Forum:The original Panopticon

Greetings! Here in the hallowed halls of the Panopticon, members of the  TARDIS  Index File wiki community may gather to discuss various issues and topics regarding the operation of the wiki. It is not, however, a place for idle conversation or off-topic discussion that doesn't directly concern the TARDIS Index File.

Important! The following types of questions do not belong on the Panopticon page:


 * Newcomers' questions. Please take the time to read the introduction and  help pages before posting.
 * Facts and canonical questions. Questions regarding specific facts of the Doctor Who universe should be posted at the Reference Desk.
 * Bug reports should be forwarded to the administrators.
 * Issues concerning specific articles should addressed on that article's talk page.
 * Questions for an individual member should be posted to that member's talk page.

After a period of time, inactive discussions without any long-term value will be deleted from this page. A discussion that may be of use in the future for reference purposes may be moved to a different section (like the FAQ page), or added to the  Panopticon Archives.

Please remember to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ("~"), or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar.

Things to Do
(This topic has been moved to the Panopticon Archives.)

Page controls
Why do some pages (such as this one) have a move tab but others do not? Is there an easy way to delete pages? The only reason I am asking is that I created a page for The Reign of Teror (TV story) which is spelt wrong. I couldnt see an easy way to move or delete this page, so i have just created another one at The Reign of Terror (TV story). Can someone either delete the original or better yet tell me how to do it.

Ok i must be going mad there is now a move tab, but i have already created the page, and i still cant see how to delete pages --Amxitsa 15:39, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * I believe deleting pages is something only sysops can do. That said, I deleted the page for you. Based on your contributions, both articles and ideas, I had been considering offering you sysop status. A formal invitation will be posted on your user page. --Freethinker1of1 16:21, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Wiki Project Logo
Khaosworks has created two possible logos for the project. (I created one earlier, but am withdrawing it from consideration.)  Click on the thumbs to view the full-size versions. I will also be uploading versions resized to fit the 135-150 pix wide size for wiki logos, with links on the full-size version pages, to give a better idea of what these would look like if used. I invite everyone to give their feedback and vote on which version they would most like to see used. Thanks. --Freethinker1of1 18:40, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I prefer the bottom one --Amxitsa 15:21, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * Ack! Since no one had said anything about which logo they wanted, I went ahead and uploaded the top one, after adjusting the size and the colors. Ah well, I'll just leave it up for now until a third or fourth party gives their vote. If they want the bottom one, I'll change it. --Freethinker1of1 16:23, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * Sorry i was just on this page to post the question above and saw this, I didnt realise you had already made a decision.


 * No problem. As I said, I'll gladly change it if any more members voice a preference for something else. Remember, almost nothing on a wiki is permanent. (And I wasn't annoyed or offended either, just being facetious.) ;)

--Freethinker1of1 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Cast
Does the cast section have to be directly from the serial or can it be added to, e.g. is the cast section full names or common names e.g. Jo Grant or Josephine 'Jo' Grant and if people aren't credited on the serial are they on our cast list? --MJP 16:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can verify that someone had an uncredited role in a story, by all means please list them (IMDB has a list of Doctor Who guest appearances for the original series which can be found here the current series which can be found here, and which include uncredited performers.) As for full versus common names, I think most people would know the Third Doctor's second companion as simply "Jo Grant." If a page already exists for someone that uses their full name and you list them under their common one, making a redirect page might be easier than moving page content. (I'll try to post a "how to" on redirects when I have time.)

One last thing I'd like to add is that for characters that were known in the story only by a common first name, i.e. "John" or "Marsha," or a common title or function, i.e. "Guard" or "Commander," I've been creating links and pages which include the title of the story they appear in in parantheses to prevent confusing them with characters with the same names or functions in other stories, - for example, "John (Another Dalek Story)" and "John (Yet Another Dalek Story)."

--Freethinker1of1 11:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What about people named in novelisations but not in serials e.g. a guard is called Rogers in the book but credited in the serial as 'Guard'?--MJP 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It would depend, I think, on whether the person was actually called "Roger" in the course of the original television story, even though the character was listed as "Guard" in the credits. Fans might remember the person by name, rather than "the guard in such and such story." But since most people won't remember the character's name, and to prevent confusion, it might be better to use the title and mention the specific name, if known, in the actual article. We pretty much decided early on with the project that the novelizations would pretty much not be used as source material, since the authors sometimes took liberties and put things, events, and characters in the novels that were not in the original televised stories. --Freethinker1of1 12:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Should Frontier In Space be moved to Frontier in Space because I moved The Wheel In Space to The Wheel in Space but now that 'in' is capitalised again I think it might be a deliberate title?--MJP 16:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've actually had trouble remembering myself what the proper conventions are, but judging from how the stories are listed on other sites, it looks like "of," "in," "a," and "the" should be lower case in the titles, - except, of course, when they're the first word in the title, - while "from" should be capitalized. So the pages should be moved to ones with the proper capitalization, with redirect pages for those who have as much trouble remembering this convention as we do :)

--Freethinker1of1 11:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So what about The Creature from the Pit, that has no capitalisation and in wikipedia articles 'from' isn't capitalised so I think that from shouldn't be capitalized, so if you agree I will move the pages.--MJP 16:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if Wikipedia isn't capitalizing "from" then I can guess we will go with lower-case. --Freethinker1of1 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extended Cast
What do people think of the following page An Unearthly Child Uncredited Cast, if you look back at the history of An Unearthly Child you will notice that the cast list was getting really long. I think it is better to have the main cast on the story page and then the uncredited cast on a different page. It makes the story page a little simpler to read and to be honest there are going to be fewer people who are interested in uncredited cast. I think it is important to include them for the sake of making this project as comprehensive as possible but on the main page I think they only make it more cluttered than it needs to be. What does anyone else think? Amxitsa 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, for exactly the reasons you stated. Oh, and my apologies for not being as involved with the project the last few days. My current work schedule is taking much of my time. I'll be continuing work on pages for years, decades, and centuries when I can. Have also downloaded the Wikipedia article on the Daleks and will be editing and adapting it to fit the format and WHOniverse perspective for this wiki.

--Freethinker1of1 09:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Should that be used on all serials with uncredited cast or just ones with a lot of uncredited cast?--MJP 14:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transcripts
I have put links to transcripts on each of the story pages, but i was just wondering what the copyright position is before i actually upload one onto An Unearthly Child page. I know they are freely available on the internet but are we allowed to upload them on to here? I would personally have said yes, but i just wanted to know what everyone else thinks before actually doing it. Amxitsa 11:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you mean copying and uploading a transcript from someone else's site, I would certainly contact the owner of the site and get their permission, regardless of whether the content is formally copyrighted, as a matter of courtesy. If these are official BBC transcripts, they may very well be copyrighted. Keep in mind that just because something is on the internet does not automatically make it public domain. If it's your own synopsis of the story, I see no problem. --Freethinker1of1 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quality versus quantity of pages
A problem I'm noticing with the articles is a plethora of misspelled words, missing words, words capitalized that don't need to be and vice versa, typos, and other errors. (And yes, I admit I'm one of the offending parties.)

I think what's happening is that we're all becoming so obsessed with filling this site up with as many articles as possible that quality is suffering. The thinking seems to be that folks visiting won't be too impressed with our project if there aren't enough articles, or if they find glaring omissions; we still, for example do not have an article on the Daleks, and only have stubs on the Master and Gallifrey. However, I think we're forgetting that the very point behind a wiki is that if folks see something is missing, they can add it if they wish. But if the quality of the articles makes it look as if the people already involved in the project are not taking pride in their work, visitors may decide they don't want to bother contributing.

That said, we need to slow down and pace ourselves. Take your time. It would also be a good idea to write articles in a word processing client such as Wordpad, use a spellchecker, then copy and paste the article onto the appropriate edit page. Failing this, at the very least we should preview and proofread our work more carefully before clicking the "save" button. And don't worry if a wanted article has a gazillion links leading to it. Sooner or later, someone will write it. Agreed? --Freethinker1of1 18:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User pages and welcoming newbies
I'd like to encourage everyone to please add content to your user pages so we can get to know each other better. Don't need your life story. Just add whatever you feel confortable divulging. Some email or other contact info would be nice. If you're worried about spambots getting your email address, just write it out as I did on mine, without an actual link.

I'd also like to encourage everyone to contribute welcoming messages, compliments and, if necessary, critiques (make that polite critiques) to the user pages of new contributors. Quite a few people are contributing one or two things and then disappearing, and I think the lack of feedback is making them think their contributions are not appreciated or welcome. --Freethinker1of1 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting off track
Recent comments left by someone on the Main Page's talk section have had me going back over the project, and it looks like we're getting off track here. It was decided early on that, like Memory Alpha, this wiki would present information about the Doctor Who universe as it might appear if accessed by someone in that Universe. Most of the entries do not reflect this, and in fact present information and a point of view that better fits the articles already contained at Wikipedia. One of the main causes of this has been people going off and doing their own thing with the project, without really discussing or clearing it with anyone else. One of the reasons I asked registered users to create user pages was so we could communicate more and bring this kind of thing under control. I strongly propose getting back to the "treat the fictional stuff as if real" format, otherwise we are just becoming a copy of the Doctor Who WikiProject at Wikipedia. Information on original broadcasts, births and deaths of cast and crew members, etc., should be excised from the day, month, and other timeline entries, with only fictional events in the stories being listed. Articles on cast and crew members need to be revamped, something along the lines of this, as the current format is too hard to read and navigate, and placing every item in a separate category doesn't make sense when one considers that, for many of these people, such facts are not and may never be known, such that they will remain blank. As for articles on the stories, since our main emphasis is supposed to be on the fictional aspects of Doctor Who, there is no need to present so much information, including extra pages, on the production aspects - leave that to the Wikipedians, or contribute it to their efforts if they don't have the information.

If this project is to be a success we need to have consensus on our efforts, otherwise instead of collaboration we will have anarchy. Remember - fictional aspects of the Doctor Who universe, presented as if real, drawn from all professionally produced media, with behind-the-scenes info minimized, as this is already available on Wikipedia. Are we clear on this? --Freethinker1of1 23:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. This is supposed to include everything to do with Doctor Who, production details and episode details from an insider's point of view. This is a wiki, something where anyone can come and edit it and I thought that this wiki was here so people would come and contribute information on whatever they like about Doctor Who, not be limited by rules of what to not do and leave to wikipedia. Eventually it would have built up like Memory Alpha into a big information source on Doctor Who. I think we should think of Tardis Index File as a wikipedia of Doctor Who right? That includes behind-the-scenes info as well as everything else because otherwise, people will come and think "wheres the rest of the information" and we will tell them "on wikipedia". I think we should have it all on Tardis Index File.--The Doctor 17:00, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that the articles were getting to be nothing but behind-the-scenes stuff, such that we were in danger of becoming just a copy or fork of Wikipedia, which is against WikiCities policy. But, I've looked at Memory Alpha's policy pages, and no where do I see anything that says theirs is supposed to be an "in universe" perspective of Star Trek info. In fact, they divide articles into "Trek Universe," anything derived from the movies and tv shows, and "Trek Franchise," info about the movies and tv episodes, as well as novels, computer games, etc.

--Freethinker1of1 10:02, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have two main types of articles. "Who Universe" - articles derived from the stories, written from an "in-universe" perspective, and "Who Franchise," behind-the-scenes articles on the stories, novels, etc. The Who Universe articles can be further divided into either two categories of the television stories and an "expanded universe" of story formats whose canon status is debatable, or divided into separate categories according to media format, though this latter may cause problems owing to so many characters and ideas crossing over from one format to another. In either case, stories outside the television series should still be limited to those stories professionally produced and sanctioned by the BBC. I'm putting a proposal on this on the talk page for canon policy.

I haven't been very active on this Wiki due to pressure of work. However, I have more time to devote to the project now and am keen to contributre. I completely agree with what Freethinker is saying above. Looking at the TV story pages so far and working on The Sirens of Time from the audio series, it does seem that there is far too much focus on the production aspects. Do we really need to list things like 'Duration', 'Location Filming', 'Cultural References' and 'Ratings'? I'd also question if it's necessary to list the production credits in so much detail. Perhaps these should be just limited to Director, Writer and Producer and left in the Info box? A few other points to consider: I hope you don't mind me giving my opinion, particularly as I've not been a very active contributor to date. I can see that a lot of work has already gone in to this Wiki and I certainly don't mean to denigrate anyone's efforts. But, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes... Finally, just to draw your attention to it, I've done some work on a proposed template for the audio series. Take a look at The Sirens of Time. Thanks for listening. --Mantrid 08:35, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In my reworking of The Sirens of Time I've changed 'Bad Guys' to 'The Enemy' as this seemed a little less coloquial and more appropriate for a work of reference. However, I do wonder why there needs to be a separate sub-heading for this at all. Perhaps we could just include it in the info box along with 'Doctor' and 'Companion'?
 * Although the Previous and Next story links at the bottom of each story page are a nice idea, I do think they could become problematic in the future. The 'All Media' is a particularly difficult one to keep accurate. Even though good attemps have been made at it, the chronology of 'Doctor Who' is highly debatable and very much open to interpretation. What source is being used to decide what story follows another? Also, as new stories are being added all the time, the next and previous links could quickly become out of date and it would be a nightmare to keep updating them. I'd also question the value of Previous and Next links for the particular genre. The TV series may have run in chronological order but Big Finish and the Books don't. For example, the Next link for the audio story Phantasmagoria would take you to Whispers of Terror, the next published story in the Big Finish series but a completely different Doctor and era in the fictional universe. So, I suppose I'm saying, should these Previous and Next links be included at all (or perhaps just include them for the TV series)?
 * Finally, I have to raise the old subject of placing non-TV series (or non-canonical) information in italics. Using the Continuity section of An Unearthly Child as an example, there is no indication of why some parts of the text are in italics. Unless the reader knows that non-canonical information is in italics, it will have no meaning to them. Also, if we take the italics rule to its logical end, we will ultimately have entire entries in the Wiki written in italics. For example, I'd expect the entry on Bernice Summerfield to be quite a lengthy and detailed one, but as it's non-canonical it would ALL have to be in italics. I think some further thought on how canon and non-canon information is handled on this Wiki is required. I would suggest using the 'Expanded Universe' model. For example, the entry for Omega would detail all the information on the character given in The Three Doctors and Arc of Infinity and then below, under an 'Expanded Universe' sub-heading, information from all other sources (eg the audio drama Omega) could be given. The [http:/www.starwars.com starwars.com] databank works on a similar principle (see Boba Fett for an example).


 * If you go to www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm they have a good chronolgy of all media and it is given reasons why it is placed there on the individual pages. We could use that chronology.


 * Yes, there are several good chronologies on the net and elsewhere. However, they all rely on someone's personal opinion and interpretation. As a reference source I think this wiki has to stick to the facts as related in the TV show and other licenced material. It's not for us to speculate - or promote the speculations of others - here. In fact, by providing the facts we are actually providing information that will form the basis of such speculations.
 * --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who Book Format
What is going to be the standard format for all the Doctor Who novels, as none of them have been made yet? Maybe we should make a page to experiment, like Suggested Format for Television Story Entries, only Suggested Format for Doctor Who Novels.--MJP 15:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be put together a format when I have time. Right now, I'm wanting to get this site back onto emphasis on the fictional Whoniverse, as I originally intended for this project and was agreed upon by the other founding members, who have since left after everything went off on this whole behind-the-scenes tangent. There is too much of that on the site, and it really belongs at Wikipedia, not here.

--Freethinker1of1 22:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some Further Thoughts on Canon Policy
I've previously raised the issue of the problems that will be caused by using italics for non-canon material (see 'Getting Off Track' above). Since then, Freethinker has suggested that we might split entries in to canon 'categories'. On thinking about this quite a bit, I think this is probably the best, clearest and most simple way forward. I would suggest that we have five categories:


 * TV Stories
 * Prose Stories
 * Audio Stories
 * Comic Strip Stories
 * Miscellaneous (for any other oddities that don’t fall in to the previous four).

See below for one way that this might be implemented. --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Changes to the 'Character' Pages
To remain in keeping with the 'in-universe' perspective of the wiki, I wonder if we should be using 'individual' (as the Star Wars wiki does) rather than 'character' as 'character' suggests fiction.

With the above point in mind, I would suggest changing the heading 'Character Description' to 'Biography'.

I would suggest that we should decide that all entries be written in the past tense. At the moment there is a noticeable mix of tenses in some of the Character Descriptions (eg Ian Chesterton).

I would propose using an infobox template for characters/individuals. I also think it would be a good idea to include some or all of the information that has been included in the info boxes for Doctor Who comapnions in the main wikipedia (eg Ian Chesterton).

I think a question that a lot of people might come to this wiki to find an answer for is 'which TV stories/comic strips/books/audio stories does 'character X' appear in?'. With this in mind, I think it important that we aim to list EVERY appearance of a particular individual in all media. For most incidental characters I think this information can be included in their info box. However, for long-running companions and Doctors etc, this list could become quite long and unwieldy (and is already becoming that way on existing character pages such as Barbara Wright. So, for these longer lists, I would suggest having a separate page which we link to from the Individual's info box. For example, on Ian Chesterton's page we could include the link 'Full List of Appearances' which would take you to the page Ian Chesterton – List of Appearances. This list would be split in to the canon categories previously suggested, and each of these categories would, in turn, be split in to sub-categories (eg under Prose Stories you would have BBC Past Doctor Novels under which would be listed the book Face of the Enemy. Obviously such a list would always be a work in progress and there should be a notation to say as such.

As an aside to the above, I think we should avoid using acronyms such as PDA or EDA (or at least link them to a page where they are defined). We shouldn’t assume that users know what PDA stands for etc.

I have done a partial re-edit of the Ian Chesterton page to show how all this might work. I hope you agree that it at least looks better than it did before (compare it to Barbara Wright. --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * On the list of appearances page should we include when they appeared in archive footage like when in Ressurection of the Daleks(?) the Doctor went through all his companions and past selves and they were seen on screen. Should we put that there and put next to it (archive footage)?--MJP 15:25, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think these sort of appearances should be indicated because they may be of interest. However, as you suggest, I think a notation should be attached - eg 'flashback sequence' or 'cameo' etc. I would suggest making these terms linkable so that (eventually at leat) we can have a page that defines what exactly we mean by 'flashback'. --Mantrid 17:12, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

--Freethinker1of1 11:22, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually created links for "PDA, EDA, etc." on one of the character pages; I just haven't gotten around to creating the actual pages. I'm beginning to think the general categories of "Televison series" and "Expanded Universe" may actually work better. While some folks may completely disavow an entire media category as canon, quite a few may accept most of the stories in a given format save one or two. I know of many people, for example, who accept the BBC novels as canon with one exception, - "War of the Daleks." With Expanded Universe, it's simply a matter of deciding which individual stories outside the television series you accept as canon, regardless of the media format.

For ease of reference, I propose dividing the character files as follows:


 * Biography
 * Personality
 * Habits and Quirks
 * Mysteries (or Discrepancies)... optional. continuity hiccups like the Doctor pre-Pertwee having just one heart. and things we simply don't know, like Susan's parentage.
 * Quotes.

in emulation of a reference page which existed a looong time ago (back when Nitro 9 served as the unofficial WHO homepage) somebody had a page with the eye colors and hair colors (and even heights!) of prominent characters so that you could, if you, wanted, look up the Davison Doctor's eye color for your fan fiction or PDA. -- (re-edited) *Stardizzy* 19:42, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding height and eye colour doesn't sound like a bad idea to me (though where we would get accurate information about the heights of characters, I'm not sure!). --Mantrid 12:30, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Good comments. I had started to think that some of the listing were becoming unwieldy, but I've not been contributing for a while due to work pressures so haven't had a chance to think of how to fix things.  I do like the new-look that you've created for Ian's page, Mantrid.  I also hadn't noticed my tendancy to flip between tenses!  But that's one of the many great things about doing this in a community - as there's always someone who'll notice these things!  I'm now going to re-edit the existing pages into the new template, and I'm also going to edit the text to sort out the tense. Kazzab72 08:59, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad you like the look of the Individual template Kazzab72, and the new pages you've created using it look great. One thing I'd like to suggest though if I may, is that we need to reference the source of particular bits of info in the longer biographies. I think the revamed entry on The Master is a good example of this with the information source being sited at the end of each paragraph in brackets. --Mantrid 12:29, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sub-Headings in Articles
I would like to suggest that it would be a good idea not to include 'empty' subheadings in articles. In other words, I don't think sub-headings with no text below them should appear in the Wiki. My reason for this is that it makes pages look untidy and it also makes the wiki appear 'unfinished'. So, I would propose a guideline that no subheadings are added to artciles until there is text to go with them. This appears to be the the ruling adopted by the Star Wars wiki, and I think it looks the better for it. (By-the-way... I am guilty of this as well!) --Mantrid 22:17, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Outside Sources - Canon or Not Canon?
I've just completed a re-edit of The Power of the Daleks TV story page. I've introduced a 'Year' field in to the info box to indicate when the story is set. For The Tenth Planet I put 1986. For The Power of the Daleks I was tempted to put 2020 as this is the date suggested in Lance Parkin's A History of the Universe. However, as this date is never actually given on screen as part of the story, should we be presenting it as fact? It's tempting to adopt A History of the Universe as the authorative source for all dates that we use on this wiki, but, however well researched, a lot of the information is based on deduction and speculation. What do others think?

Similarly, I notice that Polly's last name has been given as 'Wright' in several instances throughout the wiki. However, as far as I am aware, this is based totally on sources outside of the TV series itself and is never given on screen. Should this really be accepted? (At the very least, I think we should note its source).

--Mantrid 09:06, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Where exactly has 2020 come from? What research is the date based on? Also Polly's surname was never given on TV but has been adopted as canon in other media. You could use just Polly in the TV section of her page and say in the Expanded Universe section that her surname was given as Polly Wright, like the Master's name was Koschei or something in other media.--MJP 22:41, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)