765,429
edits
Forum:Discontinuity revisited: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum\:Doc +Theory:Doc)
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum\:Doc +Theory:Doc)) |
||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
:::::Alrighty, taking CzechOut's idea I'd created a proof of concept/beginning of the pages. | :::::Alrighty, taking CzechOut's idea I'd created a proof of concept/beginning of the pages. | ||
:::::[[ | :::::[[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes]] I've just created links for the first two seasons and created [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/An Unearthly Child]] with all its discontinuity intact from the original page. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 04:23, March 27, 2010 (UTC) | ||
==Putting the decision to work== | ==Putting the decision to work== | ||
One thing I've noted in the process of changing over these pages is that there's no obvious sign of where to have discon discussions on the story page. Accordingly, I've changed [[:Template:discontinuity]] to work in both directions. It points to the relevant discon discussion if you put it on a story page, and it points to the relevant story page if you're on a discon page. This might cut down on new discon notes creeping back into production error sections. See [[:Template:Discontinuity/doc]] for more info. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 21:12, April 25, 2010 (UTC) | One thing I've noted in the process of changing over these pages is that there's no obvious sign of where to have discon discussions on the story page. Accordingly, I've changed [[:Template:discontinuity]] to work in both directions. It points to the relevant discon discussion if you put it on a story page, and it points to the relevant story page if you're on a discon page. This might cut down on new discon notes creeping back into production error sections. See [[:Template:Discontinuity/doc]] for more info. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 21:12, April 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
:As for the formatting, personally, I find the indentation easier. But maybe that's because now it looks like what I expect a discussion on a wiki (e.g., on a talk page or a forum thread) to look like.... | :As for the formatting, personally, I find the indentation easier. But maybe that's because now it looks like what I expect a discussion on a wiki (e.g., on a talk page or a forum thread) to look like.... | ||
::This last paragraph above is bang-on. That was entirely the intent. To make it very like a standard wiki discussion page cause . . . that's what it is. I've got to strongly disagree with [[User:Monkey with a Gun|Monkey with a Gun]]'s second point. It was ''not'' easily readable when you got to heavily contended points. Take for example the "Half-human argument" at [[ | ::This last paragraph above is bang-on. That was entirely the intent. To make it very like a standard wiki discussion page cause . . . that's what it is. I've got to strongly disagree with [[User:Monkey with a Gun|Monkey with a Gun]]'s second point. It was ''not'' easily readable when you got to heavily contended points. Take for example the "Half-human argument" at [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Doctor Who (1996)|Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Doctor Who]]. That was originally one ''very'' long paragraph with italics followed by (parentheticals} followed by non-italics in a six-times-over loop. It was extremely difficult to follow. Now it's one neatly descended set of indentations, making it very obvious where each point ends and the next begins. It's fine, I suppose, if there's one point and one counter point to use italics, but when you get to three arguments about the same point, you really ''have'' to go to either indentation or a table to make it parse correctly. | ||
::As for Monkey's other point, individual episode pages spinning out from serial pages are certainly possible, and perhaps even necessary, for some of the longer serials. It'd of course be quite easy to do something like [[ | ::As for Monkey's other point, individual episode pages spinning out from serial pages are certainly possible, and perhaps even necessary, for some of the longer serials. It'd of course be quite easy to do something like [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/An Unearthly Child/An Unearthly Child]] if you wanted to have a separate page for just episode 1. Thing is, though, having done all of the 1980s serials, I didn't find a single one that had enough notes to justify separate pages. So I wouldn't support a ''universal'' switch-over to episodic subpages, but might be persuaded that ''[[The War Games]]'', ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]'', and maybe a few select others might be able to carry separated episode discussions. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 08:45, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I was thinking, rather than subbing the subpage, we could just include some sub-headings on the page like; 'Over all story discontinuity' and then 'Individuals Part/Episode continuity'. That way all the story continuity is contained on one page. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | :::I was thinking, rather than subbing the subpage, we could just include some sub-headings on the page like; 'Over all story discontinuity' and then 'Individuals Part/Episode continuity'. That way all the story continuity is contained on one page. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
... and so on. | ... and so on. | ||
However, on some pages such as the [[ | However, on some pages such as the [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Cold Blood|Cold Blood page]], it can get really confusing as to where one point ends and another begins. I'd like to suggest that we also add in bullet points for the counter arguments as well, as they let you see exactly where each counter argument begins. Just as such: | ||
*This is point one. | *This is point one. | ||
**This is a counter-argument to point one. | **This is a counter-argument to point one. | ||
| Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
:::The only issue I have is rolling it out to the 500+ articles some of which have variable formatting which may hamper any automatic change over to this format. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:59, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | :::The only issue I have is rolling it out to the 500+ articles some of which have variable formatting which may hamper any automatic change over to this format. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:59, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor/proposed Discontinuity formatting|Here]] is the altered page, and you can compare it with the [[[[ | ::::[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor/proposed Discontinuity formatting|Here]] is the altered page, and you can compare it with the [[[[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Cold Blood|present page.]] What do you think?--[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 20:25, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::I agree 100% that it should be "2.1" or "2A" or something similar (as I said, "outline format"). The problem is this wiki doesn't seem to have any way of doing that automatically. And I'm not sure we can expect people to do the numbering manually. It's pretty obvious to me that if I'm writing the first reply to 2.3, it should be 2.3.1--but is it going to be obvious to everyone else? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 12:16, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | :::::I agree 100% that it should be "2.1" or "2A" or something similar (as I said, "outline format"). The problem is this wiki doesn't seem to have any way of doing that automatically. And I'm not sure we can expect people to do the numbering manually. It's pretty obvious to me that if I'm writing the first reply to 2.3, it should be 2.3.1--but is it going to be obvious to everyone else? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 12:16, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | ||
