-standing concepts.

                      For example, let's pretend that the Cybermen first appeared in The Three Doctors - we'd add that to the notes section, as the Cybermen are a very popular concept in Doctor Who that's still being expanded on today.
                      08:53, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 15:42, 8 June 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Pretty much, this suggestion is a spoiler-free page, since you opposed to the whole spoiler thing, where we put down all the stories and/or other things that commemorate any anniversary number, after their release/occurrence. This will also include the recently-announced 50th convention on 23 November. If an entire series something is dedicated to an anniversary, put only the series, not the separate stories - readers will get linked to the series page, where they'd see the individual stories.

                      I think that this proposal is highly organised, and a good, effective way of cataloguing all the information on all the anniversaries on one page, without violating your above complaints.

                      Then, at the start of 2014, we'll reopen this discussion and discuss what we should do, now that we have all information at our disposal. Sound cool?

                      09:11, 10 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      The page is called "anniversaries of Doctor Who". But it's your undocumented attempt to talk about things that were done in celebration of those anniversaries. And your text flatly says that "anniversaries are undefined".

                      That's clearly not something I can support. I can't stop you from continuing the development of this page on subpages of your user page, but please don't put it in the main or any other namespace.

                      I do of course remain open to the idea of revisiting this notion in 2014. Until then, though, let's consider this conversation closed, please.

                      09:25, 10 March 2013
                      Edited 09:26, 10 March 2013
                    SOTO
                    Okay, fine. I clearly can't change your mind. This conversation is now considered closed until 2014.
                    09:28, 10 March 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:124634


                    Shortcut:
                    Digifiend
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Publisher's summaries" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Fiftieth Anniversary page".

                    I have a 1993 edition of The Leisure Hive novelisation, and noticed that the publisher's summary on that book's page is from the 1982 edition, which starts off the same but is different from the point where the Doctor and Romana are mentioned. Should I add the alternate 1993 summary?

                    22:03, 13 March 2013
                    Edited 14:24, 24 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 02:17, 24 June 2017
                    • CzechOut
                      I personally don't think that publisher's summaries are particularly significant. I'd personally be for stripping them off of every page on the wiki, and I certainly wouldn't want to have two. Others may have other views however.
                      00:13, 14 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      There are at least a couple two tree (as we say where I come from) that have multiple summaries right now...
                      01:29, 14 March 2013
                    • Shambala108
                      It's redundant to have a plot summary and a publisher summary. I would be in favor of getting rid of publisher summaries.
                      01:32, 14 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      That should be affected by whether we actually have a plot summary; in many cases, we do not.
                      13:06, 14 March 2013
                    • SOTO

                      ComicBookGoddess wrote: That should be affected by whether we actually have a plot summary; in many cases, we do not.

                      Yes, that's what I was about to say: we certainly need to keep the publisher's summaries, at least until someone write the plot summary. A LOT of pages don't have plot summaries, and you'd be totally lost without the publisher's.

                      22:22, 14 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      The publisher's summaries function in a similar way to the Synopsis sections on the TV story articles.

                      I oppose getting rid of them.

                      But back to the Digifiend's original question. Yes. Add the 1993 summary put it as a sub-heading under the Publisher's summary subheading.

                      14:29, 22 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      What's the point of adding the second summary, though?
                      21:54, 22 March 2013
                    • Mini-mitch

                      Tangerineduel wrote: The publisher's summaries function in a similar way to the Synopsis sections on the TV story articles.

                      I oppose getting rid of them.

                      I agree 100% - but is there a difference between publisher's summary and a blurb? Is 'blurb' not a better expression?

                      00:50, 23 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel

                      CzechOut wrote: What's the point of adding the second summary, though?

                      I assume you mean the plot. Which is pretty much the same as the TV episodes. Books and audio have a Publisher's summary and a Plot. TV stories have a synopsis and a Plot.

                      14:21, 23 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      No, I don't mean the plot. You answered the original poster by saying, yes, add the second publisher's summary. Why have the summaries of different editions? What's the point?
                      15:14, 23 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      Oh right, sorry.

                      If they're different, as the OP says then it's interesting isn't it?

                      13:05, 24 March 2013
                    • Digifiend
                      I have a 1993 version of Meglos as well, which has a completely different summary to the 1983 one currently on that page. So the question is, should I add the summaries, or should I instead remove the 1983 edition headers on those articles? No need for the dab header if there's only going to be one version used after all.
                      14:24, 24 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      Add them, don't remove anything.

                      That the different editions' publisher's summaries are different is notable information and should be presented.

                      14:31, 24 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      Tangerineduel wrote: Oh right, sorry.

                      If they're different, as the OP says then it's interesting isn't it?

                      Is it? How?

                      03:47, 25 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      The decision to change the publisher's summary is interesting.

                      Well I think it's interesting. That they didn't just re-use the previous edition means that an editor, copywriter or publisher (someone in the publication chain) was told to change the wording. Which would likely have taken time/money. That it was changed or edited I think is interesting, and also notable that there was a change.

                      14:07, 25 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      I think it's preferable to use hem as placeholder then write a new summary when somebody gets around to doing a plot section. Publisher's summaries are just teasers; they're not really in narrative.

                      It's also direct use of copy produced by somebody else. Even if they DO use it for promotion, it's not smart to keep it when somebody's had time to summarise the actual plot. "Fair use" is more of a trial defense than a codified protection.

                      22:53, 26 March 2013
                    • Digifiend
                      So you're citing T:THEFT as a reason not to add them?
                      00:04, 27 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      *sigh*

                      Sadly, yes. We're a little cavalier about fair use around here, don't know if that's because the main copyright holder is especially forgiving or what. While I think it's unlikely they'll take action - we ARE advertising – it's not truly in the public domain, and their lack of action doesn't automatically confer on us the right to use their text verbatim.

                      00:37, 27 March 2013
                      Edited 00:38, 27 March 2013
                      Edited 00:38, 27 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      I had a similar conversation with CzechOut concerning the use of Big Finish's trailers within the infobox. (See here for CzechOut's response and Big Finish's response)

                      While the conversation concerns the downloadable trailers their summaries are also on their site.

                      I think also by actually heading them "Publisher's summary" we're not plagiarising the content, we are representing it as the "Publisher's summary" and not our own summary.

                      12:40, 27 March 2013
                      Edited 12:41, 27 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      They still own the copyright unless they've waived or licensed it as such. Their placing it on the web, or our representing it as theirs does not actually act to suspend a copyright. Fair use applies to transformative works. When we add wholesale their summary of the plot we could be moving from advertising their work to a place where they could argue that we're competing with it.

                      We're relying on the goodwill of copyright owners, here. Best not push our luck. Here's a good primer on fair use. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

                      15:03, 27 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      How does your reading of fair use/fair dealing impact on our use of images?

                      I think we're covered by fair user/fair dealing with our use of the publisher's summaries.

                      As we're not the only wiki who uses publisher's summaries in a similar way, further research will need to be done to work out where we sit in this regard.

                      06:13, 29 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      There was a fair use decision covering the use of photos as reference material, if they're reduced to thumbnail size. Our exposure on that is that many of our are not resized, they're just displayed at thumbnail.

                      I think using the summaries is very low risk, because we're not making money off them and it would be tough to argue we're negatively impacting sales. Sane companies perhaps even recognise that it's free advertising and specifically avoid looking for infringement like this.

                      However, that does not mean we have the right to use them. We're not doing anything transformative with these - we're reusing the text without commenting, summarising, or reviewing, we're not proving a scholarly point or producing a parody. So, by commercial terms it's not fair use.

                      As we're non-commercial, we get some leeway, but when we pair the publisher's summary with a complete summary of the plot, we're opening ourselves to the argument that we're using their text in an account that competes with their narrative - possibly damaging sales, which takes it back to the wrong side of fair use. Why risk anything of the sort when most times you can produce a much better summary than the company teaser in just a few moments?

                      18:12, 29 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      The publisher's summaries help us frame the stories, even more so when there's been more than one edition of the story where the differences between publishers' summaries is notable information.

                      We do provide an ISBN link in the infobox and on BF pages at least we also provide a link to their website, so I don't think we could harming sales.

                      I think you do make a good point that we could write our own summaries of the books/audios. But I think that should be as well as, rather than instead of the publisher's summaries.

                      12:25, 2 April 2013
                    CzechOut
                    Since this thread is from 2013, I'm just going to rule that the OP has probably done whatever they were going to do as regards the specific novelisations in question. The broader points injected into the discussion about whether we should be just using publishers' summaries verbatim really needs to be discussed anew, possibly after consulting with FANDOM's legal department.
                    02:16, 24 June 2017

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:124791


                    Shortcut:
                    Shambala108
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/BE or Brief Encounter" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Publisher's summaries".

                    What is the difference between the following two categories: "BE stories" and "Brief Encounter Stories"?

                    19:50, 15 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 18:50, 17 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      One is in the Game of Rassilon I think....
                      22:50, 15 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      I think there's a post somewhere about the difference.
                      22:52, 15 March 2013
                    CzechOut
                    Yeah, the Game of Rassilon began before the old prefix list was completely rationalised, so category:Brief Encounter stories was born. When all other stories were put into categories that used the prefix that formerly accompanied them, it was necessary to create category:BE stories, which is their current "real" category. The original "Brief Encounter stories" survives because if it were changed, it would wreck a Game of Rassilon award track. So "Brief Encounter stories" is hidden, while "BE stories" is not.

                    But then, this is all explained at category:Brief Encounter stories, as duplicated below:

                    All pages in this category also have the category category:BE stories. When this category is retired from the Game of Rassilon, it should be deleted, as category:BE stories is more in keeping with the nomenclature of other, similar categories.
                    Since Brief Encounter began in the pages of Doctor Who Magazine, and always appeared in either that magazine or its sister publications, this category is a part of category:DWM prose stories. Please note, however, that this category is complete. There will never be a need to add or delete pages from it. This series has been cancelled for almost 20 years. All its instalments are members of this category, as of 02:05, 5 September, 2011 (UTC).

                    Do not mistake all short stories in DWM as Brief Encounter short stories. Indeed, there are several issues of DWM which have had both BE stort stories and one-off short stories.
                    01:28, 16 March 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125064


                    Shortcut:
                    Cult_Of_Skaro
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Dimensions in Time: Is there a coherent reason for it not being canon?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/BE or Brief Encounter".

                    Looking at Dimensions in Time, the only reasons seem to be that in Army of Ghosts, a later story, Eastenders is shown as a TV show, and that it violates Eastenders continuity. But both of these ideas have an explanations.

                    • In the case of the first, We only see a clip from Eastenders in Army of Ghosts. Do we see any of the same characters seen DiT in this clip? If not, it could be that the show is brand new in Army of Ghosts, and that the characters from the show in 1993 were never fictional characters.
                    • The second objection is thrown out, according to T:NO RW.
                    19:54, 19 March 2013
                    Edited 19:54, 19 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 05:29, 1 April 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 05:29, 1 April 2013
                    • Tybort
                      Nitpick: this wiki makes no assumption on what "is" canon, and I'm pretty sure the BBC have deliberately stepped aside from establishing one.

                      We base what "counts" as a valid source on how a story or the characters are licensed, or whether the creators and producers place it outside of the DWU's continuity (the latter was how Death Comes to Time was disqualified).

                      I've found this out-of-universe reason from User:CzechOut on Tardis talk:Canon policy:

                      The truth is, it's not even a fully licensed story. It's probably the only televised story which has no reasonable claim of being fully licensed.

                      See, it was produced in such a way that no one fully owns it. It was a one-time-only, for-charity-only thing, so none of the actors gave permission for a repeat airing. This means that the likenesses of the various Doctors and companions are no longer legally licensed from the copyright holders (i.e., the actors themselves). The same is true of the "hit parade of monsters and aliens". This thing has the interests of tons of writers, from Pip and Jane Baker to Terry Nation to Robert Holmes, and none of that remains under license (if such was every specifically obtained). So, DIT is ruled out of bounds because it's a charity event. It is not a BBC-licensed story; it was the conduit by which a lot of individual actors appeared on Children in Need. It's a very different legal situation than that which obtained with Time-Crash, where the production as a whole was copyright the BBC, who then gave the video in toto over to CIN, but retained rebroadcast and home video rights.

                      [...]

                      We're not ruling DIT out of bounds because it's crap. If being poorly aligned with other stories was the determinative factor for us, then John and Gillian, Attack of the Cybermen, Lungbarrow and a ton of other stuff would be out of bounds.

                      The only sane policy for determining valid sources is one firmly based on out-of-universe considerations only.

                      • Is it properly licensed?
                      • Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?
                      • Is it obviously parodic?

                      These are the sort of questions that lead to a story being declared invalid around here. Let me say it one more time: We don't declare stories invalid just because they're difficult to place within continuity.

                      Now, I'll admit that I've skimmed that archive and not looked at the full discussion, but the point I found there has nothing specifically to do with EastEnders' fiction/non-fiction nature.

                      20:27, 19 March 2013
                      Edited 20:27, 19 March 2013
                      Edited by OncomingStorm12th 16:36, 9 September 2020
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      The East Enders fiction/nonfiction nature comes from the article itself.

                      However, we know it had to be at least partially licenced by the Beeb. It was broadcast by them, and is listed in their episode cuides, as a Classic episode along with everything else from An Unearthly Child to the TV movie.

                      21:07, 19 March 2013
                      Edited 21:08, 19 March 2013
                    • Shambala108
                      Forum:Is Dimensions in Time canon gives the reasons for the decision and sets the policy.
                      04:24, 20 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      That thread does nothing at all to make sense of the matter. I mean, User:CzechOut claims the DWU consistently treats EastEnders as fictional, but there's also another EastEnders crossover, which remains without a notdwu tag.
                      06:49, 20 March 2013
                    • Shambala108
                      Did you miss the part on the Mistaken Identity (short story) page where someone put: "As EastEnders is depicted in TV: Army of Ghosts as being only a soap opera, this story should perhaps be regarded as "imaginary" rather than as "canon"."

                      If that's your only objection, then why not start a forum for Mistaken Identity?

                      As for the out-of-universe reason, you argue that the BBC does own it partially so we should cover it, but you seem to have ignored what Tybort posted. The policy gives coherent reasons why charity specials in general, and this one in particular, are not included.

                      15:08, 20 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro

                      Shambala108 wrote: Did you miss the part on the Mistaken Identity (short story) page where someone put: "As EastEnders is depicted in TV: Army of Ghosts as being only a soap opera, this story should perhaps be regarded as "imaginary" rather than as "canon"."

                      Army of Ghosts came afterwards, for one thing. And also, the EastEnders clip in it was only a few seconds long. In the clip, we only see Peggy Mitchell and Den Watts, neither of whom are in DiT. In the DWU it could be only about them. We have no proof the characters from DiT are in the show seen in Army of Ghosts.

                      And also, whether or not the licences carry through now, why should we disregard the fact that it *was* licenced originally?

                      15:22, 20 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      Cult Of Skaro wrote:

                      Shambala108 wrote: Did you miss the part on the Mistaken Identity (short story) page where someone put: "As EastEnders is depicted in TV: Army of Ghosts as being only a soap opera, this story should perhaps be regarded as "imaginary" rather than as "canon"."

                      Army of Ghosts came afterwards, for one thing. And also, the EastEnders clip in it was only a few seconds long. In the clip, we only see Peggy Mitchell and Den Watts, neither of whom are in DiT. In the DWU it could be only about them. We have no proof the characters from DiT are in the show seen in Army of Ghosts.

                      And also, whether or not the licences carry through now, why should we disregard the fact that it *was* licenced originally?

                      Exactly the point that I have made in the past. There is no in-universe description of Eastenders past those two characters, and sense they weren't in DiT that's irrelevant.

                      19:20, 20 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      To adress Czech's three points:
                      • Is it properly licensed?
                      • Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?
                      • Is it obviously parodic?

                      Yes, it was clearly 'properly licensed'. It followed from a production of The Dark Dimension, a fully licensed show that was cancelled. All to most of the monsters were licensed, with one Dalek being removed because licensing could not be obtained. Furthermore, how many times it was aired is irrelevant. Death is the Only Answer also was only aired once, and also had no official DVD release, but we treat it fair; so why bad treatment for this story?

                      I have a DWM article on the story and I bet I can find proof in it that this story is licensed.

                      Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity? No. In fact, it's usually taken just as another story. JNT surely took it seriously, as did the other writers. The BBC website just treats it as another story, not even bringing it's validness into question.

                      Is it obviously parodic? No. It's goofy, yes, and it's the table scraps of Lost in the Dark Dimension, but it's surely not a parody. It actually takes itself quite seriously, especially considering that it's a freaking crossover with Eastenders. Basically all of his three points fall flat.

                      19:29, 20 March 2013
                      Edited 19:31, 20 March 2013
                      Edited 01:13, 27 February 2017
                    • OttselSpy25

                      Shambala108 wrote: Did you miss the part on the Mistaken Identity (short story) page where someone put: "As EastEnders is depicted in TV: Army of Ghosts as being only a soap opera, this story should perhaps be regarded as "imaginary" rather than as "canon"."

                      If that's your only objection, then why not start a forum for Mistaken Identity?

                      As for the out-of-universe reason, you argue that the BBC does own it partially so we should cover it, but you seem to have ignored what Tybort posted. The policy gives coherent reasons why charity specials in general, and this one in particular, are not included.

                      That's the side adfects of someone who kept doing that to all of the Brief Ecounter pages. It's wrong and irrelevant, and I will now remove it as such.

                      19:33, 20 March 2013
                      Edited 20:23, 20 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      OttselSpy25 wrote: To address Czech's three points:

                      1. Is it properly licensed?
                      2. Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?
                      3. Is it obviously parodic?

                      I'm going to indulge this conversation one more time, because maybe I've not explained this as well as I could. So I've gone back to get genuine quotes from rock solid sources so that maybe we can put this to rest once and for all.

                      Well, I say "maybe". What I mean to say is that this will be the last discussion on DIT ever on this wiki. Dimensions in Time will never be ruled a valid source on this wiki. Please stop trying to find some tricky angle to get it approved.

                      Here's why.

                      Properly licensed?[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      No. It's not "properly licensed". The BBC do not own it in the way that they own other stories. The performers did not license their likenesses or performances in the same way that they did on other stories. This is why Andrew Pixley says, in DWM 324:

                      "… the programme-as-completed documents read: 'N.B. This material can never be used on air again."

                      Parodic?[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      Yes, it's obviously parodic. Remember that parody has two meanings. The most common is, "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." But the other meaning is, "an imitation or a version of something that falls short of the real thing."

                      Whether it's comedic is something that can be debated. Nick Briggs is conflicted enough to ask in DWM 209,

                      "Is it fair to view Dimensions in Time as a piece of television drama — or does it simply fall into that category occupied by adverts and comedy sketches?"

                      But is it "a version of Doctor Who that falls short of the real thing?" There's really no doubt that it does. Find me one person who thinks Dimensions on Time is on par with genuine Doctor Who. DIT is quite clearly worse than whatever part of Doctor Who you think is the nadir. Simply by virtue of having a plot, The Twin Dilemma beats DIT.

                      (Now, in fairness, Briggs does say in DWM 209 that the lack of a plot means that DIT is like other episodes of DW. However, he is clearly being hyperbolic when he says this, and immediately goes on to say that what little good is in DIT is "swimming around in something frenzied and meaningless which was masquerading as a plot.")

                      Part of the mainstream continuity?[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      Absolutely not.

                      Fan belief[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      Despite what OttselSpy25 maintains above, most fans do indeed see it as problematic. This is proven in The Second Doctor Handbook, as quoted on the article itself. Nick Briggs says in DWM 209,

                      "…this was not Doctor Who, just a charity get-together for a very good cause."

                      And JNT himself says in DWM 249 that Jean-Marc Lofficier included information about DIT in the Programme Guide, "and then some of the fan gliterati went mad!" — the implication clearly being that the fans didn't believe it to be a part of "the programme" implied by the title, Programme Guide.

                      BBC belief[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      Andrew Pixley offers a number of strong hints in his DWM 324 Archive that the BBC were trying to downplay the seriousness of the event. He says that the 18 November Radio Times called it — and this is his quote of the RT — a "bit of fun". Pixley also says,

                      "… fans were getting curious about the special adventure and whether it was a replacement for The Dark Dimension; the BBC assured the audience that the story would not be a serious attempt to revive Doctor Who. "

                      To pre-emptively state that a narrative, pre-broadcast, isn't a "serious attempt" is a pretty bold move for the BBC. It is akin, though not exactly alike, what they did (or allowed RTD to do) with respect to Scream of the Shalka.

                      JNT belief[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      But the production team threw cold water on the fire of this story in other ways. OttselSpy25 and others have perpetuated the myth that JNT treated it very seriously and absolutely meant it to be a continuation of the programme.

                      Though he may have been guilty of a bit of pre-broadcast hype, it's clear that JNT did not hold this view for very long. Certainly by 1997 he was swiftly back-pedalling. In DWM 249 JNT something that was repeated in DWM 324:

                      "I don't need to defend Dimensions in Time — it should be taken for what it is: a jolly romp to celebrate Doctor Who's thirtieth birthday."

                      More clearly — and please read this very carefully:

                      It was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is.JNT [DWM 249 [src]]

                      And let's remember, this is the top line writer of the show saying it. Not just the producer. Not just the former head of the "Doctor Who empire". This is the writer saying it's not a part of the DWU. And if that's not declarative enough for you, consider that he specifically says of the fans going crazy about it being included in the Lofficier Programme Guide:

                      I genuinely don't mind if Dimensions doesn't feature in any documentation ever. I couldn't care less.JNT [DWM 249 [src]]

                      Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]

                      There is little doubt that influential members of the fan community disregard DIT as part of the DWU. The BBC didn't take it seriously. And the writer and producer says that it wasn't meant to be a part of the DWU. That's our usual threshold in these rule 4 debates.

                      And that's why it's not now, nor ever will be, a valid source on this wiki.

                      (Well, that and the fact that it is a "decide your destiny" kind of narrative — remember, the audience chose a particular conclusion by phone vote — which means that it's invalid on those grounds alone. And I haven't even gone into the full EastEnders issues, which are really not necessary to establish whether this is a valid source.)

                      21:52, 22 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      A fair explanation that trunks my statements.

                      However, while we're here, I would like to state that I see no fairness in the idea that we can't post snapshots from DiT, a statement which you at one point told me. I believe your argument was "any copy of DiT has to be a bootleg" or something, which I see as untrue...

                      In my eyes, posting [high quality] snapshots from the story shouldn't be an issue.

                      13:05, 25 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      The thing about {{screenshot}} is that it says that the image captured derives from something that is a BBC copyright. As demonstrated above, the BBC don't own copyright to it in the traditional manner. Therefore {{screenshot}} can't be applied, and we have no license that could really handle the highly unusual copyright situation of DIT.

                      Additionally, the images must derive from someone's off-air, 20-year-old recording of the event. This quality is inevitably too low under T:GTI to allow.

                      Anything you see of DIT on YouTube or wherever is definitionally a bootleg because there is not now, nor will there ever be, a legal re-release of the story.

                      High quality snapshots aren't possible, because all snapshots would be limited by the VHS recording technology of 1993, plus the effects of time on the physical tape itself.

                      But, as I said, the insurmountable issue is really that we could not, in good conscience, hose images of the productions when we know that the actors specifically withheld their permission from the BBC to use the material ever again.

                      18:01, 25 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      If that's the main issue, I don't see why we can't, say, upload a shot of Monsters or such. Plus I can't say that any actors would really get mad at us for uploading a few images from the special.

                      The BBC has uploaded images from the special before, haven't they? I don't think that your argument that the BBC can't be credited to DiT stands very well...

                      18:50, 25 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Furthermore, I do think that in terms of how many times it was released this story shuld be treated like any other. Death is the Only Answer similarly has only been aired once and has had no official home video release. This story is the same, and thus we should treat it as such. "Who was signed to what" seems irrelevant to me.
                      03:26, 26 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      I've looked into this a bit, and I'd say that there would be no real copy-right issues with us posting images from the story. For one, the story is very clearly copyright BBC. I don't think any argument saying that they did not own the copyright to the special would not go very far; there's no indication of anyone else owning it and the BBC have claimed ownership of it.

                      Secondly, us using images from the special still falls within US fair use policies, as the special was technically released. As long as we're not, say, post images of deleted scenes never released to the public, we should be fine. Furthermore, even though DiT has only been aired once, clips from the show have been re-aired before, including on news reels and behind-the-scenes features, one of which we got our main image from the story from. Not only that, but others have used snapshots from DiT with no copyright strife before. One issue of DWM magazine used dozens of snapshots from the episode with no copyright strife. Thus us uploading images from the special would cause no problems what-so-ever.

                      Furthermore, the idea that no good images can exist from the episode is rather a load of speculation. There are many good recording of the story, particularly from the second episode, and most recordings will have better quality than this image.

                      To conclude, there should be no copyright issue with us uploading images from Dimensions in Time.

                      19:21, 30 March 2013
                      Edited 19:25, 30 March 2013
                      Edited 19:26, 30 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      Good job on the research. I totally agree.
                      21:03, 30 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      The story is not copyright BBC. They do not enjoy the right to rebroadcast it, so they don't own copyright to it in any traditional sense.

                      We would have to make up a new license to cover any images from it, and I wouldn't begin to know how to word it.

                      We will not be allowing images from off-air recordings.

                      16:09, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Look, I'm a YouTuber (quite popular actually, you've probably watched one or two of my videos and not known it) so I'll tell you that the BBC without a doubt claims copyright on the project. I've had enough vidoes taken down to tell you that.

                      Furthermore, if they have the right to rebroadcast it is irrelevant in my eyes, and you not wanting us to "know how to word it" is even more irrelevant.

                      If we can't use off-air recordings, then what about The Bells of Saint John, hu? That story aired last night, yet people are already posting images from it. What about that K9 show or The Sarah Jane Adventures? People post images from those all the time with logos and smeg all up in them... Yet that's never a problem.

                      What about the image that we use as the main icon on the page? That's from a news reel on the programme; someone recorded that on a VHS and posted it, so why not the original video?

                      I have a lot of VHS tapes, and I'll tell you that if you record in the right speed and know how to keep your tapes you can get a good recording out of them. Just because it was recorded on a tape does not mean it necessarily looks bad.

                      If we need to make a new copyright template for DiT, then we do. You not wanting to do it or not knowing how to word it is irrelevant.

                      17:28, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      The main image, unless it's been changed, is a publicity photo.
                      17:33, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Of course being able to word the license is relevant. All images on this site must have an applicable license. That's rule 1 stretching back for years. If we can't word a license so that it applies then we don't have a license. If we don't have a license, then we can't have a picture.
                      17:34, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      CzechOut wrote: The main image, unless it's been changed, is a publicity photo.

                      Yeah, actually, it's a snapshot from a news reel. You can tell from the quality that it's a snapshot from a video and not a photo-furthermore I have the newsreel. They're all holding 3-D glasses because they were going to put them on in the moments after the frame. They all say "Come see, we three, for Children in Need." Then Colin goes "woah, look at that" which was a running joke of his in that behind-the-scenes clip.

                      As I said before, the film is very clearly BBC copyright and I fail to see that it's not. If you don't have an actual rationale for it not being so, then I see no reason why Template:Screenshot can not be used in this case.

                      17:43, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Here is Wikipedia's first paragraph about copyright:
                      Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

                      From all we know, the BBC do not enjoy the "right to copy" this work, nor may they financially benefit from it.

                      18:04, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Here is Wikipedia's first paragraph about copyright:
                      Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

                      From all we know, the BBC do not enjoy the "right to copy" this work, nor may they financially benefit from it.

                      18:04, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Well then, we need to look into it and decide what copyright DiT has. It was decided at somepoint who would be doing all of the things described above; and that was a descision made by the BBC and Children in Need to be "no one would be able to reair or release this". Such maybe it should be credited to them, or maybe the point of that template should be the confusion on who does own it.

                      Just because it may be a bit tricky to figure out the copyrigt does not mean that we should not be able to add photos on it. It still falls within fair use policies. All we have to do is figure out what copyright it is.

                      19:48, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      No, we don't. There's no need for images from DIT. It's not in-universe, and we can find better images of the actors involved, so therefore the only page on which images can be placed is Dimensions in Time itself.

                      We can live with that page being un-illustrated.

                      20:00, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Yeah, but that's just you saying that you don't want images from DiT. That's simply because you don't like it when people contribute to non-valid sources. Just because you think that we "don't need" them doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. And on that note, we should.

                      So does anyone have ideas on what we could call the copyright tag?

                      20:24, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Why do you feel we need images from DiT and where would you put them?
                      20:48, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Here is my administrative concern.

                      First of all, I think you're wrong about the quality. There are no truly good pics available of this story, because they all come from 1993-era VHS recording technology.

                      Second, once we allow these pictures to be on the wiki at all, they will appear on other pages, where they're not appropriate. How can we keep the Six/Brig helicopter page off Sixth Doctor or the Brigadier? We really can't, except to simply disallow the pic entirely.

                      Third, I don't really want to create a special-use license, even if I had a clue in hell about how to word it, because people inevitably misuse such things.

                      20:58, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Well, for one to illustrate the page on the story itself. There are barely any images on that page, and I see no reason not to want to add images to it.

                      Plus, it has some of the best close-ups of these actors we could possibly get in the 90s. You won't get a better close up of Colin Baker in his half-fit-half-not-fit stage then in this story. Then there's Peter, who gets a lot of good close-ups in this story while he was still in his prime; as well as Sylvester and Pertwee.

                      Plus there's the images that could go in behind-the-scenes sections, like the Brig meeting 6 or Peri and Nyssa being on screen together, both notable things that had never happened on screen before... I could imagine adding an image from the story into the behind-the-scenes section of the Fourth Doctor's page, for instance. Then there are all of the pages about things in the story; like The Rani's menagerie or Gita Kapoor... There's an infinite number of pages that could use images from this story, really.

                      21:01, 31 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro

                      CzechOut wrote: Here is my administrative concern.

                      First of all, I think you're wrong about the quality. There are no truly good pics available of this story, because they all come from 1993-era VHS recording technology.

                      I have a copy that's perfectly good quality, 480p.

                      21:11, 31 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      I can post an image if you like.
                      21:11, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      OttselSpy25 wrote: Yeah, but that's just you saying that you don't want images from DiT. That's simply because you don't like it when people contribute to non-valid sources. Just because you think that we "don't need" them doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. And on that note, we should.

                      I was going to leave it at the above three points, but I really take offence at this, man. You're suggesting that I have absolutely no rationale for my objections, which is just damned rude. Usually when I say "I feel" in a Panopticon thread, I'm doing exactly what I'm doing here: interpreting existing policy.

                      And there are any number of policy objections here, including potential abuse of these pictures in light of T:IUI, T:OOUI, and T:GTI. So I'm not saying, petulantly, "I think it should be this way, I'm an admin, so that's how it's going to be." I'm saying that, within our existing policy, the only place where pictures of DiT could possibly exist is on that page itself, so it is not worth:

                      • making a brand new license of uncertain wording
                      • allowing for the possibility that these lower quality pictures might be used contrary to T:IUI on other pages
                      • cleaning up after users who get confused when picking a license
                      21:12, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut

                      Cult Of Skaro wrote:

                      CzechOut wrote: Here is my administrative concern.

                      First of all, I think you're wrong about the quality. There are no truly good pics available of this story, because they all come from 1993-era VHS recording technology.

                      I have a copy that's perfectly good quality, 480p.

                      You do not have 480p. That's an impossible statement.

                      21:20, 31 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      Well, I have a good quality copy that claims to be 480p. Here's some pics from it:

                      http://i.imgur.com/Wnn6DMa.jpg
                      http://i.imgur.com/aNjwk2v.jpg

                      21:23, 31 March 2013
                      Edited 21:23, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      Cult Of Skaro wrote:

                      CzechOut wrote: Here is my administrative concern.

                      First of all, I think you're wrong about the quality. There are no truly good pics available of this story, because they all come from 1993-era VHS recording technology.

                      I have a copy that's perfectly good quality, 480p.

                      Yeah, Czech, it's quite simple. If a picture is too low quality, then you delete it; just as you would any story. Like I said, the image from the news reel that we use on the page is what you call on it's description "good quality", and that was taken at the same time as the special itself, so the chances of a good copy existing are higher than you think.

                      If we need to make a new tag (which I really don't think we do) we should just call it "Dimension in Time snapshots". I see little confusion that could erupt from that, and if someone accidentally puts the wrong tag on I will personally fix it.

                      And I do apologise for what I said, but you have to see where I was coming from. You did say literally say "We can live with that page being un-illustrated," which basically screams "I do not care about this story". Sorry for mis interpreting.

                      21:25, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      Cult Of Skaro wrote: Well, I have a good quality copy that claims to be 480p. Here's some pics from it: http://i.imgur.com/Wnn6DMa.jpg
                      http://i.imgur.com/aNjwk2v.jpg

                      See? Those look fine by our standards. And if those aren't good enough then I have a better copy (I think).

                      Adding images from this story would just be expanding interest and information.

                      21:27, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Thanks for the apology, OS.

                      I disagree with you that there is some relationship between the number of pictures on a page, and the degree to which a page is cared for. Given the graphical elements already on the page, there's not enough content to actually require additional images. Not given the fact that that there's already the graphical element of the infobox, and that the article is fairly brief. The page looks fine without images, especially given the work that would be required to allow images.

                      I know you don't really understand the licensing situation. And that's fine. You don't have to, because you're not an admin and you have no duty of care over the wiki. That's not to say that you don't care about the wiki—obviously you do—but you don't have to worry about how various details work.

                      I don't feel like I have that luxury though. It's very important to me that pictures be licensed honestly, and I don't feel like it is even possible to license these images correctly. And, given the difficulties with {{31 Who}}, I'm not particularly convinced that any sort of {{DIT}} would go unabused.

                      I know you feel differently. I know you really want to put these pictures up. I know you see an unillustrated page and you feel like you're a bull being flashed a red cape. But, really, honestly, no. On balance, administratively, it is just easier to say no to DIT pics. And that is what I'm doing now.

                      21:47, 31 March 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      Why not actually ask the BBC? You asked BF about trailers.
                      21:48, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      Cult Of Skaro wrote: Why not actually ask the BBC? You asked BF about trailers.

                      Yeah, it's just as simple as you going "Would you say that you own the rights to DiT" and they to go "What? Yeah, of coarse, who else would?"

                      I'm sure that if we look into this case that we can find a copyright tag to make.

                      22:02, 31 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      No. They don't. They had a limited, one-use-only right. That right expired upon transmission. They do not have a right to copy, a right to repurpose, a right to sell on DVD or any other format, or a right to rebroadcast. No one has genuine, full copyright at present, but it is explicitly not in the public domain. It's a highly unusual legal situation.

                      Anyway guys, we're at the tail end of the discussion on DiT. This business of pictures is really us talking about the last scrap on the plate. Time to get up from the table, I fear. One final thought from you both and then we'll close the thread.

                      22:33, 31 March 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Now wait up, Czech, I understand that you think the discussion is over but the way me and Cult see it this is just the start. What we have so far is:
                      • Posting images from DiT would be within American fair-use policies
                      • DWM has, in the past, posted images from DiT and there has been no copyright issue.
                      • There are high quality copies of DiT
                      • The only issue with us posting images of it here would be that the copyright is tricky to identify.

                      Thus, the way I see it, this discussion has just started and the next step is to try and identify the copyright; and there's a way to do it, I know.

                      You can't just close down the thread because you don't think it's going anywhere. If anything, the page should be highlighted and spread to other users. True, we're on a separate point on DiT then we were when it started, but if that's the issue then what needs to be done is a second discussion needs to be started, not closing off the still-debating conversation that's hitting on some key points.

                      I must directly ask that you either do not close this discussion down or you let us move the discussion of the images from DiT to a new thread.

                      On that note, what you said above would make a suffice copyright notice. Something like:

                      This is a snapshot from Dimensions in Time, a story which was only legally aired on TV once, and is not officially currently licensed by either the BBC or Children in Need; while still not being within the public domain.
                      Despite this, the special being transmitted once means that it still falls within fair-use policies of the United States [And I guess other countries? /:(] and is thus legally acceptable to use on this wiki.

                      There: A valid copyright tag. And because it's only for this one episode, we don't necessarily have to keep it on the copyright list on the image uploader, thus it's very unlikely that someone will be able to use this by accident.

                      In my eyes, if we do this it would be okay to upload the images. And I do hope that you don't just shut down the discussion after I asked you not to.

                      22:51, 31 March 2013
                      Edited 22:52, 31 March 2013
                    • Rowan Earthwood
                      See, it was produced in such a way that no one fully owns it. It was a one-time-only, for-charity-only thing, so none of the actors gave permission for a repeat airing. This means that the likenesses of the various Doctors and companions are no longer legally licensed from the copyright holders (i.e., the actors themselves).

                      By this reasoning, none of the Virgin New Adventures, Telos Doctor Who novellas, licensed Marvel Comics adaptations of Doctor Who or countless other things would be valid sources for this wiki, since the licenses that made all these things publishable have now expired and they can no longer legally be reprinted in their original form. None of these things are owned by the BBC, and their use of Doctor Who trademarks means they're not fully owned by their creators, either, because they are no longer licensed to find non-BBC publishers for them as written. Clearly the only relevant factor is whether they were at any time in history legally licensed to air or be printed. The specific arcana of copyright law is otherwise not only irrelevant, but beyond or pay grade as editors of a fan wiki. Even if, by chance, one of you is an intellectual property lawyer (and Czechout clearly isn't), going over the fine prints of legal contracts has nothing to do with the spirit of a wiki like this.

                      Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?

                      Czechout claims there is no copyright holder, but the BBC, who obviously have the final say as to what is Doctor Who and what isn't, acknowledges this story as part of continuity by putting it in their classic episode guide: [5] That trumps whatever any of the crew members (who, remember, have no copyright claim according to Czechout) might have said.

                      Yes, it's obviously parodic. Remember that parody has two meanings. The most common is, "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." But the other meaning is, "an imitation or a version of something that falls short of the real thing."

                      This is not how the English language (or any language I'm aware of) works. By this reasoning, if there was a wiki rule saying something to the effect of "Be sure sure to hit the preview button and POLISH your edits before you publish them" then we'd all be obligated to send them to Warsaw before hitting "post" because "Polish" has the additional meaning of "relating to the country of Poland." Words can have many meanings, but sentences involving those words need only refer to one of them, and almost never refer to every possible definition of a word simultaneously. This rule was obviously meant to rule out something like the funny one-panel cartoons in magazines and The Curse of Fatal Death. "An imitation that falls short of the real thing" is too subjective and vague to be of any use to us. Some argue that the entire BBC Wales version of the show is "an imitation that falls short of the real thing," or apply that to the Colin Baker years, or the TV movie, or the Moffat years, or everyone that followed Hartnell, or anything else they happen not to personally like. How do you objectively judge whether or not one incarnation of Doctor Who "falls short" of any other? You can't. So that definition is inapplicable. For the purposes of this wiki, a parody has to be intended to mock, comment on, or trivialize the original, a definition that includes Curse of the Fatal Death but not, as far as I can tell, Dimensions in Time. Even that definition is borderline; The Greatest Show in the Galaxy was intended to comment on and mock elements of Doctor Who and its fandom. Even this wiki acknowledges that Whizz Kid was a parody of anal-retentive fans who claimed the show was no longer as good as it used to be (a parody of its former self, if you will) without having actually seen the earlier episodes, and the Gods of Ragnarok commented on the fickle audience that the show depended on for its survival. Love & Monsters parodied elements of Doctor Who fandom as well. The novel The Blue Angel included a number of characters that parodied equivalent characters from the original series of Star Trek. Don't get me wrong: all of these stories had enough non-parodic elements that I'm not actually arguing they should be thrown out, to say nothing of the fact that they were obviously intended to be in continuity. I'm just saying that using the word "parody" as a sole criterion for inclusion debates can get tricky.

                      00:00, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 00:03, 1 April 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      aaaaaaaaannnddd... Thank you Rowan...
                      00:09, 1 April 2013
                    • Cult_Of_Skaro
                      Rowan, thanks!
                      00:35, 1 April 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      Now the question is, is the screenshot copyright tag acceptable for DiT, or do we still need to make a new tag for it?
                      00:44, 1 April 2013
                    • OttselSpy25

                      CzechOut wrote: I disagree with you that there is some relationship between the number of pictures on a page, and the degree to which a page is cared for. Given the graphical elements already on the page, there's not enough content to actually require additional images.

                      If the page isn't big enough to add images (which is it kinda stubby) then I'll add the info myself. You stopped me when I had started it last time and suggested me to other projects (I believe it was to illustrate Baker stories) so don't blame the lack of info on the article!

                      01:02, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 00:59, 27 February 2017
                    • CzechOut
                      Guys, look, I can't keep coming back to this thread and discussing things every time someone has a new idea. I feel like all I do around here lately is talk about 14 damn minutes in 1993.

                      This conversation is coming to a close. It is not a slap in your face to do that, OS. I've been very, very, very patient—far more patient than other admin, who have long ago abandoned this discussion, back when it was at Talk:Dimensions in Time and Tardis talk:Canon policy.

                      There is absolutely no question but that it can be established that most fans do not think Dimensions in Time is a "serious" bit of Doctor Who. We would be a laughing stock if we allowed Dimensions of Time into our articles. So we are not going to do that.

                      Before this discussion is closed, I will, however, take the time to respond to Rowan, since he has not been to this thread.

                      I'm not conceding your fairly shaky analogy to the NAs. And, as the principal author of T:VS, I'm certainly not conceding that I myself didn't intend both meanings of the word parodic—languages certainly do allow for double-entendre. 

                      But, for the sake of keeping this brief cause I'm am sick to the back teeth of talking about DiT, let's give you that.

                      There's still the matter of the author of the piece flatly saying that it's not part of the DW mythos, not part of the "documentation" of DW.

                      See, you have taken something I've said and mangled it. You've claimed that I've said that the BBC are the only ones who have copyright claims on the story. I never said that. I said:

                      Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?'

                      The phrase "or the copyright holder" means the writer. Of course, DiT has a complicated copyright, but as applies to most situations in Doctor Who, there's BBC Worldwide, who operationalises the copyright interests of the BBC, and then there's the writer of the piece, who gets some form of copyright. As you know, this is why Terry Nation partly owns the Daleks and Johnny Byrne gets paid for the use of Nyssa. So who's the writer of DiT? JNT. What has JNT said about DiT? "It was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is."

                      Despite the fact that we've talked and talked and talked about this story, this is a very cut and dried case under rule 4. When the writer of a show tells us that it's not part of the DWU, it's not part of the DWU. There's not really an argument that can surmount that.

                      As for pictures, the answer is simply no. I've explained why above. There are good administrative reasons for it, and I appreciate that you don't like those reasons. But that's how it is.

                      I think we're at a point where you have to ask yourself whether Dimensions in Time is really something you want to keep fighting for, or if there might not be other things you want to do on the wiki.

                      02:30, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 02:35, 1 April 2013
                    • Rowan Earthwood
                      When the writer of a show tells us that it's not part of the DWU, it's not part of the DWU.

                      Yeah, I don't buy that. If Neil Gaiman had a fit of dementia and told everyone that he didn't consider The Doctor's Wife to be in continuity, I'm pretty sure no one would listen to him. Ultimately the decision is the BBC's. Of course, Neil Gaiman isn't the copyright holder in that instance, despite being the primary writer. So that may be a bad example. But it applies as well to, for example, someone discovering a lost interview in which Terry Nation denounces Genesis of the Daleks or Douglas Adams tearfully begs everyone to please ignore The Pirate Planet.

                      I don't really think "other fans will laugh at us" is a particularly coherent criterion. I'm not saying it's completely invalid, just that it's very subjective and hard to quantify. Perhaps not as subjective as your secondary meaning of "parody," but pretty bad. Rich Morris, for example, is a fairly prominent Doctor Who fan who considers that awful, awful charity episode to be canon. [6] So you could comfort yourself in the knowledge that he, at least, would keep his snickers pointed in another direction.

                      I think we're at a point where you have to ask yourself whether Dimensions in Time is really something you want to keep fighting for, or if there might not be other things you want to do on the wiki.

                      Obviously you underestimate how little I value my time. There are any number of things I could be doing that would be more useful than this. And yet here I am, arguing about how a wiki chooses to label a story I hated. Really, you'll be doing me a favor to close this thread, or possibly ban my account from editing anything ever again.

                      02:50, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 02:54, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 02:56, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 03:02, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 03:10, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 03:16, 1 April 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      No rule is perfect. But this is a pretty good one. It doesn't depend on judging the quality of the work. It doesn't depend on whether you or I feel the narrative elements clash with other stories. It only depends on assessing authorial intent. The question, "Did the BBC or the copyright holder intend for the work to be a part of the continuity or not?" is a perfectly fair question that helps establish whether we should allow something into our articles that are written from an in-universe perspective. It works in most cases, and it certainly works in the case of DiT.

                      Remember, we're not Wikipedia. Our articles about narrative elements are not written from a real world perspective. They are written as if the DWU were a real place. That means we have the burden of deciding first what the DWU is.

                      Now I don't personally like this situation. It would be much easier to write from a different perspective. But that's not how we started, and it would be a lot of non-automated work to change now. Plus, a lot of our editors enjoy writing from a slightly fictional point of view. The cost, however, is that we must define what the DWU means for our work to have any sort of meaning whatsoever.

                      Using our four little rules is hardly imposing some great barrier to admission. It still lets in all but <.01% of all stories ever produced or licensed by the BBC.

                      03:09, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 04:33, 1 April 2013
                    • OttselSpy25
                      I'm still no where near done on the topic of pictures. The way I see it, there is no reason that we shouldn't be posting images from the story other than the fact that you think that copyright is complex when it really isn't. BBV, at one point or another, had rights to many things, but don't anymore, so they can't re-release them. But this copyright is easy to write out, as I've shown above. In my eyes, you have shown no real reason why we can't post images from the story. It doesn't matter who wrote the story, or the copyright situation of when it was released, it being released makes it completely open to fair-use-policies. The 1996 Doctor Who TV movie wasn't released on DVD in America for many years, yet images of it were fine in the past!

                      I'm gonna say it now, you shutting down this discussion that has three users completely up to debate just because you don't like where it is going is blatant abuse of power and is not okay. Just because you don't want to discuss it doesn't mean that you can just shut it down whenever you feel like it.

                      03:34, 1 April 2013
                    CzechOut
                    So much for your earlier apology, eh?

                    No one could look at how much work I've put into this discussion, or its precedents, and—with a straight face—assert that I've abused power. I'm looking at the whole of what we need to accomplish as a community and asserting that 14 minutes in 1993 isn't worth the amount of effort we're putting into this discussion.

                    I have to make judgements all the time about when to close discussions and when to keep them going. It's important to do that; otherwise we'd never get anywhere. This discussion has been open for two weeks, and that's really enough—given that it's hardly the first time we've put DiT under the microscope.

                    And you know what, OttselSpy25? You've been there for almost every one of these discussions. So you can't claim that your views haven't been heard.

                    I completely understand that it's frustrating when your ideas aren't carried forward. But that happens sometimes. Let it go. This is a really minor part of the wiki. And it's an unusual case with no real applicability to any other story. This isn't setting some sort of precedent that's going to be carried forth over and over again. We're talking about the worst part of Doctor Who history that the makers didn't even think was "Doctor Who history". It's not worth the bad mojo, man.

                    04:57, 1 April 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125183


                    Shortcut:
                    AilaG
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Should the "tick tock" rhyme have its own article?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Dimensions in Time: Is there a coherent reason for it not being canon?".

                    I think it should, since it's an obvious theme across episodes which is now just spread across their pages. However, I'm not certain enough to just start a page. What do you think?

                    20:03, 21 March 2013
                    Edited 21:49, 21 March 2013
                    Edited 21:50, 21 March 2013
                    Edited by Shambala108 01:52, 2 September 2018
                    • Tangerineduel
                      I'm not sure if it's notable enough to need its own article. We don't really have a name for it and couldn't really cover it in-universe aside from it referencing the Doctor's "death".

                      You may also wish to look at this discussion in the Howling Howling:Song at the end of Night Terrors.

                      14:25, 22 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      Perhaps we could make a list article for verse composed to illustrate plot? Or just make sure it's referenced on the relevant story arc pages?

                      Edit-> lack of attention to wiki meaning, sorry. I think I really mean a list-style article written about verse used in who for plot purposes.

                      16:03, 22 March 2013
                      Edited 16:05, 22 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      Maybe an article on "Verse used in DW stories", it could work. It still sounds kinda awkward to write about.

                      Are there any other stand out examples that aren't currently covered elsewhere that we could build and article around and would that article enlighten further than what we currently have?

                      I think it'd be better to cover it on the existing articles than to create a separate page to deal with it.

                      16:20, 22 March 2013
                    • SOTO
                      Churchill himself said that "Tick tock goes the clock" was an old rhyme. Perhaps we could call it that, talk about the in-universe rhyme, and somehow incorporate the verses found at the end of the episodes.

                      One of my problems with this, though, is that I'm not positive about considering those versions in-universe — you might consider them to be incidental music, as the characters clearly aren't reacting to it. I'm really not sure about this...

                      23:20, 22 March 2013
                      Edited 23:20, 22 March 2013
                    • Tangerineduel
                      That's partially my concern.

                      It's true the characters can't hear it, but is it still part of the narrative?

                      If it is then we get into a discussion of the incidental music and is it 'narrative'? If it is then we'd need to take into account everytime "I am the Doctor" is played (which is a much more frequently used piece of music than the tick tock rhyme).

                      14:19, 23 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      We wouldn't need to take note of every time "I am the Doctor" is played in order to have an article about "I am the Doctor". The only difference between writing an article about a diegetic and an extra-diegetic thing is that the former is written as an in-universe article and the latter gets a {{real world}} tophat.

                      I think the real issue here is that we don't know the name of the piece.

                      15:19, 23 March 2013
                    • AilaG
                      "Tick Tock" is part of the plot while "I am the Doctor" is from the soundtrack. It is part of the story, in the sense that they bring up different tracks and tunes for different occasions, but "Tick Tock" actually weaves the story together in a way.
                      14:23, 30 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      I think that even if some of the verse was diegetic, it should be a real world page.
                      19:04, 30 March 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Where are you getting "Tick Tock" from? You say that as if it's a name you've actually derived from some authoritative source.
                      16:24, 31 March 2013
                    • Anoted
                      Yes please. Not quite sure what point of view should be used or what the title should be but I think it needs an article. Also a list of the various verses that show up in Doctor Who would be immensely helpful.
                      22:54, 31 March 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      At least the Demon's Run poem would go there, too.
                      23:02, 31 March 2013
                    • Anoted
                      Not just Demon's Run. There's tons of poems in Dr. Who. Poetry is a fairly common recurring element in Dr. Who. Oral history is hugely important--so much is handed down that way. Fairy tales, poems, songs are the ways that myths are handed down. And if good wizards always turn out to be the Doctor, myths always turn out to be true. And so these things are intensely important to the show.

                      Off the top of my head I know that there are two poems in "The Beast Below".

                      00:00, 1 April 2013
                      Edited 00:00, 1 April 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      So, the question becomes - what do we call such a page?
                      04:04, 1 April 2013
                    • SOTO
                      iTunes's series 6 soundtrack has two tracks for this: Tick Tock Round the Clock (seems to be sans vocals from the preview - which I believe is taken from Night Terrors) and Tick Tock (Vocal Track) (which appears to be a compilation of all the Tick Tock vocals).

                      Tick Tock Round the Clock appears to be the official name of the piece...

                      06:51, 1 April 2013
                      Edited by Epsilon the Eternal 20:58, 19 July 2022
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      Clarification: I mean, what do we call an article about verse in Doctor Who, and is it a Real World page or not?
                      10:39, 1 April 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      What do you mean by "an article about verse"?
                      14:17, 1 April 2013
                    • Anoted
                      Well, we should probably create a category first. It could contain the episode pages that make use of verse.

                      And as for the page title--that depends on what we want the page to say. Is it going to be a list page of some sort? It could be a list of when verse appears in Doctor Who containing basic details about each one. Media it showed up in, character/actor that did the voice and so on. It could be much more comprehensive, containing the full texts. There are also list pages that wouldn't really be list pages. If a page had all of these verses and also discussed the way that this element was used in the episode, then it wouldn't be so much a "List of verse used in Doctor Who." I'd then probably go with "Verse in Doctor Who" or "Uses of Verse in Doctor Who". Verse is used to advance plot, to give a sense of history and passage of time, to colour the mood and so on. It deals with time issues particularly well.

                      Anyway, I'd go with either "Verse in Doctor Who" or "Uses of Verse in Doctor Who". I think for each instance we should include:

                      • full text
                      • specifications as to how it appeared
                      • media it appeared in (tv, audio, etc)
                      • actor/character who did the voice
                      • purpose and thematic uses

                      Sorry, my brain's gotten a bit muddled by now. Hopefully this will be clear enough.

                      14:42, 1 April 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Whoa whoa. This discussion is about what was called "Tick Tock". Please don't hijack it and make it about a whole range of other things.
                      14:50, 1 April 2013
                    • Anoted
                      I think we should start with a general page about verse and then see if we still need an individual page for each verse. Until it's actually written, it's hard to access just how much information we have and whether or not individual pages would be needed. I will say though that I think Tick Tock would eventually need it's own page. It's fairly long, different verses appear in different episodes and I'm not even sure that the full version on the cd is the full version.

                      It seems like it's complicated enough to need it's own page, but I could be wrong. Anyway it seems fairly common sense to start with an overall verse page and see what's needed as things develop. Also, that would help beef up the episode pages.

                      16:26, 1 April 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      Czech: as we have been discussing since the 3rd and 4th post on this thread, an article about the use of verse in narrative may be superior to entire article solely on one verse. It'll satisfy the transformative requirement for fair use, for one thing.

                      If it's a real world page instead, we can address verse that's not necessarily diegic, including the third verse of A Good Man Goes To War.

                      17:03, 1 April 2013
                    • CzechOut
                      Satisfying "the transformative requirement for fair use" is not a valid reason for creating an article. Names of articles on the wiki must describe discrete things. Except for "list of" pages, "topical pages" are generally frowned upon. We don't have "Song in Doctor Who" or "alliteration in Doctor Who".

                      The way that is most in keeping with our general practices is to come up with a name for the individual item, as with "Vale Decem", and write an article about it. Then, we create a navigational template, like {{OrigSongs}}, and affix that to the bottom of the pages. Then, for good measure, we put all the pages into a category or two.

                      17:58, 1 April 2013
                    • ComicBookGoddess
                      If all we can do on the page is recite the lyric, I can't see how we can legally justify posting it.
                      18:35, 1 April 2013
                    • Anoted
                      The two poems in The Beast Below are short, and I can't see them deserving their own article. But we can do more than simply recite them. We can provide information about them. They are read by different actors and while the second one is clearly being read by a character, I'm not sure the first one is. And if we include not just all of the relevant facts but also a bit of exposition about the way they serve the episode then we've justified it.

                      The thing is that we have a lot of items here and not all of them can sustain an individual page. If we worked on adding the verse information to the episode pages and added a navigational template and a category, that would help, but I do think that it's worthwhile to have an overall page on verse in DW. With links to verses that have their own pages, links to episode pages that contain verse, but also with a bit of a discussion about the user of verse in DW.

                      19:23, 1 April 2013
                    CzechOut

                    ComicBookGoddess wrote: If all we can do on the page is recite the lyric, I can't see how we can legally justify posting it.

                    Why in the world would we do that? "Vale Decem" doesn't just post the lyrics.

                    23:24, 1 April 2013

                    Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125184


                    Shortcut:
                    AilaG
                    Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Pages for individual conventions?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Should the "tick tock" rhyme have its own article?".

                    The page Doctor Who Convention links to pages for Gallifrey One and PanoptiCon. Though neither have content yet, it is legitimate for them to have a page of their own.

                    Can any convention have a page on this wiki?

                    I'm asking because I wanted to start a page for the annual Israeli fan convention, the Bar Mitzva (short for "Gay Gypsy Bar Mitzva (for the Disabled)"). However, I don't know if it's appropriate and I don't know where to link to it from.

                    It could be nice to have a list of recurring fan events worldwide on that page, even if they're not as big as Gallifrey One.

                    20:14, 21 March 2013
                    Edited 20:23, 21 March 2013
                    Edited by CzechOut 09:08, 3 September 2013
                      Tangerineduel
                      It depends.

                      See Doctor Who exhibition for a similar article on a similar subject. Several exhibitions have their own page linked from that article, but some do not. Those that do not have enough information better serve the subject by being on the main page for DW exhibitions.

                      Lists, however are not very helpful. Lists don't really provide any encyclopaedic information. It's better to write articles.

                      Not all subjects have enough information to warrant a page, or more people may read the information if it's covered on the overview article rather than on a separate page.

                      From what I've managed to read of Bar Mitzva, that it was a meet-up and two lectures there doesn't appear to be enough information for it to need its own page.

                      13:56, 22 March 2013

                      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125313


                      Shortcut:
                      ComicBookGoddess
                      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Production in-jokes and T:NO RW" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Pages for individual conventions?".

                      Policy question, here. Example first, then the question.

                      Here's the conundrum. In The Angels Take Manhattan, the production team mocked up a New York newspaper with the headline Detroit Lions Win Superbowl. The difference from the real world is notable because 1) Detroit's famous amongst American football fans for choking - they've never even made it to the Superbowl, 2) the Superbowl winner would never be an NYC front page headline while the trees are all green in Central Park. I also am pretty sure that 3) many, many Doctor Who fans won't know this.

                      It's a fair bet that the show will never clarify how the Super Bowl is different in the DWU, not the least because the league is very protective of that trademark. (Unaffiliated advertisers have to use a euphemism, like "the Big Game".)

                      In any case, the observation was stated to be removed first as not notable, then when moved, because of T:NO RW. The information isn't being presented to say that the DWU is wrong, but to explain the significance of the choice of team where otherwise it wouldn't be known. It's background information, and it's episode specific. And it's relevant because somebody made a choice that wasn't just "look up last year's winner" or "make up a team".

                      Sometimes the significance of references need to be pointed up by their difference from RW. If it doesn't belong here, where does it?

                      There has to be an appropriate place for this type of observation. It already was in a behind the scenes section. Should it be a story note? A behind the scenes on it's own page? (Seems silly to me to require all that for a brief non-UK cultural reference.) Is the consensus of policy on this really "not on this wiki at all, ever?"

                      05:10, 24 March 2013
                      Edited by CzechOut 07:37, 4 January 2014
                      Edited by Amorkuz 14:08, 26 May 2017
                      • CzechOut
                        Please provide links when you ask questions. It makes it much easier to investigate the issue. Where are you saying it was removed for T:NO RW? The Angels Take Manhattan? Or somewhere else? You've confused me because you say it already is in a "behind the scenes" section, and story pages are entirely real world, and therefore don't need BTS section.
                        03:42, 25 March 2013
                        Edited 03:43, 25 March 2013
                        Edited 03:43, 25 March 2013
                      • ComicBookGoddess
                        It was from The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story) references section. It was removed for T:NO RW per the other editor.
                        03:47, 25 March 2013
                      • SOTO
                        Your information can now be found, relocated at Superbowl and Detroit Lions. It should also probably be added to the "References" section of The Angels Take Manhattan.
                        04:12, 25 March 2013
                      • CzechOut
                        Okay, this is a tricky one to talk about because you've tried to put it in different locations on the page, and with different words.

                        In your original edit, you're trying to offer a lot of speculation to explain it. This is not a good idea on a story page. In particular, italicised sections, like the whole of your last sentence are not allowed. Will you find such italicized explanations elsewhere? Yes, but these persist from a much earlier era on this wiki. They are impossible to stamp out with a bot. But they are removed manually wherever they're seen. Had I encountered the page in this initial construction, I wouldn't have completely removed the reference, but I would have redacted it to just this:

                        The front page story from the newspaper that Amy is reading in Central Park is Detroit Lions Win Superbowl.

                        A behind the scenes section on Detroit Lions and Superbowl could then have been used to explain the divergence between the RW and the DWU. Still, though, I would have kept the language very much less speculative than what you did. I would have left it at, "The Detroit Lions have never actually won a Superbowl in the real world."

                        I don't think you have proof that the production team were making an in-joke. So you really can't say that. All you can do is point out that this eventuality hasn't occurred in the real world.

                        Also, I think your point about the trees and the timing is either a) factually wrong or b) so technically correct that it might as well be wrong. To my eyes, the trees in several shots look to have incoming leaves. It's not a million miles away from possible that the leaves could be incoming on or about Super Bowl Sunday in Central Park. Unusual, perhaps, but with a warm winter, possible. Here's a report from 2011 about incoming leaves in TN at 1500' elevation in mid-February, which would work out to be roughly the equivalent of NYC at sea level. If the Super Bowl were held one week later, and there was an unusually warm winter, you could end up with new leaves around Super Bowl Sunday. Maybe once every hundred years, sure, but it's so barely on the edge of "wrong" that it's not worth remarking upon. If they were fall leaves, I'd absolutely say that you could talk about it. But those are clearly spring leaves (and we know that the location shoot did indeed happen in the spring).

                        After that initial edit was removed, you tried to put it under "Production errors". I'd concur with Shambala108's opinion that it doesn't belong there. It's definitely not a production error, because nothing here is other than what the production team wanted. They meant to say "Detroit Lions". They likely used "Superbowl" instead of "Super Bowl" to avoid trademark issues, as you've noted above. They chose the time to go on their location filming. So there's no error that I can see.

                        So where does this info go? It goes exactly how SOTO has it right now: The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story)#Sports from the real world. SOTO was a little bit too keen to keep your wording for the BTS sections of Superbowl and Detroit Lions, but as for the Angels page, he's got it just right.

                        And you were right to think that it somehow belonged on the story page.

                        And Shambala was right to think that a lot of what you put on the page was crossed the T:NO RW line.

                        But where we are right now seems to be fine.

                        06:07, 25 March 2013
                      • ComicBookGoddess
                        Very good, then. Except about the climate. I only live about 2 1/2 hours from the city, and I have to call shenanigans. I could see maybe some grass peeking out and some of the maples budded... But you just don't get that gorgeous green color of trees and grass, clean sidewalks, and, especially - all the fountains turned on - in February.
                        02:38, 26 March 2013
                      • CzechOut
                        Well when I wrote the above I had forgotten that this part of the story is narratively set in 2012. So while I would argue that it is possible that the trees could possibly be in bloom with a particularly warm winter, that may not have been the case in 2012. (Though I gather it was, unlike this year, a warm winter on the east coast in 2012.)

                        So we're left with a number of possibilities, all involving speculation. Either:

                        • Amy has an out of date newspaper
                        • The Superbowl is contested at a different time from the Super Bowl™
                        • In the DWU's 2012, spring came about a month or so early
                        • None of the above is true, and it's just a production error

                        Normally, it's pretty easy to see which is the right way forward, but this one has a lot of moving parts because we're literally going off one scrap of a newspaper.

                        Hold on a minute. The whole thing is an alternate reality, right? We know the Giants win the real 2012 Super Bowl. But Rory and Amy collapse the timeline in which the Lions win. So maybe that means we go back to the Giants. But then the Doctor says he can never go back to New York after the timeline is collapsed. But he does go back to get the last page of the book. And it's spring there. So is he back at the "wrong" 2012 or the new one? Why does he need to go back to that spot to get the page anyway? Why doesn't he just get any other copy of the book?

                        Argh, this episode makes my head hurt. I think we're going to need some other voices here, because this one situation seems to defy the usual logic we apply in these situations.

                        17:30, 31 March 2013
                      • Witoki
                        Are we certain it's narratively 2012? The Doctor didn't catch up with the Ponds after The Wedding until 2013. There's a lot of evidence to support Series 7's adventures take place much later in the decade too (considering how much Amy and Rory talk about the Doctor being gone for so long). Maybe the Lions win it in 2017 for all we know?

                        (Also yeah, no, warm or not, New York doesn't look like that in any February.)

                        19:48, 31 March 2013
                        Edited 19:49, 31 March 2013
                      • Tybort
                        I believe that after the failed TARDIS trip to 1938 where they bounced back, the Doctor mentions that they landed in 2012 where they started or something. I don't have the episode on hand, I just definitely remember 2012 being mentioned at some point in the episode. But obviously, this only applies to The Angels Take Manhattan. The beginning and end of Asylum of the Daleks, the scenes at Amy and Rory's house in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and all of The Power of Three undoubtedly take place later in the decade, but nothing about Angels explicitly makes it contemporary with those three episodes.
                        19:54, 31 March 2013
                        Edited 19:54, 31 March 2013
                      • ComicBookGoddess
                        Amy's stories weren't one year advanced, like Rose's were. The Doctor says that it's 2012 when they hit the graveyard in the episode, and they don't show him using the TARDIS to go back for the picnic basket, he runs.

                        In any case, I can go with the Lions having won the Superbowl in the DWU, I just can't go with it being an April headline. ;)

                        22:58, 31 March 2013
                      • ComicBookGoddess
                        (Oh, and pretty sure the NFL has trademark or service mark on both the one word and two word version of Superbowl, actually. You wouldn't believe the size of their legal department.)
                        23:00, 31 March 2013
                      • CzechOut

                        ComicBookGoddess wrote: Amy's stories weren't one year advanced, like Rose's were. The Doctor says that it's 2012 when they hit the graveyard in the episode, and they don't show him using the TARDIS to go back for the picnic basket, he runs.

                        Actually there's very clearly an intervening TARDIS trip between losing Amy and getting the last page. River's quite clearly flying the TARDIS and you hear the TARDIS groan. So he does return to a point in history before most of the events of the story. Despite having more ore less just said that going to New York again in the TARDIS was impossible.

                        05:33, 1 April 2013
                      • CzechOut

                        ComicBookGoddess wrote: (Oh, and pretty sure the NFL has trademark or service mark on both the one word and two word version of Superbowl, actually. You wouldn't believe the size of their legal department.)

                        You're probably right, but it's not commonly styled that way. The one word variant is most likely for internet applications these days, as with superbowl.com. And Apple spell correct converts superbowl to Super Bowl, so that's clearly the "preferred" style.

                        05:37, 1 April 2013
                      • ComicBookGoddess
                        We don't know for sure if River is shifting space or time - and we do know she does it before coming up with the afterward idea, neh? They also could have moved it off screen. Nah, with the running, I'd say she was just taking it on a short hop back to the original landing site, as she knew she couldn't leave him yet. Just can't answer without head cannon, I'm afraid.

                        The NFL uses it as one word in the addressing on their site. It's only recently every standardised to that spelling - I've heard it said that predictive search results have enforced it. In any case, they have the rights to the team names, and eight other trademarks including "Pro Bowl" and "Super Sunday". They even considered trying to trademark "The Big Game" in 2006 but thankfully sanity prevailed.

                        06:20, 1 April 2013

                      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125556


                      Shortcut:
                      Digifiend
                      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/November special casting" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Production in-jokes and T:NO RW".

                      Is there anywhere where casting news for the November special can be added? Orlando James has been revealed as playing someone called Lord Beeton, according to the actor's CV. http://www.roxanevacca.co.uk/portfolio-Orlando-James-18.html

                      00:17, 27 March 2013
                      • Shambala108
                        That information violates Tardis:Spoiler policy.

                        As far as I know, there is no place for it to be added right now.

                        01:34, 27 March 2013
                      • Digifiend
                        We have more confirmed cast - John Hurt, David Tennant and Billie Piper. The special is officially a multi-Doctor story! Clearly a couple of people didn't read this thread though, as I had to revert John Hurt's page and I see Rose Tyler's had to be reverted as well.
                        15:49, 30 March 2013
                      • SOTO
                        Umm, technically, the Panopticon's supposed to be a spoiler-free zone... Let's try and tone down the spoilers, eh?

                        Anyway, I'll refer you to the now-closed discussion I had with Czech a few weeks back. It can be found here.

                        I suggested a fiftieth anniversary page, so that we have a place to put these kinds of information. I still have the mock-up: User:SmallerOnTheOutside/Sandbox/Fiftieth Anniversary of Doctor Who.

                        16:06, 30 March 2013
                      • SOTO
                        ...That aside, I am uber-excited!! :P
                        16:22, 30 March 2013
                      • Digifiend
                        That mock-up's going to need updating!
                        01:26, 31 March 2013

                      Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:125619


                      Shortcut:
                      Eladkse
                      Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Wordmark on mainpage" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/November special casting".

                      On the mainpage, there is a version of the wordmark. However this is merely the 250x65px wordmark file stretched to 500x130px - and results in a blurry image.

                      Can this be replaced with a clearer 500px version? Considering all the work that has gone into the wiki's theme recently, this seems to have been a bit of an oversight.

                      21:54, 27 March 2013
                      Edited by CzechOut 02:01, 16 December 2014
                      Edited by CzechOut 02:02, 16 December 2014
                        SOTO
                        Yes, I commented on this here.

                        Czech said that this is "a condition that's existed for only a few weeks. The main reason is just that I view the front page living on entirely borrowed time."

                        When I suggested that we make a higher-quality logo for the front page, he just told me to concentrate on getting the needed logos done.

                        I would be glad to create a higher quality logo, but, for now, we're all concentrating on getting the rest of the regular ones done. Speaking of which, I'll get back to that project...

                        22:45, 27 March 2013

                        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126021


                        Shortcut:
                        OttselSpy25
                        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/50th Anniversary - Where do we put it?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Wordmark on mainpage".

                        The 50th Anniversary is being made, and without saying any spoilers, a lot has been announced; and I think we need to start putting it somewhere.

                        Mini-Mitch was against putting it on Series 7, but I think it's the best place to put the story. Either that, or we need to make a similarly-protected page for the special, maybe called 50th Anniversary Special or the such. What do you guys think?

                        17:32, 31 March 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 13:10, 1 April 2013
                        • Mewiet
                          I was under the impression everything was considered a spoiler, even official site knowledge or officially released promos, until after something has aired?
                          17:40, 31 March 2013
                        • OttselSpy25
                          Yeah, but we still keep a page on Series 7, and that page is spoiler-free. I'm asking if we should put into on the special under that section, or if we should make a new-spoiler-free section just for it.
                          17:44, 31 March 2013
                        • Revanvolatrelundar
                          Season 7 ends with its finale, so it definately doesn't belong on that page.
                          17:46, 31 March 2013
                        • Witoki
                          Our only two logical options seem to be:
                          • Include it with Series 8, the way we would Christmas specials and the like.
                          • Have it on its own, like The Five Doctors (this is however, a bit confusing as it allows the episode to be "lost" between series)
                          18:37, 31 March 2013
                          Edited 18:38, 31 March 2013
                        • SOTO
                          Actually, it does seem to be a special between the two series, although we might be able to put it as the first S8 special.

                          Anyway, we've already had two Panopticon discussions about this. I'll link you to them when I'm on my computer.

                          22:42, 31 March 2013
                        • Shambala108
                          To answer Mewiet's question, everything is a spoiler except for series pages and the Howling. For the complete policy you can visit Tardis:Spoiler policy.
                          23:16, 31 March 2013
                        • OttselSpy25
                          Yeah, I in no way want to spoil anything in this discussion, but I think that we need to add the anniversary to the 50th Anniversary page.
                          23:19, 31 March 2013
                        CzechOut
                        This has already been asked and answered. Therefore this thread will now close. But I'll cut to the end for those who don't want to do the minor amount of searching required to find the earlier discussions.

                        There is no guarantee under T:SPOIL that we must provide a page on which to spoil individual stories or even that we have to provide a series page. Our primary' goal on this wiki is to cover those things which have been released. As Tangerineduel has said over the years on dozens of individual talk and forum pages, we are not a news site. We shouldn't worry about announcing the future, but rather about covering the past—like any other encyclopaedia.

                        13:10, 1 April 2013

                        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126141


                        Shortcut:
                        Anoted
                        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Major continuity issues in series 6 caused by the ending of The Wedding of River Song?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/50th Anniversary - Where do we put it?".

                        So I rewatched The "Wedding of River Song" a couple times and was considering that the aborted timeline that never was is remembered by some people. Doesn't this change the continuity for a bunch of earlier episodes? I'd really like to believe that this was just a production error at the end of one episode, because the continuity this episode sets up just doesn't gel for me, but that's just a personal wish.

                        The issue is caused by Amy Pond remembering that she killed Madame Kovarian. Her remembering is either a mistake or has ramifications for the way all of series 6 should be viewed.

                        The events of this episode are technically taking place during a fraction of a second on the day River kills the doctor. And once time heals again, these events never happened. Meaning that people who died didn't die and so on. And almost no one remembers what happened.

                        But some people do. Amy does and River does. Meaning that Amy remembers the things she said to Madame Kovarian. About how Madame Kovarian took Amy's daughter, and she's now grown-up and ok, but she will never have her baby back. When she kills Madame Kovarian she tells her that River didn't get it all from her (referencing the events from "Let's Kill Hitler").

                        The issue isn't that these things haven't happened yet, because all of time is happening at once and that can account for a lot; that basically excludes any continuity errors that take place when there is no time. The issue is with her remembering these things when time is running normally.

                        As soon as the Doctor dies she has all of these additional memories. In other words, spoilers. She knows that Madame Kovarian steals her baby and that she never gets her baby back. She knows that River Song is her child. And yet all of these events happen later. Are we supposed to believe that for the sake of preserving time she is just lying throughout all of it? That her reaction when it turns out the child she is holding is a ganger is a lie? That sending the Doctor off in search of her child is a lie? River Song was willing to destroy time to save her Doctor, to show him that he is loved. Rory creates a paradox in time for Amy. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Amy wouldn't do the same for her daughter? (see me leaning toward error anyone?)

                        She spends months pretending to be running from the Government and fighting the Silence. And the whole time she knows that Madame Kovarian is working for the Silence, that she is indeed pregnant, that she has been taken by Madame Kovarian and that they are all after her baby. And I know we're seeing a Ganger Amy during this time but it's a Ganger Amy that is controlled by Amy. That shares all of her memories and feelings. There are also discussions between Amy, River and Rory about whether or not to tell the Doctor that they saw him die. And they make sense until you realize that Amy and River remember the events of The Wedding of River Song where the Doctor makes it clear that he knew he was set to die on Lake Silencio. That he did have foreknowledge of his death. Additionally, River knows that the Doctor didn't actually die. That he prepared for his death in advance. It's presented as it being dangerous for the Doctor to know of his death in advance. But they don't just know that the Doctor dies, they also know that the Doctor will know in advance. So why not tell him?

                        River Song must lie during these events because speaking up means changing her own history and she can't do that. The Doctor doesn't need to lie during these events because it's a younger Doctor and he doesn't know any of this yet. But Amy knows and it's not her past. Well her friendship with Mels is, but it's not clear that she knows this. The references to "Let's Kill Hitler" are there, but they're oblique.

                        All of this seriously messes with my head (which is why I lean heavily toward production error). Either Amy and River (and possibly Rory) have their memories and are lying for several episodes (meaning that this episode retroactively changes the continuity of the earlier episodes), or this is a massive production error. Either way something explaining this issue should be on every page of that this affects. By my count this should at least be a note for Episodes 1 through 11 in Series 6. And it has a major impact on the events in "The Impossible Astronaut", "Day of the Moon", "The Doctor's Wife", "The Almost People", "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler".

                        For reference in case anyone is confused about the things that happen during The Wedding of River Song that happen while time is passing:

                        • the conversation that Amy and River have takes place sometime after the events of "The God Complex" (for Amy and Rory; River is coming from the Byzantium)
                        • the Doctor carrying Dorium's head back to the Seventh Transept happens after the Teselecta has been burned on Lake Silencio
                        22:50, 31 March 2013
                        Edited 22:52, 31 March 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 01:19, 1 April 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 21:39, 20 May 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 15:30, 20 September 2013
                        • ComicBookGoddess
                          Heh. This would be a discontinuity post if it didn't cover several episodes, eh?

                          Rather than production error, I'd say, "action off screen". There's no narrative evidence that the Amy in the alternative timeline was contemporary with the 909 year old doctor. It's an assumption, and there's evidence against it.

                          We know that the Amy inside the alternative time line is not the Amy from The Impossible Astronaut, because she draws herself as a pirate. We can presume this is after A Good Man Goes To War because Kovarian knows those events had happened. River is the only one who remembers it the first time (as it's the second time for her).

                          And, most importantly, this wouldn't be the first time Amy woke up remembering things that she hadn't known before. So, the Amy contemporary with the 1103 year old Doctor just wakes up one morning...

                          23:15, 31 March 2013
                        • Witoki
                          I like to think of it as a "time knot".

                          Imagine you're tying an enormous knot. You start on the left, follow the string to the right, and only at the end does it loop back before moving forward again.

                          Aborting the Tick Tock Timeline is like taking the two ends and pulling as hard as you can. The knot snaps shut, and the timeline is restored (albeit with some "bumps" at the point of intersection).

                          23:22, 31 March 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Wait, what? CBG, are you suggesting that Amy suddenly wakes up one day after the events of "The God Complex" with the new memories? Why? We as an audience are seeing events from the Doctor's timeline. So we don't see the events of "The Wedding of River Song" until the doctor is 1103. There's no possible reason that Amy would wait to get those memories until the version of the Doctor she was traveling with had caught up to the same point.

                          And all of the evidence from when time is collapsed--is negated by the fact that time has collapsed. People knowing things, how Amy draws herself, all of it. The narrative tells us that everything is happening all at once.

                          The Doctor dies, and at the exact same point there is an entire alternate universe where everything happens at once. When time moves past that one point where the doctor is both dead and alive at the same time, anyone who can remember the alternate events of that moment will start remembering. The Doctor in the Teselecta remembers what happens. We know Amy and River remember what happen. Why on earth would they not remember in Utah, standing over the Doctor's body? Why on earth would they only remember months or years later? Is it seriously being suggested that their memories are put on hold and are only triggered by being in the presence of the 1103 year old doctor? And if so, then wouldn't that discussion between River and Amy in the garden have to take place after "The Asylum of The Daleks"?

                          And Witoki I get your knot analogy but everything the the show tells me tells me that that knot starts and ends in that one moment on August 22.

                          23:49, 31 March 2013
                        • ComicBookGoddess
                          You might as well ask why Amy doesn't remember the events before the Big Bang as a child. And why Rory doesn't remember being a Roman until after the Big Bang.

                          The Doctor's travels are linear for him. He mentions the need to stay relative to the Master in the causal nexus in the End of Time. When he interacts with Amy and Rory, he generally tries to hit them up in the same order, likely because of this (and we see how careful he is with River when he knows he can't with her). So he goes for two hundred years, waving at them through history... And young Amy, who is seeing psychiatrists about the Doctor, never noticed these stories? No, because young Amy is before these actions in the causal nexus, with a few choice exceptions. When things wobble a bit, he controls the information, and if necessary takes action to shore up the idea that stuff is caused by other stuff, so that people don't know enough to change other things.

                          Throughout his time of visiting his companions, there is an equivalent him for them. He takes care of the causal nexus, so it takes care of him. And, yeah, her waking up one morning with the memory makes as much sense as the rest of her story. Remember Night and the Doctor? Amy doesn't remember the lady with the ice cream cone cheering her up until after she focuses on the event. She changes her own past, changing her own memories, but not until other circumstances have come together to allow her to do so. Until they have, it simply hasn't happened.

                          Ack - sorry, don't know how to address this without speculating so - the only evidence we have is that she acts like she doesn't remember the story until the Amy concurrent with us and the Doctor had it happen.

                          00:12, 1 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Or young Amy did notice some of these stories--they wouldn't have helped her with psychiatrists or sanity.

                          Also, Amy could be reading different books as an adult, actively looking for the doctor.

                          Amy is the girl who grew up sleeping next to a crack in the universe. She remembers things she shouldn't all the damn time, because time works differently for her. She can touch her younger self without time ripping to shreds.

                          And in terms of how she acts, well that's the issue isn't it? The Doctor lies. River lies. Did Amy lie? We know she understands the necessity of lying with timey-wimey issues, and we know she can lie. The question is: did she lie? Is it in her character to lie like that instead of breaking time, especially once she sees the consequences of time breaking?

                          My understanding of the casual nexus has the memories coming back immediately to everyone who can remember. This isn't Amy going back into her own timeline. This isn't the Doctor going back in time and changing things either. The only reason that there aren't a bajillion Doctors running around having adventures of every kind when time collapses is because he is the only thing that continues to age. Everything is compressed around him and he is the only thing that is moving. The Doctor is the only person that this all happens to linearly. He's 909 in Utah, slapped by River, almost 200 years happens and he's 1103, back in Utah at the same time and time is killed, time is healed and he dies. This also happens linearly for River I suppose. She's in Utah in the astronaut suit, time stops, she marries the doctor, time starts, she kills the doctor, she escapes into the lake, goes off and does lots of things and sometime much later she shows up in Utah for some of Napoleon's wine. But there's only one Amy at Lake Silencio. It's the same Amy before the Doctor is shot as it is the Amy after the Doctor is shot.

                          At any rate, I think the issue in regards to the wiki is that we have no freaking clue what's going on here. Maybe time works like that and maybe it wasn't. If it wasn't there's no error and continuity wasn't changed. If time works like that maybe continuity is different and maybe there's an error. Maybe it wasn't planned but if you asked the writers now they would say that it probably did affect continuity that way and it hadn't occurred to them. But would that be a continuity error? Or is it impossible for Dr. Who to have continuity errors.

                          The problem is that there are as many ways to view how time works on Dr. Who as there are fans. And that's all these are--they're are views, our interpretations. The bottom line is that we generally don't know when a character is lying unless we see that lie directly contradicted. And that tends to happen most often when one character tells another that they were lying earlier. Amy never said she was lying and we have no physical evidence to prove that she was. It's Schrodinger's cat. There's a cat in the box and we have no clue whether it's alive or dead. The only way to know would be to have the writer's tell us. And there can only be an error is the writer's say that they wrote it with one outcome in mind but if you follow the rules as they see them the opposite outcome would be correct.

                          So unless someone wants to run off and ask The Powers That Be we should probably just acknowledge that we know there's a cat in a box but that's the extent in our knowledge. Which would be adding a note to the Wedding of River Song page explaining when the conversation with River and Amy took place in their individual timelines and a note that we have no idea what's going on timeline wise until that point. Amy could have known the whole time or have only just remembered.

                          01:04, 1 April 2013
                        • Rowan Earthwood
                          The Goddess is correct. Amy didn't remember her family before The Big Bang, but after The Big Bang she suddenly does. The mini-episode Good Night discusses this phenomenon in detail.

                          AMY: My life doesn't make any sense... When I first met you I didn't have parents. I never had parents... and then you did whatever you did to reboot the universe and I had parents. And I've always had parents. And I remember both lives in my head at the same time.

                          THE DOCTOR: Everyone's memory is a mess. Life is a mess. Everyone's got memories of a holiday they couldn't have been on, or a party they never went to, or met someone for the first time and felt like they've known them all their lives. Time is being rewritten all around us every day. People think their memories are bad. Their memories are fine. The past is really like that.

                          AMY: That's ridiculous.

                          THE DOCTOR: Now you're starting to get it.

                          Anyway, Amy had no memories of the alternate universe in The Wedding of River Song until after that episode. Then, suddenly, she did have those memories. That's ridiculous. But that's what life in Doctor Who is really like.

                          01:14, 1 April 2013
                        • ComicBookGoddess
                          Especially given the Doctor's lesson above, it's more reasonable to think that the timeline, especially since the destruction of the Time Lord's control of it, is dynamic. It's demonstrated that a companion's memories change relative to the Doctor - as they did for Kazran. Why shouldn't they be able to change in a time-sensitive companion relative to an equivalent version of the Doctor, regardless of his physical presence or not?

                          Real World physics, as described and defined by mathematics, is suggesting that the universe itself is designed to prevent paradox from occurring, even if it doesn't necessarily rule out time travel. So, I gave no problem with the story allowing for the past and future to mutate relative to the Doctor. He and his species seem to act as special observer, crystallising the possible into reality. That's why Amy's death was fixed - not because the Doctor was totally incapable of visiting her, but because he never could have brought himself to visit her without rescuing them. Ack, more speculation. I better stop again.

                          03:46, 1 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Maybe...I guess I just interpret things differently. Though since Time has whatever rules suit the writers, I suppose it really doesn't matter how we interpret those rules.

                          Times is so very complicated in Doctor Who that when something happens--like people getting new memories, or losing them or paradoxes--that the writers have a tendency to point all of this out. Very explicitly because otherwise we won't know what the hell is going on. So since we have nothing before the conversation Amy and River have to indicate otherwise, I'll go along with that theory. Sill bugs me though.

                          14:12, 1 April 2013
                        • ComicBookGoddess
                          Perhaps think of it as a function of the TARDIS - I mean, she routes all those phone calls. ;)
                          17:07, 1 April 2013
                        • TARDIStraveler
                          It's timey-wimey.
                          17:11, 1 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          We can make excuses all we want, but the bottom line is that the rules function for the sake of convenience and nothing else.

                          Going back in time works too many different ways. When the Doctor meets Martha it works completely differently. Anyway...

                          18:01, 1 April 2013
                        • ComicBookGoddess
                          Not really. If the Tenth Doctor hadn't have known he was going to do that, he wouldn't have done that. Same with how the Eleventh Doctor sends himself notes sometimes. The causality requires that an earlier version of Martha would know. It's the opposite in the case of Amy.

                          It's not narratively permissible, but Moffat did say in One of the Confidentials that the first time we saw it, in Impossible Astronaut, the elder Doctor did die. If he hadn't - if Amy hadn't thought he died and inadvertently spilled the beans, he may not have had the insight to change it.

                          18:39, 1 April 2013

                        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126323


                        Shortcut:
                        Anoted
                        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Colour scheme of pop-ups" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Major continuity issues in series 6 caused by the ending of The Wedding of River Song?".

                        The colour scheme of those pop-ups that appear on the bottom of the page is problematic. If the pop-up is the right size, then the x to close it ends up being white and white and can't be seen. If you click in vaguely the right area then it will close, but there's no visual cue. The first pop-up I had I didn't end up closing for a couple days because there was no visual evidence as to how and I didn't click around trying to find out because I didn't want to go to wherever the link sent me. Now that I think about that, I was being kinda silly-I could always navigate back. Anyway, this isn't an issue with a lot of the pop-ups because the shape of them means that there is some differentiation, but there is at least one shape that is problematic.

                        14:54, 1 April 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 20:22, 28 May 2017
                        • Shambala108
                          This kinda belongs on Board:The Drax Cave, but I had the same problem with a wiki-wide notice. What I did was go to this site on IE, where the x does show up and I was able to close it.
                          14:57, 1 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Ooh, sorry about that. I can start a new thread there, unless a mod or admin or someone can move it.

                          &Shambala108 - what browser did you have a problem in? Anyway, opening a new browser doesn't really seem like a solution.

                          16:11, 1 April 2013
                        • Shambala108
                          You're right, it's not a solution, but it was better than seeing that stupid notification on every page ;)

                          I've been using Google Chrome for this site since it keeps crashing on IE.

                          17:22, 1 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          I noticed that too. Was that on the webinar notice? I fixed it by closing the notice while on another wiki, where the X did show up. Clicking the link didn't make it go away.
                          19:32, 1 April 2013
                        • Anoted

                          Imamadmad wrote: I noticed that too. Was that on the webinar notice? I fixed it by closing the notice while on another wiki, where the X did show up. Clicking the link didn't make it go away.

                          Yes, that was it. Though not just that one, any notice that is that size is an issue. It's to do with the shape of the oval. If the oval is not too tall, then the x is in the "shadow" of the oval. Which makes it an x on some shade of blue. But when the oval is tall enough (width also plays a roll here, but I'm super simplifying things) then there's enough space between the oval and the corner of the box that it's white on white and not visible at all.

                          Shading either the box or the x would fix this fairly easily.

                          19:42, 1 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Could you guys please give me some screenshots to demonstrate your errors? Please post them at user talk:CzechOut. When you do, please also include:
                          • your operating system
                          • your browser and its long form (i.e. multi-digit) version number

                          Also, I'm totally in the dark about this alleged IE problem. Could you please define for me when and where IE "breaks" on the site, and what version of IE you're talking about. We don't officially support IE here, but neither do I want the site totally breaking in IE. If I can narrow down the problem to a specific behaviour or page, maybe I can isolate any IE problems. Of course, if you're using anything before IE 9, you're kinda on your own.

                          23:22, 1 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Oh, and are you seeing the colour error on the dark background or the light background?
                          01:24, 2 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Obviously I can't produce screenshots because I didn't take any at the time, but I can report from what I saw, which seems to have been the same as what the original person saw based on their reply to my previous comment, and since they haven't had an opportunity to reply yet, I may as well say what I saw so the troubleshooting process can start. It was in Google Chrome (latest version at that time), and the notification box from memory was a lot wider than the usual one, hence why I personally couldn't see the close button (the box ended off the page, so there wasn't really a proper top right corner to click in). And I personally first saw it here while in the forums, so I think that defaults to show things as they are in the light theme. The box for the webinar showed up looking just normal over on another wiki I was looking over at the time (at Doctor Who Answers), so it must be something going wrong with local coding, or just how the local coding is reacting to Wikia made notices. Or just a problem with the computers of the three of us. I think Wikia said that they were doing 2 webinars this month, so it won't be long before we can see it again and see if there is a problem, or if maybe it was just a one-time-only glitch.
                          10:39, 2 April 2013
                        • SOTO
                          I've also been having the same problem. As Imamadmad described, the box sort of went off-screen, and I couldn't close it. Even after opening the link, it didn't go away. Like him, I ended up closing it on another wiki.

                          What no one's said yet was that this applied toevery notification. It still does, I think. Webinars, hypercubes, badges, everything. Except with badges, it closes the moment you load a page, and, with hypercubes, it closes after opening your talk page. But the webinars were sitting on my screen for long periods of time, interrupting my editing.

                          Next time I see this, I'll upload a screenshot.

                          (PS. I too am using the latest Chrome. On a Windows 7)

                          10:47, 2 April 2013
                        • Shambala108
                          Actually for me it didn't happen with hypercubes or badges, just the webinar. The hypercubes and badges were completely on my screen and the x was visible.

                          And I didn't take a screenshot when it happened either, sorry.

                          13:25, 2 April 2013
                        • SOTO
                          Weird...

                          Anyway, thing is: even zooming out to like 10%, the X is still off the screen.

                          13:28, 2 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          First noticed the problem with the webinar, but I was viewing an article page at the time, not the forum. Still pretty sure that it was a light background though.

                          I didn't have the same problem with all notices, but I did have a problem with some of the Tardis notices. For me there have been noticed with no x, noticed with a barely visible, super hard to see x, and notices with an x.

                          I don't understand what people are saying about off the screen though. For me, the notices pop-up in the bottom of the screen, right of center screen. The box seems to end about an inch or inch and a half in from the right side of the screen. I'm having the problem both with an older version of firefox and safari.

                          14:51, 2 April 2013
                        • SOTO
                          Well, I'm off the screen with both colour schemes, all over the wiki.
                          15:01, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Guys, I really need facts to fix this problem. Please provide screenshots, operating system numbers, browser version numbers, and wiki theme. I'm seeing none of this in the latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera for Mac.

                          If I can't see it, I can't fix it.

                          19:07, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Wait a minute. Are you guys just saying that the message box extends off the right side of the page? That's by design. I'm deliberately making it harder to find the "close window button–the "x", if you will", so that you have to click the message itself, and therefore be transported to your talk page.

                          We've had a few cases of people claiming that they "never got a message". By pushing the "you have a hypercube" message almost to the centre of the page, and hiding the X off "stage right", people will, yanno, read their damned messages.

                          It's not a flaw.

                          19:12, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Now obviously, as people have noted up thread, there are some browsers at some zoom levels where the X can be found. But on all browsers, the WikiaNotifications box (to give it more or less its proper name) has been:
                          • reskinned to stand out more
                          • shoved hundreds of pixels to the left
                          • made to significantly overlap the right margin of the page so that you cannot miss it

                          Older users, or people who go to other Wikia wikis, may remember that the default condition of the box is to be about 50px to the right of the right margin so that it doesn't actually get in the way of you reading a page.

                          I want it in the way so that you have to consciously, firmly dismiss it. It needs to be "tastefully annoying", not "artfully unobtrusive".

                          19:18, 2 April 2013
                        • Shambala108
                          That is what I was talking about, but for me it's only the webinar alert (which, frankly, I wasn't interested in). The hypercube and badge fit within my screen (on Google Chrome).
                          19:20, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          To answer the OP directly, you're not supposed to close it with the X. You're supposed to click on it and read the message, which will then automatically close it.
                          19:21, 2 April 2013
                        • Anoted

                          CzechOut wrote: To answer the OP directly, you're not supposed to close it with the X. You're supposed to click on it and read the message, which will then automatically close it.

                          But there is an x, or there's supposed to be. The pop-ups aren't trying to force people to read notices that are irrelevant to them or that they have no interest in. Besides, while I didn't try closing the pop-ups by clicking on the link, someone else on this thread did and it didn't work.

                          Besides, these notices pop-up for people who just come here to read and have no interest in editing this wiki. If you have a wikia account and are logged in, you see wikia pop-ups even on wikis you don't edit. While I did eventually pop by the forums and comment, I came here with no intention of editing and was seriously annoyed when I couldn't close pop-ups on this wiki.

                          Annoying editors is not a good idea. Annoying readers is even worse. It undermines the goals of this wiki.

                          19:35, 2 April 2013
                          Edited 19:38, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          The fact that Wikia's webinar thing is not dismissing properly is for them to fix. That's not a local issue. For all I know they have a reason for it not to dismiss. It used to, so I can submit a bug report on that. But the fact that it's not working doesn't invalidate the intent of our local design.

                          Clicking on the "you have a hypercube" pop-up does dismiss it. Of course, if you have messages on more than one wiki, you have to go through every single wiki where you have messages. But once you make your final stop, it does go away. Also, the Game of Rassilon badge notification dismisses on the very next page load. It's only the webinar thing that doesn't, and I'll send Wikia email to try to resolve that. But the general rule is that if you click on the message notification, it takes you to read something and then goes away.

                          As for your other two paragraphs, if you're not an editor here, you wouldn't get any messages other than a message sent by Wikia themselves, like the webinar stuff. Again, that is their deal. It is a Terms of Use violation for me to turn it off, though God knows I wish I could.

                          But if you don't make an edit here, you will never get any kind of pop-up, except that you might get mail on another wiki. If so, just click the link in front of you and go to the other wiki.

                          I think you're massively exaggerating the extent to which the feature will annoy people to the point that they won't come back. And you're probably not familiar with problems we have locally with people saying they never saw the message alert pop up.

                          No one can now reasonably say that they didn't see that they got mail — and that's a good thing.

                          Can it use a few tweaks? Yes—there is still some residual fallout from the fact that we unusually have two skins here. The Xs should all be invisible on both skins, and they're currently only invisible on one. So that makes it look like there's a problem of consistency.

                          19:54, 2 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          And message sent. I'll keep you apprised through this thread. When they explain why the Webinar message doesn't properly dismiss, I'll let you know.
                          19:58, 2 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Well, with the webinar message, I asked for it to open in another tab so I wouldn't navigate away from the page. That might be why it didn't close automatically for me. But it would be good for users uninterested in the webinar to be able to easily dismiss the message.
                          02:32, 3 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Well, to quote Black Orchid, strike me pink! No one had reported the bug before! Wikia have therefore now confirmed that the "Webinar non-dismissibility issue" is indeed an error, and they'll accordingly be investigating and correcting it.
                          14:23, 3 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          With the new pop-ups that just showed up I tried clicking on the link as a means of closing and it does NOT work. It takes me to the page, but those pop-ups remain until clicking that x button. They were of the shape that I hadn't had problems with so I was able to close them without going to another wiki, but I just thought I'd add that finding to the discussion.
                          22:11, 3 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          The "time is in flux" message "message from the Data Core" is not one that will appear with any kind of regularity anymore, since we have moved to these forums. I could fix it so that it dismissed upon clicking, but I actively choose not to. I'm completely fine with people having to struggle to get rid of it, since it means they will probably encounter the "don't post spoilers" message several times.
                          00:02, 4 April 2013
                          Edited 00:10, 4 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          You know, now that we have two messages displaying, maybe someone could take a pic for me, because I'm not seeing any "close the window" Xs on either skin.
                          00:12, 4 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Okay, in response to some of the criticism, I've changed the positioning of the elements so that they don't actually cross into the body of the articles in all browsers, at standard zoom levels. But it's still pretty obvious so that there's a higher chance people will click on it. This means, however, that the X is off the page at just about every zoom level. Given that Wikia are working to fix the dismissibility error, this isn't a problem, because dismissing will be as easy as reading the message.

                          The only box that will ever display here that can't be dismissed by reading the message is the one that says "an important message from the Data Core". And that's fine. As I said, this message will come up very rarely. In fact, this is probably the only time that alert will be triggered the whole year. So I want people having to encounter the "don't spoil things" message while they figure out how to make the box go away.

                          01:21, 4 April 2013
                        • Shambala108
                          Thanks!
                          01:28, 4 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          One last thing thing then: The Wikia pop-up message about the "My Wikia App" isn't displaying all text within the window, no matter what zoom. As in, the ends of lines are cut off (for the first line can't see anything after "you lov" and the second line doesn't start until the part which says "It's in the iTunes store now"). I think this must be because the message box is too wide or something, as the full message can be seen on the other, non-customised wiki. I won't close the message in case you need screenshots. I'm in Chrome for a Windows 7 computer now, however I was also seeing the problem earlier using the full version of the site on Chrome on my iPhone (I just didn't have time to reply before).
                          04:43, 4 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Yeah that's true. But that's the display in webkit browsers only. In Firefox and Opera, it's fine. There's a difference in the margins in webkit browsers that I can't fully figure out yet. I may end up nudging things around some more, but I note that this particular Wikia message is longer than usual. I'll revisit the issue in the middle of the month, when they put up a new message for the monthly webinar.
                          04:52, 4 April 2013
                        • Witoki
                          Providing a screenshot for my experience - Windows 7 / Chrome


                          If you change the margin-right property of .WikiaNotifications li div to 300px, it solves the problem on my browser.

                          16:01, 5 April 2013
                          Edited 16:02, 5 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          What problem are you trying to solve?
                          16:03, 5 April 2013
                        • Witoki
                          If you look at the lower-right of the screenshot, I'm having the "cut-off message" problem as well.
                          16:07, 5 April 2013
                        • Witoki
                          So this is where skimming is a bad idea, I only now am just reading your bit about keeping the popup text off the area where article's text would be, sorry about that. Is a slightly smaller font an option, then? I've had this message on my screen for at least a week now, and it's getting kind of annoying.
                          16:09, 5 April 2013
                          Edited 16:09, 5 April 2013
                          Edited 16:10, 5 April 2013
                          Edited 16:11, 5 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          I could change the font, yes. But again, once Wikia get it working correctly, dismissing it won't be an issue, so there's not really a need to change anything.
                          01:24, 6 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          It's not just dismissing it. There is also the problem of actually being able to read it! If there is too much text, the words just don't fit in the bubble and so go off the page to a non-existent place where they can't be read. I would have thought that would be a problem worth fixing.
                          05:13, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Most of it can be read, including the most important "Read more here". It still works as a trigger to get you to go to the page Wikia want you to go to.

                          I'm not saying I won't move it, or maybe just change the right padding so that the text wraps better. But I don't see it as an urgent problem because it's not significantly impeding Wikia's goals.

                          I unfortunately wasn't able to mess with it today while the Webinar message was showing. The current Game of Thrones announcement is brief enough not to display the problem, so I'll have to wait until late April for another Webinar announcement to pop up.

                          05:47, 6 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Actually, this pop-up is a problem, at least for me.
                          GOT pop-up article view

                          As you can see, the current Game of Thrones announcement has no closing button for me. And clicking on the link (I hate being forced to go to other wikis) did not make it go away.

                          This pop-up is blocking pages and is super-annoying. I tried mousing over the corner where the x should be-sometimes the x is invisible, but my mouse changes so I know where it is. Nothing, this pop-up doesn't have an x at ALL. And that is an issue central to this wiki. I know because I checked on a few other wikis and they all have a closing button.

                          same pop-up on OUAT

                          See how normal looking this pop-up is? It's out of the way, and yes, I know that that means that there's less attention, but it doesn't become a problem while reading an article either. It's easy to read, easy to close, easy to everything. If I want to keep the pop-up as a reminder to check it out at a later time I can, and it doesn't affect my ability to do other things.

                          I get having a big, in your face pop-up for super important things, but most of the time these pop-ups are not important. They frequently function as ads. And I don't like ads. Especially ones that force you to click on them and then don't close anyway.

                          I had to spend time on this. Time trying to close it on this wiki, time going to the GOT wiki in the hopes that that would close it, and time going to another wiki and hitting their x button.

                          That's not right. And it's a problem for readers and editors. When these pop-ups were first an issue for me I left the wiki because of it. They were giving me a headache and were very distracting. I couldn't close them and got annoyed. I figured I could find what I was looking for elsewhere and just left. Could I have come to the forums then? Of course. But I didn't know how well your forums worked or anything else and to be honest, I didn't want to know. I came here to get into some trivial detail that I wanted clarification on. I stayed because the wiki was really well done and kinda addictive. I got inundated with pop-ups and it drove me crazy and I left. When I eventually came back it wasn't even intentional. You were a high enough result to my search query that you were on my radar, and when the first few results I tried didn't work I came here. Without the pop-ups I probably wouldn't have left in the first place. I would have made those searches in wiki, kept using and reading the wiki and I probably would have started posting on the forums and editing much sooner. Usability is generally a high goal for any wiki. And at least for me, this is a serious usability problem. I left once because of it. It's hard to imagine that this isn't a problem for others.

                          11:26, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          I'm more confused by the first picture you've provided. What browser are you using that you're getting all those ellipsoid shapes? The template that says "written from a real world point of view" is not that shape in any browser I'm using.
                          15:07, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          As to your points, though, if the Wikia pop up were working correctly, then you'd have no issues. You'd click on the link, and it would self-dismiss. Easy. It's only because there is an identified bug in the code for that particular type of message that you're having an issue.

                          Although we have a unique design here that is putting the X out of reach, this is not a long term problem, and it will be resolved by Wikia fixing their stuff.

                          I should also point out that your particular screenshot is unlike any that I'm able to reproduce. The message is much further to the left on yours than anything I'm seeing. If you're using Internet Explorer, please be aware that we do not support it. If you're using Internet Explorer lower then 9.0, note that even Wikia don't. More details about your particular browser would help me help you.

                          Please be patient.

                          15:12, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Since you're new to us, you might not understand that there are two levels of administration here at Tardis. There's us at the local level, and then there's Wikia itself. Like on every Wikia wiki, there's administrative pull between the local admin and the corporate wiki. Problems are routinely identified as being either "local" or "global". We can't fix global problems, and we don't change local design if it's determined that there is a global bug.
                          15:15, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          This, by the way, is what The Rebel Flesh is supposed to look like. You'll see that the pop=up is really not nearly so intrusive as you're showing. And the shapes are, yanno, not completely stupid-looking. I really need to know how you're browsing to even begin to help you.
                          GOTexampleSafari.png
                          15:20, 6 April 2013
                          Edited 15:20, 6 April 2013
                          Edited 15:21, 6 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Yeah, I know. Sorry, I was exceptionally cranky when I posted that. Right, I have a Mac, which I'm purposely not running on Lion because issues with other programs, and that's really not relevant. Anyway it's showing up that way in my version of Firefox, which admittedly is older, partially because the OS is (3.6 I think). It's also problematic in Safari (I'm running the second most recent version, don't remember the number of the top of my head). I didn't get a screen capture this time but I will next time.

                          I'm assuming that it's not a script problem, though assuming that without reading the code tends to be a bad idea, I know. Anyway the only things I'm forbidding are google-analytics and amazon-adsystem. Hope this helps.

                          16:38, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Okay, you should know that my screenshot is coming from Safari 6.0.3 running on OS X 10.8.3. The site also basically looks the same under the latest version of Safari for the latest version of iOS.

                          Most of the admin for this site also run Macs, so it's highly unusual for you to be seeing problems of this magnitude on a Mac.

                          Could you provide me with some actual numbers please? I'm not sure what you mean by "the OS is 3.6". If you're running 10.3.6 then you're considerably further back than you think, and probably well below the minimum standards for running this site.

                          Go to "About this Mac" under the Apple menu. Then report back with the exact version number. Then please go to your installation of Firefox and look under the "Firefox" menu for "About Firefox". Then report the version number. Then go to Safari and look under "About Safari" for the exact version number.

                          My guess is that you just need to upgrade, but the precise version numbers will tell us for sure.

                          Current version numbers for Firefox and Safari are 20.0 and 6.0.3, respectively.

                          18:02, 6 April 2013
                          Edited 18:05, 6 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          Trying to figure out where those numbers came from. I'm operating 10.5.8 I think. It's the update right before Snow Leopard and the latest one I can use with certain programs. Oh, the 3.6 comes from Firefox. My antecedents really aren't clear in that line are they? Wow. Massive basic writing failure right there. I'm running Firefox 3.6.24. I think 3.6 went along for another 6 months or so past that. To 3.6.28? .27? I'm really not sure, but either way I'm running one of the last available release for 3.6, the one I found most stable. I'm also running one of the official releases for Firefox 4. 4.0, or 4.01, it's not open right now so I'm going on memory. I tend to keep a beta version and a stable version of Firefox at the same time, though on this computer I have to maintain things that are a year or two old because I'm waiting for other things to catch up. Which is why I have one of the last official releases of both 3.6 and 4. But still, my 3.6 (which is my main choice) is just over a year old. My Safari is actually older but it's not my main browser and I can't update it without changing OS, iirc. It's 5.0.6, and I believe that's the last pre-Snow Leopard release, but Safari is always a back up for me so I know a whole hell of a lot less about it.

                          When I program I tend to program back a minimum of 3 years or 3 official releases. Granted, I'm more of a conservative, but still. We're talking about a year, year and a half for Firefox. I didn't really think that it would be a problem.

                          Since my rambling confused me as much as anyone I'm repeating those numbers again here: OS: 10.5.8 Firefox: 3.6.24 and 4.0/4.01 Safari: 5.0.6

                          The 3.6.24 Firefox is my primary browser.

                          19:20, 6 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Yeah, I feel your pain.

                          Until last year, I ran this wiki on an old PPC running 10.4.11. But the truth is that there's a huge difference between Firefox 3.6.24 and Firefox 4+. On the Mac side, 4 is the sort of "fault line" between "modern" and "old" Firefox. I totally remember that there came a time in 2011 where 3.6 just couldn't handle the site anymore. By 2012, it was having problems even with some parts of other Wikia wikis, so I had to start using Firefox only on the Monobook skin.

                          I used to try to convince myself that it hadn't been "all that long ago" that 3.6 came out. Sure, maybe the .24 revision is a little newer. But the cold, hard, fact is that 3.6 itself dates from late 2009/January 2010. Yes, you have incremental updates going all the way to 2012. But your core functionality is from 3 years ago. One of the confusing things about Firefox is how they keep giving all these new incremental releases alongside major new releases. Just because you get an update to 3.6.28 in March 2012, that doesn't mean you've got as good a version of Firefox as 10.0.2, also from March 2012. They are miles apart.

                          It's important to understand the development chains for Firefox to know why your browser isn't cutting it. There are nine major revisions in FF history: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, 3.6, 4, 11, and 18. If you're at 3.6, you're actually three major revisions back. And, really, the gulf between these nine revision is not equal. The one between 3.6 and 4. is quite the doozy. Much bigger than the diff between 3.5 and 3.6, or even 10.0.12 (the end of the 4.0 chain) and 11.

                          To compound the problem, you're running OS 10.5.8. That specific revision is almost 4 years old. And 10.5 itself came out before Voyage of the Damned! Your core OS is 6 years old.

                          The truth is that even Mozilla themselves, as of this year, no longer support a version of their browser that will work on 10.5. Firefox 16 was the last version that ran on 10.5. And we're now on Firefox 20.

                          Only about .5% of all users of Firefox are using the version you are. Well over 90% of all Firefox browsers active in the month of March 2013 were using at least Firefox 19. So that's why your browser simply isn't supported by Wikia or Tardis.

                          Like you, I didn't want to let go of my otherwise quite functional old Mac. But your stuff is more out of date than you think. It's simply not reasonable to support your setup here in April 2013.

                          If you can't change—maybe because you're still running a PPC Mac—then the only real advice I can give to you is that you might find using the Monobook skin a better option.

                          00:32, 7 April 2013
                          Edited 00:32, 7 April 2013
                          Edited 01:02, 7 April 2013
                          Edited 01:06, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          One more thing:

                          Firefox 3.6.24 was released on 8 November 2011, and Mozilla support for the 3.6 product ended on 24 April 2012, almost a year ago. Here's the word from Mozilla themselves. If the makers don't support a product anymore, we can't reasonably be expected to. Even if you did get an update to it sorta-kinda-not-really recently.

                          00:39, 7 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          I know how Firefox releases work. It's one of the reasons I tend to have multiple versions of it functional at once. I'm having the same problems on Firefox 4.0. And on Safari. And it's really rare that coding issues affect both Safari and Firefox the same way. I wouldn't have posted if it was just an issue in one, or if it displayed differently between the browsers. And I have no problems with any other wikis.

                          I won't be able to check right away, but I'm fairly sure I was having this problem with a much later version of Firefox. Which really just doesn't make sense. It's why I thought it was coding specific to the wiki. I'll take a look at all my browsers more carefully because I'm clearly missing something somewhere.

                          02:27, 7 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Just saw what you did with the community messages. Good solution. Works well. If only Wikia would do it for their messages too!

                          PS, the Game of Thrones message is still showing up here, yet not on other wikis, since I have dismissed the message elsewhere. Any reason this message is only sticking around here, despite being dismissed elsewhere?

                          12:32, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          You said that you preferred 3.6.24 so that's why I concentrated on that. But even 4.0 is at a minimum of 2 years old, and most (as in over 90%) of people who once had 4.0 on their systems can upgrade to something later. Remember, Wikia only supports the latest version of Firefox (20).

                          The fact that you say "you have no problems with any other wikis" doesn't tell me much, because I don't know what other wikis you frequent. If they have no, or insignificant, custom CSS, I'm not surprised.

                          Still, I am interested to see what the site looks like in these comparatively ancient installations, so if you would, please take screenshots and clearly label which version is which shot. I'd be a little surprised if it's not parsing in Safari, though. I was able to run safari 5 right up until about this time last year, and I never noticed any real problems.

                          12:33, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut

                          Imamadmad wrote: Just saw what you did with the community messages. Good solution. Works well. If only Wikia would do it for their messages too!

                          PS, the Game of Thrones message is still showing up here, yet not on other wikis, since I have dismissed the message elsewhere. Any reason this message is only sticking around here, despite being dismissed elsewhere?

                          Hmmm, that is a damned fine bit of bug sleuthing. I'll add that to the ticket I have open with Wikia. That might really help them crack the nut.

                          12:34, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          What I don't understand about that one, too, is that it appears to go away when you click on it. It doesn't display at all at w:c:iceandfire. Which is unusual, because the webinar ones persist even when you go to w:c:community.
                          12:36, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut

                          CzechOut wrote:

                          Imamadmad wrote: Just saw what you did with the community messages. Good solution. Works well. If only Wikia would do it for their messages too!

                          PS, the Game of Thrones message is still showing up here, yet not on other wikis, since I have dismissed the message elsewhere. Any reason this message is only sticking around here, despite being dismissed elsewhere?

                          Hmmm, that is a damned fine bit of bug sleuthing. I'll add that to the ticket I have open with Wikia. That might really help them crack the nut.

                          Actually, Imamadmad, I can't confirm your report. I dismissed the thing elsewhere, and it's not showing up for me here. Did you dismiss, then immediately come back here? Or did you dismiss, do a page load on the other wiki, and then come back here?

                          13:15, 7 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          That's really odd then. What happened was that yesterday I saw the notification and clicked on it. It immediately stopped displaying at the Song of Ice and Fire wiki. I have since been active (or at least actively reading) pages here, at Community Central and at Doctor Who Answers, and here is the only place where the message still displays. I just clicked on it again then, before conning back to this page. Guess what? The message is still here. It can't be just my computer, because I was using my laptop earlier and am currently now using my phone, on which I just checked the link again. So, in summary, twice now I have tried to dismiss the notification by clicking on the link, from two separate devices. Yet still Tardis seems to be the only place displaying the message still. The community messages thing you put up just recently dismissed just fine through your link, and the hypercube one dismissed itself just fine too.
                          13:33, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Wow, that's blown' my mind. I didn't have any issue at all dismissing it. Just to confirm, you're still seeing that here? What browser and version are you using on your computer? And when you say you're on your phone, are you in wikiamobile or looking at the full site?

                          And on your computer, have you tried the following step:

                          Clear your cache often around here

                          After changes are made to this site's CSS or Javascript, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. You can always do this by going to your browser's preferences panel. But many browsers also offer keyboard shortcuts to save you that trouble. The following shortcuts work in the versions of the browsers that Tardis currently supports. They may not work in earlier versions.

                          • Firefox: hold down Shift while performing a page reload.
                          • Opera offers no default keyboard shortcut, but you can create a custom keyboard shortcut with the value Clear disk cache
                          • Safari users should simultaneously hold down ⌘ + Option + E. You may need to enable the Develop menu first
                          • Chrome: press Ctrl + F5 or Shift + F5 while performing a page reload.
                          13:40, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          And when you clicked it and then returned to this page, did you return here directly after clicking (like, by using the browser's back arrow), or did you refresh the page (or go to another page) on the other wiki, and then return here?
                          13:42, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          (I don't have the message anymore so I can't test any of this anymore. I have to go on your memories and ability to still test the persistent message.)
                          13:43, 7 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Message still here. Have refreshed and navigated around various pages here at Tardis since clicking the link. Am currently using Chrome for iPhone on an iPhone 4, and before I was using Chrome for computer on a Windows 7. Oasis skin in both places. Latest version of Chrome in both places, whatever version number that is.

                          PS, I'm very sorry, but I probably won't be able to reply again to any questions until tomorrow. It's late here and I really need to sleep. I'll try and get on first thing in the morning though in case you need more info.

                          13:55, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Okay, well, I was wondering whether you had refreshed at the wiki where you dismissed the link, not here at Tardis. The exact steps I took were:
                          1. Go to aybs.wikia.com
                          2. Dismiss link
                          3. Refresh page at aybs.wikia.com
                          4. Go to community.wikia.com to confirm it wasn't at yet a third wiki
                          5. Return here

                          It never popped back up anywhere. Since you still have the message, here's a diagnostic you could try tomorrow.

                          1. Go to some wiki other than tardis or community
                          2. Dismiss
                          3. Reload at that wiki
                          4. Return here
                          5. If the GOT thing returns, go to community.
                          6. Dismiss
                          7. Refresh at community
                          8. Return here

                          IF it stays away only after going to community then we might have something.

                          14:14, 7 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Sadly, I can't do that as the notification isn't at the Ice and Fire wiki, or at Community, or at any other wiki. It is dismissed everywhere else but here. As in, after clicking the link originally, it stopped showing up on all other wikis, like it's supposed to. However the link is still here. I just did a cache clear here, and still showing at the bottom of this page, and any other Tardis page, yet not on any page on any other wiki that I have gone to in the past 24 hours (small sample size, but still). So, you see, I can't do your steps because the button isn't there to dismiss elsewhere, only here where it can't be dismissed. I hope that's clear enough.
                          20:36, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Wow that's really odd. It doesn't appear on my screen at all. Try going to community and doing a page refresh there. Then come back here and see what the deal is. And if that doesn't work, go back to community and clear your cache three times, then come back here.

                          And if you're still not shod of it, lemme know.

                          23:40, 7 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Is this happening in all browsers? If not, what's your browser type and version number?
                          23:40, 7 April 2013
                        • Imamadmad
                          Well, I just loaded my browser now to come see what's happened in the last couple of hours, and the message has gone. I don't know whether this is because of something either I or you have done, or if the message just got old enough to go away, but it is now gone.
                          00:21, 8 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          I've done nothing. We don't have much control over whether the messages appear. And since the promotion is still running over at iceandfire, Wikia wouldn't have taken it down. Especially not on a Sunday It's most likely that you were somehow not successfully clearing your cache. At any rate, I'm glad it's gone for you now.
                          00:24, 8 April 2013
                        • SOTO
                          Ooh, it's gone for me too!! On my old tabs, it's still there, of course, just in case you want some sort of screenshot (not sure why you would).

                          I was in the exact same situation as Imamadmad.

                          00:26, 8 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          Here's Wikia's response on the oddities we discovered with the Game of Thrones message:

                          Thanks. I"ll add that to my report to help with the investigation. I think there might be a bit of logic missing about recognising intended destinations— whereas a view of the talk page is recognised as a 'success' for a talk page message notice, it might not know that visiting a specific wiki is a success for this other type.Kirkburn

                          12:53, 8 April 2013
                        • Rappy
                          Unfortunately, hiding the "X" on this message is preventing the functionality of the message itself. I will be removing the CSS that is hiding the "X" shortly after this message.
                          20:05, 8 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          I don't mind restoring the X, but it doesn't really explain why, even from other wikis, clicking on Wikia messages doesn't dismiss them. And the X has only been removed within the last few days, after bug reports were sent to you guys.

                          This is not a local problem. And it's not being caused by the removal of the X. I just tried it, and the hiding is no longer in effect.

                          I've tried in every bleeding edge version of supported Mac browsers, and after hard cache clears. It still doesn't work. The x has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell.

                          Obviously I'll respect your edit. But removing and replacing the X has not, in my diagnostics, made one iota of difference.

                          00:42, 9 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          If you go to another wiki and dismiss the message, then it will remain dismissed on that wiki and throughout the Wikia network. But it doesn't do so here. The removal and replacement of the X hasn't done anything to solve the problem, and I would say that the situation is worse for me today than over the weekend. Over the weekend I was able to dismiss the message elsewhere, and that was respected here. Now I'm experiencing what other users were talking about upthread. And, yes, I've hard refreshed the cache on all four major Mac browsers in their latest versions, and I'm still getting nowhere.

                          Why should you need to specifically dismiss on this wiki for it to go away? Isn't that design sort of contrary to the whole "we're one big, happy network" theme? Are we waiting for your cache to catch up on this?

                          (Sorry if you're responding to an earlier message now deleted. I'm sick as a dog and not able to concentrate particularly well.)

                          00:46, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 00:49, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 00:51, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 00:52, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 00:53, 9 April 2013
                        • CzechOut
                          I should also point out that the X being hidden is something very new, as you can tell by doing a version history on Wikia.css. The initial report was submitted when the X was very much visible. Indeed the initial report was submitted when you could easily see and use the X.
                          00:54, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 00:55, 9 April 2013
                        • Anoted
                          badge pop-up on FF 3.6.24

                          screenshot of badge pop-up on FF3.6.24. both the visible x and clicking on the link close the pop-up

                          05:12, 9 April 2013
                          Edited 05:13, 9 April 2013
                        CzechOut
                        No longer applies to current versions of FF.
                        20:21, 28 May 2017

                        Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126635


                        Shortcut:
                        Geek Mythology
                        Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Torchwood magazine on main page?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Colour scheme of pop-ups".

                        Just a quick question as to why the Torchwood magazine is still listed on the main page as a "latest" release, despite being discontinued over two years ago?

                        22:17, 2 April 2013
                        Edited by CzechOut 23:38, 2 April 2013
                          CzechOut
                          It was included there to give balance, so that people clearly saw we covered more than just Doctor Who. It is the latest release in that line.

                          The "latest" thing on the front page is always something to be taken with a pinch of salt really. It's only the latest as our registered editors have the time and inclination to update it. Admin do not regularly patrol the page trying to keep it all absolutely up to date.

                          Which is why the front page will move away from that whole "time based" concept.

                          23:38, 2 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126797


                          Shortcut:
                          Anoted
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Why ask about the Byzantium?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Torchwood magazine on main page?".

                          Is it just me, or is it a production error that River asks the Doctor in the library if they've done the Byzantium yet? Asking the 10th Doctor if they've done something that she did with the 11th Doctor. Also, isn't that how we assume that the Doctor who was at the Picnic at Asgard was the tenth? We're introduced to River on the last day of her life, so when we see her, we're seeing a character who's entire life story has been written. Which means that from a writing point of view there are bound to be errors. That's the nature of writing things back to front. The only in-universe explanation I can possibly think of is that while River knows his faces she doesn't know what order they come in, which seems wrong somehow to me.

                          11:40, 4 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 16:34, 4 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 21:34, 20 May 2013
                          • TARDIStraveler
                            River actually says in The Time of Angels that she has pictures of all the Doctor's faces, but he never shows up in the right order. She initially assumed that the Tenth Doctor was a later Doctor before she realized how young he looked compared to "her" Doctor.

                            Put it this way. Forget everything you know about the Doctor's personal timeline. River meets a man she knows is the Doctor but she doesn't know which one and doesn't want to spoil anything. How is she supposed to know what's safe to discuss and what's not? That's where the whole "doing diaries" routine comes in :)

                            11:54, 4 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            But saying he never shows up in the right order doesn't mean that she doesn't know his personal order.

                            If River and the 10th Doctor did do the Picnic at Asgard, or rather anything in fact, she would have done diaries with him and realized that this was a Doctor who hadn't done the Byzantium.

                            River knows the face of the Doctor who did the Byzantium. So when she meets a Doctor with a different face there are only two options. He's either a younger Doctor (one of 1-10) or he's an older doctor (one of 12-??). So a Doctor who hasn't done the Byzantium and has a different face must be a younger Doctor.

                            So when River asks the Doctor if they've done the Byzantium and he's completely clueless, she moves on to Asgard. If she's eliminated 11-? with the Byzantium question she'd have to go to something from 1-10.

                            She wouldn't ask about Asgard if 11 did Asgard. Or any later version. That would be silly. She's looking at events from his early days, not hers. But if she'd done Asgard with 10, then she'd already know that the Doctor with that face was younger than 11.

                            It's a catch-22.

                            Either River asks about Asgard knowing that the Doctor can't possibly have done it. Or she asks about the Byzantium knowing that he couldn't possibly have done it.

                            If she knows that the man who did Asgard had the same face as the man who did the Byzantium then she only needs to ask about one. If they have different faces then she didn't need to ask about the Byzantium because she already has.

                            12:21, 4 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Also, River seems to think that after a certain point, she and the Doctor are moving opposite each other in time. Which seems to be mostly correct, though that part still makes no sense to me. Why on earth would they happen to meet in precisely the opposite order? But she seems to think that it's true and we've seen her afraid of this. We've seen her slowly saying goodbye to the Doctor, to the pieces of him that are slowly disappearing, over several episodes. That's not as concrete as measuring time by faces, but it's important.
                            12:53, 4 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Please remember that questions about single stories belong at The Reference Desk. The Panopticon is for settling issues of site policy, and therefore necessarily involves multiple pages.
                            16:35, 4 April 2013
                          • Anoted

                            CzechOut wrote: Please remember that questions about single stories belong at The Reference Desk. The Panopticon is for settling issues of site policy, and therefore necessarily involves multiple pages.

                            Well it isn't a site policy issue, but it's not a single story issue. It directly involves Silence in the Library and The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, the River Song page. Should it still be at the reference desk?

                            Edit: Ah, it's already been moved. Nvm, then. Though it would help if the forum page was a little clearer on what belongs in the Panopticon.

                            16:50, 4 April 2013
                            Edited 16:55, 4 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, that's a single story in that it's the "story of River Song". But just think of this alliterative rule: Panopticon = policy.

                            There's unfortunately a pretty strict limit to the number of characters allowed for board descriptions. We've been as descriptive as could be allowed. Still, I'm always looking to improve confusing language. What part of the following made you think that this thread might be acceptable?

                            Have an idea about how to improve the wiki? Don't understand why we do things as we do? Notice the same problem across several pages? Like its namesake, our Panopticon is the home of our greatest policy debates.
                            17:07, 4 April 2013
                            Edited 17:13, 4 April 2013
                            Edited 17:15, 4 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            The same problem across several pages bit. Plus the Reference Desk seemed like well, I don't know entirely. It said quick facts, which this obviously isn't, and it sorta seemed like an alternative to googling for an answer. Like when you know enough to get the answer from a person but not enough to get the answer from a search engine. You know, when you don't have enough right words or you do but the right words aren't unique enough.

                            Edit: Making it clear that it's policy, and the River Song = one story bit is it much clearer then the across several pages bit. All the topics after the Time Lord Academy are really fairly clear and the Time Lord Academy becomes much clearer after going to that board and seeing the questions that are there, but the Panopticon and The Reference Desk are fairly unclear. At least to me.

                            17:22, 4 April 2013
                            Edited 17:24, 4 April 2013
                          • Shambala108
                            The Reference Desk is for questions about a story: In what episode does Rose wear the Union Jack flag? In what story does the Eighth Doctor work on his model train set? What was the name of the character who died first in Horror of Fang Rock? Things like that.

                            The Panopticon is for questions like: Do we allow this story on the wiki? Do we need to change story prefixes? Where are spoilers allowed? Etc. etc. etc.

                            If you go to Forum:Panopticon archives, you can see a long list of titles of old, closed discussions. Browsing the title list might give you a feel for what kinds of things belong on the Panopticon.

                            Any kind of question that involves digging deeper into a story and speculating about how/why something happened belongs in the Howling.

                            Hope this helps.

                            18:08, 4 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Right ok, that's been made clear several times. Anyway, anyone who wants to weigh in on my actual question, please do. I'd like some input before I go and edit the pages where I believe there are erros.
                            18:40, 4 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Well, let's see. We know now that River has Time Lord traits... Does the Doctor bother that much over which face the Master or any of the other Time Lords are wearing after he knows it's them? Maybe she doesn't really see the facial features once she knows it's him? Or perhaps Picnic at Asgard happens with a nostalgic Twelfth Doctor and she didn't have the Doctors in order? Or she doesn't have a clear memory of Picnic at Asgard, just the diary entry. Or Picnic at Asgard didn't actually happen, it's a test question to catch an imposter.

                            And say she HAD done Picnic at Asgard with a later Ten - he NEVER would have let on anything she didn't know, because he knows how not to blow up the time stream. (Although, I doubt this is it, because the Doctor is borderline actively avoiding her at the Byzantium.)

                            All of these are the reasons I hope they never tell us the entire River Song Story. ;)

                            04:22, 5 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Me too. I never want to see the whole River Song story. Because really, that's the only way it ends. Seeing everything. Though they have closed it off a lot with the whole seeing things front to back. That's very annoying and does not make any sense at all.

                            Has it ever mattered what order the Master and the Doctor met in? For that matter, do we have any reason (beside their both being Time Lords) to think that they don't meet in the right order?

                            The first time that River meets the Doctor she finds out that he is this enormous part of her future. The first time the Doctor meets River he finds out that she is an enormous part of his future. From the get go they are both keenly aware that they are not meeting in the right order, and that they have to be careful. Every time they meet they start by checking which version they are meeting.

                            She looked at him and said that it must be the early days for him. It makes sense jumping from one doctor to another. Asking about Asgard, then asking about the Byzantium. But before she asked him about Asgard she noted that it was early days for him. It she'd done Asgard with the 10th, then he wouldn't have let on what he knew. He never lets on about the Library. But when she asked him questions to figure out who he was she'd have known that he wasn't the man she did the Byzantium with. If we discount everything that River has told us about her timeline, then maybe it makes sense. Maybe she has lots of adventures with the 12th Doctor and the 13th Doctor and the 14th Doctor and they are all out of order. So let's say she's been out having fun with the 17th Doctor. When she comes to the library a lot of Doctor's would look young. But that doesn't match up with the rest of her story. We hear all the time how at a certain point she sees him younger and younger. For her, the last time she sees "her Doctor" is that night at Darillium. And that's the 11th Doctor. For her, the 10th Doctor isn't the Doctor quite yet. What I'm saying is that I can't figure out a way to take everything she says as canon. Sure, we know that she lies, but why would she lie to Rory about constantly seeing a younger and younger Doctor? Why would she ask the Doctor about Asgard or the Byzantium if she knew that he couldn't have done one of them? She lies to keep time from breaking, but that doesn't mesh here. It's asking to much to think that they could get these two timelines perfect. They'd have to plan everything out years in advance and it's just not really possible. It's an error. We can't figure out anything about their timeline or anything else from that short bit because it's a mistake.

                            Unless someone can figure out how it isn't without disregarding other parts of the story.

                            15:51, 5 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:126989


                          Shortcut:
                          Aphelion112
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Chat" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Why ask about the Byzantium?".

                          Hello, i've recently come from the MLP chat, and I thought maybe I could come here to chat with fellow Whovians But no one seems to be on the chat. :s

                          09:59, 6 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 22:44, 16 May 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Yes, that does happen. You can't expect people to always be there.

                            Anyway, The Panopticon is meant for questions regarding the editing if our articles. This is not a specific question, nor a bug report, so there's technically nowhere to post this.

                            These things happen. People aren't on chat. Just wait a bit and then come back. Or go to other Doctor Who discussion communities, like Doctor Who TV. There's really nothing that we do to fix this 'problem', and therefore no reason to be posting this.

                            17:14, 6 April 2013
                          CzechOut
                          Unfortunately our user base has never particularly warmed to the chat feature, largely because it gives no audible alerts when new messages are sent. If you'd like to bring your friends here and cultivate a livelier chat channel, you're certainly welcome to.  :)
                          19:16, 6 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127036


                          Shortcut:
                          CzechOut
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Crew lists and new story pages" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Chat".

                          I wanted to say thanks to whoever put in the crew lists for the last couple of episodes of Doctor Who. Unfortunately, I had to blank them because I personally need to put them in for the last couple of weeks to figure out how the crew designations have changed for the new season. There's a lot of cleanup that I need to get to on that extremely complicated template. Hopefully, I'll have it all reset by next Saturday, and a new version will roll out to the preload template.

                          I think that some people have started the practice of pre-creating episode pages offline so that they can then immediately post the article at the exact moment the credits roll on an episode.

                          Please don't do this.

                          Always create an episode page using the most current copy of the preload tempalte, as I typically update that template several times throughout the season, right up to the hour or so before broadcast.

                          Note that I'm not saying you can't help with crew lists. I'm just saying that you can't help right now. Hopefully, I'll be able to open that up again shortly. Please check back in this thread for progress notes.

                          19:13, 6 April 2013
                          Edited by Amorkuz 21:27, 31 May 2017
                          Edited by Amorkuz 21:34, 1 June 2017
                          • SOTO
                            On a related note, I've been meaning to suggest for a while now that we put crew lists on subpages. This just means the coding and stuff; it would still appear in the page itself, only not in the edit window.

                            The main reason for this is that they take up a lot of room in the editing space. They're a real hassle to scroll past.

                            While I'm aware that we're generally opposed to subpages because of the difficulty presented to new editors, I have reason to oppose that for this one particular case. The reason here is that no one has to touch them. The end credits give us all the info, and new editors don't have to be involved in adding it. It's not something that ever changes, therefore experienced editors can add the info and no one will have to touch it again.

                            Once you're already playing around with crew lists, maybe you can consider this. Perhaps we can create some sort of {{crew}} template (similar to {{documentation}}) that displays the text from the /crew subpage.

                            20:02, 6 April 2013
                            Edited 20:07, 6 April 2013
                            Edited 20:07, 6 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            Thanks for the suggestion. However, it won't be implemented. Crewing is as vital to this wiki as casting. You might find it a colossal waste of space, but others don't. We've only begun to scratchthe surface with the massive amount of information we've collected because of these crew boxes, and it would disturb that collection process to move it to a subpage. Other pages—like Russell T Davies, Julie Gardner, executive producer and tons more—depend on the crew boxes being just where they are.

                            From a data-mining standpoint, the crew boxes are the absolute crown jewel of this wiki. As far as I'm aware, there simply is no better database of the crew of the BBC Wales DWU than this wiki. Nobody else can tell you which episodes had Ernie Vincze as DOP and Euros Lyn as director and Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor. But we can. Instantly:

                            Wanna find out which RTD-written Tenth Doctor stories had James Strong as a director and Vincze as DOP? Easy. It's:

                            So, no. We won't be throwing that away just cause it takes less than a second to scroll over it. Everyone kinda has their "most important" part of the story pages. I personally would trash the plot sections. Who cares what this wiki's estimation of the plot is? But tons of people love that section, so it stays. As you know, we're still debating the utility of the continutiy sections. But the one part of these story pages—other than the infobox and category listing—that I can instantly prove is useful is the crew section.

                            23:54, 6 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Don't know where you got "a colossal waste of space" from. Would you mind explaining to me how moving the coding to a subpage would compromise all you mentioned above?

                            Reading your response over, you seem to think that I'm suggesting to trash it completely. Not at all — I'm suggesting that we move the editing of it to a subpage. Similar to how we edit the text of what shows at template pages.

                            When people look at the page, it'll look exactly the same. But, when you edit the page, all you see is {{crew}}. It certainly does not take me less than a second to scroll down, and it makes it difficult to edit multiple sections at once.

                            Would it not be possible to move that to a subpage, but still view it on the page?

                            00:05, 7 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            I didn't think you were saying that we should trash the information. I fully understand your proposal. It's simply not feasible.  :)

                            The crew template simply needs to be on the actual story page for the data from it to flow properly.

                            And, again, just because you don't like it there doesn't mean that other people don't find it interesting. If I've seen an episode, I don't care about reading our summary and plot. But having a neat list of who's in it and who worked on it—that is a little more important to me, especially in this age when credits get squashed and aren't easily readable.

                            I'm not sure why it's taking you a long time to scroll over it. It's typically exactly one "PgDwn" on my keyboard. It's much less vertical space than the typical plot section.

                            Now, if you're talking about the backend length—that is the length when editing—sure, that's pretty long. But you can always edit in a way so that you never see that section.

                            00:47, 7 April 2013
                            Edited 00:47, 7 April 2013
                          • Mister3hj
                            Hello.

                            So, I'm not entirely sure this is the correct place to post this. But that's okay.

                            Compare, for example, the credits section of say An Unearthly Child with the credits section of Rose.

                            Can we not have some uniformity? It feels to me that the pre-2005 credits seem easier to read, whereas the 2005-onwards credits seem neater. I think it makes sense to have them all the same format, which I would think should be the newer style. Is there a specific reason the credits are in differing styles?

                            Also, what of the possibility of having collapsible credits? In the same style as the 'Contents' box. Initially collapsed, one click opens it up fully. Thoughts?

                            Hello. Thank you. Goodbye.

                            11:40, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, no, we can't have uniformity. Say what you want about Doctor Who being one show narratively. It's definitely not a single show from a production standpoint. They're two completely different shows from that standpoint.

                            The template used to give credits to the BBC Wales era cannot be used or even easily adapted for use for the old series. Yes, we need to have something different for the old series, but it would require a wholly separate template. I mean just look at the top line of the template on a typical BBC Wales story and see how many of those fields wouldn't exist for a London-made serial.

                            • No exec producer, save season 18
                            • Producer and script editor would be the top-line credit
                            • Script editor is called "story editor" for much of the 1960s
                            • No casting director, ever.
                            • No editors until well into the run, and then not credited often
                            • No production designer, just "designer"
                            • No costume designer, just "costumes"
                            • Music not credited every serial
                            • VFX and SFX are generally same department, if credited at all

                            And once you start getting deeper into the crew, the variability between credits in the 1960s versus the 1980s makes the task of designing a template comparable to {{Wales crew}} formidable.

                            It's not impossible, and it is on the radar of things that needs to be done. But will it ever be uniform with the current version of Doctor Who? No. It can't be.

                            As for collapsibility, there are no current plans to allow that. I personally think it's disrespectful to the people who worked on the show to make it easy for us to bypass their names. I think it also discourages writing of articles about them if people can pass by and never see the red links.

                            {{Wales crew}} has led to an absolute revolution in our level of coverage of the people who make Doctor Who. The productive response to being confronted by a sea of red names is something that should be encouraged, not prevented by collapsibility.

                            12:23, 12 April 2013
                          Amorkuz
                          The OP's request was timed and, if still relevant, would have to be reissued. In the ensuing discussion, reasons were explained in considerable detail regarding why the crew lists are the way they are. No changes will be implemented based on the proposals suggested in this thread.
                          21:27, 31 May 2017

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127236


                          Shortcut:
                          SOTO
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/<i>Rings</i> locations" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Crew lists and new story pages".

                          There has been a lot of confusion on many pages related to the latest episode, TV: The Rings of Akhaten, regarding the nature of the locations in the story and exactly what they are. People have been changing and 'correcting', and undoing. It's really on the brink of an edit war.

                          As this involved many pages, I'm posting this at The Panopticon, so that people notice it. Pretty much, this is what we have at present:

                          • Pyramid of the Rings of Akhaten
                            • The Doctor calls the pyramid this at the beginning of the episode. Is this a proper title, and therefore capitalised, or is it just a description of the pyramid? Anyhow, this appears to be where the Mummy is located. It's specifically on a different asteroid from Tiaanamat. We don't currently have a page on the Pyramid.
                          • Akhaten
                            • The most difficult of all of them, at the moment, we have that Akhaten is both the planet and the Old God, even though the Doctor calls the Old God a "parasite sun" at the end of the episode. It seems to me that it's actually a sentient sun with rings (hardly inconceivable in the DWU). It's also possible that Akhaten and the Old God are entirely separate entities, as they're never really linked.

                          So. Here, we're going to discuss all the locations, and use narrative proof from the episode to decide exactly what every location is. I hope a lot of people get to voice their opinions.

                          22:29, 7 April 2013
                          Edited by Shambala108 02:38, 2 September 2018
                          • SOTO
                            Please note that the markets, as well as the stadium, are certainly not on Akhaten, but rather on Tiaanamat.

                            Also, we cannot presume that the aliens found in the markets and stadium are from Akhaten or Tiaanamat. In fact, the Doctor specifically says that most of them are from the neighbouring planets, and thus the Sung Sings of Akhet, the way I understand it.

                            I'm going to rewatch the episode for any clues regarding what all these locations are, and I'll post them all here upon completion.

                            22:38, 7 April 2013
                          • Dorkjackson
                            See, what I got from the brief exchange is that the Sun Singers of Akhet (which is how its subtitled on iPlayer) was either a religious thing or a group as opposed to a specific kind of species designation. Possibly referring to the actual singers (i.e Choristers, Merry etc).

                            I didnt think the Seven Worlds surrounding one sun thing was directly linked to them at all.

                            The whole planet/sun thing however is a much more complicated kettle of fish I think. He does make a point of saying "can you feel the light of an alien sun" to Clara, but he then follows it up by saying "The SSoA believe life started on that one planet". And given that Tiaanamat etc. are asteroids and therefore not planets, and given the synopses that talked to 'the planet Akhaten' I assumed it was a planet. Yay for debate though. :)

                            23:01, 7 April 2013
                          • Dorkjackson
                            Also, the post-production sketch on the BBC site of the planet has the pyramid asteroid labelled as 'Apex'. Dunno if thats relevant. Link below, seventh pic along:

                            http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p017cb35

                            23:03, 7 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Where you getting all these names from? They're not in the episode are they? I've watched it three times and haven't come across much in the way of geography. Remember: BBC website isn't a valid source.
                            23:44, 7 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            I'm now rewatching it with this specific intent.

                            I'm not sure where he got "Tiaanamat" from, but the others are from the Doctor at the beginning.

                            Here's some key quotes from the first scene on/near Akhaten:

                            "Can you feel the light on your eyelids? That is the light of an alien sun."
                            "Welcome to the Rings of Akhaten (how does that show up on iPlayer subtitles? Capitalised?)"
                            "The Pyramid of the Rings of Akhaten. It's a holy site for the Sun Singers of Akhet."
                            (explaining the SSoA) "Seven worlds orbiting the same star, all of them sharing the belief that life in the universe originated here. On that planet."

                            What we have just from this one scene is that:

                            1. The astronomical object that later wakens and becomes the Old God is a sun
                            2. The Doctor welcomes her to the Rings of Akhaten, suggesting that's the official name of the location.
                            3. We get a name for the pyramid.
                            4. The Sun Singers of Akhet (my misunderstanding — thought it was "Sung Sings of Akhet") is a solar system in which all seven planets share the same religion and beliefs.
                            5. "Life originated on that planet." As source of confusion, this seems to indicate that there's a planet involved, even though one hadn't been mentioned before.

                            "Can we see it up close?" Here, she seems to be asking about the pyramid, right? So does everything in the story take place in the pyramid?

                            If so, then why did the Doctor have to travel by mo-ped to get there?

                            On to the next scene for more clues!

                            00:11, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 00:13, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            1. You're making a huge and unjustified leap there. I don't buy it as an "astronomical object". It's a spherical living being perhaps masquerading as an astronomical object. It clearly has the ability to change is shape and density.
                            2. Grammatically he's merely being precise. They aren't on the planet Akhaten. They're amongst its rings. So he says "welcome to the Rings of Akhaten". I'd probably quibble with whether the "R" should be capitalised, but the CC does capitalise. If you were in the same position close to Saturn, you could quite easily say, "Welcome to the Rings of Saturn." But that's not its "official name" anymore than "suburban London" is an official name.
                            3. Agreed
                            4. More or less. CC has it as Sun-singers of Akhet. I'd probably go with that. But yeah, that's a solar system name. The language is a little poetic in that patch though; you really have to listen hard to understand he's talking about the planets rather than people, cause planets aren't usually thought of as having beliefs.
                            5. Not sure why this is throwing everyone. The planet is the Old God. People are saying it's a star, but the Doctor tells us right from the off it's a planet. I mean, it's in the episode tile: The Rings of Akhaten. Stars don't have rings; planets do. Of course, it's not actually a planet at all, but rather a living being that only looks like a planet. But it's definitely not a star. The star is always offscreen.
                            00:44, 8 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Honestly, the lines are said so quickly that I can't make out how the names. Mind telling me what the Chorister says is his name at around 26:10?

                            About 5, he called the Old God a star at the end. I'll give you the specific wording when I get there in my fourth (fifth?) rewatch.

                            00:50, 8 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            • (Where are they from) "The local system, mostly." The solar system? The Sung Sings of Akhet?
                            • The rings align every thousand years or so. It's a big thing "locally."
                            • "They're singing to the Mummy in the Temple. They call it the Old God. Sometimes Grandfather."
                            • The pyramid can be clearly seen from the stadium as a distinct asteroid. Then they travel across space to the pyramid.


                            So, not much info from the rest of the episode. I was wrong about it being called a sun. It's only called a "parasite god."

                            01:45, 8 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            I figured out where he got "Tiaaanamat" from.

                            Take a look at this BBC page and go to the second to last picture in the gallery, with the sketch of Akhaten.

                            It must have been in the original script, but edited out.

                            01:52, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            If we don't have proof of it being in the script, we got nothin'. The BBC Website is not a valid source.
                            05:24, 8 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            I don't see how being a living being excludes it from being an astronomical object (or star or planet for that matter).

                            Besides, if that's what it's called that's what it is.

                            07:56, 8 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Very true. In fact, we've already encountered a sentient sun and a sentient planet!

                            However, the Doctor calls it a planet only before he meets the God. Afterward, he specifically avoids the inevitable word. The best description we're given of the Old God is "parasite god." No indication that he's actually a planet.

                            11:43, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 11:45, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, there is evidence that it's not a planet, because planets don't have the ability to send out tendrils of energy to extract memories. And they don't have the ability to "overload on thought" and implode. And they don't have the ability to change their mass at will. Or to form a face that looks like a jack o'lantern. And they certainly don't have the ability to understand speech.

                            It's not a planet. It's believed to be a planet.

                            14:55, 8 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Well, that's not really a valid statement. Sure, we haven't encountered a planet with those abilities yet, but that doesn't make it impossible.

                            Remember this but of dialogue from Amy's Choice?

                            AMY: So this must be the dream. There's no such thing as a cold star. Stars burn.
                            DOCTOR: So's this one. It's just burning cold.
                            RORY: Is that possible?
                            DOCTOR: I can't know everything. Why does everybody expect me to, always?

                            You can't dismiss it being a planet just because an average planet doesn't do the above. Honestly, it's a big universe; there's bound to be a planet like Akhaten somewhere.

                            Anyway, do we even have definitive proof that the Old God and Akhaten are one and the same? Did the Doctor ever explicitly relate them?

                            16:15, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            For a wiki to be useful, words must have meaning. The word planet doesn't just mean "something that looks like a planet". I mean, Alzarians look like humans but they're not. So our article at Alzarian does't claim that they are humans.

                            We may not know what Akhaten is, but we do know that it's not a planet and it's not a god, despite the fact that various people call it that at different points of the story. The best we can say is that it is a "unique entity" that had some properties that made people think it was a planet, but, ultimately, it didn't behave like a planet at all.

                            Besides, you're quoting Choice out of context. That was a dream, remember? Cold stars aren't real in the DWU.

                            17:02, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 17:03, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 17:04, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 17:05, 8 April 2013
                            Edited 17:05, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Anyway, do we even have definitive proof that the Old God and Akhaten are one and the same? Did the Doctor ever explicitly relate them?

                            The story would hardly make sense if he didn't. This is the major point of his speech at the end. Go to roughly the 35 minute mark and listen.

                            17:09, 8 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            I need to point out, here, that apparently iPlayer and iTunes use different spellings of the Chorister's name, so we can't trust that, either.
                            17:55, 8 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, we would in that case trust the BBC, as it's a higher-order source. Then we would note the iTunes spelling and allow a redirect on that spelling.
                            01:09, 9 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Don't have access to iPlayer so I can't do that. ;)
                            01:16, 9 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            On a topic related to the episode but not to its location, we need a page on Merry's species. We've met four of her kind, and they've been shown to have special abilities and a unique history and culture.

                            But what should we call the page? Unnamed species (The Rings of Akhaten)? But there's plenty of unnamed species in that episode!

                            11:34, 9 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster

                            CzechOut wrote: For a wiki to be useful, words must have meaning. The word planet doesn't just mean "something that looks like a planet". I mean, Alzarians look like humans but they're not. So our article at Alzarian does't claim that they are humans.

                            We may not know what Akhaten is, but we do know that it's not a planet and it's not a god, despite the fact that various people call it that at different points of the story. The best we can say is that it is a "unique entity" that had some properties that made people think it was a planet, but, ultimately, it didn't behave like a planet at all.

                            If we're going to talk about definitions, planet is still a perfectly applicable term in the DWU. I don't believe the term has ever been defined in-universe, so the only definition we can use is the real-world one.

                            The IAU has two definitions of planet, neither of which excludes living beings. One definition applies to planets in our solar system (http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/), and the other applies to planets in other solar systems (http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html).

                            It is said that the Sun-singers of Ahket are all in orbit around a single sun, so Ahketan is in orbit around the Sun; it appears to be near-round enough to be considered to be in hydrostatic equilibrium; and compared to everything else nearby it is gigantic so it certainly appears to have cleared its orbit. The definition for planets outside our solar system also requires that they aren't undergoing thermonuclear fusion which Ahketan may be, but that would just make it a star instead.

                            Calling it a god was only of religious significance and the Doctor stated it wasn't a god ("Oh you like to think you're a god. But you're not a god."). It was never stated that it wasn't a planet, while it was stated that it was, so saying it isn't a planet is contradicting in-universe information.

                            Humans have a much more strict definition than planets, and outer physical appearance is not enough to determine if something is a human (although it can certainly be used to determine if something isn't). I haven't watched episodes containing the Alzarians, but the article indicates they have certain attributes that differentiate them from humans and them having their own species name implies they have been stated in-universe to be a different species to humans.

                            12:23, 9 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            I thought the Doctor pretty clearly said "Sun Singers of Akhete", although iTunes has "Sound Singers of Akhete". I took it for a religious order based on the 7 worlds.
                            14:08, 9 April 2013
                          • Dorkjackson
                            With regards the asteroid being named Tiaanamat, I recall seeing it in the preview page for TRoA in this months DWM. I dont have a copy to hand so I can't verify that. If anyone could check that for me that'd be greatly appreciated. :)
                            20:42, 9 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Either way, it not narrative information, and thus has no bearing on our articles. If you wish, you can add it as a behind-the-scenes note on Akhaten.
                            21:02, 9 April 2013
                            Edited 21:03, 9 April 2013
                          • 82.27.64.34
                            Oh, right oh. Apologies, I was unaware of that. :)
                            23:08, 9 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            They sure looked to be calling Akhaten a star, with a system of seven planets, and a ring system with it's own atmosphere that may have included the "planets". If the group is the Sun Singers, and not the Sound Singers, that supports the dialogue as saying Akhaten - or at least the entity that we're assuming is named Akhaten - being the star.
                            03:17, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Hmmm, I don't think so. The Doctor says, "…life originated here, on that planet" and then points toward Akhaten. Couldn't be clearer, really. Even though I appreciate that you and a ton of people on Gallifrey Base appear to believe that Akhaten was a sun. Akhet, which we never actually see, but is apparently screen left. (Don't forget that the solar system, not a religious group, is called the Sun-singers of Akhet. The planets are singing around the sun called Akhet.)
                            13:11, 10 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Yeah, I saw that when I watched last night. It's likely because of the size and all the glowing firey stuff later. In retrospect, it's probably a gas giant just short of ignition...
                            14:45, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            No, it's nothing to do with stellar matter of any kind. It's not an astronomical object. It is a living being of an unknown species that some variously think of as a planet or a god, but which is actually a parasite.

                            And while it has some mass, enough to pull in a few minor asteroids, its disappearance is hardly a gravimetric concern for the region. That's why everybody lives even after it disappears.

                            15:08, 10 April 2013
                            Edited 15:10, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: On a topic related to the episode but not to its location, we need a page on Merry's species. We've met four of her kind, and they've been shown to have special abilities and a unique history and culture.

                            But what should we call the page? Unnamed species (The Rings of Akhaten)? But there's plenty of unnamed species in that episode!

                            I don't think it's our business to have a single page for every single species seen in this episode. We simply would have no way to distinguish between them, because they're all "unnamed species (The Rings of Akhaten)".

                            But because there are so many, "unnamed species (The Rings of Akhaten)" couldn't be used for Merry's species, because the phrase superficially means tons of different species.

                            So I say we should pull a trick that Memory Alpha occasionally use and, in this instance, name the species after the individual. I say we just go with Merry's species.

                            15:30, 10 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster

                            CzechOut wrote: No, it's nothing to do with stellar matter of any kind. It's not an astronomical object. It is a living being of an unknown species that some variously think of as a planet or a god, but which is actually a parasite.

                            Being a living being and being an astronomical object are not mutually exclusive. It is a planet that is also a parasitic living being who the local population worship as a god. It isn't a god though (as the Doctor says), but it is a planet (also as the Doctor says).

                            CzechOut wrote: And while it has some mass, enough to pull in a few minor asteroids, its disappearance is hardly a gravimetric concern for the region. That's why everybody lives even after it disappears.

                            Just being massive does not necessarily mean an object will have many things orbiting it, and we don't even know how many things are orbiting it since they wouldn't necessarily have to be as close as its rings.

                            While the planet disappeared, that doesn't necessarily mean the mass did. It exploded in a burst of light, but it wasn't made of light so the rest of the matter had to go somewhere. I would say it would just be more compressed or no longer emitting visible light.

                            In fact, we only saw it explode and not anything immediately afterwards. Even if the mass did somehow disappear and its gravitational effects on its rings suddenly disappeared, the rings would just continue orbiting Ahket (assuming that is the name of the star, which I think is a fair assumption) and everyone would be fine.

                            Of course, this is applying physics to Doctor Who and it really just breaks down when you do that. Even if Akhaten had minimal gravity, it doesn't make it not a planet.

                            11:02, 11 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            There's been a lot of talk on this thread referring to Akhaten as Old God. I get where that comes from. When sitting in the stadium the Doctor says that they are singing to the Old God, sometimes called Grandfather. But when he finally realizes what's going on he says:
                            "I thought the Old God was Grandfather but it was just Grandfather's alarm clock"

                            Ergo, the Mummy is the Old God and Grandfather's alarm clock. The planet-like parasite is Grandfather.

                            01:28, 12 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Urgh, I'm not liking how confusing the wording is in Rings!

                            The way I understood is that Akhaten is both the Old God and Grandfather, and that the Mummy is mistakenly called both by the people of Akhen.

                            That one particular lines messes everything up, since he's all of a sudden referring to one as the Old God, and the other as Grandfather.

                            01:32, 12 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Well, the Long Song is pretty clearly addressed to "Akhaten" as part of the lyric.
                            02:37, 12 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            We've got a problem where right now we're referring to Akhaten both as a parasite, and as the planet on which the Festival of Offerings takes place. Which seems like a big problem.

                            Also, it's been said on this thread that the Doctor definitively said that the parasite was a planet. I thought when he said the bit about where all life began he was specifically referring to the Pyramid, or the asteroid the Pyramid is on.

                            I think some of the problems are arising from the fact that we have a lot of locations, living things and events in this episode and some of those things overlap.


                            A parasite - also known as Grandfather. Appears and is thought to be either a planet or a sun. This is a living thing, a location and the center of a religion. If it is planet-like, is it one of the seven planets of the system?

                            The mummy - also known as the Old God. Resides in the Pyramid. The Doctor refers to the Mummy as an alarm clock for Grandfather.

                            The pyramid in which the mummy resides. Where a Chorister constantly sings the long song. (We see two Choristers switch. Presumably there are at least two living in the temple, but I'd guess more)

                            The asteroid on which the pyramid resides.

                            The unnamed planet where we see the Festival of Offerings. We see a stadium and a market on the planet. We're using Tiannamat in a couple places now, but it's main article is up for deletion because we don't have a properly sourced name.

                            the local system - referred to the Doctor as the rings of Akhaten. We're calling it "The Sun-Singers of Akhet" on this wiki and I'm not entirely sure why. The way the Doctor refers to them it's not clear if this is a name for the people of the system or for a prominent religion in the system. Either way, I don't quite understand how "Sun-Singers" is a name for a collection of celestial bodies and not a name for a people. Is there a particular reason why we aren't using the name "The Rings of Akhaten" to refer to the system?

                            Locations: the local system, the parasite, the asteroid which contains the pyramid, the unnamed planet. We also have the unnamed location where the Doctor and Clara first land in the system (could be part of the unnamed planet we see later, definitely a part of the system)

                            Beings: the parasite (Grandfather), the mummy (Old God)

                            In case anyone has lost track, these are the pages we have:

                            This issue also affects the text of the following pages:

                            02:48, 12 April 2013
                          • Anoted

                            ComicBookGoddess wrote: Well, the Long Song is pretty clearly addressed to "Akhaten" as part of the lyric.

                            Right, she's singing to Grandfather. The lyrics of the song don't call Akhaten "the Old God" do they?

                            02:49, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            I think SOTO is closer to the truth here than Anoted, but the confusion is understandable.

                            Let's start at the beginning of the Festival proceedings. The Doctor reads from a programme.

                            DOCTOR: They're singing to the Mummy in the Temple. They call it the Old God. Sometimes Grandfather.

                            And that's what drives the Doctor and Clara's understanding from then on. They think that the Mummy is the Old God/Grandfather. So they're used to talking about the Mummy with those words.

                            Fast forward to the end-ish of the story. The Mummy's dispatched. So now this happens:

                            DOCTOR: I thought the Old God was Grandfather. But he wasn't. It was just the Grandfather's alarm clock.

                            Okay, so that means the Mummy is not Grandfather. The Mummy is just the Grandfather's alarm clock. So is the Mummy the Old God? Why does the Doctor seem to suggest that the two are separate entities after the script establishes they are just different names for the same entity? Well, Clara comes to the rescue and does what all companions should do. She asks the questions the audience would.

                            CLARA: Sorry, a bit lost. Who's the Old God? Is there an Old God?
                            DOCTOR: Unfortunately yes. (points to Akhaten)

                            So AKhaten is both the Old God and Grandfather. And the Mummy is just the Mummy. Or the alarm clock.

                            02:58, 12 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Oh...frack. On another issue, while watching again, I paid really close attention to the beginning and got this:

                            DOCTOR: Seven worlds orbiting the same star, all sharing a belief that life originated here, on that planet. points CLARA: Can we see it, up close?

                            The immediate antecedent for Clara's line is the planet on which life originated. There's only one other possible antecedent and that is the Pyramid. And they don't go to the Pyramid.

                            So we have the planet that the Doctor and Clara visit:

                            • not named on the show, but the website refers to it as Tiannamat
                            • one of seven in the system
                            • the locals believe all life originated there

                            At the moment we're referring to Tiannamat as an asteroid, which is clearly what we're seeing, but not at all what they're saying.

                            Also we have no freaking clue what they think the parasite is. A planet? A star? I know it's not canon, but it seems like out best bet is to try and get clarification from the Powers That Be.

                            03:35, 12 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Also, in all of these articles we're treating the religion of these peoples as accurate. We say that Akhaten woke up when the Long Song ended, that the Festival of Offerings kept the Old God asleep and so on. According to the Doctor, that just isn't true. Akhaten woke when it was his time to wake--the song had nothing to do with it. Akhaten didn't wake up because the Long Song ended, the Long Song ended because Akhaten woke up.

                            Also, do we know anything about distances between the temple and the stadium? The people at the stadium can hear the chorister in the temple and the Doctor can hear Merry Galel singing when facing the Old God. I know not exactly on topic--is it advisable to start a new thread to discuss other issues affecting this set of pages?

                            03:53, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            It's always dangerous to lift lines of dialogue from a television show and divorce them from the visuals. We know that they don't land on the "planet" Akhaten or the pyramid, because there are several shots which establish that both of those objects are in front of them from the position of the amphitheatre. Clara may well request a visit to Akhaten, but it's not where the Doctor takes her. Hardly the first time a companion has asked him to go somewhere, gotten his apparent acquiescence, but ended up elsewhere.
                            06:11, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            Looks like we're bringing the Mummy/Akhaten Grandfather/Old God discussion here then. This thread has basically turned into trying to work out the episode because half the time they were using names incorrectly and didn't elaborate on geography properly.
                            Doctor: "I thought the Old God was Grandfather but it was just Grandfather's alarm clock."

                            The Doctor points to the mummy when he says Grandfather, and then explains to Clara that Akhaten is the Old God. Akhaten is the alarm clock for the mummy, not the other way around; the mummy woke up because Akhaten was about to destroy everything. The sun singers seemed pretty clear on who was Grandfather and who the Old God was (especially since they created those names); they had the Vigil feeding the Queen of Years to Grandfather (the mummy) and were praying to the Old God (Akhaten).

                            Clara: "Can we see it... up close?"

                            As for where they go after Clara requests to see Akhaten, while "[seeing] it up close" may imply actually going to it, going to the asteroid that is significantly closer to the planet would also count.

                            13:12, 12 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Right, so you think that the Mummy is Grandfather, Akhaten is the Old God, and that the Old God woke up Grandfather?

                            I get where you're getting that from, but the Mummy woke up first, which has some big practical implications.

                            Also, out of curiosity, why is Tiaanamat up for deletion? Is it just that the name isn't properly sourced? If so, why not just change the name to something like Unnamed Planet (The Rings of Akhaten)?

                            14:45, 12 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Well, we don't really need to. We can put all the information on the asteroid (not a planet) on Akhaten.
                            19:20, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            Alternately, we could make an article on the Rings of Akhaten and put Tiaanamat there. The rings are a major location having both Tiaanamat and the Pyramid, and at least in my CC it is capitalized as "the Rings of Akhaten" as a proper location when the Doctor mentions them.
                            02:11, 13 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Yes, but, honestly, it would be easier and less speculative to just have all the information on everything in Akhaten's orbit on Akhaten. While I understand that CC might suggest the "the Rings of Akhaten" is a proper location title, we really don't need a separate article on the rings. Sure, the name can be used in the article, and even in the lead, but I really don't think that it deserves its own page.
                            02:52, 13 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            I don't see why not. The entire episode is set in them and even named after them. They have a festival when they align. Rather than putting the articles of all the individual objects orbiting Akhaten on its page (while still giving the pyramid its own page as well), make a page for the rings orbiting it. It's no different to putting all the articles of unnamed planets on their sun's article when we have a name for the system.
                            02:56, 13 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            I had a feeling you'd say just that about star systems... The difference is, of course, that we don't have a proper name for everything in its orbit, nor do we have much information separate from Akhaten.
                            03:00, 13 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            We have the pyramid, the asteroid (Tianaamat), Akhaten, three locations. Plus we have the beginning part of the episode which takes place somewhere in the Rings of Akhaten, though we don't know where.

                            Also the Festival of Offerings is based on the alignment of the rings. That's more than enough to support an article for the Rings of Akhaten, though we should really add a category too.

                            Now that I understand the physical layout of the episode better, it really doesn't make sense. People on this thread were saying that Akhaten couldn't be a sun because when it imploded everything would die, but isn't there just as big a problem with a planet going poof? Every place we physically see in this episode orbits around Akhaten. Aside from the fact that this disappearance of one planet would obviously affect other planets that orbit the same star, the keys places we see are asteroids. Am I the only person who thinks this episode just doesn't make sense? It was beautiful, yes, but seriously. And why can people who are on different asteroids hear each other?

                            05:56, 13 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            Well, I think "Rings of Akhaten" is a proper name for the things in its orbit that we know about - you could say that other objects not part of its rings orbit it, but that does

                            Also, T:EVIL TWIN states that no article is too small and "any noun mentioned in any narrative is fair game for an article here".

                            I don't think that people are saying the lack of impact of Akhaten's disappearance means it cannot be a star; I thought the point meant it couldn't be a celestial body (but I don't agree with that point anyway, as I outlined in my other post).

                            The reason I don't think Akhaten is a star is because it's called a planet, but never called a star. There is one line of dialogue about "light from an alien sun" that could be referring to Akhaten, but could also be referring to an unseen star (which isn't unexpected, since there are at least seven planets that we didn't see). Info on the BBC website also explicitly calls it "The planet Akhaten" if you want to discuss intention (although its not treated as a reliable source on the wiki).

                            Also, the name "Sun-singers of Akhet" to me indicates that the sun of the solar system is Akhet.

                            Hearing each other from asteroids makes as much sense as when they are in places with no atmosphere and not killed (including riding the moped bedtween asteroids in this episode); the start of the 2011 Christmas special really bothered me in that regard. You have to accept that the DWU operates according to different rules to ours.

                            07:04, 13 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            He says:

                            "a holy site for the Sun Singers of Akhet" immediately followed by "seven worlds orbiting the same star, all sharing a belief that life originated here, on that planet"

                            I really, really don't think that "Sun Singers of Akhet" is the name of the solar system. NOTHING in the episode implies that. I think it's the name of either the people native to the system or of the religion of the system. I really don't get where on earth people got that it was the name for the solar system.

                            10:39, 14 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Um, you just quoted the line that directly states that. The definition of "Sun-singers of Akhet" is "Seven worlds orbiting the same star, all sharing a belief that life originated here, on that planet".
                            15:53, 14 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Actually, you've missed out Clara's important intervening line where she asks, "The who of what?" So there's no doubt that the definition he then gives applies to the phrase, "the Sun-singers of Akhet". Sun-singers are planets, not people.
                            15:55, 14 April 2013
                            Edited 15:59, 14 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            That's wording gymnastics, and it makes the rest of the sentence weird. The PLANETS share a belief that life originated here? So there are seven planets that orbit the same star and they believe that life originated on Akhet? Assuming Akhet is one of the seven planets, does Akhet share this view?

                            You're taking her saying "the who of what" and using the what as an antecedent. She said a slightly more wordy equivalent of "huh?"

                            So she says "the who of what?" and we apply what as an antecedent to what he says next unless the next thing said directly contradicts the antecedent? I get why these rules came about. How do you decide facts in a world where we as viewers are constantly being introduced to all sorts of out-of-this-world things? We aren't given histories for all sorts of things so we take the most literal definition of everything in an attempt to decipher the word of god.

                            I get why this wiki does this, and it's very helpful in forming lots of pages, but it doesn't work here. The sun-singers of Akhet could just as easily be the "who" and it's the most logical interpretation. Unless we have religious planets believing that one of them is the beginning of life in the universe. Not to mention that I have a real problem with taking what she says and using it to infer whether or not the Doctor was referring to animal, vegetable or mineral.

                            If I was Clara in this conversation I'd take what he said to be informing me about the inhabitants of the solar system, the people. Especially since I've already asked where and been answered (The Rings of Akhaten). As a viewer this is what makes obvious sense. And after analysing the dialogue in excruciating detail this is still what makes sense.

                            02:29, 15 April 2013
                          • Imamadmad
                            Be aware he used the word "world", not planet. World has a slightly wider definition, which in this case is most likely referring to the planets and their populations, which makes more sense because planets can't have beliefs. They're planets. It's the people on those planets which have those beliefs. It is implied in that line, at least to me, that the Doctor is referring to a religious belief of the people who inhabit the 7 planets, and that the people who hold that belief are called the Sun Singers of Akhet, like the people who believe in Christianity are called Christians and the people who believe in Judaism are called Jews.
                            03:23, 15 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Imamadmad -> I agree, I think that if the Doctor meant that the planets were sentient, he would have drawn attention to that, as he usually does.

                            I want to draw attention to the song sung by Merry - She's clearly singing to "Akhaten" in the lyrics. The rings are clearly around Akhaten, a planet, and from the Doctor's statement, the planet where the Sun Singers believe life began.

                            However, it's by no means clear that the seven worlds are IN the rings. It's likely seven planets that form this system with the gas giant Akhaten, and the star (which is likely called Akhete).

                            04:39, 15 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Guys, it's slightly metaphorical, not "semantic gymnastics". English ordinarily contains expressions like "a Muslim nation", "the Jewish state", "countries that worship Allah vs. countries that believe in Jesus". I think it can bear "seven worlds, orbiting one star, all sharing the belief that …"

                            Besides, "seven worlds orbiting one star" is the crucial bit, and it's not at all metaphorical.

                            What are the Sun-singers of Akhet, Doctor? "Seven worlds orbiting one star." In that full context, world does mean planet, and then he goes back to put some cultural meat on the bones, "all sharing the belief that …"

                            13:54, 15 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            No. She doesn't ask him "what". She asks him who. He says "Sun-Singers of Akhet" and she ask "The who of the what?" She's asking who in regards to Sun-Singers and what in regards to Akhet. She assumes that "Sun-singers" are a who and he never corrects that.

                            Sun-singers of Akhet is the name for the people of these seven worlds. He never specifies if this refers to the people native to these worlds, or if he's referring to a majority, or a variety of peoples who share the same beliefs. We just don't know.

                            We don't have a name for this system of seven worlds. And that's fine. So for the article and category for the system we use Unnamed system (article) as a naming device. We have an article on the people of this system at Sun-Singers of Akhet and we correct the links. It's not that hard a fix.

                            19:14, 15 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            She asks "the who of what?" She doesn't know what she's asking about. The Doctor then makes it clear what he's talking about, which is "seven worlds orbiting one star".
                            19:33, 15 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            I think the solution here is just to say:
                            According to the Eleventh Doctor, the Sun-singers of Akhet were "seven worlds orbiting one star, all sharing the belief that all life in the universe began [on Akhaten]".

                            When in doubt, directly quote the source and move on.

                            19:37, 15 April 2013
                          • Andbeonetraveler
                            Hi.

                            First post here. I'm a frequent reader, and as I really loved this episode I decided to poke around the pages a bit. I'm a little surprised that the ambiguity in the term 'Sun-singers of Akhet' hasn't been addressed in the pages themselves, though it's been covered pretty thoroughly here. The page for that term clearly defines it as a star system. So I'm curious, did you guys give up on the debate, or did you come to a consensus?

                            When I watched this episode, I felt some ambiguity was derived from not knowing whether the Doctor answered Clara's question ("the who of what?") directly or obliquely. He often does answer companions' questions obliquely--often making flat-out deflections--so I'm not sure it's fair to assume it was a direct answer.

                            I agree that no weight should be given to Clara's use of the pronoun 'who'. If the Doctor gave a direct answer, then the Sun-singers must be planets. But he may have answered more obliquely, beginning by telling Clara about the seven worlds merely because he wanted to, and implying that the 'singers' are the inhabitants of those worlds. I really don't think either option would be out of character.

                            Which brings me to another interpretation...

                            It seems no one has suggested that 'Akhet' is the name of the star system, not the star (or not only the star). In other words, by saying "Seven worlds", the Doctor was (somewhat obliquely) answering the "what" part of Clara's question, rather than the "who".

                            The 'Sun-singers' would then be the inhabitants 'of' Akhet (like Joan 'of' Arc).

                            The name fits, as the inhabitants of this system certainly appear to do a lot of singing. It also fits the phrasing that the pyramid is a "sacred site *for* the Sun-singers"--i.e. its sacredness is perceived by the people, the inhabitants of those planets.

                            Of course it's all a lot of meaning to hang on so few words--but that's sort of my point. It's a bit ambiguous, so maybe the page shouldn't be so definitive. Andbeonetraveler ☎ 06:52, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

                            06:45, 4 June 2013
                            Edited 06:52, 4 June 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127379


                          Shortcut:
                          Jpranevich
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Link to new episodes" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/<i>Rings</i> locations".

                          I love the wiki, especially for new episodes. Would it be possible to have a link to the most recent episode on the wiki homepage someplace? It seems odd that you can get to the most recent books with one click, but I can never figure out how to get to the most recent episode. (And then I end up having to click around because episodes like the one this week are challenging to spell...)

                          04:16, 9 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 02:54, 17 October 2017
                          • 74.69.48.73
                            I've come here to ask the same thing. It is silly to have "latest audio" and all that, not not have "Latest TV" on the home page of a wiki for a TV show.
                            10:49, 9 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Actually, we are in no way 'a wiki for a TV show', as we treat all Whoniverse media equally. Anyhow, I suppose we could add 'Latest episode' to the front page, although you should note that it's only temporary.
                            12:09, 9 April 2013
                          • 146.115.185.144
                            I think that would be fantastic. Even a link to the current season would be an improvement since then you could always get to the newest episode in two clicks. Giving the TV show the same level of access as the other content seems straight-forward and there is precedent since there are already direct links to the newest books, comics, etc.
                            13:07, 9 April 2013
                          • Jpranevich
                            (Ugh. Signed out in the middle of posting a comment. How odd. In any event, the 146.x comment was me.)
                            13:08, 9 April 2013
                          • Digifiend
                            Jpranevich, if you had another Wikia wiki open in another tab, and logged out there, it would log you out here too. If that isn't it, then you've encountered one weird bug.

                            As for the actual topic, no, it won't be added. See Thread:118537.

                            18:41, 9 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Just popped over and read that thread....am I missing something? So maybe 10 months pass without a new episode, so what? We have links on the front page to the most recent audio, book and comic book material, and there are a fair number of those that were published at some point in 2012. Some of them were even published as far back as 2010.

                            If we're getting a whole new design for the homepage, fine, great. But that's taking a while. Why not add a most recent TV episode to the homepage in the meantime? And this stuff about catering to new whoies just seems weird. Having a link to the most recent TV episode on the front page isn't catering to new whoies. Only showing recent TV and not showing recent audio, book and comics would be, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about showing the most recent release of the Doctor Who TV show in the exact same way that the various more recent audio and book releases are shown. Also, just a small point here, but Doctor Who did originate as a TV show. Everything thing else spins off from the TV show. Showing the most recent episodes of other media spin-offs and not of the titular TV show just seems really weird.

                            Oh and one more thing. There is real likelihood of people who've seen a recent tv episode or ad coming to this wiki not knowing much else about Doctor Who. The only reference to the TV show on the front page is the welcome to the randomiser bit. And that doesn't even have the word TV--just the word series. There are 6 images of audio, books and comics each and at least a dozen links. There are no TV episode pictures, and no links except the randomiser. That seems weird, and like it's intended to drive away people who don't know much about Who and come here because of something from TV.

                            There's a difference between not insulating newbies from old or alternative media Who and making it hard for them to find what they're looking for. This worry about new whoies never knowing anything about pre-11 or pre-10 Who is just weird. Do we have an article for a TV episode that doesn't link to classic Who or alternative media Who? I don't think so. This wiki interweaves all of this rather brilliantly. There are a million jumping off points from the relaunch to classic and alternative media Who. It's ridiculously easy for people to get into reading about classic or alt media Who. Their entry into the wiki should be just as easy. And it is for everyone except TV fans/casual viewers. That seems weird, counter-intuitive and fairly judgmental to me.

                            19:52, 9 April 2013
                          • Crockalley
                            We were all new once, weren't we? Let's welcome new fans with open arms and accessible episodes. There's not even a link to the TV episodes in general on the home page. I don't want to downplay audio and comics and the rest, but seriously, it's a TV show first and foremost.
                            01:40, 10 April 2013
                          • Crockalley
                            Ha ha, in that thread, CzechOut urged me to wait and see what's coming. That was back in January. What the heck?
                            01:49, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, "what the heck" is that since January we've implemented a highly complex CSS stylesheet that is entirely unique on the Wikia network. We have two skins, allowing people with different visual acuities an option of how to view the site. This decision to place inclusivity over a front page re-design took up more time than I anticipated.

                            The other thing is that in that time Wikia changed the place where people "landed" when they first came to the site. It used to be that you landed at Special:WikiActivity, and that therefore you never saw the front page. Now, you see the front page every time.

                            Thus, the front page redesign appears, for reasons that weren't expected when initial priorities were set, to have a more "urgent" priority than it did earlier in the year.

                            I urge you all to remain patient for just a little longer.

                            11:50, 10 April 2013
                          • Gordon Ecker
                            We could use the collapsible navboxes like Template:DWTV. I tried at Doctor Who Wiki/TV, but for some reason it auto-expanded wheneven I tried including it on the main page.
                            06:02, 30 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127413


                          Shortcut:
                          Anoted
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Is there a specific policy about redlinks?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Link to new episodes".

                          Um, basically what the title says. Is there a specific policy in regards to redlinks?

                          11:25, 9 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 02:06, 12 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Actually, yes: Tardis:Redlinks. Not too hard to find, eh? ;)
                            11:29, 9 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            No idea how I missed that.

                            Can you weigh in on this recent diff of mine? http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bells_of_Saint_John_%28TV_story%29?diff=prev&oldid=1392663

                            I undid redlinks which I now understand is very bad, but it still seems like a good idea. Does that policy mean that it's really ok to have pages with dozens of redlinks all to things not specific to the whoniverse? I get that there are articles on serious minutia, like, celery. But is it really a good idea to have redlinks for almost every noun in an article? If that's the idea, I'll fix my edits.

                            11:36, 9 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Majority of my editing here is "from the real world" articles. These are articles like, say, hospital, pub or book.

                            What you might not understand is that, when I (or someone else) create cave, I'm going to first use a special tool called "WhatLinksHere" to gather all the information. No longer among that is the bit about the TARDIS being in a cave here.

                            Which is just why I have to search the word 'cave', and try to get info that way. The problem there is with pages like pond, which I haven't created yet due to the difficulty of finding any info on it (namely that Amy search for 'Pond' will bring up any instance of Amy). If people redlinked to pond, it would be much easier.

                            You also have to consider that I might not think to create cave or IQ (I'm positive there's been quite a bit of "I have an IQ of...", so lots of info to create a good page) without any redlinks to them. Well... Those two are on my list, but it's a really long list.

                            Anyway, to answer your question specifically, it's almost always good to have the redlinks. If you can't determine whether or not something deserves a page, either leave the redlinks or search for similar pages on this wiki.

                            Pages 'not linked directly to the Whoniverse' are a huge percentage of our articles. You'd really be surprised how in-depth an article cave can potentially be.

                            12:05, 9 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            No I understand how redlinking creates a want for the page and I love that this wiki has so much that isn't directly linked to the Whoniverse. I guess I have a bit of an issue with both how incredibly vague and excessive a lot of it is. Holiday is linked on that page and there's not even a specific holiday that is being referred to. Or the following sentence from that article:

                            She then picks up a tablet which shows his name and picture, and sliders marked conscience, paranoia, obedience and IQ.


                            What is keeping someone from redlinking the few words that aren't in that sentence? Picks, name, picture, sliders, marked? It's a bit distracting to read a sentence or paragraph littered with redlinks. Partially because it's jarring, but also partially because I use links in an article to help expand what I know. When things are linked, I often mouse my cursor over the link to see where it goes. When I mouse of the linking of the mad monk and see that it links to Aliases of the Doctor I remember that it's there but I don't open it. If it had however linked to a page called the mad monk I would have opened the page in a new tab and looked at it when I got to the end of the paragraph. Sure, there would be a chance that the page was just summarizing the information gleaned about the mad monk from this episode, but maybe there are references to the mad monk or the Doctor's life as a monk in earlier seasons. If there was I'd skim the article briefly before going back and finishing the episodes article.

                            So when I see that tablet is linked I open that article page because I assume that there is information I don't know that could be relevant. Maybe it's not just any old tablet, but a special one. Maybe there is a special meaning to tablets in Doctor Who. Maybe there is some history to tablets in Doctor Who. Maybe certain characters are found of tablets. Maybe this is a mistake but when I see something ordinary linked on this wiki I assume that if I go to that page I will learn information about the use of [whatever it is] in Doctor Who. Maybe [it's] something the Doctor [or another character] is fond of, or doesn't like. Maybe the use [of X] highlights a particularly theme or is used by writers to show a particular emotion.

                            I like that there can be pages of just about anything--I guess my problem is with the idea of pages on everything. It seems so counter-intuitive and is completely against the way I edit and the way I read that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.

                            17:10, 9 April 2013
                            Edited 17:10, 9 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Just from a simple search on 'IQ', I got this:
                            An IQ was a variable used in measuring intelligence. Many geniuses boasted of their IQs. 176 was considered an enormous IQ. (TV: The Sontaran Stratagem)
                            Oswald was a human genius with an IQ so high that it could not be measured. (COMIC: Children of the Evil Eye)
                            Luke Rattigan, another human genius, had an IQ of 176. (TV: The Sontaran Stratagem)
                            When Miss Evangelista was uploaded to the Library Data Core, she theorised that a decimal point had shifted in her IQ. (TV: Forest of the Dead)
                            Miss Kizlet, using the technology of the Great Intelligence, had a tablet that was able to 'hack' into, among other things, peoples' IQs. (TV: The Bells of Saint John)

                            If I were to search through prose and TV stories for the slightest mention of an IQ, I'd have much more than double that! While, admittedly, that's not very much information at the moment, something makes me doubt that the Doctor's never boasted or commented on his IQ once...

                            Point is, that's material for a page already! If you find a redlink ugly, then just put a little work into adding pages on the other side.

                            18:35, 9 April 2013
                            Edited 18:35, 9 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            It's not about the redlink being ugly. Or even that I don't think the article would be valuable, though I admit I really can't see value of a lot of those potential articles.

                            It's not that I have an issue with the ability of anything to because an article. I don't. My issue is that policy allows for everything to become an article. If I read an episode article in which every unique word is a link to an article about that word, that's just too much. If there are a half dozen links in every sentence, then I never know when something important is linked. I guess I also see a difference between an article not about something directly related to the whoniverse and an article that doesn't provide any insight into the whoniverse. An article about IQ for example could tell me about the characters whose IQs are important enough to be mentioned. Maybe also the Doctor's opinion of intelligence and how he reacted to particularly high or low intelligence. It might help me put in context Oswald's changed intelligence and Kislet's control of it. Helping me put things into context or deepening my understanding of how a particularly subject is treated in the whoniverse seems of value. Sure, maybe the article isn't directly about something whoniverse centric but it can still be of use. My issue is with that there's nothing differentiating creating an article on "IQ" from creating an article on "important". Sure, there's lots of potential material for the later. Various things that are important to various characters. But it wouldn't deepen my understanding of how a character or the show treats things that are "important." It can't give me a sense of anything over-arching. It doesn't add anything to my understanding of "interesting" and Doctor Who. I guess that's my concern.

                            19:17, 9 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            I feel the policy is about linking together all the little things to make a unified whole. Things that weren't interesting can get interesting. Besides, an article where every other word links to something would be against T:OVER-WIKIFY and T:WIKIFY.
                            03:59, 10 April 2013
                          • Shambala108
                            Anoted, it might be against the way you edit, but it is the way a wiki works. The goal is to have the reader click on link after link. That's why orphaned pages are such a concern for the wiki, incidentally — nothing links to them.

                            It can get frustrating to follow link after link, eventually losing your original place, but that's just the nature of the beast. I do agree with you, however, that some people over-link to any noun they see, with no intention of ever creating the page, just leaving it for someone else. It's good practice to try to create at least some of the pages one redlinks.

                            04:09, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Note that T:RED says, in bold,
                            If there should be an article about something, it is better to create a redlink for it than not to link it at all.

                            So, what do we mean by should?

                            • Nouns only. Thus, no one would reasonably wikify picks and marked, as you suggest above.
                            • Proper nouns always. Sometimes people on story pages, particularly non-televised story pages, don't wikify minor characters for reasons that are maddeningly obscure to me. Places that are only briefly mentioned are also often un-linked. Every character, every place deserves a page.
                            • When you can think of clear instances where an ordinary noun has been used, you should redlink the noun. A good example is helicopter. Off the top of my head, I can think of Fury from the Deep, The Dæmons, and The Mind of Evil where helicopters played an integral role to the plot.
                            • When you can do a search for a term and find references to it, it should be redlinked. As SOTO demonstrated with IQ, it's relatively easy to demonstrate when a term might be worthy of a redlink.

                            That said, the last of these guidelines is the trickiest. I'm personally opposed to redlinking very common nouns unless you personally intend to write the article. I know I never redlinked hospital until I was prepared to write hospital. I never would have linked hat or book unless there were actually an article present. There are, it seems to me, some words so ubiquitous that putting in a request for an article may be a bit of a fool's errand. It's not wrong to do so, but I personally wouldn't do it unless, again, I was prepared to actually start the article personally.

                            To me, it comes down to the word should. Should there be an article about the word belt? Belts exist in the DWU, and thus are nominally allowed an article. But eligibility is not the same thing as destiny. I can't reasonably imagine an article about belts being written because belts have never been integral to a televised plot, and have been rarely remarked upon in other media. Conversely, back before we had an article on hypnosis, I did redlink the word, because that was something that I could immediately see had enough clear instances in DWU narratives that someone could easily write an article about it.

                            Articles about very common nouns are comparatively difficult to write, as you have to find some sort of organisation to them that makes them easy to read and doesn't convert them into simply a list of appearances. So you have to assess the likelihood of the article being created by someone other than you.

                            12:25, 10 April 2013
                            Edited 12:26, 10 April 2013
                            Edited 12:29, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            Anoted wrote: If there are a half dozen links in every sentence, then I never know when something important is linked.

                            "Important" is a subjective term, which is why policy doesn't use such language. The threshold for inclusion is simply that the noun be shown or referenced in a valid DWU narrative.

                            I guess I also see a difference between an article not about something directly related to the whoniverse and an article that doesn't provide any insight into the whoniverse.

                            All in-universe articles are bound by T:VS. The only valid sources for writing in-universe articles are DWU narratives. I'm not sure what you mean by the allegation that our articles don't "provide any insight into the Whoniverse". If you see an article without narrative sourcing, then it should be amended or deleted.

                            Sure, maybe the article isn't directly about something whoniverse centric but it can still be of use.

                            I really don't understand what you mean by "isn't directly about something whoniverse centric". As far as I know, the wiki doesn't have non-whoniverse-centric articles, except those that are clearly labelled with the {{real world}} tophat.

                            "important" … interesting … "important"

                            Again, we can't run a wiki on subjectivity. You might not think that maples are particularly important to the DWU, but Canadians and New Englanders might like to know where their beloved flora appears in DWU narratives. I personally find it interesting to catalog the number of nations and regions that have appeared in DWU narratives, even though Hawaii and New South Wales haven't seen too many TARDIS landings. Conversely, there are things that are unique to the DWU, but which appear only once. I assume you'd have no truck with articles about any one of thousands of one-off characters, even though they actually appear less than something as "minor" as maple trees.

                            12:48, 10 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            By Whoniverse centric, I mean something unique to Doctor Who, or treated uniquely by Doctor Who. Characters, planets, technology--there's a ton of stuff that doesn't exist outside the world of Doctor Who. Or things that exist in the real world but are fundamentally different in the Who world. The most prominent example (to my mind) is that of governments. There's a lot that's similar, but so much that's different.

                            So celery isn't Whoniverse centric for example. It's something found in the real world-it's not a creation of Who. And celery in the Whoniverse is the same as celery in the real world. It's still a vegetable, still green, still edible. But reading the celery article adds context for me.

                            I get that the wiki can't judge importance or interest and that this is a very subjective issue.

                            My issue with the particular line I came here about isn't any particular potential article. It's the overwhelming excess and how incredibly distracting and detracting I find it. Your earlier comment on what should be linked and how to treat redlinking is incredibly helpful. I guess my question is what to do when a sentence, paragraph or article is littered with redlinks that aren't SHOULD but are ALLOWED. Any advice on that?

                            16:26, 10 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Remember that policy says something should be linked only the first time it's mentioned in a section?
                            16:36, 10 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            I know that. But if every word that can be linked is.... My point is simple that even without repeat linking this can and is an issue. If there's a sentence or paragraph or article that's littered with redlinks that are ALLOWED but not SHOULDs...do we just leave it like that? Assuming all basic rules are followed, what do we do?

                            Look at this comment or some of the others and imagine what it would look like if every word that could be redlinked (meaning only the first instance) was. There are bits of pieces of the wiki that look like this. I'm asking what to do in those circumstances.

                            16:41, 10 April 2013
                          • Shambala108
                            One solution is to create the pages yourself. The blue links are less obtrusive than the red links.
                            16:45, 10 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            I think, Anoted, that you have a dangerous misconception of what this wiki is. This is not a wiki about those things which only appear in the DWU. How could it be? That would exclude the writing of articles like Marco Polo, Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, "Ticket to Ride", John F. Kennedy—or any one of hundreds of subjects that have appeared in the DWU which also are a part of the real world.

                            This franchise isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. This is the very domesticated Doctor Who, which is often about how the Doctor impacted some bit of actual Earth history, or just the modern day.

                            Your idea of subjects being "Whoniverse centric" really has no validity in writing about this franchise.

                            I would suggest that your feelings of being "overwhelmed" by the number of links, or this idea you're pushing that articles are "littered with redlinks"—well, those are very much your problems.

                            Stick with us for a while. You'll get used to it.

                            Therefore, to answer your most recent question, if you encounter an article with a lot of redlinks, yeah, you just leave it. Unless of course the redlinks blatantly violate a rule, or the redlinks are pointed towards an insensible target page. Most of the time, though, you either leave it alone or see what you can do about creating the articles.

                            Now you've mentioned "overwhelming" redlinks in some areas, but you've not given any specific links. Obviously, this isn't a science. There aren't absolute, firm rules on any of this. So it's a bit hard to talk about it in general terms. If it would be useful to you, link to a page or two you find objectionable and we'll be able to talk about this in more concrete terms.

                            18:46, 10 April 2013
                            Edited 18:47, 10 April 2013
                          • Anoted

                            CzechOut wrote: I think, Anoted, that you have a dangerous misconception of what this wiki is. This is not a wiki about those things which only appear in the DWU.

                            Woah! I never said that. Ok, one thing at a time. Maybe my definition of Whoniverse centric doesn't include a A Christmas Carol, but I do get an insight into the Who world from it. Just like the celery article I mentioned above. So A Christmas Carol is the same book in and out of the Who world, but there are things about it, and about Charles Dickens that only happened in the Whoniverse and reading those articles add to my understanding of the characters I see, the history according to Who and The Doctor.

                            CzechOut wrote: This franchise isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. This is the very domesticated Doctor Who, which is often about how the Doctor impacted some bit of actual Earth history, or just the modern day.

                            Exactly. That's why it's so important to have articles about things which happened a little bit differently in Who, or things that are exactly the same but have some wider import.

                            Anyway, specifics. I did come here about a specific diff of mine which prompted me to go hunting for redlinking policy. In particular, one line bothered me:

                            "She then picks up a tablet which shows his name and picture, and sliders marked conscience, paranoia, obedience and IQ."

                            That's where picks, name, picture, sliders, and marked came from. That's also where the IQ example came from. Anyway, this came right after another line in which the word holiday was redlinked (when holiday was referring to nothing specific). I understand quite clearly the idea that anything mentioned in Who can be an article, but I'd have a hard time reading that line if all of those redlinked words had actual articles. The thread taught me a bit about policy, and has been very helpful. My only remaining question is if there is an excess of linkage, links that are not against the rules, what, if anything should be done? Maybe a fairly good holiday article can be written. But I can't think of any relevance it would have to the article for The Bells of Saint John. There are times when we un-bluelink things, right? When there's no real relevance, correct? So what if I can't see the possible relevance between a redlink and the article it's in. Do I leave it so that the request will remain in the system? Do I leave it because red links are good?

                            Basically, I'm asking if we have higher standards for de-redlinking than we do re-bluelinking. Hope that clarifies things.

                            22:23, 10 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Well, you have just successfully created a new word: bluelinking. Congratulations. :)

                            First things first, we don't only record what's different in the DWU, but also what's the same. Much of the information in our articles is just common sense to most people, yet they're still there, and they still have sources.

                            Take a look at Amelia Earhart. We all know that she's a pilot, but yet we can't write it in the article. All we can record is that she disappeared in 1932, and that Diane Holmes speculated that she might have gotten lost in time. You might question why she deserved an article with only one piece of info about her that can be found at Wikipedia. The reason is: she's mentioned, and therefore she's part of the DWU, and therefore she deserved a page. It's not the most crucial of pages; we could get along without it. But yet I still created it.


                            The context of holiday was something like "after going on holiday," right? That one's certainly debatable. Broadly speaking, it's a bit too general to create a proper article. If we started an article about every instance of people going on holiday, it'd start to get too list-like.

                            On the other hand, we're given a lot of insight into holiday/vacation destinations. Off the top of my head, we can talk about

                            1. Where the posh of London went for Christmas (TV: Turn Left)
                            2. How leasure planets were planets made or engineered specifically for their use as holiday destinations. (TV: Midnight)
                            3. How San Francisco was a popular vacation destination, (TV: 'The Fires of Pompeii)
                            4. How beaches were too. In fact, the Tenth Doctor took Martha Jones on vacation to Nacre, a planet with seemingly endless beaches. (PROSE: Breathing Space)
                            5. We can also go through the instances where the Doctor or his companions warn people to go on holiday to protect them from an oncoming disaster. (TV: Doctor Who, Turn Left, The Fires of Pompeii, just to name a few.

                            ...Okay, I'm stopping myself before I veer off-topic again. At the moment, we don't have much on tablets aside from Kizlet's. Kizlet's tablet might actually be a useful page that could talk about all its capabilities. If I were in your place I'd change "...picks up a [[tablet]] which..." to "...picks up [[Kizlet's tablet|a tablet]] which..."

                            Paranoia: There's plenty of things in the DWU that induce paranoia. I could easily create the page, I suppose, although I'd have to do more research so that the article's not just a list of things that cause paranoia.
                            Obedience: Kizlet has her tablet, the Third Doctor had his obedience spray, the War Lords had their glasses and the Ice Warriors had their brain-racks. Ooh, and the Ood were "conditioned to serve."
                            Conscience: Naa, too subjective to create a proper page. I'd get rid of that link.
                            As I demonstrated above, IQ deserves a page, which I might just create sometime soon.

                            You should also probably note that there doesn't necessarily have to have your definition of 'significance' to the story to be linked there. We run like a business here; we want people to click on obedience, and find out about how obedience fit in to Classic Who, or comic stories, or prose. Then, from there, they click on more links. Trust me - before I was editing here, I would get addicted to reading the articles here. That's just the nature of wikis; we want people to get lost in the wiki (in the good sense).

                            Honestly, as we've all said above, if you see a link, either leave it alone or, better yet, create the article. I rarely remove redlinks, but you can do it if it's entirely subjective or way too broad, like if someone redlinked happiness.

                            00:07, 11 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            Anoted wrote:

                            Anyway, specifics. I did come here about a specific diff of mine which prompted me to go hunting for redlinking policy. In particular, one line bothered me:

                            "She then picks up a tablet which shows his name and picture, and sliders marked conscience, paranoia, obedience and IQ."

                            Well, I was hoping you'd give me something different to work with, because you seemed to be suggesting there was a widespread problem. But if this is the one you want to focus on, it's pretty easy to demonstrate how we could write these articles. At a very minimum all four of those words could have this tiny article for a start: 

                            '''{{PAGENAME}}''' was one of several personality traits that Miss [[Kismet]] was able to control in the people whom she had uploaded into [[the Cloud]]. By manipulating a numerical values for {{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}, she was able to, as one of her underlings once said, "hack into" people's personalities and instantly change their {{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}} metric.  ([[TV]]: ''[[The Bells of Saint John (TV story)|]]'')
{{wikipediainfo}}

                            Done. Does that define the term in a way that is relevant to the DWU? Yes. Does it get mired down into some sort of T:NO RW-violating, here's-what-wikipedia-told-me-this-thing-was? No.

                            I understand quite clearly the idea that anything mentioned in Who can be an article, but I'd have a hard time reading that line if all of those redlinked words had actual articles.

                            A hard time? What do you mean by that? Your eyes would rebel in their sockets? How exactly would it be difficult? I've taken a lot of pains to ensure that the contrast ratios on this wiki are good for even people who are colour blind. So I'm afraid I just don't buy that it would be physically difficult to read the line, whether the links were the shades of red and blue that we employ here.

                            Maybe you should use the "change colours" button at the top of every main namespace page if you're having difficulty reading linked text.

                            My only remaining question is if there is an excess of linkage, links that are not against the rules, what, if anything should be done? Maybe a fairly good holiday article can be written. But I can't think of any relevance it would have to the article for The Bells of Saint John. There are times when we un-bluelink things, right? When there's no real relevance, correct?

                            Sounds like you've come to us from Wikipedia. It's important to note that we're Wikipedia's evil twin. We do a lot of things in precisely the opposite way to how Wikipedia does. I"m very much aware that Wikipedia say to link in a more contextual way than we do. But a part of that is purely technical. They're, what, more than 1000 times bigger than us. At that sort of size, links on a page start having a cost when you run reports like Special:WhatLinksHere. So they've got to attempt some balancing of utility versus speed.

                            We're probably never going to have to worry about that. So it's our policy to link everything that has an article, generally once per section, and, again, remove the value judgement. If there's a chariot or a pair of glasses or a stovepipe hat in a story, we make the link.

                            A part of the reason is this

                            So what if I can't see the possible relevance between a redlink and the article it's in. Do I leave it so that the request will remain in the system? Do I leave it because red links are good?

                            Yep. And yep. And just because you can't see the relevance doesn't mean there isn't one. Or that there might not be one once other stories are released. Or once one of our editors reads a story that was published long ago.

                            See, the links, be they red or blue, are helpful as long as they're present. You have the Wikipedia worry that the link be present only if going to the destination article will help you understand the origin article. Does William Hartnell help you understand First Doctor? Yes, so, fine, make the link. But the thing is that no one's knowledge of this vast literature is even close to complete. So often we just do not know if a thing is relevant or not. So we make the link and hope one day that relevance is found. For instance, there's a hospital in Spearhead from Space. But let's say I'd never seen Spearhead and didn't know that. If someone had redlinked hospital at Spearhead then eventually the article could indeed include the incident in Spearhead and therefore hospital would become relevant to Spearhead.

                            Linking, whether red or blue, is a valuable research tool for us. I can't tell you how many articles I've expanded (read: made more relevant) through the use of Special:WhatLinksHere.

                            Basically, I'm asking if we have higher standards for de-redlinking than we do re-bluelinking. Hope that clarifies things.

                            Nope: not clearer at all. Doesn't matter, though. I think if you give yourself a little more time to edit with us and sort of get a sense of how our articles are written, you'll get a better feel for things. My general advice to you in particular is just not de-link anything for the time being and to continue asking more specific questions until you think you've understood things more fully.

                            And here's a little task for you. Go to Special:WantedPages and pick the most ordinary noun you can find out of the list that has more than one link. Then check out what those links are and see if you can write a useful article. They don't really uses Special:WantedPages the same way at WIkipedia anymore (again: evil twin) so maybe it's been a while for you. I think once you start using the tools associated with red links, you'll see their value more clearly.

                            02:00, 11 April 2013
                          • Anoted
                            Thanks SmallerOnTheOutside--that's very helpful.

                            @CzechOut - No, my eyes aren't going to roll out of my head. And no, the problem isn't visual, though on that note, it is insanely difficult to read links that have already been clicked on. In one color theme clicked-through links are the same color as text and therefore they vanish into ordinary text. In another there is no differentiation between links I've clicked on and those I haven't, making it a bit difficult to keep track of things. But back to what I was saying--the issue isn't visual, it's that that level of stuff is information overload, insanely distracting and affects my reading. If that link for holiday wasn't redlinked but blue linked I'd probably go to the article. And there would be nothing at that article that would give me any sense of anything related to the episode. I'm as fond as the next person of clicking through endlessly, until I have a backlog of a 100 tabs (slight exaggeration), but there are some things it just doesn't make sense to link.

                            And no, I'm not coming to you from anywhere. This isn't about being used to a particular style of editing. I get that links are good, even (perhaps especially) redlinks. I get that articles about little things are ok, and often good.

                            I guess what I'm really asking about is editorial discretion. If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked? To be more specific, say that there was a Holiday article, which I think I'd rather like btw. I wouldn't link to it from The Bells of Saint John article because there is no earthly reason to.

                            Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the editing process (and correct me if I am), it's ok to un-link blue links if they're irrelevant, silly, or in some way not-a-good-link. There's such a thing as editorial discretion right? I assume so, that's kinda what editing is about. Disagreements and discussions take place on the talk page of course, but each editor has their own editorial discretion. I'm wondering if I have the same discretion when it comes to redlinks. There's a clear difference between de-redlinking and de-bluelinking: de-redlinking could remove an entry from Special:WantedPages. Is there any other difference? Is there a higher standard for un-redlinking than there is un-bluelinking? If there is, what is it? Making sure that it's still a wanted page? Something else?

                            03:51, 11 April 2013
                          • CzechOut

                            Anoted wrote: And no, the problem isn't visual, though on that note, it is insanely difficult to read links that have already been clicked on. In one color theme clicked-through links are the same color as text and therefore they vanish into ordinary text.

                            Except for the fact that mouseovers result in a highly legible highlight. And you seem to be trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you're saying you don't like it that you can see so many links, but on the other, you complain about the fact that links you have already clicked on recede into the normal text colour. I would have thought you would have liked that feature, based on your observations so far.

                            In another there is no differentiation between links I've clicked on and those I haven't, making it a bit difficult to keep track of things.

                            Are you sure you haven't come to us from Wikipedia? It's usually only heavy Wikipedia users who notice or care about the "visited" colour differentiation. Wikia default is to not distinguish between those things you've clicked on and those you haven't. The light-on-dark skin is a concession to the way that Wikia wikis usually work, since it's presumed that most people who were introduced to the MediaWiki software through Wikia will probably prefer seeing links always shiny and bright.

                            But back to what I was saying--the issue isn't visual, it's that that level of stuff is information overload, insanely distracting and affects my reading.

                            Again, the key phrase here is "my reading". I'm afraid this is a peccadillo of yours. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are no records in the almost 9 year history of this wiki of any user being affected so badly by our linking practices to call them "insanely distracting".

                            If that link for holiday wasn't redlinked but blue linked I'd probably go to the article. And there would be nothing at that article that would give me any sense of anything related to the episode.

                            Again the notion that a link must be directly related to the page on which the link is found is something that exists at Wikipedia. It is not our policy. As laid out at the T:LINKS series of guidelines, the basic policy is to create blue-links where it is possible to do so—not just where you think it is relevant to do so.

                            Now there are are a few common-sense exceptions that maybe aren't explicit in the rules:

                            • Beware capitonyms. Don't link to polish if you mean Polish. There are a surprising number of these in the DWU, mainly because some alien races are named after wholly ordinary things. For instance, last week we were introduced to the Vigil, which shouldn't be confused with an ordinary vigil—but that gets us into questions of dab terms and naming conventions. Suffice to say, there are hundreds of ordinary nouns which have a different meaning in the DWU by the transposition of a single capital letter.
                            • Avoid heteronyms. Don't link to the fish bass if you mean the tonal pitch bass. And in particular, remember that links should be to nouns, or at least variants derived from the nouns. I suppose it's okay to have regenerate as a redirect to regeneration, but the verb form of concert should never be linked to a page on the noun concert.

                            Now, you may have thought it insulting to go through a basic English lesson, and I certainly didn't mean to cause offence. But I did want to point out with specificity that, yes, there is a reasonable case for relevancy guiding linking choices. However, that case is purely grammatical. It's nothing to do with clicking through on a link and being disappointed that it doesn't amplify your understanding of the page you came from.

                            I'm as fond as the next person of clicking through endlessly, until I have a backlog of a 100 tabs (slight exaggeration)…

                            I would strongly urge you to return to browser defaults while on our site. Having a new tab or a new window open for every link click is a non-standard setup, and it would indeed drive a person round the bend. You're already causing problems for yourself, technically, on the site by being so far back with your browser. And while I have more sympathy for that situation than probably anyone else on this site, I can't have any sympathy for someone who has their browser set to open a new instance on every click.

                            The other piece of advice I'd give is to skim articles in their entirety first and then click on the links. That way, you won't feel quite so much like you're jumping all around in a disjointed fashion. You'd be able to finish one though and then move on to the next.

                            ..but there are some things it just doesn't make sense to link.

                            Again, what we consider "sensible" is apparently different than you. To us, the main provision for reducing links can be found at T:OVER-WIKIFY. We reduce the number of links in an article not because of our individual perception of relevancy to understanding the present article. Rather, the main reason for reducing links is because of how we define "over-wikification": the repeated linkage of the same word throughout an article. Yes, as described above, if the wrong word, or sense of the word, is linked, then we should de-link it. But that's about the only "relevancy reason" that applies.

                            I guess what I'm really asking about is editorial discretion. If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked?

                            Yes.

                            To be more specific, say that there was a Holiday article, which I think I'd rather like btw. I wouldn't link to it from The Bells of Saint John article because there is no earthly reason to.

                            There is an earthly reason to. T:LINKS. In other words, it's policy, and we're bound to follow it. Again, it's not really up to us to decide whether something is "relevant", except in the grammatical sense.

                            Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the editing process (and correct me if I am), it's ok to un-link blue links if they're irrelevant, silly, or in some way not-a-good-link.

                            You are misunderstanding. And I've been trying to correct you, but it doesn't seem to be taking, if you'll forgive the observation. Delinking is highly discouraged, except as set forth earlier in this post.

                            There's such a thing as editorial discretion right? I assume so, that's kinda what editing is about. Disagreements and discussions take place on the talk page of course, but each editor has their own editorial discretion.

                            You don't have the discretion to blatantly defy policy, no. You can't go off on a campaign of linking only when relevant to the particular article you're working on when the policy is that you should link to all nouns that have existing articles and any nouns that logically could qualify for an article.

                            I'm wondering if I have the same discretion when it comes to redlinks. There's a clear difference between de-redlinking and de-bluelinking: de-redlinking could remove an entry from Special:WantedPages. Is there any other difference? Is there a higher standard for un-redlinking than there is un-bluelinking? If there is, what is it? Making sure that it's still a wanted page? Something else?

                            T:RED is actually very clear on all this.

                            Some editors misunderstand the utility of redlinks … and try to delink them. Don't do this. Redlinks are good. The should be kept unless the term has zero relevance to this wiki.

                            The threshold of relevance is "to this wiki", not "to the article on which an editor is currently working". If you cannot demonstrate that the redlink has little value to the wiki—that is, that it will not likely result in an article—then you can't de-link it.

                            If by "a clear difference between de-redlinking and de-bluelinking" you mean exactly one difference, then sure: there is one clear difference between them. De-redlinking depopulates Special:WantedPages. But otherwise, they have a similarly negative effects on our ability to improve articles in that delinking either type depopulates the much more important Special:WhatLinksHere reports, and prevents any number of bot related processes from fully working.

                            Links are the very lifeblood of a wiki. Nothing could actually be more vandalistic than going through and pulling them out just because one rather arrogantly believes that one knows what's "relevant" and what's "silly". Without links — red and blue — there's literally no point to having a wiki.

                            17:30, 11 April 2013
                          • Anoted

                            CzechOut wrote: Except for the fact that mouseovers result in a highly legible highlight.

                            And you seem to be trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you're saying you don't like it that you can see so many links, but on the other, you complain about the fact that links you have already clicked on recede into the normal text colour. I would have thought you would have liked that feature, based on your observations so far.

                            Please, please, listen to what I say. I made that comment immediately after saying that my issue with the links was NOT a visual one. And immediately after that comment I elaborated on that. It's NOT A VISUAL PROBLEM. I don't know how to be any clearer. I never said it was one, and when you misunderstood my previous comments I made sure to be abundantly clear.

                            Are you sure you haven't come to us from Wikipedia? It's usually only heavy Wikipedia users who notice or care about the "visited" colour differentiation. Wikia default is to not distinguish between those things you've clicked on and those you haven't. The light-on-dark skin is a concession to the way that Wikia wikis usually work, since it's presumed that most people who were introduced to the MediaWiki software through Wikia will probably prefer seeing links always shiny and bright.

                            Yeah, I'm sure. The wikia default may be for links to work this way but that's not the default of the internet. If I read an article that has a lot of links I can differentiate between those I clicked on and those I haven't. I don't really understand why that's different on Wikia. Especially because reading on a wiki is different from everywhere else. If I read an article on a website I generally read it once and that's it. That's not true of wikis.

                            I guess what I'm really asking about is editorial discretion. If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked?

                            Yes.

                            Thanks, that's all I needed. I've been asking that question a variety of ways on this thread, over and over and over again and it was never really answered. Which is why I asked it several times in my last post.

                            You are misunderstanding. And I've been trying to correct you, but it doesn't seem to be taking, if you'll forgive the observation. Delinking is highly discouraged, except as set forth earlier in this post.

                            Right, thanks. My question was asking for a clarification of this oft-used quote. SmallerOnTheOutside's earlier post was really wonderfully helpful. It took the specifics of my question and broke it down. The reason I kept on is because there's a big difference between, "this is discouraged" and don't do it. SmallerOnTheOutside's post and some earlier ones led me to believe that this is discouraged. SOTO went through my specific example and showed me the value of some of the potential links but confirmed that there was such a thing as too vague. Your posts seem to suggest that there isn't, prompting me to continue to seek clarification.

                            A couple other things. While the way I read my be a "non-standard setup", it's mine. And it's my setup because it works for me. I don't like clicking through on the same page. I lose track of what I'm reading and doing very easily that way. Whereas handling lots of windows and tabs is fairly easy for me. So while I appreciate your suggesting that I try something else and see if it helps, everything else was pretty unnecessary.

                            Repeating the same things over and over again is just not productive at all. Especially when you're simply quoting sections of a policy that's been read by everyone on this page and brought up in discussion already. I understand that wikis survive on links. And that links are good. And that we should err on the side of links. I understood the first time I read that. It really doesn't take multiple readings for something to sink in. And I not only understand the rules in terms of rules, I, for the most part, get the driving force behind the rules.

                            I was asking for a clarification of a fairly small point, and my concerns were, let's be honest here, not things that were likely to pop-up that much.

                            I'd have completely understood if I got responses questioning why I was asking for clarification on something that was in reality pretty much a non-issue. And I appreciated the more in depths responses I got from a few people that focused a bit on the whys behind policy. Knowing the whys really helps someone put something into action properly, or at least, not-blindly.

                            But the latter part of this discussion with you has left me with an incredibly sour taste in my mouth. I don't like being treated like an idiot, particularly on forums where I'm coming to learn and try and understand the hows and whys. And I don't like my opinions and views being belittled. I get that it's just my opinion--I don't need that rammed down my throat. No one has to agree with me, and I certainly try never to assume that people do.

                            Also, this weird Wikia v. Wikipedia thing is just annoying as hell. As though if you're new to Wikia and come in with certain assumptions and views you must be from Wikipedia. Uggh!

                            I asked a question earlier in this thread about a sentence that had a fair number of links. Trying to understand the policy, I asked what was keeping every other word in that sentence from being linked. I got two responses from you, one pointing out that two of the words couldn't be linked because it was against policy, and one about only linking the first time. I was trying to understand where your policy stopped. If the only reason not to link to something were the few (fairly technical) exemptions you had against linking, what was to stop every possible word (given the various rules) in an article from being linked? I didn't need to come from Wikipedia or anywhere to see that some discretion was needed or that would be the logical outcome. And by the way, this question was never really answered. I'm assuming that the answer is "who the hell would want to do that?" but I've never really gotten one. And while it may seem like a silly question, it becomes necessary when the mentality I'm being presented with is that policy is the driving force behind editing. I really doubt that that's how anyone actually views things. It's sorta the antithesis of the idea behind wikis.

                            And btw, there's a difference between making a couple conservative edits and "blatantly defy[ing] policy" or "going off on a campaign". I get the conservative editing is not encouraged, and that it can be discouraged. I was asking if it was ever ok. I was asking if there were exceptions for which it could be ok, even if they were few and far between. SOTO's comments were incredibly helpful in speeding up my understanding of this wiki functions, and helped me understand just how much time on this wiki would help. Your comments made me feel like an idiot and were really not that helpful. They were far more discouraging than encouraging, and seemed like they were designed to engender a feeling that I didn't do enough.

                            Just so that there is no confusion--this is all my opinion. These are the feelings of one fairly new editor. Feel free to disregard them if I'm the only one who feels this way, or because it's an opinion or for whatever other reason you like.

                            I apologise if this came across as rude and abrupt, I really don't mean it that way. I'm very frustrated and very annoyed. I put off writing a response more than once because I thought I'd be less annoyed later, but every time I read what you wrote in order to reply, my hackles just get raised again. Mainly because most of what I'm reading isn't really a response to me, and I don't know how to be any clearer about some of these things, and having to constantly say "I didn't say that" is insanely frustrating. The "you" v. "us" stuff is also just fairly ick. There's a big difference between explaining why the wiki works the way it does and the driving ideas behind it and setting up someone as an outsider.

                            A lot of people on this wiki have been inviting and friendly and encouraging. But this exchange has not been despite my best efforts.

                            23:20, 11 April 2013
                          CzechOut
                          This thread was opened on a question of policy.
                          Is there a specific policy in regards to redlinks?

                          That invites a policy-based discussion. Of course policy isn't the driving force behind editing. It facilitates editing, but it's merely the rails, not the train.

                          But you asked about policy. In a policy based discussion, especially to a new user, it is reasonable for the administrative staff to acquaint the new user with as many policies as might be relevant to answer the question.

                          Also there is an extent to which this thread is not just for you but for others who may have similar questions. Thus, pointing out policies that don't have directly to do with you, like the ones regarding Wikipedia, may have future applicability to readers, even if they don't to you. I'm sorry that you have some sort of bad feeling about that particular aspect of the discussion, but it is incumbent on admin to make people aware of the differences between this project and WP:DW. We get a number of editors, myself included, but even the very leaders of that project, who edit here. Since your objections precisely mirrored those in standard Wikipedia philosophy about links, it was entirely appropriate to mention our philosophical differences with Wikipedia in an effort to better explain the "relevancy" questions you had. I honestly can't see why that would be at all offensive.

                          Additionally, the fact that you continued to ask the same questions even after policy was pointed out to you seemed to indicate that you needed further explanation. In fairness, it is difficult to know how to answer someone who on the one hand says "all I wanted was a yes or no", and on the other says, "I wanted to know if there were exceptions". If in my confusion over what you wanted, I insulted you by over-explaining, I honestly was only trying to cover a very wide spread of possibilities.

                          And the fact that you used hyperbole not employed by other users—like "insanely difficult to read"—required questions to obtain clarification, not to minimise your opinions.

                          However, as you're claiming that you have been acquainted with policy, the question of this this thread has been answered, and the thread may now be safely closed.

                          02:06, 12 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127538


                          Shortcut:
                          Tybort
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/"X was the Yth Ninth/Tenth/Eleventh Doctor novel released"" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Is there a specific policy about redlinks?".

                          As the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Doctor novels are mostly released in sets of threes on the same, how is, for instance, The King's Dragon the fifth Eleven novel released? Also, I notice that the big hardcover releases, such The Coming of the Terraphiles isn't counted as part of the total number.

                          With the exception of the final three Tenth Doctor ones, this applies to the whole of the BBC New Series Adventures. The same problem seems to lie with the BBC Torchwood novels.

                          19:55, 10 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 13:26, 3 September 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Dude, ya got me. I don't really know why people are obsessed with numbering un-numbered things, be they books or TV episodes. We obviously don't have any idea what we're doing in this area, because BBC Books have never numbered anything going all the way back to the EDAS, so we might now want to use this thread to hash out some sort of numbering policy.

                            We could just as easily say that the TVM novelisation was #1 the latest Eleventh Doctor novel is #XXX and just say that the numbering scheme is all BBC Books. To me that would make things a lot easier, instead of having to justify The Infinity Doctors being an EDA (like so many want to), and The Coming of the Terraphiles as something other.

                            03:00, 11 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            It somewhat depends.

                            You can work out what in what order a book was assigned to be released. That is by using the ISBN, using the last three numbers before the final hyphen. These represent the book's title (according to Wikipedia).

                            This isn't the be all and end all, but does help to suggest some order. Not all the novels have any sort of ISBN order.

                            However if we look at:

                            You can see a pattern emerging here. But it's not a firm pattern as Apollo 23 and Night of the Humans don't fit into the pattern.

                            With regard to the Torchwood novels, don't they have a images on the spine that add up to make a large picture? The order in which they fit would suggest which novels were released first. Or more accurately the release order of the novels.

                            15:57, 12 April 2013
                          • Tybort
                            I understand if there's a numerical series order in one form or another, but either way, I'd assume that simply saying that it was the nth book in the series that was released when the set of three enters bookstores on the same day is misleading.
                            16:02, 12 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            That is true.

                            The intro for these books should then say "X book was one of three of the X series that was released on X date". Or something to that affect.

                            16:33, 12 April 2013
                          • Digifiend
                            Despite being released in threes, Torchwood's books do have a specific order. I just picked up eight of them from a charity shop, and the list of previous novels is numbered. Also, as Tangerineduel mentioned, the spines of each set of three line up to form a picture of the team.
                            01:52, 18 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            The ISBN thing only works when they were bought in a group, so if they miscalculated somehow it could break down.

                            Some third party sites like Goodreads allow users to aggregate a publishing order.

                            04:15, 18 April 2013

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127576


                          Shortcut:
                          SnorlaxMonster
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Are the species in the market really from the Sun-singers of Akhet" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/"X was the Yth Ninth/Tenth/Eleventh Doctor novel released"".
                          Clara: "Where are they from?"
                          Doctor: "Oh you know, the local system, mostly."

                          While it's quite likely that the species the Doctor identified are from the local system, he does only say "mostly". I don't think we can assume that all of these species are from the local system. Terraberserkers were said to come from the Cadonian Belt, which could easily be in the Sun-singers of Akhet, but it isn't necessarily.

                          Also, if Ultramancers were native to the Sun-singers of Akhet, I don't think the Doctor would have been so surprised to see one. It isn't conclusive proof of anything, but I think it is significant evidence to at least doubt that all of the species the Doctor identified were from the local system.

                          However, I do think it is a reasonable assumption to say that Merry's species and the Vigil are local though due to their strong association with the system.

                          12:50, 11 April 2013
                          Edited 12:51, 11 April 2013
                          Edited by Shambala108 23:20, 29 May 2019
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            I thought the Sun Singers were a religious group. And, actually, I got the impression that the facial markings were brands rather than a natural feature of the species.
                            02:45, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            The language is a little poetic, CBG, but if you listen carefully it's clear the Doctor is saying that the SSOA is the star system. I think Snorlax has a broad point that we have no real idea where any of the races, aside from the Vigil and Merry's species are from. Those two have to be from the SSOA, or else the story makes no sense.
                            06:46, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            The other argument is that if you can find an example of a named race in the crowds at the amphitheatre, then that's evidence that they are SSOA species, since only those species would be worshipping during the Festival. Dor-een, for example, is probably not SSOA because she's not at the Festival.
                            06:50, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            At the very least there's a Pan-Babylonian in the audience, sitting behind the Doctor and Clara.

                            Anything other named creatures that do appear would only be visible in the big wide shot of the whole audience, and the iView player isn't high res enough for me to pick anything out of the crowd when its like that.

                            I think the other thread is serving for the discussion on what the SSOA are, so I'll take that there.

                            Even if the lines of Merry and the Choristers' faces are just religious markings, they certainly don't seem to be human. I thought they might just be religious markings too though.

                            07:36, 12 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 12:27, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            Oh, I forgot there are cuts to the audience later. There's an Ultramancer there too. This either means my point about the Doctor being surprised about seeing it is invalid or other races just decided to watch, like the Doctor did.
                            07:56, 12 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 12:26, 12 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Ultra-manta...

                            Cxechout, I don't know how you get that from the dialogue. "Welcome to the Rings of Akhaten." "...The Pyramid of the Rings of Akhaten. It's a holy site for the Sun Singers of Akhete." "The who of what?" Seems pretty clear that the place is the Rings and the Singers are worshipping people.

                            11:40, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Snorlax, please don't hotlink pictures here. Aside from a host of other reasons, you can't control the size of a hotlinked pic, which usually results in the visual destruction of the thread.
                            12:28, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            CBG, go forward one more line. By stressing "the who of what", you're taking Clara as the authority, which is illogical. She's only just arrived. Go with the guy who's been there before:
                            DOCTOR: The Pyramid of the Rings of Akhaten. It's a holy site for the Sun-singers of Akhet.
                            CLARA: The who of what?
                            DOCTOR: Seven worlds, orbiting the same star. All of them sharing the belief that all life in the universe began there, on that planet.

                            But beyond that pretty clear statement, just break down the phrase. What would a society steeped in song call the planets in its solar system? Sun-singers, of course. Because planets are, when poetically described, objects that sing to a sun. Planets have a relationship with a sun that is metaphorically similar to that between a singer and an audience.

                            It's really quite an adept and clever bit of language from Mr Cross.

                            12:40, 12 April 2013
                            Edited 12:40, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Oh, and CBG, why did you say "Ultra-manta" after Snorlax said Ultramancer? Is this another one of the iTunes foul-ups?
                            12:45, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Snorlax, why did you move Lugal-Irra-Kush to Lugaleracush? In your edit summary, you cited the CC? But according to the official Red Bee Media CC, the page was created at the correct spelling.
                            12:48, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            I've since also spotted a Hooloovoo and Terraberseker in the audience at the stadium as well. That only leaves Lugal-Irra-Kush/Lugaleracush as one of the named species not seen in the stadium (discounting the Vigil).

                            Still, I'm not entirely convinced that being in the stadium meant they were from the SSoA, but if you think that is reasonable justification I can accept that.

                            CzechOut wrote: Snorlax, please don't hotlink pictures here. Aside from a host of other reasons, you can't control the size of a hotlinked pic, which usually results in the visual destruction of the thread.

                            Originally I was hoping it would just be a link to the picture in my Dropbox without showing up here. Is there a better way to link images in the forums without having to upload them here? I know on other wikis it is frowned upon to upload images solely for use on talk pages/forums posts.

                            I did notice they were bigger than I intended so I cropped them down to size for the thread though.

                            CzechOut wrote: Oh, and CBG, why did you say "Ultra-manta" after Snorlax said Ultramancer? Is this another one of the iTunes foul-ups?

                            CzechOut wrote: Snorlax, why did you move Lugal-Irra-Kush to Lugaleracush? In your edit summary, you cited the CC? But according to the official Red Bee Media CC, the page was created at the correct spelling.

                            The CC I had (ABC iView's) had Ultramancer and Lugaleracush. I'm not sure how I can (or if I can) get access to the Red Bee Media CC, so sorry about that. I thought that CC would actually be consistent (like it should be).

                            12:57, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Yeah, closed captioning is not part of the deal when you buy a programme. The re-broadcaster must pay for their own CC, which is why there's different closed captioning on iTunes, Sci-Fi and BBCA transmissions just within the US.

                            Red Bee, btw, confirms Ultramancer (which I think is pretty clearly said by Smith anyway).

                            As for your image issues, we don't have a restriction against uploading pics solely for use in the forums. You can certainly upload for use here, as long as the pictures are otherwise T:GTI and T:ICC complaint (unless the point is to violate those rules in order to demonstrate them).

                            As for whether the presence of a species in the stadium indicates their geographic origin, this is not set in stone. I mean the point of the thread is is to hash it out. Why don't you think that's sufficient justification?

                            14:06, 12 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            Well, I felt that since there were seven worlds in the system, there shouldn't be more than 7-14 different species present (since a world would usually only harbor 1-2 different sentient species). The number of species present in the stadium vastly exceeded the number. Even though the Doctor and Clara were implied to not supposed to be there (or at least that was how I interpreted that line), there could have just as easily been other species there.

                            I'm not as worried about calling them all natives to the system as when I originally posted the thread though. Still not certain, but I don't think it is an unreasonable speculation.

                            14:46, 12 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            Czech, I really think you're misinterpreting the Doctor's statement there. He's talking about the religion of the population of the Seven world, not the worlds themselves. Just think about it - otherwise he means that the planets have a belief about the origin of life. Not to say that this isn't a possibility in the DWU, but generally if a planet or other astronomical body is sentient, the Doctor will specifically comment on it, because he knows it's not common for humanoids to realize that planets can be sentient.

                            As for the Ultramancer - oops. I and iTunes had Ultramanta. That's reinforced by the similarity in character design to this chap, who would generally come first to mind for me, for obvious reasons.

                            Generally speaking, the CC: is horrible, even when using it on a DVD. Lots of instances where the statements clearly don't match up. I seriously wish we had non-narrative confirmation for, well, ANY of this.

                            04:35, 15 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Nah, he's using slight metaphor, in the same sense that we regularly say in English, "Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation." We don't mean that Saudia Arabia is sentient. We mean that its population is by and large Islamic. Or in some contexts we mean that its government is based on Islamic Law. Either way, we're not suggesting that a piece of land has weighed the pros and cons of various religions, and has decided, on balance, that Islam is a Pretty Good Idea.
                            14:00, 15 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            But in none of those cases is the actual name of the referenced countries "Muslim Nation", right?
                            21:23, 15 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            That's irrelevant -- point is, the Doctor saying that 7 planets believed in a religion where life originated on Akhaten is just like him saying that Saudi Arabia and Iran are Muslim. It means that the great majority of both Saudi Arabia and Iran are Muslim, and that their society is centred around Islam. The same applies to the Sun-singers.
                            21:36, 15 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            It's relevant to Czech saying that Sun Singers is what they call the planets. It's a really nice idea that doesn't exactly follow from the dialogue.
                            06:37, 17 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Obviously, I strongly feel that it precisely follows from the dialogue. However, like I said in the other thread, the only way forward here is to exactly quote the Doctor, but not place 'any interpretation on the words.
                            20:57, 17 April 2013
                          • 63.143.228.74
                            I thought this was a forum for policy issues not content discussion. Maybe it should be moved to The Howling?
                            22:14, 19 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Not really. As I understand it, the Panopticon is for discussion on how we edit our articles, and The Howling is for speculation and non-article-related discussion. Policy discussions also take place here.

                            This thread discusses how we treat the species in the episode in our articles, and therefore is about the editing of our articles (and thus belongs in this forum).

                            I hope this helps you understand!

                            03:29, 20 April 2013
                          • 63.143.233.201
                            Kind of, Smaller on the outside. There just seem to be a lot of rules about what is and isn't allowed in the Reference Desk and the Forum description says that Panopticon is for discussing policy issues about the wiki, templates and the like. I'm surprised to see discussion about plot points since that is not allowed in other Forums.

                            I guess some rules are more enforced than others.

                            19:27, 21 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            63, you've been commenting unhappily about the forums under a number of different IP addresses, on a number of different pages. I've answered your questions about the forums with detail. You are now most definitely disrupting the wiki, contrary to T:POINT, by continuing to bring up the same gripes with how the forums are used.

                            We do not, apparently, use the forums like you want them used. We don't use them like other wikis on the Wikia network use them. Threads and posts get deleted in order to focus on those threads that matter most to the editing of the wiki. Sometimes this does mean that we need to talk about plot points, for exactly the reasons SOTO has laid out above. But not often. We try not to allow people to just generally shoot the breeze about Doctor Who. Once a thread starts to show of signs of heavy speculation or opinion, it's gone. There are many, better forums on the internet for that sort of generalised discussion.

                            Please stop complaining about the fact that we allow or disallow certain threads, or that you don't like or understand our forum structure here. Please also stop trying to point out what you see as inconstancy in application of rules. There are some 8 active admin compared to several hundred active named users and an unknown number of active IP users. We can't be everywhere that users have been.

                            If you see some thread that appears not to have been administered in the way you have been told, that doesn't invalidate the rule. It simply means we haven't gotten there yet. That said, this thread is in no way inappropriate to The Panopticon, since it's squarely about trying to figure out how to write a number of different, but related, pages.

                            23:57, 21 April 2013
                            Edited 23:59, 21 April 2013
                            Edited 00:02, 22 April 2013
                          • SnorlaxMonster
                            To be fair, the thread isn't really supposed to be figuring out how to do multiple different things to multiple different episodes; I created it to address a specific issue that affected multiple pages (species being classed as being from a particular solar system and I was concerned we didn't have adequate evidence). That issue seems to have been dealt with (since I believe we agreed that appearing in the stadium during the ceremony was adequate evidence), and the thread has since gotten off topic.
                            07:51, 22 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, it's a truism that forum threads often go in directions the original poster hadn't imagined. But even though this might have gotten away from your original intent, it still has remained about the editing of multiple pages relevant to The Rings of Akhaten.
                            12:09, 22 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            I have to say I don't agree that appearing in the stadium is good enough [to indicate that a species is native to the local system]. I mean, Clara and the Doctor appear in the stadium. It's the Doctor saying that most are from the local system.
                            18:58, 22 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 23:24, 22 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 23:26, 22 April 2013
                          • Coop3
                            Why are you all making such a huge fuss about this? This planet and religion will most definitely never appear again in doctor who so why does any of this matter? None of us are actually going to ever see these species in real life so its not like we have to know where their from to meet them. SO unless someone in the future decides to clarify it for us, then I say just drop it.
                            22:57, 7 October 2013
                          • Shambala108
                            This wiki is meant to be a comprehensive and accurate source for information about Doctor Who and most of anything connected with it. If there is a question about something, we discuss it so that its article can be the best possible source of information.
                            23:32, 7 October 2013
                          • 5.81.112.218
                            There was at least one Ambassador from the City State of Binding Light present while Merry was singing
                            20:30, 19 January 2015

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127599


                          Shortcut:
                          Trebligoniqua
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Capitalisation" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Are the species in the market really from the Sun-singers of Akhet".

                          I was wondering, was there any debate over whether terms "First Doctor", "Second Doctor", etc., should be capitalized. The terms are never used on-screen and rarely in-story, and when I have seen them, it's with a lower case (though I can't say I have read all the books). If this has been debated, sorry for the question. Is there a link to such?

                          17:47, 11 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 20:27, 28 May 2017
                          • Shambala108
                            There was a discussion, long ago, that resulted in the policy Tardis:Doctors. The terms actually have been used on screen (TV: The Three Doctors for example), and it was decided that they are always capitalized.

                            If you're interested, I can try to hunt up the original discussion, but the policy page should answer your questions.

                            18:15, 11 April 2013
                          • Trebligoniqua
                            No need. Thank you very much!
                            18:19, 11 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            For others who might encounter this thread, T:DOCTORS does in fact lead you to the original discussion, but there's not an awful lot more there that isn't actually present in the policy page itself.

                            I should point out that since that debate, an awful lot more evidence for the "First Doctor" format has been found in other books, particularly those published by BBC Books.

                            That said, I have also found a number of non-narrative sources for the format "first Doctor". In particular the works of David J Howe and friends seem to prefer this usage, at least those works originating in the late 20th century. But narrative sources outweigh non-narrative ones around here, so "First Doctor" it is.

                            20:43, 11 April 2013
                          CzechOut
                          If anything, since the time this thread was active, more sources have been added that capitalise both words -- Number and Doctor -- used for incarnations. Above post still stands.
                          20:25, 28 May 2017

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127706


                          Shortcut:
                          CzechOut
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Closed captioning policy formulation" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Capitalisation".

                          I propose that we need to establish a closed captioning policy. The Rings of Akhaten has profoundly demonstrated that sometimes we don't get any help from visual cues in the story or the end credits on how to spell highly incidental species or character names. Indeed, sometimes it's not at all obvious that we will ever see these species names ever again in prose adventures, or even necessarily on the website.

                          So that leaves us with the closed captioning. But closed captioning transcripts are not sold with the episodes. So US iTunes has one thing. The ABC version of iPlayer differs from the UK version. And we're left with lots of different spellings.

                          We need to establish an order of precedence. When is it okay to fall back on the closed captioning for spelling? And which CC transcript do we use?

                          I suggest that closed captioning be the spelling of last resort. That is, the precedence should go:

                          1. Dialogue in which the character actually spells a name (SUSAN: T-A-R-D-I-S: Time and Relative Dimension in Space.)
                          2. Onscreen graphics that establish the spelling (Gravestone that shows us how to spell Clara Oswin Oswald)
                          3. Officially released scripts.
                          4. Prose narratives using the characters. (This is not necessarily higher than the end credits. But if things are spelled one way in the end credits and another way in a comic strip you kinda keep both, but then figure out which is the more common. So it's Sarah Jane Smith, principally, but Sarah-Jane Smith also.)
                          5. End credits. (It's Barbara as in Wright, not Barbra as in Streisand)
                          6. The Doctor Who website, run by BBC Online. This is not a valid source for the existence of a thing, but if none of the above are available, then it is acceptable for the spelling of the article name.
                          7. Closed captioning. When all else fails, CC wins.
                            1. DVD/Blu-Ray release is the highest order CC, because it is, as far as I know, globally uniform
                            2. Until such time as the DVD/Blu-Ray is released, the CC from Red Bee Media that is seen on BBC One and BBC iPlayer is the highest global CC authority, and the page is named from that.
                            3. Redirects from the spellings seen on other official transmissions of episodes allowed as redirects so people can find the page, but not allowed in page names or links.

                          Thoughts?

                          14:36, 12 April 2013
                          Edited 14:36, 12 April 2013
                          Edited 14:38, 12 April 2013
                          Edited by Amorkuz 00:46, 5 June 2017
                          • Tangerineduel
                            I would use caution with the phrase "when all else fails CC wins". I'd prefer 'when all else fails we have CC". We are using CC as a last resort.

                            I just see "Tardis" in most of the CC on DVDs and it annoys me. So I don't want CCs getting more credence than they deserve.

                            Number 4 is the only one I take issue with. If it's in the narrative then we use it, the end credits aren't within the narrative. I understand your Sarah Jane Smith example. But in that situation we fall back to the artefact/artifact discussion.

                            I'd put prose narratives above officially released scripts (which are almost never the "final" scripts).

                            I think also move the officially released scripts under end credits (as if the spelling's got as far to be broadcast in the credits it's been locked in).

                            For clarity my preference is:

                            1. Dialogue spelled out
                            2. Onscreen graphics
                            3. Prose narratives
                            4. End credits
                            5. Officially released scripts
                            6. DW Website
                            7. Closed captioning
                            15:29, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Well, I don't want to derail the conversation, but I do feel compelled to again defend "Tardis" as a perfectly valid in-narrative capitalisation :) But I digress.

                            I have a bit of a problem with prose narratives over end credits, simply because of the vexed novelisation question. If you put credits under prose, then novelisations can contradict television and come out on top. That seems logically difficult next to the general maxim that information from novelisations is valid only if it doesn't contradict. Also, it would somewhat jeopardise T:K9. To me, the point of putting credits, and indeed scripts, relatively high up is that they are a lot closer to the primary (read: original) source for a character than an ill-copyedited novel written 20 years later.

                            It seems to me that the person who knows how to spell the name of the character is the person who wrote the original episode, and thus the sources must be ordered to preference proximity to the televised source.

                            16:04, 12 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            You make some good points (and we'll leave Tardis alone).

                            I always forget about novelisations! It's because of their halfway point with exceptions point that they occupied.

                            DW is all about re-invention so the badly copyedited 20 years later is what becomes the new standard. But a narrative is a narrative and we should use that before we switch to a real world source.

                            I don't think it's as simple as 'who wrote it knows how to spell it' because of the different people who get in the way between the writer and finished production, namely the script editor / executive producer. Then there's the graphics and other people (and because of them we have Doctor Who and the Silurians).

                            This is why I don't feel we can trust the "officially released script" as much as we can say the end credits, because at least the credits represents the final production while any released script doesn't show any of the changes that might have been made to it.

                            16:47, 12 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            You make some good points (and we'll leave Tardis alone).

                            I always forget about novelisations! It's because of their halfway point with exceptions that they occupied.

                            DW is all about re-invention so the badly copyedited 20 years later is what becomes the new standard. But a narrative is a narrative and we should use that before we switch to a real world source.

                            I don't think it's as simple as 'who wrote it knows how to spell it' because of the different people who get in the way between the writer and finished production, namely the script editor / executive producer. Then there's the graphics and other people (and because of them we have Doctor Who and the Silurians).

                            This is why I don't feel we can trust the "officially released script" as much as we can say the end credits, because at least the credits represents the final production while any released script doesn't show any of the changes that might have been made to it.

                            16:49, 12 April 2013
                          • Bubblecamera
                            I agree with Tangerineduel. Big Finish often changes character names between recording and the final release. For example, in The Shadow Heart, the character originally named Hordal ended up credited on the packaging as Horval, and in The Wrong Doctors, while I can't say for certain until they release the script, Ksllak's name is definitely pronounced Kallak.
                            21:59, 12 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            So here's a practical, live question for you. The Seeds of Death. There's a character called the Grand Marshall. End titles have it Grand Marshall. Subtitles on most recent DVD have it Grand Marshall. Novelisation has it as Grand Marshal. Legacy (novel), an Ice Warrior novel, also uses Grand Marshal for the title. Mission to Magnus uses Grand Marshal, but of course it's not a novelisation, really, in that it came out well before the audio.

                            So what wins when we come to speak of Grand Marshal(l) Skaldak in Cold War or the Grand Marshal(l) in the audio Mission to Magnus? Do we go by the things that are closest to the original source (subtitles, credits), or by things that were published thirty years on?

                            19:24, 14 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            As our policy stands at the moment we'd go with the artefacts ruling that we go with multiple different sources to rule on a spelling.

                            Grand Marshall: Seeds of Death, credits, subtitles Grand Marshal: Legacy, Mission to Magnus.

                            I've not included the novelisation as our T:VS states if the novelisation conflicts with the TV story it's the TV story that wins out and the novelisation does technically conflict with the spelling.

                            08:06, 16 April 2013
                          • ComicBookGoddess
                            The only difficulty that I can see is that the iPlayer CC is not available to a large number of our editors (like, oh, me, for instance).

                            Otherwise, I agree that the closer to the origin of the subject, in media, the more accurate. When it comes to a thirty year time gap, I actually favour "the revision with an asterisk". Theoretically, somebody has put thought into the spelling variation (whether it's linguistic drift or whatever).

                            04:24, 18 April 2013
                          • Tangerineduel
                            ComicBookGoddess does bring up an interesting issue/proviso.

                            That media is a determinant.

                            To look at CzechOut's examples The Seeds of Death TV story, end titles, subtitles (and also the production paperwork) all have the double-L spelling of Grand Marshall and they're all linked to that medium, the televisual.

                            The single-L Grand Marshal is linked through the prose medium and likely began with the novelisation and Mission to Magnus, which would have been where Russell got his info the spelling in Legacy (I know I'm making broad assumptions, but it is the reason why in Placebo Effect Wirrn has three Rs in - because it's in the novelisation). So we can track the spelling back through like that.

                            While we do state all sources as being equal the novelisations are a little less than equal if they contradict with the TV story.

                            So in CzechOut's case we could actually fall back on the Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon? ruling.

                            Grand Marshall: The Seeds of Death TV story, subtitles, end credits Grand Marshal: Mission to Magnus, Legacy.

                            14:45, 19 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            Would it though? I'm talking about which of the two to use when talking about the title generally, and which to use when talking about a story that doesn't have it spelled at all.

                            I mean, is Skaldak Grand Marshall or Grand Marshal? Do we actually have a clear indication on the audio version of Mission to Magnus?

                            I don't see this as strictly analogous to the artefact/artifact discussion at all. That decision said, essentially, "prefer artefact, but use artefact where is is specifically used". And it's unlikely that we'll have a page called artefact, whereas the case for a page at Grand Marshall or Grand Marshal is much stronger, since it's just a rank like Captain or Sergeant or whatever.

                            To my mind, the more flexible "artefact decision" won't work as readily here. We need to choose one of the two on some sort of logical basis. I think it would be less confusing for readers in this case if we chose one of the two spellings, and where the alternate was used, we left a BTS note to the effect of "in fact, Marshal(l) was spelled Marshal(l) in this source, but to minimise confusion, we've decided to consistently use the other spelling."

                            22:12, 21 April 2013
                          • SOTO
                            Just to put it out there, we do have a page called alien artefact. Spelling comes from that ruling.
                            22:16, 21 April 2013
                          • CzechOut
                            A dubious and poorly-written article that never attributes the phrase alien arte/ifact to any DWU source, and actually mixes terrestrial and alien artefacts together. Should really be deleted, because it's biased anyway. Alien to whom? Articles shouldn't be named so as to place a value judgement on a topic like that.

                            But anyway, we're really talking about Marshal(l)s here.

                            22:51, 21 April 2013
                          Amorkuz
                          There is no disagreement on the top two or bottom two items on the list of precedence. Regarding the middle part, more editors favoured putting scripts below both prose and end credits. And this is natural in light of T:NO RW to consider prose narratives above the out-of-universe sources such as scripts or at best semi-universe sources such as end credits. It is also natural to put end credits above scripts as the former are created later in the production and the latter are sometimes released without a particular pressure to update to the last version. However, a serious reservation here exists regarding novelisations. Thus, given the lower status of novelisations compared to the original episodes, they are moved below both scripts and end credits.

                          Final ruling[[edit] | [edit source]]

                          In case of disputes, the spelling of proper names, titles, etc is determined based on the following available written sources ordered in the downward order of preference (a spelling from a source higher on the list wins over a spelling from a source further down):

                          1. Dialogue in which the character actually spells a name (e.g., Susan Foreman saying: "T-A-R-D-I-S: Time and Relative Dimension in Space").
                          2. Onscreen graphics that establish the spelling (e.g., a gravestone that shows us how to spell Clara Oswin Oswald).
                          3. Primary prose narratives using the characters, e.g., an original novel, a short story (e.g., the last name of April MacLean spelled in the Class novels) or UPD: a novelisation (per Thread:231243).
                          4. End credits (e.g., it's Barbara as in Wright, not Barbra as in Streisand)
                          5. Officially released scripts.
                          6. Novelisations. (updated based on Thread:231243)
                          7. The Doctor Who website, run by BBC Online. This is not a valid source for the existence of a thing or even the existence of another part of the name, but it is acceptable for the spelling of the part of the name that was pronounced in-universe. (For instance, while BBC website listed the character as Matteusz Andrzejewski but he was only called by the first name in-universe, the page was Matteusz until the last name appeared in-universe too.)
                          8. Closed captioning. When all else fails, CC can be used: namely,
                            1. DVD/Blu-ray release is the highest order CC;
                            2. until such time as the DVD/Blu-Ray is released, the CC from Red Bee Media that is seen on BBC One and BBC iPlayer is the highest global CC authority, and the page is named from that;
                            3. redirects from the spellings seen on other official transmissions of episodes allowed as redirects so people can find the page, but not allowed in page names or links.

                          Exception[[edit] | [edit source]]

                          This decision does not affect T:K9.

                          00:45, 5 June 2017
                          Edited 07:32, 12 October 2018

                          Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:127938


                          Shortcut:
                          Geek Mythology
                          Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Wiki blogs" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Closed captioning policy formulation".

                          A while ago I seem to remember reading that blogs on this wiki had been disabled, and could no longer be written. Apologies if I'm wrong, but if blogs no longer exist on this wiki, then why does the game of Rassillon still offer badges for writing and commenting on them?

                          19:10, 14 April 2013
                          Edited by CzechOut 14:08, 15 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            Because those badges are hardwired into the game by Wikia and can't be removed by local staff.
                            00:54, 15 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128044


                            Shortcut:
                            Cult_Of_Skaro
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/New licence" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Wiki blogs".

                            Recently, I've been buying Big Finish stories on CD. Many of these have additional, narrative, illustrations in the booklet. But I noticed that we don't have a proper licence for this, so I just have to use 'illustrations from sources other than the above' Can we: A. Change 'Illustrations from within Big Finish CD covers' to 'Illustrations from within Big Finish CD covers or booklets' B. Make a new licence for the latter.

                            21:55, 15 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 21:45, 20 May 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              First of all, I think Big Finish would say, thank you for actually buying the more expensive version :)

                              Second, I'm not really sure that a separate license would make this situation too much clearer. I'm not saying no to the idea of adding another license, for it would be easy, but I'm a little worried that would be confusing for people. I think some people would think that the cover is the cover to the booklet and therefore, some of the cover images would end up with the cover license and some would end up with the booklet license. My initial thought is that just adding the word booklet to the current license probably makes the most sense, but if anyone has a strong argument for splitting the licenses, I'd like to hear it.

                              But I do think that, because it's possible to legally obtain these stories without the booklet, that it's incumbent on the uploader of the interior booklet images to say where it comes from in the notes field of Special:Upload. The current wording on just about all of our licenses says this, and it should especially be done when the source is not immediately obvious, as is certainly the case with these liner notes.

                              00:24, 16 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              Yeah, I definitely think just adding booklet to the current one is the easiest way. The other way was just in case you didn't like that. :)
                              00:54, 16 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Here's the reword for your perusal.
                              Big Finish Logo Transparent.pngThis is an image of a Big Finish Productions audio cover, or an image that has been taken from the liner notes or bonus booklet accompanying a particular Big Finish release.

                              Copyright for it is ultimately held, at least in part, by BBC Worldwide through a license extended to Big Finish Productions. It is believed that the use of this image — to illustrate an article discussing an aspect of the story in question, the cover in question, or the artist who created the image, on the Tardis Data Core wiki, hosted on servers in the United States of Wikia, Inc — qualifies as fair dealing under the laws of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, and as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

                              To the uploader: please add the source of the work and copyright information. If the image comes from a bonus booklet or liner notes, please make this explicitly clear, since it's possible to legally purchase Big Finish audios without also receiving these images.

                              01:40, 16 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              Thanks! :) Let me add those notes now.
                              01:42, 16 April 2013
                            • Tangerineduel
                              I'm not really understanding what's wrong with the wording of {{BF illustration}} which is worded as loosely as I could and just says "This image is of a Big Finish Productions illustration".

                              Why do we need to change the wording of the licence to be more specific? At the moment it's able to cover the images cropped from the covers, the liner notes and anything that Big Finish might include on their website.

                              In the Special:Upload it's under "Illustrations from within Big Finish CD covers" which can be reworded to something closer to what you want.

                              17:04, 17 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              See, that's what I meant. I thought that just meant CD 'covers' and so I'd been picking 'Illustrations from a source other than the above'
                              17:05, 17 April 2013
                            • Tangerineduel
                              The cover is attached to the booklet. Though I sometimes overlook obvious flow on things like this.

                              Okay, well the licence doesn't need rewording just the menu on the preload.

                              That's now been changed to "Illustrations from within Big Finish CD booklets "

                              17:37, 17 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              I'd make that 'Illustrations from the cover of a Big Finish CD or from within a Big Finish CD booklet.' Download buyers won't know that the booklet and the cover are the same thing.
                              17:39, 17 April 2013
                              Edited 17:40, 17 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Well, in truth, I didn't even know there was {{BF illustration}}. That one's only been around since August, and I guess I didn't notice it slip in.

                              But the thing is, I think it's a bit of proof for my initial statement in this thread. If we have both {{BF illustration}} and {{BF audio cover}}, people will put things from the CD cover into the illustration license. That's pretty evidently the case now, as several of the things in Category:Big Finish Productions illustrations are in fact specifically from the covers, and not from the interior of the booklet. I think having just one license (and, therefore, category) would be less confusing.

                              I mean, there aren't any BF books that have interior illustrations, are there? So when we say "BF illustration", we only possibly mean things from the interior of the CD booklet, right?

                              If that's true, a single license would create less confusion.

                              19:31, 17 April 2013
                              Edited 19:32, 17 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              I don't know about the Benny books, but none of the Short Trips are illustrated.
                              19:35, 17 April 2013
                            Tangerineduel
                            I don't have any of BF's Benny books to hand, and can't remember for certain if they do or don't. I don't think they do have any illustrations on the inside.

                            So yeah, one licence would make things easier, fewer licences to choose from makes things simpler.

                            I think the category Category:Big Finish Productions illustrations should remain however (and be added manually) as it's useful to have all these sorts of things collected.

                            14:34, 19 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128266


                            Shortcut:
                            Geek Mythology
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/TV connections" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/New licence".

                            I've been looking at the categories "Connections to other media franchises" and "Real world television shows with DWU connections", and I wanted to make sure I've understood them properly, before rearranging too much.

                            Presumably "Real world television shows with DWU connections" should be shows that are either mentioned in-universe, or reference fictional DWU features, and "Connections to other media franchises" should be those which only feature connections to the production of Doctor Who as a real world TV show.

                            Therefore: Sea of Souls should be "Connections to other media franchises" as its connections are cast and crew.

                            There are some such as Monty Python which can be included in both.

                            Those with two articles should be one of each, such as Star Trek is "Real world television shows with DWU connections", whereas Star Trek (franchise) is "Connections to other media franchises".

                            Sorry for any confusions, but I hope I have understood it correctly, and that my descriptions all makes sense.

                            15:59, 19 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 09:10, 3 September 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Actually, you haven't understood it correctly at all, but that confusion is entirely our fault. Let me try to detangle it for you.

                              "Category:Connections to other media franchises" was ordered destroyed by Thread:119834. It hang on for a bit longer than it should have. This category has now been removed from the wiki, per the earlier discussion.

                              Real world television shows with DWU connections is completely the opposite of what you've described. It is for real world pages. Another way of looking at it is that it is for pages about television programmes that only exist in the real world. Thus, it would be for Sea of Souls, Star Trek (franchise) and the like.

                              What you've described — television that exists in the real world and the DWU — is actually television series from the real world.

                              Note the distinction here. "Real world <whatever>" is for those things that only exist in the real world. "<whatever> from the real world" is for those things that exist in both the real world and the DWU.

                              Please see T:FTRW for a full discussion of the difference between these types of category.

                              14:40, 25 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              Real world television shows with DWU connections seems a little redundant, doesn't it? Is there any reason it isn't just named "Real world television shows" (following the NC for most real world categories) or "Television shows with DWU connections"?
                              13:14, 26 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            It's not redundant. It's specific out of an abundance of caution. It's worked fine for several years because it's overly clear. Throwing the acronym DWU into any title necessarily means that thing is out-of-universe, because no one in-universe calls the universe where they live "the Doctor Who universe".

                            If we used "real world television shows" that would easily be confused in the way that Geek Mythology did. By specifying "with DWU connections" we're helpfully emphasising that the article has to be about television shows that actually connect to the production of DWU material, as the category description states.

                            The only thing that was confusing here is that I didn't finish the very last step of an earlier decision and so there was a third one of these TV categories around, whose proper usage Geek Mythology didn't remember.

                            Now that it's just a choice between "real world <something>" and "<something> from the real world", it's as clear as the rest of the FTRW stuff.

                            I am toying with the idea of removing the word "show" and "series" though, so that no one gets hung up on those words, making them:

                            • Television from the real world
                            • Real world television with DWU connections
                            18:41, 26 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128276


                            Shortcut:
                            Cult_Of_Skaro
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Audiogo template" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/TV connections".

                            (Could an admin please highlight this?)
                            Just so everyone knows, I have created a new template that operates in the same way as {{Bigfinish}} for AudioGO releases. In future, please use {{Audiogo}} to link to the official page for a release.

                            01:48, 20 April 2013
                            Edited 01:49, 20 April 2013
                            Edited 01:49, 20 April 2013
                            Edited by Amorkuz 19:57, 31 May 2017
                            • SOTO
                              Not entirely on the topic of this thread, but are non-Admins allowed to create templates? I've always assumed not, but we don't really have a policy on this. After this and Czech's comment that Shambala hasn't made any template edits, I'm starting to reconsider whether or not we're allowed...

                              Also, I'm not entirely sure if this thread belongs at The Panopticon. Perhaps Tales From the Tardis, as it's more of an announcement?

                              03:55, 20 April 2013
                            • Shambala108

                              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

                              Also, I'm not entirely sure if this thread belongs at The Panopticon. Perhaps Tales From the Tardis, as it's more of an announcement?

                              From the description of Tales From the Tardis: "This is a place for general announcements, not discussions. Please don't start threads here unless you're an administrator."

                              15:32, 20 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Oh. Missed the 'administrator' line. Any insight into my first question?
                              15:40, 20 April 2013
                            • Cult_Of_Skaro
                              I looked through the admin nominations the other day, and several were rejected due to not doing anything with templates.
                              17:22, 20 April 2013
                            • Digifiend

                              SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Not entirely on the topic of this thread, but are non-Admins allowed to create templates? I've always assumed not, but we don't really have a policy on this. After this and Czech's comment that Shambala hasn't made any template edits, I'm starting to reconsider whether or not we're allowed...

                              Also, I'm not entirely sure if this thread belongs at The Panopticon. Perhaps Tales From the Tardis, as it's more of an announcement?

                              Template edits and template creation aren't the same thing. Is the rule that non-admins can't create templates, but can edit them to, say, fix a spelling mistake or add a new episode, novel, etc? Not that such edits are often necessary.

                              02:49, 21 April 2013
                              Edited 02:50, 21 April 2013
                              Edited 02:51, 21 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Annoyingly, templates such as the Randomiser are locked, and thus cannot be edited by us (the exact reason why it's missing every episode from series 7). Another template that I've been wishing to change is {{maintenance}}, which uses the old name of our wiki. So, clearly, at least certain templates are not to be edited by non-admins.

                              Since my last post here, I've created {{date stub}}, although the other existing stub templates appear to be locked...

                              I don't suppose an admin can come along and clear this up?

                              03:12, 21 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            Just as on Wikipedia, or MemoryAlpha or Wookieepedia, or any other large, popular wiki, templates can be freely created by any user here at Tardis. But there are always templates that get deleted because they're not actually such a good idea, or protected or locked because they're vital.

                            You are encouraged to create templates, but it's possible that you will be discouraged when I or another admin deletes your hard work.

                            A way to prevent heartbreak is to talk about your template idea, especially if you're new to template making, here in the forums, or more privately on an admin's talk page.

                            I have nothing against either of these two new templates, but I don't see them as tremendously useful. {{audiogo}} doesn't actually automate that much, because the base site doesn't use a consistent nomenclature for its URL pages. You're practically having to manually put the link on the page anyway, so the template, while inoffensive, isn't saving significant time. That's not your fault Cult Of Skaro — you've just discovered the reason why that template wasn't built before. Some websites just aren't built logically, and therefore don't lend themselves to automated linkage.

                            As for {{date stub}}, I'm a little worried, but we'll see how it goes. I think it might get massively overused, since people around here do occasionally mistake "stub" for "short". If this template starts to get used simply because a newbie thinks the article on 24 June is a little short, I probably will move to delete it. Almost every date page is short; few, however, are genuine stubs.

                            22:29, 21 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128358


                            Shortcut:
                            66.66.13.33
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/summer falls ebook- have you read it?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Audiogo template".

                            I did and I liked it, but except for the animal death what is the big deal about chapter 11?

                            01:26, 21 April 2013
                            • Digifiend
                              That spoiler is the big deal. It was supposed to make you cry. Sounds like just the sort of thing that would do that.
                              02:46, 21 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128411


                            Shortcut:
                            CzechOut
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Leads of series 7 episodes" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/summer falls ebook- have you read it?".

                            Why are we using the odd phraseology "xth regular episode of series 7" for our leads of late? It's confusing, considering the production codes are very clearly indicating a seasonal episode number. I'm not sure I see the utility of omitting The Snowmen.

                            Anyone got a defence for why we should be using this phraseology for series 7 and not for other series? Is there any substantial doubt that, for instance, Hide is the tenth episode of series 7?

                            01:38, 22 April 2013
                            Edited 01:39, 22 April 2013
                            Edited 12:03, 22 April 2013
                            Edited 21:38, 20 May 2013
                            • Bubblecamera
                              I think the reason people are doing this is because the structure of series 7 is different from any other series - usually the Christmas special is at the beginning or end of the series, but The Snowmen is smack dab in the middle. But I don't really see the point in weird numbering like this; I agree with you that Snowmen should count as an episode like any other.
                              10:17, 22 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            Closing in favour of changing the leads to reflect the actual number of the episode, and regarding Snowmen as "episode six".
                            21:38, 20 May 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128711


                            Shortcut:
                            SOTO
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Lists of Appearances" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Leads of series 7 episodes".

                            According to Tardis:Naming conventions, all common nouns in titles must not be capitalised. So why do we have the standardised name of List of Appearances?

                            I propose that every list of appearances be renamed accordingly — thus Romana I - list of appearances instead of Romana I - List of Appearances. This would also mean that links in the infobox would change from [[Romana I - List of Apperances|Full List of Appearances]] to [[Romana I - list of appearances|Full list of appearances]].

                            Thoughts?

                            22:54, 25 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 16:50, 4 May 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              I've got no issue with move to un-capped for page names. I do have a little issue with the infobox pipe trick. I personally hate that people have taken to saying full list of appearances, because we shouldn't be portraying them as full. Most aren't actually complete. I'd much prefer it be piped to an italicised, lower case see list.

                              (Both parts of SOTO's request are easy, technically, btw, so don't think this poses any kinda great burden on anyone, not even the bot.)

                              23:14, 25 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Yeah, I didn't mention the bot as per a past request of yours...

                              Actually, I agree with you on the lists not being "full." I'm all for see list.

                              23:17, 25 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              I type the way that I think. And I do type in these links with the common nouns capitalised. It's automatic for me. These are not links I start to type one way and have to go back and correct. Titles are capitalised. I get the principal behind T:NC; the majority of articles on this wiki are in-universe and accuracy is key. These articles, by definition, must always be real-world articles. So this doesn't really bother me. I really don't see any reason not to have different naming standards for real-world articles. Is there any reason why we can't follow real world standards in real world articles? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

                              On the other point, I do like piping these links with a see list. It's another one of those real-world standards I like :).

                              13:08, 26 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              One of the basic choices that any publication must decide upon is whether they're going to use title case or sentence case for their headings and titles. We chose long ago to go with sentence case.

                              We're Not German-speakers So Every Word Isn't Capped. We're English-speakers, so we only capitalise proper nouns.

                              Will you find cases where a proper noun has been improperly used around here? Of course. But that's not ideal. Please do not use title case in headers or titles of any article, regardless of whether it's real world or not.

                              That's just our house style.

                              19:40, 26 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              I haven't and don't plan to, at least not intentionally. I was just stating my personally preference. I personally prefer the capitalisation of all words except for closed-class words. But I'm familiar enough with sentence case, start class, and all lowercase (and all overcase, but really, I can't) that I can use any of them. I have a harder time with other types because there's no switch in my brain for them. I have to pay greater attention to part of speech as I write and I have to be writing in that form for awhile before I can write without having to pay extra attention to capitalisation. So I can write in house style and will as long as it's house style. It's just not my highest preference. I'm also in favour for more distinctive differences in the writing styles of in-universe articles and real-world articles, but I can see how the wiki would find similarity preferable. The more differences the harder it would be for (especially new) editors. I'd probably part of a minority that would find it easier to write, and since it makes a fairly marginal differences in terms of reading ease it makes sense to go with ease with writing for the largest number of editors.
                              00:51, 27 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Where are we on this? It's been a full week since the last reply, and the only thing you might call an objection was an objection to Tardis:Naming conventions, which is already established. Technically, renaming the pages and abolishing the "Full List of Appearances" fad is simply an application of policy. Do we need to wait any longer for others to weigh in, or can we proceed now (or soon)?
                              04:54, 4 May 2013
                            • Anoted
                              I thought the only thing holding this up was assigning this work to a bot with administrative privileges. I didn't even realise that this was still open.
                              05:00, 4 May 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              The bot's been occupied of late with what are truly higher priorities, requiring a great deal of manual intervention on my part. This is a simple, mindless run that'll happen when it does.

                              But yes, this conversation has been open for an adequate time, and it's resolved that the bot will change the page names and the links to lists of appearances to sentence case. Please don't waste any of your editing time with this matter. It's simple bot work, but it will be complicated if you manually attempt to comply with this thread.

                              16:50, 4 May 2013
                            CzechOut
                            The bot has finished its work on this project, a new rule has been added at T:APPEAR, and so the conclusions of this thread are now deemed to have been fully enacted.

                            If you see any cases of links to list of appearances being invalid, please do not change them, but instead post links to those pages at User talk:CzechOut. That way, I can investigate and come up with new coding that will take care of these stragglers.

                            17:31, 6 May 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128744


                            Shortcut:
                            RoseTenthFan
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Category:LGBT characters?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Lists of Appearances".

                            I was thinking about creating such a category. There are a few of them in the DWU. However, I am not sure how it should be named. "Characters" seems wrong because it implies a real-world POV. "People" does not fit, since not all DWU characters are people. What do you think?

                            10:19, 26 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 16:52, 4 May 2013
                            • Doug86
                              There used to be a category called LGBT individuals, but it was deleted for reasons explained here: Forum:LGBT categories in-universe and real world - Prop delete Doug86 ☎ 10:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
                              10:22, 26 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Yeah, even after the discussions, people keep on trying to recreate the category. Isn't the category locked? If it isn't, that should be done.
                              13:12, 26 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              Why is this such a big deal to people? Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out who would even go in this cat. Is it really important to find a way to put Ianto and Spartans in the same cat?
                              13:20, 26 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              As Doug pointed out, this has already been debated. Categories like this are disallowed. As you've pointed out, Anoted — and I have to say you seem both in favour of the cat and against it — it fails mainly because it's impossible to define who's LGBT and whose straight in a universe full of dancers that just want to dance regardless of the partners. Basically, The Doctor Dances ended all ability to categorise people by sexuality in the DWU. T:CAT NAMES thus applies. It can't be a category because it would require a value judgement to assign to pages.

                              And, SOTO, it hasn't actually has been recreated. The original category names are indeed protected against recreation.

                              19:06, 26 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              Actually, category:LGB individuals was created around Christmas time, and was subsequently deleted by Doug86. You should create-lock that cat too.
                              21:59, 26 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              No, not in favour of the cat. Spartans just really amuse me for some reason and I like to throw them out there whenever possible. Not just the juxtaposition, I am amused by Spartans all by their lonesome. Which is really weird now that I think about it. Anyway...

                              Am I the only one that absolutely loves that the introduction of Captain Jack Harkness ends the ability of Whovians to categorise by by sexuality? As if it could do anything but?

                              On a purely technical level we could have an LGBT individuals category as long as we put in people who self-identified as LGBT. Which unless I'm mistaken is Ianto Jones and that's it, no? The uselessness of this category is mainly defined by the fact that we really don't have anyone to put in it. In the Doctor Who universe LGBT is only a definition for a small portion of time and given that the Whoniverse encompasses all of time and space it's a bit silly. The category people with unusual taste in hats would be more useful than this would. And this is coming from someone who tends to be more in favour of small cats that don't really add anything than anyone else but even I can't see the purpose of this one, especially as it lends itself to so much confusion and abuse.

                              Not trying to restart a discussion that's already taken place but felt I should probably clarify my views on this.

                              00:39, 27 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Did Ianto so identify? I thought he said somewhere in Children of Earth (Day 2 or 3) that he didn't know what his sexuality was and that he wasn't strictly attracted to men but that it was "just Jack" or something like that.

                              And SOTO, I'm not gonna create lock every possible permutation of the name. I don't want the logs to make it look like we're on some sort of "LGBT witch hunt". The discussion was about a couple of specific categories, so that's what's create locked. If someone really did create "LGB individuals", they almost certainly saw the message at "LGBT individuals" and knew they were creating contrary to the earlier discussion.

                              01:09, 27 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              Hmm...I don't remember. Not sure if he ever did. I think it was only in the show in terms of his family taking the mickey out of him. I don't think that he's the driving force behind the people who want to see this category anyway. I think it's primarily the good Captain Jack which is just silly. The man would do a bush if it winked at him. I'm pretty sure that was even explicitly said somewhere, if not by a character then by the actors and writers.
                              01:35, 27 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128760


                            Shortcut:
                            Anoted
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/pages for conflicting dates" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Category:LGBT characters?".

                            We have multiple dates for the Battle of Bellatrix. This dating conflict isn't on the Battle of Bellatrix page, but before I went ahead and put it there, I wanted to come here and ask if there was any precedent for creating a page about the dating conflict. This dating conflict is on the pages for Bellatrix, 2548, 2547, and 2543. It's done the best on 2548 for anyone who's interested. It seems it would be much simpler to either create a page Battle of Bellatrix dating conflict or to create a section on the Battle of Bellatrix title Dating conflict and simply link there instead of repeating this detailed information all over the place. I haven't really seen this done but it seems sort of obvious. Is there any reason this can't be done? Or is there a particular way of handling this situation that is considered most appropriate?

                            14:33, 26 April 2013
                            Edited by Amorkuz 20:14, 31 May 2017
                            • Shambala108
                              Usually in date conflicts we make a page (or add to an already existing one) with statements like this: "According to one source, the battle of bellatrix took place in ..." You can do this for all three dates if they all have valid sources.
                              14:58, 26 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              Cool. Is there one you know of that you can link me to as a handy sample?
                              15:07, 26 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Shambala is completely right, save for the words make a page. Please do not create Battle of Bellatrix dating conflict.

                              The only dating conflict that gets a page is UNIT dating controversy, because that is a fan debate that can be referenced with multiple valid out-of-universe sources. Importantly, the name itself can be found in valid sources. If there are examples of other such pages, they almost certainly should be deleted, as they're fanwank.

                              It's extremely unlikely that there are any valid sources that give a damn about the date of the Battle of Bellatrix. So you do as Shambala suggested and add a few lines suggesting doubt as to the dates. "According to once source", "Another source had it that", "Some sources felt X, while others felt Y". That sort of thing.

                              But you definitely keep it on Battle of Bellatrix.

                              (Example: Susan Foreman#Early life on Gallifrey)

                              18:54, 26 April 2013
                            Shambala108
                            Sorry I wasn't clear. I was not suggesting Anoted make a page for Battle of Bellatrix dating conflict. I was suggesting putting the information on the different year pages, creating them if they didn't already exist.

                            An example of conflicting dates on years pages would be: 1519 and 1520.

                            20:02, 26 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128834


                            Shortcut:
                            Anoted
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Sentient animal categories?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/pages for conflicting dates".

                            What on earth is going on? Unless I somehow completely have the wrong definition for sentient, all animals are sentient! It appears as though sentient v. non-sentient is attempting to separate speaking v. not, but sentient is so the wrong word! What is actually going on here?

                            Humans are in the category primates which is in the category Earth animals, which makes complete and total sense until you read that Earth mammals is for non-sentient mammals (wtf?) and therefore should not include humans. WTF? I can't even figure out the intent behind this sentient v. non-sentient mess! What is supposed to be happening here?

                            06:19, 27 April 2013
                            Edited by Amorkuz 18:17, 29 May 2017
                            Edited by Amorkuz 21:36, 1 June 2017
                            • 78.9.5.157
                              Within DWU, regular animals are often described as non-sentient. E.g. Wolsey was described as becoming sentient when he started to talk in Oh No It Isn't! (audio story).
                              23:47, 30 April 2013
                            • RoseTenthFan
                              "Sentient" means having human-level or superior intelligence.
                              17:27, 5 May 2013
                            Amorkuz
                            The definition of "sentient" from OED, especially the examples of sentences there should clarify any confusion.
                            18:17, 29 May 2017

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128838


                            Shortcut:
                            Anoted
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Real world animals?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Sentient animal categories?".

                            Is it just me or do we not have any real world categories for animals? We have them organised in terms of earth, but earth doesn't equal from the real world. Human Badgers are Earth mammals but they are NOT mammals from the real world. It seems to me, looking through the categories that in some places we organise things by real world and everything else, but in other places we organise things by earth ans everyone else. Is there a reason behind this? Because I find it very confusing how Earth and Real world are sometimes but not always treated as interchangeable and sometimes but not always treated as the way to organize pages.

                            07:11, 27 April 2013
                            Edited by CzechOut 01:38, 29 April 2013
                            • SOTO
                              So create the category! It's only progress to create more subcategories, and I agree with you on this one.
                              00:05, 29 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Absolutely not. Do not mess with mammals please. That structure is in aid of the very successful Game of Rassilon track, which has done wonders in improving the actual quality of the articles. One day that track will be switched off and we can think about categorical restructuring. But for now, let's keep it simple there. I fully appreciate that this part of the tree isn't logical, but let's please keep it simple.

                              Can I urge you to please spend some time actually writing articles with us before attempting category restructuring?

                              01:00, 29 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              Do you think that there's a point where we shouldn't bother to create a real world or an earth category? Let's say that there are 20 articles in the category Earth mammals and 19 of them would fit in the category Mammals from the real world. That's a difference of one and an overlap of 19...do we bother? Or there are 20 articles in the category Earth mammals and only 1 would fit in the category Mammals from the real world. That's an overlap of only one, but also a category with one page.
                              01:10, 29 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              I think that Category:Earth mammals is currently engaged in the Game of Rassilon, and has worked to positively explode interest in those pages. That it's not quite the right category really doesn't matter to me at all. My overriding administrative need is to encourage the growth and scholarship of pages.

                              Do I wish that I, as the main keeper of the category tree, had organised things differently to start with? Yes. Can the anal retentive side of me let it go? Also yes. Earth mammals won't always be in the GOR. And at that point we can restructure things. Until then, it's doing a good job for the wiki.

                              01:14, 29 April 2013
                            • Anoted
                              It's not something I was planning to tackle now, I was just wondering if there was some sort of rule. There are large category trees that use real world as a subcat and large category trees that use earth as a subcat, but I'm hard pressed to think of one that does both. Certainly the majority use only one. I was wondering if that was intentional. If there had been some discussion leading to a decision to emphasise different aspects of things in different places.

                              It's not like any of these categories are incorrect in some manner, just that there are places where we could have two subcats and we only have one. I'm far more concerned with the sentient animal categories because I have no idea what's going on there.

                              01:28, 29 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            Closing thread as original question has been asked and answered. Please don't proceed with any changes to the category structure of animals. Thanks :)
                            01:37, 29 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128844


                            Shortcut:
                            92.232.180.244
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/The Killing Stone?" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Real world animals?".

                            I'm just curious why there isn't a page about the BBV release, The Killing Stone on this wiki? You've accepted other unlicensed Doctor Who related releases by BBV, but I thought it was odd that a story that actually featured established canonical characters wasn't available on this site.

                            09:51, 27 April 2013
                            Edited 21:43, 20 May 2013
                            Edited 01:56, 26 May 2017
                            • Shambala108
                              I don't know what The Killing Stone is, but you might find some answers at Tardis:Valid sources as to why it's not covered here.
                              14:23, 27 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              I vigorously dispute your assertion that we accept other unlicensed DW-related releases by the BBV. We accept only those that have permission by the relevant copyright holders. It's just that not all of the DWU is owned by the BBC.

                              The Killing Stone involves characters wholly owned by the BBC, like Mike Yates, the Master and the Doctor, for whose use the BBC did not give license. It's a very different situation from P.R.O.B.E., where we have a record that BBV asked for and received permission to use the character of Liz Shaw.

                              We know the legal situation of Stone is precarious, because its author, Richard Franklin, directly said so in Radio Free Skaro episode 297 at roughly the 55'00" mark. He notes that in his expanded sequel, called Operation: Hate (The Truth About The Killing Stone), which wholly includes the events of the original Killing Stone, he was forced by the BBC to change the names of all the characters. So the new version of the story — which Franklin is still trying to somehow sell as Doctor Who-related — doesn't even include the character of Mike Yates.

                              We also know that BBC Books officially rejected the manuscript on which the audio was based. So it's kinda "double-rejected" by the BBC.

                              In short, the legal situation of The Killing Stone is an absolute nightmare. It's fan fiction written by an ex-guest star that illegally snuck onto audio when the BBC had their backs turned. They aren't happy about what Franklin did before, so they're withholding permission for him to do anything with the story now.

                              We're not touching it with a ten-foot pole.

                              15:51, 28 April 2013
                              Edited 15:53, 28 April 2013
                            CzechOut
                            As that adequately answers the original question, this thread will now be closed.
                            16:07, 28 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:128906


                            Shortcut:
                            78.8.7.161
                            Warning: Display title "The Panopticon/Empathic psychic" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/The Killing Stone?".

                            I see that my edits to empathic psychic have been reverted, as well as my redirect from empath, to which I had linked most uses of empathy as a psychic power (as opposed to it being used to described just being sensitive to other people's emotions) in Whoniverse works. "Empathic psychic" is just a more descriptive term, to make it clear that it's about empathy as a psychic power. Just like I don't see how a "telepathic psychic" and a "telepath" could be seen as anything more than different terms for the same power.

                            00:24, 28 April 2013
                            Edited 09:09, 3 September 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Empathy, empath and empathic psychic all deserve their own articles. There's nothing in Hide which justifies the centralisation of those words. The only possible redirect Hide allows is for the noun empathic. But you clearly don't need to be an empath to have empathy, any more than you need to be a lawyer to be governed by laws. And an empath is not necessarily a psychic. An empath can simply be someone who reflects other people's emotions, without any sort of clairvoyance or other supernatural abilities. An empath could just be the equivalent of a living mood ring, and in such a case psychic wouldn't really apply.
                              15:38, 28 April 2013
                              Edited 15:39, 28 April 2013
                            • 62.87.248.234
                              In all the cases I linked, it did refer to a psychic ability. It's an ambiguous word, but it's pretty obvious in most cases which meaning is used.
                              17:19, 29 April 2013
                            • CzechOut
                              Okay, but still an empathic psychic is an individual. Psychic empathy is a skill. They're different things, in the same sense that a writer is not a book, nor a nurse medicine, nor a waiter food, nor a human humanity. I know that we've all gotten lazy, myself included, about pipe tricking base words into related words, but it is important to try to resist the urge. We should have an article about the demonym and the location (Scot and Scotland), the actor and the action and the acted upon (fisherman, fishing and fish), the doer and the ability (bricklayer and bricklaying).
                              18:30, 29 April 2013
                            • 78.9.5.157
                              There's no article for telepath yet, though, aside from a redirect to telepathy, and it's much more common.
                              23:41, 30 April 2013

                            Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY Warning: Display title "User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I" overrides earlier display title "The Panopticon/Empathic psychic".

                            Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/The_Panopticon_I&oldid=3539009"
                            Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
                            More information