Forum:Origins of the format for television story entries

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Origins of the format for television story entries

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Looking at the various styles that are being used for television story entries, including the original style (see "The Ark"), "The Tenth Planet," and my own entry for "The Invasion," I see good and bad points on each. I've tried to blend the best of all three styles into a new tentative format which is in the sandbox. Suggestions are welcome. Here are a few of my own:

"The Ark"

• Pro:I like the inclusion of the production crew, location filming, possible and known influences/inspirations for the story, and continuity notes.

• Con: I still do not understand why we need a separate entry for story synopses or uncredited casts. Wikipedia's entries have synopses, some quite detailed, on the same page. Uncredited cast members could simply be included with the credited cast, with "uncredited" placed in parentheses next to whatever they played. The argument, "it makes the page too long" doesn't fit, as whenever more than two sections are created within a page, the wiki engine automatically creates a page map near the top, with links to each section. If folks don't want to scroll all the way through the synopsis to say, look at the cast or crew, they simply click on the links for "Cast" or "Production crew" in the little gray box at the top of the page. And each section has its own edit link.

There also seems to be no need to have sections for broadcast dates or duration, as these are already covered in the infobox. "Discontinuity" is a better term, I think, than "Errors and Plot Holes," as this is the term usually used by fans. "Bad Guys" sounds too American and is not even necessary, as the newer Infobox template contains an entry for "The Enemy."

Finally, the navigation footer should only contain links for the television stories. As I believe Mantrid pointed out, the stories in other media are being produced at such a constant rate, and there are so many theoretical orders in which these stories could be placed, all of which have to be constantly revised everytime a new novel, short story, comic strip, or audio drama comes out, that keeping an "All Media" navigation footer updated would be a never ending task. Ideally, the footers for television story pages should only link to the next television story, the footers for Virgin novels should only link to the next Virgin novel, and so on.

"The Tenth Planet"

• Pro:The infobox looks much better. Good opening description. The plot is nicely outlined on the same page. Readers are not constantly being redirected to other pages for story info that can be included on the same page. Nicely illustrated with stills from the story. Like the way the "References" section has been divided into categories.

• Con:Some info is not included which I think should be, such as the production crew, more behind the scenes story notes, and location filming (okay, it was probably all done on set, but where?). I also think folks would be interested in knowing where Gerry Davis and Kit Pedlar may have gotten the ideas for the Cybermen and Mondas, hence a section for "Influences" or "Possible inspirations" might be a good idea.

"The Invasion"

• Pro:Good expansion on Mantrid's original format. Lots of info.
• Con:Description is really just a mini-synopsis. What season was this? What is siginificant, if anything, about this story? Synopsis is too general and would look better with ilustrative stills from the story. "References" section could be divided into categories for easier reading and site navigation.

There is a link to another page (unwritten) for statistics and ratings on repeats and non-UK broadcasts. Do we really want/need this? As "The Invasion" is incomplete and unlikely to see broadcast anytime soon, it may be no problem, but what about stories from post-1970, that are syndicated all over the world? - a nightmare to research, write, and keep updated!

I'm also rethinking the idea of having a section for "Story Arcs," as many stories don't fit into one, and those that do could simply have this noted in the description at the beginning of the page, i.e. "The Stones of Blood was the third story of Season 15. It forms part of the story arc in which the Fourth Doctor and Romana search for the six segments of the Key to Time."

Well, my thoughts on the matter so far. Please look over my rough template at the sandbox and my thoughts here and tell me what you think. --Freethinker1of1 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's my view of your new setup. I have no problem with Synopsis, Plot, Cast or Production Crew. The References seems like a good idea. I don't really like the Ratings in story notes, since I judge stories on my own terms. I think the Continuities and Discontinuities should be subcategories, but I'm not sure what the large category would be. The Quotes category is fine with me. As you mentioned above, the Story Arc should just be mentioned at the top. The Similar Stories should just be added under See Also. I'm not sure what you mean with Public Releases, so I can't really judge it. External Links is fine, but I think there's a spiffier template that can be used. Azes13 17:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am completely in support of Freethinker1of1's proposed format. The only thing I would add is that I don't feel there should be an obligation for one person to complete every single section of each story page they work on. For example, the reasons that my The Tenth Planet page was lacking behind-the-scenes information was a) I just wanted to get at least a basic page there and b) I'm personally more interested in focussing on the fictional elements of Doctor Who rather than the production side. By the very nature of a wiki, someone else can fill in the gaps left by others. However, I really hate seeing empty headings hanging around on a page with 'to be completed' or whatever written under them. If there's no information at present for a heading then the heading should be left out. Notes could be added to an article's discussion page stating what work still needs to be done on the article for later reference.

I particularly agree with the suggestion that pages shouldn't have links to sub-pages for extra information (eg statistics and ratings). The index box at the top of the page does indeed make the navigation of long pages perfectly possible. Unfortunately I myself introduced the separate 'Full list of appearances' pages for Individuals (particularly companions). I think this was a mistake and feel these lists (however long) should be included on the main page for each individual.

I completely agree about the removal of the story arc header. It seems to me that arcs have just been made up in some instances. The Key to Time is an arc but 'Historicals Arc' and 'Time Travel Arc' (eg The Romans) are meaningless (in my opinion).

I'd personally like to see more images on the wiki. So, perhaps we could have examples of book and video covers etc under the 'Public Releases' heading?

I think it would be a good idea to add at least a basic page for every TV story. Even if it was just a short outline, the correct templates, an image from the story and a cast list (eg as The Power of the Daleks is now). This would be better than nothing - and a lot of the story pages are just empty, old-version templates. If we try to complete every heading for each story one at a time, it will take forever. We can expand with more headings and added detail later.

Just one other thing (sorry!). There is a template for the Previous and Next Story box. Sometimes this has been forgotten even when the new info box template has been added to a story page.

And finally... I am intending to do some work myself (honest), but this week is a reall busy one on the work front. I should have more time soon.

--Mantrid 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of re-revamping the format outline into one for a tutorial on doing television story articles, which when finished will be linked to the Manual of Style. As Mantrid concurs with me on the matter, I've removed "Story Arcs" altogether, and in deference to Azes have made "Continuity" and "Disconinuity" into sub-headigs under "Story Notes."

I will also, as time allows, review the Manuals of Style for Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, as well as the discussion page for our own, and try to work together something for us all to tweak with.

--Freethinker1of1 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at some of the story articles, it seems like some are getting really weighted down where quotes are concerned (see "The End of the World" for a prime example). Someone early on had questioned whether including a quotes section contradicted the policy of articles having neutral points of view, since each person has her/his own opinion of what lines are and are not noteworthy in each story. Also, the [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#General Doctor Who WikiProject] at Wikipedia has decided that quotes "are generally not encyclopedic" and so does not include a section for them in their story articles. With those points in mind, plus the difficulty in ascertaining the significance of lines from some of the lost Hartnell and Troughton stories, I'm wondering now if we should include a quotes section at all.

--Freethinker1of1 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue has come up. I completely agree that quotes do not have a place on this wiki (unless they are being quoted to support or clarfiy a specific factual reference). I think the suggestion that quotes are 'not encylopedic' is a point well made. In fairness though, both Memory Alpha and Wookipedia do include quotes sections in their articles, though I am unsure of what their justification for this is. So, yes, I vote for removing the quotes section.

--Mantrid 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Archivist's notes

This thread was foundational to the development of our house style of writing story pages. However, this discussion ended five years ago. Some of the things it's talking about no longer apply. This is considered a "policy changer" because it did significantly re-orient work on story pages at the time. And it's not totally out of date, because it is possible to see some things in this thread which persist to this day. Still, this is preserved as a "policy changer" rather than an "out of date" thread so that people can easily trace the development of the wiki. It would, in most cases, be a mistake to complain that the wiki isn't currently in compliance with this thread.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 14:12:01 Mon 30 May 2011