Talk:Doctor Who? running joke: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 127: Line 127:


Well that's not a very good excuse to delete the page, two senior admin argue for deletion, it just makes the admins sound like "No! No editing! My wiki! Not your wiki!" (a problem with the prowrestlingwiki), and it makes you look like a suck-up--[[User:AKR619|AKR619]] [[User talk:AKR619|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:40, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
Well that's not a very good excuse to delete the page, two senior admin argue for deletion, it just makes the admins sound like "No! No editing! My wiki! Not your wiki!" (a problem with the prowrestlingwiki), and it makes you look like a suck-up--[[User:AKR619|AKR619]] [[User talk:AKR619|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:40, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
== Restoration and clean up ==
So now that the page has been restored via community discussion, it's obvious that the page has numerous issues which should be fixed but were not relevant to the discussion of restoration.
There's a few obvious issues to me. The first is that, for some reason, the page is written in the grammatically incorrect "past tense, out of universe." In other words, it discusses media which can still be experienced but in the past tense, like it's in-universe events in the past. So instead of "The Doctor smoked a pipe (TV: ''An Unearthly Child'')" or "In ''An Unearthly Child'', the Doctor smokes a pipe" it's "In ''An Unearthly Child'', the Doctor smoked a pipe."
So I figure the first thing is correcting this. Some might want in-universe past-tense prose, personally I think we have to go oou, current tense. This would not apply to stage plays, historical events, and lost media (''Worlds in Time'', etc).
Next comes the issue of content. The big issue with this page is that it's always covered two main topics:
# Every time someone asks "Doctor who?" in the franchise's history
# Every humorous reference to "Who" made in the franchise's history.
We now need to decide if we're A) going to keep everything as it is, B) going to split these into their own subsections on the page, or C) delete every example of #2 and only keep the #1 stuff.
I personally think covering both of these is fun, but obviously topic #2 is harder to "prove" to be purposeful, as much as Tom Baker's "Who nose" line reading is one of my favorite easter eggs in the series. So perhaps moving these references to an "ambiguous" section or even subpage would be a better idea.
I also think there are a few topics here which are so obviously not real that they could be removed. I'd also like a much more rigorously cited OOU section, and maybe even a Behind the scenes section. What does everyone thin?
Trusted
34,029

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.