Theory talk:Timey-wimey detector

It was agreed that there were three major points regarding the timelines that we wanted to discuss.

1. The default method of ordering stories with no other placement information. One suggestion is by release order, while another suggestion is a more random assortment of these stories.

2. The relationship between the main space pages for each of these characters and their respective timeline pages.

3. A complete overhaul of the Second Doctor's timeline.

The first two I have made headings for below, while the third will be on Theory talk:Timeline - Second Doctor. Danochy ☎ 00:45, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Method for sorting stories

An expected result of these timelines is that there are a large number of stories which have no placement information relative to each other. My proposition is that the default ordering of such stories should be release order. An argument against this is that it is highly unlikely that the release order is the proper order, but any chosen random order is just as unlikely. The point is to find a sensible way of ordering stories, which release order fulfills satisfactorily. Danochy ☎ 00:45, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

I’d agree that release order should be implemented as a general rule. This would mostly be for stories with no other in-narrative suggestion of placement.

This doesn’t work in every medium however. Comics for example are serialised, and trying to order them by release outside of their own series can get messy, especially in relation to other comics. A recent example of this is the Titan and DWM Thirteenth Doctor Comics.

I think the main thing is just using discretion and knowing case by case, which stories would fit appropriately in release order and which ones might need to be moved about.

Another thing I’m interested in, is making the timelines as easy to navigate by visitors as possible. Right now I feel they’re a tad over complicated and it’s not so easy to find the exact information you might be looking for. SarahJaneFan ☎ 12:34, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

A case-by-case basis makes sense, with the default being release order. I agree with that.

What are your specific thoughts in terms of making it easier to navigate? I agree, but I'm not really sure what we could do. It does bring up another point, that I'd always liked the idea of: a spoiler free version of the page for individuals devising the best method to watch/listen/read without finding out major plot points along the way. It seems like a huge task to undertake, though, and an even bigger one to maintain. Danochy ☎ 01:21, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

I don’t really have any specific strong ideas of how to make it easier to navigate but some small things like clearly titling certain eras so that if someone wants to find the Sixth Doctor’s post trial travels with Frobisher, it’s clear and easy to find from the index. Also again release order where possible tends to provide a bit more clarity and maybe trying to reduce or increase the amount of sections on a page because some seem to have way more than necessary and others need to be sorted into more digestible chunks in my opinion. Another thing is keeping the format of how stories are presented in the timelines consistent, particularly when it comes to flashbacks, references and smaller scenes separate from the main narrative as these tend to be presented inconsistently among users.

The spoiler free timeline is a good idea although I’m not precisely sure how it could be implemented beyond creating a second page for each timeline which almost seems to be more hassle than it’s worth. It might be an idea to go through and remove any spoilers and plot points that aren’t necessary for placement in the timelines though. Listening/reading/watching order is of course another idea for an alternate take on the timelines as often you wouldn’t listen to Companion Chronicles in the order that the main story chronologically takes place. SarahJaneFan ☎ 02:36, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it really wouldn't be viable would it, but it would be nice. Keeping this on topic, I've created a section below for making the pages more accessible, with a few of your ideas listed there. In terms of the case-by-case basis, that's certainly a good option, although I wonder if it'd be possible to set some ground-rules. Whatever the case, we can't really progress on this matter until BCM gives us his thoughts. Danochy ☎ 05:53, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Relationship between the main space and the Timey-wimey detector.

It was made pretty clear when this section of the forum was first created, that this was a place for theory and timeline talk doesn’t belong on the main page. This is of course because too much of it is speculation which is against the rules of the wiki mainspace and is only allowed to be implemented here in the theory section of the forum.

My main issue with, for example the Doctor timelines and the Doctor articles being edited to match up is due to how inflexible this makes editing the timelines themselves. Now the chronological order of stories in some cases has been limited by a placement based on where the particular story entries have been positioned on the main page. To me this is just wrong.

A biography doesnt have to be in chronological order, and timeline theory is expressly prohibited in the mainspace regardless. If people want to edit the order of the entries on the main page so that it matches the timeline page, then I’d say that that is their prerogative, but to limit the editing of a timeline page because it clashes with an entry on the mainspace is a step too far in my opinion.

The timelines change too often anyway to consistently keep track of it on the mainspace. People go to the main page to learn about the character, but they come here to discover the order of the stories. SarahJaneFan ☎ 12:45, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and if anything, the main space pages can be based on the timeline pages, at least in the cases where ordering doesn't matter. Danochy ☎ 01:17, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

My main concern as I’ve said is the restriction of editing to the timelines. I just think the emphasis on the relationship between the main page and the timelines should greatly reduced. Like there’s no rules saying they need to match, so if someone makes an edit, that shouldn’t be changed with reasoning that it causes issues with the layout of the main article. SarahJaneFan ☎ 02:18, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, to an extend. From experience on other wikis, and from reading biographies of real world people, biographies are indeed meant to be read chronologically to get a better understanding of how a person was changed by events and evolved as a person. Recently, an editor added the events of The Wolves of Winter to the bottom of the Twelfth Doctor's "Final adventures" subsection, even though research collected on the theory forums puts it before The Eaters of Light. Now yes, theorizing is strictly taboo on the main pages due to the diversity on what people can put forth, but entries on biographies are guess work at best without a source of information to look at, which the theory forums provide as an official leeway on the "No Theories Agreement", and it is best to have an entry placed based on a concepted timeline backed by facts, however small, than a random guess completely.BananaClownMan ☎ 22:44, April 5, 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on this matter, but as long as the timeline pages aren't restricted by the needs of the main space, I'm fine with it. Using information from the timeline to give placement to stories on the main articles seems like a good cause, but I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with that. SJF seems to just have a problem with how this affects the pages here, not on the main space. Danochy ☎ 05:53, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah for me the main issue is really prioritising the structure and flow of the main article to make it match the timelines over actually editing the timelines themselves. I don’t have an issue with the main articles being ordered the same as the timeline or trying make the articles and timelines consistent. My issue really stems from the timeline being limited by having to match the exact look and design of the articles down to thematically linked stories, using the same section titles and even placing a story at a particular point in a gap because it has its own title section in the article. I’d rather they be more separate because I honestly don’t care if the timelines match the articles and I don’t think many people will either. That’s not say they shouldn’t match, just that I think things should be more relaxed. SarahJaneFan ☎ 22:20, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Making the timelines more accessible

For discussion of ideas of how to make this place easier to read and use. Ideas are presented below. (curtesy of SJF)

• Clearer titling/indexing of sections
• Fewer/more sections (case-dependent)
• Improved consistency with regards to flashbacks, references, and narratively-separate scenes

My ideal sectioning would look something like this:

=== Jamie & Zoe ===

==== Arc/theme 1 (e.g. Zoe joins) ====

==== Arc/theme 2 (e.g. A busy few weeks) ====

==== Arc/theme 3 (e.g. further adventures) ====

etc. That way it would be easy to navigate to a particular TARDIS team, as well as the separate sub-eras within each era.

On the subject of flashbacks etc. I'm not a huge fan of how it looks like this, with the story name being the only thing not italicised.

This is what happened in the flashback (AUDIO: Black and White)

I think something like this would look better:

This is another thing which happened in a flashback, but after Nostradamus turned up (AUDIO: Black and White)

Also I feel like epilogues and prologues should be displayed like this, rather than like flashbacks:

• AUDIO: The Waters of Amsterdam: Epilogue

The Doctor returned to Amsterdam to resume travels with Tegan and Nyssa.

Eager to hear some thoughts, Danochy ☎ 05:53, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea in regards to the titling, it’d definitely make things clearer although I wouldn’t want to commit to saying that’s how it should be until I’ve seen the method utilised properly on a page and seen how well it works.

I can’t actually think of any examples of places where the italicisation is as you’ve put it in your first example. I thought it was always done as you’ve got in your second example anyway so I can easily agree with that. I know sometimes the italicisation can get a bit dodgy when you’re writing a bit with two separate sources in the paragraph. But yeah I agree with that.

I’m a bit wary about the prologue / epilogue thing to be honest. If it’s like an actual prologue / epilogue in a book then it’s fine or like the Interlude in At Childhood's End but I’m wary of doing that with the audios especially scenes that aren’t pre or post credits scene. Like to me they aren’t really prologues or epilogues so they get treated like flashbacks scenes because they’re a scene from the same audio but take place earlier or later and are a small part of the narrative.

Like the way I look at it is like this:

If a character has a cameo in a story but that story doesn’t appear anywhere else on their personal timeline, then it can be listed like a regular story on the timeline, For example The Wormery isn’t listed like a flashback for Seven because it’s only going to appear once on the timeline.

However short scenes disconnected from the main narrative that also need to be placed on the same timeline whether they take place before, during or after the main story would be presented in the flashback format.

Then if a character is mentioned to have done something but it’s not actually acted out (in terms of audios) or we’re just told something happens and it’s relevant to note on the timeline, I would present it in the same way as a flashback.

That’s just how I’ve gotten used to it I suppose. It’s entirely possible to discuss things further and come up with new ideas. SarahJaneFan ☎ 22:42, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

The italicisation is everywhere I look. Just take a look at Theory:Timeline - Seventh Doctor#Battling the Elder Gods and you'll see what I mean.

I noticed you tried out the titling thing on the Second Doctor timeline, and I think it looked good. Although I personally would have had separate titles for == Ben & Polly == and for == Ben, Polly, & Jamie ==. I also noticed BCM reverted them and still hasn't come here to discuss, which I hope he does soon.

I see your point with prologues/epilogues, and I'll concede that one. Your point on Flashbacks and relevant mentions - I definitely agree. One thing I didn't mention eariler: stories which are divided into parts should state as much and be presented in the otherwise normal format. E.g. Old Boys, which appears three times on the Sixth Doctor's timeline, all in "flashback" form. It seems to be split into three parts, each with a different TARDIS crew. Although I haven't read it yet. Danochy ☎ 03:09, May 20, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you on that last point although I’m not hugely concerned about it, but I see what you mean. I think that’s basically it then? Unless you’ve got anything else you want to add, I think we’re just waiting to see if BCM or anyone else wants to contribute further. SarahJaneFan ☎ 11:48, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Timeline proposal: the Master's incarnations

As you know, we already have a timeline that compiles the Doctor's incarnations. I think a similar page for the Master would also be useful. The Master's incarnations and how many of them have been recorded seems to be a point of debate among the fanbase, goodness knows I’m still confused as to which incarnations fit in where, or how many of them there are. I personally wouldn't know where to begin with it myself, since my knowledge of the Master's incarnations begins and ends with what has been depicted on TV, but surely somebody with a full grasp on the Masters across the different mediums could get us started? WaltK ☎ 23:09, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

"When in doubt, go by release order"

That's my philosophy. If a story doesn't present enough evidence as to where exactly it should be placed, just place it according to the release date. An example of this is in the Tenth Doctor timeline, which has suddenly had a sizeable chunk of its stories moved to "awaiting placement". I've gone and re-added two stories based on this rule, and may go on to do it with the rest later.

Of course, I don't want to undermine any existing rules that I may not be aware of, so I'd love some feedback. Is it a good philosophy? WaltK ☎ 17:02, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that not all stories would fit with this standard (stories released after a Doctor or companion's tenure, for instance), but I reckon it's better than nothing, and can easily work for a larger majority of stories. WaltK ☎ 17:55, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement there. Sometimes it's best to place stories by arc, but most of the time release order is the best route to take, if no other information is available/known. Danochy ☎ 08:27, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

I couldn't help but notice people have suddenly been adding invalid stories to these timelines? Has a new rule been introduced? WaltK ☎ 17:11, November 15, 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled with it, sure, but I'd still like to know why we're doing what we're doing. WaltK ☎ 20:40, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

It's not a sudden thing. Many timelines, like Iris Wildthyme's, have had invalid stories on there for ages. The timeline pages are filled with all sorts of conjecture and speculation, so there's no reason invalid stories can't be on here, especially as these aren't In-universe pages. The thing is, many stories do fit into the timelines, but aren't considered valid sometimes simply because of status-quo, or poorly formed policies from the early days of the Wiki.

The only reason why there has been an increase of invalid stories being added is because many of the more active timeline editors have only just realised invalid stories are allowed here.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:52, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

That all makes sense. Though I have to question why we have an arbitrary "no "funny" stories" rule. WaltK ☎ 22:49, November 17, 2020 (UTC)

I think it's that invalid stories are allowed here, just within reason. If it can plausibily and feasibly fit in, then it's fine. I believe Doctor Who? and it's ilk aren't allowed, seeing as the stories aren't supposed to be in the main universe. However, a timeline specifically for those stories could work.

Epsilon 📯 📂

01:31, November 18, 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that a number of The Daft Dimension stories could fit into the timeline. Who's to say the Doctor and Clara didn't have an impossible encounter with Mr Tickle? Or that the Doctor's friends didn't get together in the TARDIS at Christmas and accidentally all gave him the same gift? WaltK ☎ 01:19, November 20, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can think of a few other examples. You could enclose one of those "hidden messages", further clarifying that the story you've placed can fit into continuity. <!--This story can fit into chronology due to reason [xyz]-->.

Epsilon 📯 📂

13:50, November 20, 2020 (UTC)

Parody stories: a confusing double-standard

My recent attempts to add stories from things like The Daft Dimension and Doctor Whoah! have been rebutted at every turn on the grounds that "parody stories deliberately fall out of continuity and therefore don't count".

Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that that's a very pick-and-choose way of doing things (the whole point of these timelines is that they are entirely theoretical, so what point is there in deeming some invalid stories as "more invalid than others"?), I must also point out that the rule has not even been that well enforced. In the Tenth Doctor's timeline, for example, we have stories like The Invasion of Bash Street and the Comic Relief 2007 skit, even though both stories are in the parodies and pastiches category.

As I've established, I'm personally against the practice of omitting parodies to begin with, but if we are going to omit them anyway, then a need for consistency is in definitely order. WaltK ☎ 00:33, November 24, 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of these timelines is to try to find the most accurate orderings of all these stories in the DWU in the order in which the Doctor and other characters experienced them. I don't think parodies add anything in that regard - the writers of most parodies aren't trying to write their stories into the same universe as the other stories here, they're trying to make a joke using familiar elements from the TV show.

For me, the same goes for a lot of the other invalid stories added, like The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer), which is clearly meant to be addressing the audience and yet we're pretending 9 is talking to Rose. So yeah, I'd also argue only a small portion of invalid stories should be included on the timeline, like Dimensions in Time (TV story) for example.

Finally, the parodies which haven't been removed yet are only still there because (at least speaking for myself) we haven't got around to removing them yet or the lack of recognition of whether it's a parody or not. Danochy ☎ 12:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that The Trip of a Lifetime being addressed to the viewer prevents its placement on a timeline? Unless we don't want to place The Feast of Steven on a timeline. (The Trip of a Lifetime is, I think, invalid because it's a trailer, not because of any "fourth-wall-breaking".) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I realise I never gave a full answer to this, but with admin hat on, please stop deleting stories from timelines just because you think they don't count. There is evidently a de-facto agreement that if somebody wants to put an invalid story that is "real" in their headcanon on a timeline, they should be left to do so. Even with just valid stories, any timeline is likely to contain at least one thing a given fan isn't going to think of as "canonical", besides; it's part of the territory that people will probably ignore some bits of our timelines out of personal preference. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think stories should be added because one person thinks they should be. These are collaborative timelines and if perhaps more controversial stories are going to be added it should be done by agreement, like Dimensions in Time / Search Out Space were earlier last year. Danochy ☎ 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

“Recommended viewing order” timeline?

I've recently been working on a timeline that puts all TV stories in recommended viewing order in my spare time. I was wondering if it would be a suitable timeline to include here? WaltK ☎ 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be fine, considering timelines such as Theory:Timeline - Doctor Who universe/TV.

Epsilon📯 📂

19:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It might not be exactly what you're thinking of, but that sounds similar in scope to Theory:Timeline - Spin-Off Shows Timeline Order Suggestion. Danochy ☎ 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Checking in

Admin note here. For the most part things seem to be going smoothly here aside from the occasional edit wars. As long as conflicts are discussed and resolved on talk pages, we shouldn't have any issues.

What I wanted to address are a couple of things from above (yes more than two years ago but still need to be mentioned):

• A comment above seemed to suggest some of these timelines contain spoiler-y information. That is explicitly not allowed on the main page for this forum: Theory:Index specifically says, in the first sentence: "You've entered a spoiler-free zone of discussion." No exceptions. If a story hasn't been released, by this wiki's definition, then it doesn't belong on any of the timeline pages.
• The discussion about main namespace pages following the order of timeline pages and vice versa. There's no rule against it, but to make something clear: if there is an edit conflict/war over story placement on a main namespace page, this timeline theory area is not to be cited as a source. It was separated from the main namespace for a reason. Use cautious editing judgement whenever rearranging story placement on a main namespace page.

That's pretty much it. Carry on. Shambala108 ☎ 04:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Further splits for century pages

Would anybody be open to splitting the century pages further than they are, preferably to decades? I personally think the current compilation method makes things harder to navigate due to the sheer length of them. WaltK ☎ 22:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Decade pages would certainly help for the 20th century and the 21st century. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 00:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)