Talk:List of individual Time Lords and Gallifreyans

Where we goin' with this article?

If this is a list, it needs to be comprehensive in itself. We can't "cheat" by saying "see main article". If it's not meant to be a comprehensive list, there's not much point to the article, and it should be deleted.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 02:50:09 Mon 28 Mar 2011 

I'd go with delete, any of the useful information can go on more specific pages. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:15, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

Mini-mitch reverted my edit to this page (which took me some time to do) that otherwise seemed accepted without discussion. I reverted that edit for that reason (no discussion), but will open up the discussion here.

Points in favor:

• More complete and comprehensive than the old list - See above, as this page has been called out as uncomprehensive in the old version. I've gone through all the lists I could find and added every Time Lord I could find, almost doubling the total list.
• Better sourced - With the exception of a few small lists outside of the charts (to be added soon), every name has an official source (appearances or mention) noted. This is specially needed on pages that are currently redlinked.

Points in opposition:

• On my browser, the first chart is cut off due to Wikia's system. That is easily avoided by clicking the icon to view the entire thing.
• Size issue, maybe? No real way to avoid that and remain a comprehensive and well-sourced list.

Please discuss before reverting.--Tim Thomason 11:37, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

It looks completely and utterly stupid. A table, with some picture, and some without. All this page needs to be is a list, which is was. A we're all of a sudden to change all the list on this wiki to table and put a small picture in? No. This list should be no different to any other list on this wiki. The formatting is terrible as well, some bullet-point some not, half in bold. All it should be is a list, which we can add to, not have to find a picture, a source etc. I'm reverting to the list till a decision has been reached. Mini-mitch\talk 11:52, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to table version. People need to see the changes in order to decide.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:13, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

We do need to work within Wikia's formatting, the button to make the table larger gets lost within the Contents box.

The table goes beyond what the article is, which is a list, an un-needed list at that.

I'm not sure what the table is for, though I have seen things like it on other wikis.

But the notes kind of ignore the subject matter, which is complicated at best, (plus also remember our wiki's POV). Providing those notes totally ignores the complexities of the characters and the context of the information.

The information is interesting in parts, but I'm not convinced of its purpose. A list is just that, the articles it links to should be well sourced with detailed information. The table just seems to be doing too much. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:37, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this works better as a list. The table obviously took a while so its sad that it has been cast down.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:47, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

It looks completely and utterly stupid.

Okay. I disagree, but then the Wiki-formatting apparently ruins it on some browsers, so that is an issue.

A table, with some pictures, and some without.'

There aren't pictures of every Time Lord. Most are only mentioned or appeared in book or audio releases. The idea is that the pictured ones would naturally indicate the more developed characters without having to yell out "major character" (against POV). And it looks stylish, IMO.

All this page needs to be is a list, which it was.

Kind of. It was an incomplete list linking to other lists that mostly overlapped, leaving this site without a complete list of Time Lords. A table is just another way of representing a list, and it was made in simple alphabetical order.

And we're all of a sudden to change all the lists on this wiki to table and put a small picture in?

No.

This list should be no different to any other list on this wiki.

Well, maybe. Consistency is good, but unlike other smaller lists, this is a major one, with tons of incomplete and "over-complete" information that I felt could use a different approach to work around the issues that came up before (see above). The idea would've been to make this a feature-able list. A list that explains itself and serves a purpose seperate than a category or template.

The formatting is terrible as well, some bullet-point some not, half in bold.

Rough draft. The bullet points were for multiple "notes," although in hindsight I should've bulletted the singular notes as well.

All it should be is a list, which we can add to, not have to find a picture, a source etc.

Exactly! That is a revertable reason (you should've said that before!). I guess I got carried away with overly complex table-coding to realize that Mr. Joe Schmoe IP can't rich-text edit such a list and we would potentially lose editors to such complexity. Thus, I think the table should be avoided.

We do need to work within Wikia's formatting, the button to make the table larger gets lost within the Contents box.

Hmm, not for me. I tried moving the Contents box, but that was reverted.

I'm not sure what the table is for, though I have seen things like it on other wikis. But the notes kind of ignore the subject matter, which is complicated at best, (plus also remember our wiki's POV). Providing those notes totally ignores the complexities of the characters and the context of the information.

The notes were attempts at replacing the previous links to a list of Presidents and list of Castellans and the subheadings from before. I lost some of the complexities from alphabetizing that I attempted to make up with the notes heading. I apparently failed. As for the POV, other than an inordinate amount of references to the Doctor (Companions, relatives), I didn't see anything that breaks it.

The table obviously took a while so its sad that it has been cast down.

Not sad. Understandable, and part of the agreement with this site that any work will be "edited mercilessly." Thanks for upholding my wish not to get into a re-re-reverting cycle.--Tim Thomason 21:37, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

i believe that you should keep the individual timelord pg as itis very helpful for people like me who do our further research as i am a meg fan of doctor who .

casey lydiate please keep this page

Bump on deletion

I'm definitely for deletion of this redundant, redundant list page. As has been said, categories cover this just fine, without the need for constant manual updating. There's even a {{Time Lords}}. Any objections to finally deleting this thing?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:32, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

None, we should delete it. --HarveyWallbanger ☎ 08:27, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

Yep, seconded. Lists of appearances also cover this too. --Revan\Talk 17:38, September 5, 2016 (UTC)