Forum:A few changes?
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → A few changes?
Looking through some pages on this wiki, I think there should be a couple of things we could add, change or remove. Some may seem silly, but I think these are thinks we need to think about. I think it's better to keep all my ideas in one forums, rather than create several different forums.
Rumours
Rumours, when you think about them can be completely fan speculation. This gets onto a website, such as DoctorWhoTV and we then add it to pages, such as Series pages and television pages. So, since rumours can basically be seen as "fan speculation" in some cases, should we not removed the rumours/myths section entirely from pages? And if we do keep rumours, are they not best coming from the BBC or Steven Moffat's Twitter, which are the small handful of places where rumours are not started by fan speculation.
Rumours could still be talked about in the Howling. They can still have website X said this, whereas website Y has leaked this. Or do people still want rumours to be added to TV story pages and series pages that come from any website or source? Mini-mitch\talk 13:32, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Rumours really serve no purpose at all. People post ones that websites believe... then we either say whether it was true or false. I don't really see a need for it. --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:46, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Normally I'd agree that there's no real place for rumours on a wiki such as this, but there have been the rare notable cases of rumours being deliberately instigated and/or addressed by the production team (the fake dying-Rose ending of The Parting of the Ways, Tom Baker's infamous implication that his successor might be a woman when he left the role of the Doctor, etc.) Such cases would seem to constitute valid behind-the-scenes info worth keeping versus untrustworthy fan/media speculation, and perhaps be kept to other behind-the-scenes sections without opening up the floodgates for junk. Rob T Firefly 22:45, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Tricky. Spoiler policy does specifically allow for rumours, so long as they're sourced. I think it's better to have a mechanism in place which describes how rumours should be handled than to attempt to ban rumours. Since story pages aren't opened until the story has broadcast, there should not be rumour sections on story pages — only series pages. This gives a useful collection of sourced statements from which to draw when we're assembling the story pages after broadcast. For instance, it's fan legend that Baker suggested his successor be a female. But do we have an actual source for that? I don't know that we do. By having rumours on the series page, and forcing those rumours to be sourced, we can weed out the wild speculation from that which a principal actually said. So, I say yes to rumour sections on series pages and no to them on story pages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:43:17 Fri 10 Jun 2011
- Hmmm. Tricky. Spoiler policy does specifically allow for rumours, so long as they're sourced. I think it's better to have a mechanism in place which describes how rumours should be handled than to attempt to ban rumours. Since story pages aren't opened until the story has broadcast, there should not be rumour sections on story pages — only series pages. This gives a useful collection of sourced statements from which to draw when we're assembling the story pages after broadcast. For instance, it's fan legend that Baker suggested his successor be a female. But do we have an actual source for that? I don't know that we do. By having rumours on the series page, and forcing those rumours to be sourced, we can weed out the wild speculation from that which a principal actually said. So, I say yes to rumour sections on series pages and no to them on story pages.
The synopsis
Just a small thing I am wondering. Where do we get our synopsis for our television articles? The BBC, other websites or do Users make them up? I have seen all three at work here and I think we need to track down, find and add all the official BBC synopsis for television episodes, then we add a source. For novels and audio, we can uses the blurb on the back of the book/case. I'm unsure what we can do for comics. Mini-mitch\talk 13:32, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I was aware, synopsis' were taken from the BBC... generally, BBC iplayer gives a good synopsis for each episode, however, I wouldn't mind if it was an editor's synopsis as long as it just states the main set up of the episode... like for AGMGtW... "Amy Pond and her baby have been kidnapped, and the Doctor, along with Rory, start to raise an army to help save her."... I'd say that kind of thing would be an acceptable synopsis, the way the BBC would write it, if none is available. --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:46, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should be moving away from BBC generated/sourced synopsis and be writing our own.
- The wording from the Tardis:Format for television stories is 'The synopsis should be a one or two paragraph summation of the story, the sort one might find in a television guide or catalogue listing.'. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:02, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't care. However, I'd point out that Mini-Mitch is using a false comparison here. The book and audio pages don't have a "synopsis" section at all. They have a "publisher's summary" section. The format itself asks for the publisher's summary. The TV format has always been more open-ended. I'd also point out that there is no such thing as "the BBC synopsis". Synopses are different depending on source. The TV Guide paper listing is always different from the one provided by the digital cable box, from the one provided on the BBCA website, from the one provided by the BBC summary, from . . . . you get the point. There's no such thing as a single, official "blurb", like there is with things that have formal covers. So unless we're willing to designate a single source as definitive, I think that the synopses sections are, in practice, going to be user-written summaries.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:52:00 Fri 10 Jun 2011
- Honestly, I don't care. However, I'd point out that Mini-Mitch is using a false comparison here. The book and audio pages don't have a "synopsis" section at all. They have a "publisher's summary" section. The format itself asks for the publisher's summary. The TV format has always been more open-ended. I'd also point out that there is no such thing as "the BBC synopsis". Synopses are different depending on source. The TV Guide paper listing is always different from the one provided by the digital cable box, from the one provided on the BBCA website, from the one provided by the BBC summary, from . . . . you get the point. There's no such thing as a single, official "blurb", like there is with things that have formal covers. So unless we're willing to designate a single source as definitive, I think that the synopses sections are, in practice, going to be user-written summaries.
A new Users talk page template
Could we make a new template that we can post on a User's talk page? We currently have the vandalism one, which works fine, but we should have one which tells a Users they need to read part of our polciy, or something along these line. For example, if a Users was to add a spoiler to an in universe article, when can post the template on their page and point them to out spoiler policy, i.e. {{Notice|spoiler policy}} Mini-mitch\talk 13:32, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Did we not used to have a welcome template that did this? If the welcome template has been deleted, I'd reinstate it. If it still exists, but doesn't tell them to read the policies then it should be added. --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:46, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- When a new user edits either of these get added automatically by a wikia-bot. MediaWiki:Welcome-message-anon or MediaWiki:Welcome-message-user. These two pages could be edited to include anything more specific.
- But I think what Mini-mitch is asking for is a specific tag that we can add to a user's talk page if they've done something specific, like the vandalism template. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:55, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- We've talked about this before because it's on my to-do list. sulfur offered up the nifty idea of a template system which called up a particular message that referred the user to a particular policy in the event of infraction. So, at least as I recall the suggestion, you'd type something like {{see|spoiler|Frances Barber}} and {{see}} would do a switch on the word "spoiler" and print a message like:
- You have either tried to start a page about Frances Barber or you've added info about Frances Barber to another page shich can be construed as a spoiler under our spoiler policy. It has now been removed. Please consult our spoiler policy for more details, or feel free to ask me a question about it on my talk page. Thank you for your continued edits here.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:12:53 Fri 10 Jun 2011
- You have either tried to start a page about Frances Barber or you've added info about Frances Barber to another page shich can be construed as a spoiler under our spoiler policy. It has now been removed. Please consult our spoiler policy for more details, or feel free to ask me a question about it on my talk page. Thank you for your continued edits here.
- When I initially looked at sulfur's idea, the thing that occurred to me was that we needed to make some changes to the structure of our policy "system" so that we could implement it. The Manual of Style is getting long. Okay, that's mostly due to me actually referencing forum decisions and trying to make sure that everything we've agreed to is actually in the manual. But still, it would be helpful to this proposed messaging system if the manual of style weren't just one page, but a series of pages linked by a prominent navigation template in the upper right-hand-corner. That way, if the specific offence is, I dunno, the way they've linked to the name of the Doctor and K9 on a page, we could link to Tardis:Character naming, rather than Tardis:Manual of Style#Referring to certain characters. Breaking up the MOS into discrete articles means people don't get overwhelmed with a big, long article, and it means that links will always work. If someone changes the name of the section, "Referring to certain characters", that link won't work anymore. But Tardis:Character naming will work so long as the article is at least a redirect.
- We've talked about this before because it's on my to-do list. sulfur offered up the nifty idea of a template system which called up a particular message that referred the user to a particular policy in the event of infraction. So, at least as I recall the suggestion, you'd type something like {{see|spoiler|Frances Barber}} and {{see}} would do a switch on the word "spoiler" and print a message like:
- Anyway, I do agree with the need to have more specific message templates we can leave on user's pages. It would cut down typing time tremendously, and allow us to have nice, neutral wording. But I think it does go hand in hand with a larger project to bring more organisation to our policies.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:12:53 Fri 10 Jun 2011
- Anyway, I do agree with the need to have more specific message templates we can leave on user's pages. It would cut down typing time tremendously, and allow us to have nice, neutral wording. But I think it does go hand in hand with a larger project to bring more organisation to our policies.
Summary
If a Users reverts another Users edits, should they not give a reason in the summary? This should be a policy, as it may stop edits wars, and will give Users a reason why there edits are reverted, instead of having them shouting and seeming really angry at other Users. Mini-mitch\talk 13:32, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- And yes. I'd make it a policy to use the summary... I wouldn't make it a blockable offence though, unless the user really starts to take the .... But I'd only make it a policy for when reverting less obvious things, so not for vandalism and such. --The Thirteenth Doctor 13:46, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this can easily be added to the Tardis:Editing policy. I agree it shouldn't be a blockable offence. But it is helpful, not just for reverts, but for all edits it's good to be able to look at the edit history to be able to see what's been done without comparing two edits etc. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:53, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Yah, dunno how you'd word this one. Gotta be careful, cause it needs to be firm, without being so firm that people will think of it as an absolute rule. Cause if you come away from reading the policy thinking of it as a rule, and then you note the thousands of times that all admins haven't left behind an edit summary, you're gonna think it's a joke. So maybe it should be phrased as a recommendation, with an explanation of the benefits of leaving behind a note. Perhaps it would be wise to give a variety of different examples of how these things can diffuse tension, how they can inform an examination of a page history, and how they can mark a "last known good point" when you're experimenting.
- I think in general I agree it shouldn't be a blockable offence. But I think the language could include something like the following:
- Obviously, no one can make you leave an edit summary. When you're copyediting, for instance, leaving an edit summary might be a bit of a burden — the summary could take more keystrokes than the edit itself! But we can't overemphasise the importance of leaving an edit summary for substantive edits.
- When you're editing a template, for instance, edit summaries let other users know what precisely you're changing on the template. They can be used to establish a "last known good point", so that you know where the template last worked properly. If your'e changing a lot of little things about a template, edit summaries can make sure you don't lose your own way — forgetting entirely about how they might be helpful to others.
- When editing an article, the lack of an edit summary can construed as a deliberately aggressive move, and may well be taken into consideration by an admin when deciding whether blocking of any parties is warranted during an edit war. Often, the person who edits without providing rationale is deemed to be 'the one who started it", and may receive a harsher punishment. Effectively, the message you're sending when you wordlessly revert someone's work is, "Your contribution was so awful that it doesn't even deserve comment." It's a big slap in the face, especially if the editor you're reverting spent a lot of time on what you just trashed. Please take the time to explain what you're doing — especially when your actions involve removing or substantively changing the most recent edits to an article. If you feel that you may not remember to add an edit summary — and, hey, all of us sometimes forget to! — you might consider changing your account preferences to force a warning when you attempt to publish a page without an edit summary.
- On the flip side, if your work gets reverted, but the editor has left behind a message that says "see talk page" or "see forum:forum page on this topic",, give them some time to actually post to those pages. Yes, an instruction to see a talk page that doesn't yet exist is frustrating when you're looking for answers now about why your stuff was reverted. On the other hand, it means that the reverting editor took your work seriously enough that his or her response to it won't fit onto an edit summary line.
- Obviously, no one can make you leave an edit summary. When you're copyediting, for instance, leaving an edit summary might be a bit of a burden — the summary could take more keystrokes than the edit itself! But we can't overemphasise the importance of leaving an edit summary for substantive edits.
- I think in general I agree it shouldn't be a blockable offence. But I think the language could include something like the following:
