Forum:Let's Get Organised

Pasted in below is a discussion that I started on the old Panopticon page. Ultimately it was what prompted the creation of this forum. I thought it was worth copying on to hear so that others could see it and, if they wished, add further comments.

Original Message starts here:

I have not been as regular a contributor here as I had hoped. So, I hope you don't mind me saying that I think this Wiki has gone a bit off-track. There is a great lack of consistency in pages being added. Previously agreed styles have either been forgotten or ignored (most notably the 'in-Universe' perspective for fictional elements). There is a complete lack of a structured approach to establishing and building this Wiki with people very much working indepently of each other. As a result we have pages dedicated to the most minor and obscure story elements but also have no pages at all, or empty templates, for major Doctor Who subjects (eg many of the TV stories). The bottom line is that, at the moment, this isn't a very good Wiki site. In fact, at the moment, the Who fan is probably better served by the main Wikipedia site. I think the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis are great examples of what we should be aiming for. There is a lot to be learned from them in terms of organisation and consistency. Here is my proposed 'plan of action', much of which is inspired by these two Wikis:


 * Firstly, I think everyone should talk much more. Posting ideas and thoughts here or in some other 'community' page. We could even set up some kind of Forum or Bulltin Board. This would be a better Wiki and more fun place to visit for all of us if we really developed it as a community that shared, cooperated and developed together.


 * Let's establish a list of priorities in terms of what needs attention. We should at least cover the same ground as the Who entries on Wikipedia. I'd suggest that first on the priority list is that every TV story page needs to be completed and consistent with each other. This is quite a big job, so let's not be too ambitious and just agree on and add the minimum essential information. I'd (immodestly) suggest my own The Tenth Planet entry as a good standard.


 * We need to agree on a consistent style. I would suggest returning to the idea that all fictional entries should be written from an 'in-Universe' perspective. In other words, as if they were real. This will mean avoiding articles that begin 'The Sontarans first appeared in the Doctor Who TV story, The Time Warrior etc'. Behind the scenes information can be added beneath the main entry for a page under a 'Behind the Scenes' heading.


 * We need to finally establish a way of dealing with canonicity and contradictory information. Personally, I don't think the use of a separate 'Expanded Universe' section (eg see The Master) has worked particularly well - especially as some pages will contain information that is entirely based on Expanded Universe material. I'd like to propose the rather radical approach that we treat all information exactly the same, regardless of source, as long as it is a professional and/or BBC licenced product (ie not from fan-fiction). However, I'd add that if we do take this approach, then every element of information needs to have a source attributed to it. See Klingon History at the Star Trek Wiki to see how this might work. Also, any contradictions or speculation could be added in to the article as indented, italicised asides. Also see Klingon History for what I mean by this and how it would work. By abandoning canon and siting all information sources, we allow the user to make up their own mind on what they accept as their own personal canon.

Well that's enough from me. I hope you appreciate that I'm not saying all of this just to have a go. I just think that this could be a great and useful Wiki that would compare well to the Star Trek and Star Wars wikis. We just need to pull together more and provide a more helpful and structured path for new contributors. Let's talk!

--Mantrid 07:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mantrid. Like you, I have been away for some time and not contributing much, largely due to a recent move to an area where regular internet access was difficult to obtain. (I now have DSL.) I too have noticed things getting way off track in my absence. We seem to be back into a quantity vs. quality rut.

No one is talking to anyone, everyone just decides to go do his/her own thing while ignoring the fact that while a wiki is something anyone can edit, it is also intended to be a group effort. A forum or bulletin board would be a good idea. Wikia does provide discussion lists for users, but I personally never liked the system because I didn't consider it very user-friendly and so never put it to use. Something along the lines of a Yahoo! or MSN Group might be better, especially since it would help promote the site.

Yes, we need to get the TV stories finished as our first priority, particualrly as many are still in the old format which I admit I never liked. Your article on "The Tenth Planet" is, I think, an excellent "how-to" example.

Yes, get back to "in-universe" treatment of fictional subjects. I think most people visiting this site are familiar with Doctor Who enough to know that Liz Shaw "is a fictional character in the British science-fiction television series Doctor Who" without being told. And while it was my idea, the "Expanded Universe" thing does have some bugs, as you pointed out. Your suggestion does look better, especially as used by Memory Alpha.

There also seem to be too many dictionary style entries being written, - one sentence saying "so-and-so was this" and nothing else. I think more detail would be appreciated. Even though this wiki should ideally cover as much Who-related material as possible, if something doesn't merit more than one sentence, it probably is too trivial to warrant an entry. More likely, people just don't know what function the stub template serves, as a note telling visitors, "this is all I know or was able to find about this topic; if you have more info, please add it." That may itself be the fault of the tutorial pages being so scant on information. We seem to forget many folks coming here to contribute are newbies to the whole wiki concept.

Since so many pages need work. It might also be a good idea to employ templates like Wikipedia uses, i.e. ones that say "this article needs work or clean-up."

Well, my thoughts on the matter so far. I'll add more if I think of them. --Freethinker1of1 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to put in my two-hundredths-of-a-dollar, the sad fact is that alot of the new people coming to this site are like myself-- either new Whovians altogether from the new series, or old fans re-discovering their love of the show through the new series. I would love to contribute to some of the older TV listing, but by that point I'm relying on the VHS tapes I happen to have lying around.


 * The long and short of it is that we're going to have alot of information on the new series right now, with information on the old series trickling in as people re-read their fan guides or re-watch the tapes themselves. I agree with your idea of switching back to the in-universe formatting (I need to do that myself for my Krillitane Oil article). As for getting another message board altogether, I'd rather keep the amount of digital paper we need to follow to a minimum. I want to be a contributor here for sure, but I'll also admit this is a casual contribution-- i.e., when I have time and desire to do it. That also means that I don't mind reading the Panopticon while I'm here, but adding a few more steps into the process... but then again, maybe I'm just being a bad fanboy. ^.^

--The Professor 01:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who has had some concerns about the way the wiki has been going. However, nobody is really to blame as there aren't really any clear guidelines for new contributors and the discussion mechanisms have been a bit clumsy and, to some extent, hidden away. I think both these points need addressing. As you can see, I've created a forum (after some tedious trial and error) using Wikia's own forum mechanisms. I think that The Professor raises a good point about keeping it all 'in-house' as much as possible. Regarding the guidelines, I think Wookipedia's very specific and clear Manual of Style and associated pages would be a good template for us to adopt. I might have a go at that myself at some point.
 * Professor I don't think it's a 'sad' fact that a lot of people, such as yourself, are coming here as a result of the new series. I think that's fantastic! I certainly don't think anyone should feel obliged to write about something that they don't know about or are not interested in. There's still loads to do on the new series alone. As I personally have little interest in the new series, I'm happy to focus on the Classic show and characters.
 * --Mantrid 10:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm finally back home, so it's time for a bit of input of my own. Now, I'm just going to mention what I think about the original points brought up, since I'm tired and I don't really want to read through all of this. I'll get back to you after I've had a good night's sleep.
 * Well, that's what we seem to be doing, isn't it?
 * Well, I've got to admit that I can't really help you there. I've never been really good with writing up entries in a certain way. I just add information on a whim.
 * I suppose, but that would mean I'd have to remake every entry I've made here. Oh well.
 * I quite like that idea.
 * Azes13 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've saved a copy of the Wookieepedia Manual of Style and a copy of ours (such as it is)in my offline files and will try to come up with something as time allows. Right now I'm doing some "catching up" with the story articles, beginning with "The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve."

--Freethinker1of1 13:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread resurrected
It kinda pains me that the comments on this thread are basically two years old, and yet still largely haven't been addressed. There are many excellent points made in this thread, so I thought it worthwhile to give this a bit of a bump, in hopes of forcing people to re-read it. We really need to come up with some firmer guidelines, and admins need to start enforcing whatever guidelines emerge.

I agree with most of the original post, but I must say I am opposed both here, and on the main wikipedia pages, to this notion that all material has equal worth, regardless of source. I've tried following the apparent trend of mixing televised material with stuff from other media, and it's just damned hard. It's virtually impossible when it comes to Sarah Jane, for instance. It's simply imposible to write a coherent history of people, races, and things that have been around for a really long time, and especially things that appear both in the 1963 and 2005 series. I think this notion that mixing together material from a variety of materials makes it easier for users to decide what to embrace as their own personal canon is just nonsense. It's much clearer if you separate it out.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 11:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been going through some of the older pages, resurrecting some, clearing out others so we now have:
 * Tardis:Current Projects as the name suggests, projects that are currently in action, others that users can get involved in etc, use it how you want.
 * Tardis:To Do List this page also existed, but hadn't been updated since 2005! I've reworked and updated it adding things that constantly need work such as the Orphaned and Uncategorised pages and links to the stub categories. --Tangerineduel 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Archivist's notes
This is a tricky thread to archive because there are so many points being raised. On the one hand, it appears to be the absolute origin of tardis:point of view and of the idea of treating all media as equal in terms of importance (something apparently I railed against in 2008).

On the other hand, the idea of maintaining a communal list of priorities has never really caught on, even though Tangerineduel did make attempts in 2008 to kinda keep that flame burning. Experience would seem to have taught us that editors have their interests and they'll choose to edit what they'll choose to edit. I think the problem is a little less pronounced than it was back in 2006, simply because we have more active editors now. Also, many editors have clear areas of interest, so there's obvious progress being made in a lot of different parts of the database.

IF you really read this whole thread line-by-line, you can see that current policy has taken some things on board but rejected others. For instance, at one point it's suggested that "if something doesn't merit more than one sentence, it probably is too trivial to warrant an entry". That's certainly not current policy, although there are a minority of current editors who have expressed that sentiment. On the other hand, this is the thread that essentially created the Panopticon as we know it today.

Therefore, I'm marking this as part (huge) "policy changer" and part "failed proposal". 14:38:19 Mon 30 May 2011