Talk:Doctor Who Wiki

This page is only for discussing the editing of our main page. If you want to talk about other topics, your best bet is to propose a new thread in the temporary forums.

General Doctor Who discussion and questions about a single narrative or behind-the-scenes point — where that answer is likely a known fact, like "Who played in ?" or "In which issues of DWM will you not find comics?" — are best put to the the Discussions board.

For editing assistance and guidance, please contact an admin.

Redesign
Following on from Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Updating the main page & theme, I have (potentially temporarily) reopened this page to act as a place to continued discussing the redesign of the main page. To provide more focus, transmats have their own section on this page.

To get the ball rolling (again), here's some ideas I have:
 * Some module showing new releases. I have a draft for this demonstrated on this page. Perhaps it could work better in the sidebar, though?
 * Some module highlighting current key characters in recent releases. During larger events, such as the airing of a new series on TV or the release of a major audio, all slots on this module could be given over to these key characters.
 * Some module highlighting people's birthdays. I have a highly glitchy proof of concept on this page (you may need to purge the page twice to make it work).
 * Some module highligting Doctor Who 's 60th anniversary.

I'm interested to know if anyone else has any thoughts and ideas. Bongo50  ☎  20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but it seems to me that we should future proof this new page, since it takes us so long to redesign these things.


 * I think our home page should, very simply, start with pictures of the first 14 Doctors. Maybe the first 16 (War + Fugitive). I think when people come here, they're often curious about the franchise. Just having the entire history of the show laid out would be a really fun trick.


 * Then we can have a segment linking to the latest TV story. How does everyone feel about this? OS25🤙☎️ 20:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I did a real rough mockup in GIMP of what I'd suggest, obviously a first draft and subject to change. I didn't edit sidebar stuff at all, so just don't bother with that. The point is more how much I cut out and how I reworded/reorganized some things. That's the level of minimalism I'd like to see, personally. We could expand on some of that, maybe also have a section for new editors, etc. But there was so much bloat. This is way closer to my ideal. Najawin ☎  01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I support OS25's proposal. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  05:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I quite like OS25's idea! I just don't think it's optimal for the next year or so. We're going to have a lot of eyes on us from the Disney deal as well as returning viewers with the 60th, and throwing new viewers into the whole 60 years of the franchise is going to be confusing. A landing page focused on the immediate short term events is probably going to be more helpful to the audience that we're going to see within the next 18 months. After that, we can revisit the question.


 * I would have no objection at that time to taking a longer outlook, if that's what people want. I honestly don't mind having current era branding either, it's just with the Chibnall era there was so much of it. Something we discussed on the thread was updating it based on "new events" that happened not just for the main show, so for the rumored spinoffs, we could update it for that, or the next time a TLV/Doom's Day style thing happens. I just really think the next 18 months are best served with focusing on the 60th and then S14, specifically due to real world concerns related to what's likely to be more potential visitors to the site and more people watching the show for the first time. Najawin ☎  06:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * New thoughts on this? I'm still in favor of cutting down the main page and then switching over to a 60th focused approach for the time being. It highlights the hook that will get returning fans back to the show, and brings the transmats closer to the top. Najawin ☎  04:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable to me. If anyone wants to start making elements for a redesign, feel free. It should be broken down into self-contained modules, each as its own template (have a look at the main page's source to see what I mean). I'm planning to do some work on this myself, likely after I've finished . Bongo50   ☎  17:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Main section module talk
So you can see how I'm working on the modules at User:Najawin/Sandbox 8. People can feel free to comment and/or edit. Up to other people, but I think changing the "friends" module to what I've got there is decent, or we can move the wording around a bit. I'd also suggest commenting out the "Mainpage Box Crew and Mainpage Box Featured Videos" modules. (Also, please rename "Friends" to be something else. That's so Chibnall era specific. Key Figures. Characters. Whatever.)

I haven't gotten the "How to Doctor Who" module in a state I want it in yet, in part because I think we should have the "Quickstart" guide discussion before I write it. If we have guides like that it will change how I write the section quite radically. Also, you know, transmats are part of that section. But at the very least we can update this to the 60th pretty quickly and cut down on a lot of the excess stuff floating around the main page. Najawin ☎  07:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That looks good. OS25🤙☎️ 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Bongo50   ☎  17:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey everyone, just wanted to share this sandbox with everyone. I'm not super great at website layout, but this is my basic theory as per how the landing page should look.


 * One concept I have that I wasn't able to figure out is that I want the images to kind of glow white as you hover over them, like how the current home page has black-and-white images that go into colour. I also think we need to change the text on the home page to white, as it'll look better and we only had gold to match with the Whitter era. Also, I left the final two sections blank for now. I figure the next-to-last segment could just have two or three rows of whatever current DWU content people want in this section. Big Finish, DWM, Obverse, Candy Jar, whatever you like OS25🤙☎️ 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not happening in a module, that's in MediaWiki:Mainpage.css, I believe. Which, well, if non mods are not supposed to touch the modules, we're absolutely not supposed to touch the CSS.


 * With that said, it explicitly notes that the color palate is based on 13's shirt in the comments. So I think we can workshop this as well. Najawin ☎  05:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * OS25, that sandbox looks great! There are a few more exclamation points than I'd prefer, and the Doctor pngs don't seem to be truly transparent – which is odd, since it looks like the first two versions of File:Eighth Doctor no background.png had their transparencies working fine. But other than that, there's almost nothing I'd want to change! – n8 (☎) 13:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how to phrase this for a bit, but OS25, are you proposing we scrap the transmat design we've spent two months discussing? Since three of your modules are doing what the transmat would do? We can, we haven't implemented it yet. But it is, well, a little impolitic to do so this late in the day. I've made it clear that I think it's a mistake at this particular juncture to focus on every era as opposed to the upcoming one. But if others disagree so be it. I just don't see that those three sections are really viable without killing the transmat graphic we're working on. And there was broad consensus in the forum thread for that basic graphic. Najawin ☎  23:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t believe that’s what OS25 was saying. Just that there would be more room to add whatever people felt like. TheGreatGabester ☎  06:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just too much of a minimalist! Najawin ☎  06:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there was mild consensus on it being the fastest solution in the sense of "updating the old design/layout just so people stop making fun of our landing page" but I was never happy with it at all. It felt very much like "Oh yeah sure that works" instead of "THIS is what we HAVE to do." OS25🤙☎️ 06:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So you do want to have these separate modules/sections as opposed to the transmat graphic below? Just to be clear that there would be (at least) two competing designs, yes? Najawin ☎  06:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we can salvage the idea of the transmat below, but as an entirely in-universe graphic in-between the Doctors and the spin-offs. Personally I just think the idea of the transmat covering everything, as it does on the current home page, has never been very effective.

And generally I think the main issue with the page, as it's being pitched right now, is that there seems to be this general idea that users are more likely to read an article about Julie Gardner than the Ninth Doctor. I think this is just preposterous. OS25🤙☎️ 07:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. So, first thing first, let's separate the transmat issue and how best to handle those from other things. Replacing the graphic being discussed below with smaller modules that we can expand is an option, but I think it's one that's controversial. If we want to do this, I think we're going to need some compelling reason to abandon the progress made on the graphic already worked towards. I'm not suggesting another forum thread, but definitely more input than just the five (?) of us.


 * Next we have the question of how to deal with the main page outside of the transmat. This is our respective mainpage-box-character's. You have decided to highlight the entire history of the show (a perfectly valid approach!) while I've highlighted the specific era we're in so as to maximize engagement with new and returning viewers.


 * I note that the bottom of your design suggests that we'd have sections on the crew anyhow, just further down. Think of it not as saying that Julie Gardner is uniquely important, but that this isn't the particular time to focus on the entire history of the show, and we should instead highlight the new era. (I will note, for the record, that Gardner and Tranter are here primarily as place holders. I want to replace at least one of them as soon as I can with the composer. Gardner might stay if she's working as EP for the show as she did before. We'll play it by ear.) I think that the style of mainpage-box-character you're proposing is a very good one for when we're not introducing a new era. Indeed, maybe even more generally than that! But I'm very conscious of how the next two years are going to bring a lot of attention on this show and this wiki and I think we need to lean into that at least a little bit.


 * Feel free to disagree! But I think it's a perfectly reasonable position that focuses on capturing new and returning viewers, seeing them as the key to continued longevity for the franchise. (I also think that it will be less likely to get people from the BBC mad at us and force us to redesign our front page to be consistent with their branding, meaning that the changes we've snuck in that better conform to T:NPOV will stay. But that's a more complicated issue.) Najawin ☎  08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And again, if we're talking about new users landing on the website I don't think people are always here to read about the CURRENT ERA NOW NOW NOW NOW THIS EXACT STORY THIS EXACT INSTANT. I think people come out of a sense of curiosity. "You're telling me there's FOURTEEN DOCTORS before this one? Who are the other Doctors?" So they come to the wiki, and they hunt around. I think the 14 Doctors module is just an honest depicting of the first thing fresh faced readers will be doing once they visit the site.


 * And I'd also like to say that the module below really wouldn't take that much reworking to still be usable. The only thing is that it's currently an (overly large) module about every spinoff that Tardis editors find popular, when I think it would be much better served as a replacement for the in-universe module currently on the home page. We can link to the species category and the Companions of the Doctor category, and a bunch of stuff like that. This way, the home page feels balanced between "Series" and "in-universe pages."


 * If you want to open a new forum that's fine. I have a feeling if we do another round we might actually get it done this time. OS25🤙☎️ 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to keep the transmats real-world oriented, and have the rest of the page focus on/entirety link to in-universe stuff. I’d be reluctant to entirely redesign the transmats at this stage, as I’m very busy with other things at this time, though I’d be happy to provide a template/‘transmat kit’, as described elsewhere. But obviously, further discussion is needed, to reach a consensus. TheGreatGabester ☎  10:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, I agree with OS25 that the way the page currently emphasises crew members seems out of place - I like the sentiment behind spotlighting production elements, but there's got to be a slightly less awkward way to deliver that. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair. I was trying to keep things as minimal as possible. I really despise having two boxes for characters/cast and then crew. But something can be worked out. Najawin ☎  21:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As said before, I'm not sure a new forum discussion is needed. There was reasonable consensus on the graphic that's being pursued - you commented twice in that thread, only on the issue of the graphic to say that it should have the Cushing films over K9 or BBV - so I think it's incumbent on you to give us reason to change things. T:BOUND and all that. As for the idea that the graphic as currently constructed is "every spinoff that Tardis editors find popular", I find the notion offensive. My original idea was to include, well, a transmat for every medium in a very rough draft, and I listed things off the top of my head that were currently ongoing or historically important. You added three multimedia productions, at least two of which aren't meaningfully spinoffs in their own right, called novelizations spin-offs, and portrayed a single episode as a real spinoff. What you can reasonably say we don't have compared to the current iteration is: Sure, TV Comic, Reeltime, Mea Culpa. But the rest of this is completely unnecessary and has nothing to do with personal preferences. There are good reasons to not think these should be on the front page even if we take a pretty strident T:NPOV view. Now, on to the meat of the matter
 * Maybe The Daleks, if you think it's a discrete thing and not the sum of its parts.
 * Maybe the Cushing films, if you insist that they're not interesting historical footnotes and actually important enough to enough people and to our coverage to be on the front page. I guess you could also put DCtT and Shalka too.
 * Maybe The Annuals, though they're a very weird thing and not really a spinoff.
 * TV Comic, etc though this would have gone under my original idea for a "comic" transmat. But sure, you got us there.
 * Reeltime, entirely plausible, though I didn't include them at first because to my understanding their most recent project fell through. So they would have been there only for historical reasons, not current. And I wanted to minimize space by creating a new slot on the graphic for HOMEVID.
 * BBV if you think pointing new people towards them is a good idea.
 * And again, if we're talking about new users landing on the website I don't think people are always here to read about the CURRENT ERA NOW NOW NOW NOW THIS EXACT STORY THIS EXACT INSTANT. I think people come out of a sense of curiosity. "You're telling me there's FOURTEEN DOCTORS before this one? Who are the other Doctors?"

Utter rubbish. This is a pipe dream that bares little to no resemblance to reality. You're confusing your approach to the show with the general public's. I wish this was how people approached the show. But it's not. Let me remind you that of the new series 6 of the top 10 episodes viewed in the UK are Christmas episodes, with another two being DotD and End of Time 2. Do you not remember how many people left after Tennant or Smith? Audiences are fickle. You need to be assuming that the people who come to this website are significantly different in temperament from those that are watching the show. And while I think there is some difference, I don't think they're completely independent - that there's substantially more overlap than we'd think.

Let's make this more clear. There are four groups to consider when talking about people who come to the wiki. Enfranchised users who are coming to the wiki already using it and comfortable with it. Users who haven't yet been to the wiki, but when they do won't be scared off by our basic design decisions/organizing principles in any way. Users who are committed to the show but have the potential to be put off by our basic design decisions/organizing principles and so are less likely to use the wiki. Users who are not committed to the show and have the potential to be put off of the show by our basic design decisions and organizing principles. (Theoretically there's a fifth, those who will come back to the wiki but not the show, and you can fine grain this to consider returning users rather than first time, but it's ultimately not a super important distinction.) There's a distribution of these users that come to this wiki and it changes over time. Some times more Type 1 users will be here, sometimes fewer. You contend that of new users (so not type 1) most are here to look at older information rather than new. Is this true? Perhaps at certain times! I suspect that type 2 and type 3 users lean this way. If you had proposed this graphic during S9, S12, perhaps even Flux, I would have thought it prudent. But now? I think it's a horrible idea.

The show seems likely to undergo a (third?) imperial phase, which will mean a massive expansion, drawing from people less likely to stick around at the outset. This means a massive influx of type 4 users, who will be deeply sensitive to being tossed into the deep end. We can't compromise our regular coverage on the wiki, that's why I've been so against Nate's subpage proposals, but I do think we can try to make their new user experience as seamless as possible, with guides, FAQs, and a front page that doesn't instantly put them on their guard. Do you know how many people I've seen been terrified by the idea of 39 seasons of content? Even in the new series we have 13. That's substantially more than most shows. It's demotivating to a lot of people. Throwing all of the Doctors and spinoffs on the front page, pride of place, while celebrating the show's history, could not be more custom made to scare off new viewers.

The Disney+ distribution and Ncuti's casting are big deals. We've kind of gotten used to them at this point since it's been a bit. But I still don't think we've fully wrapped our minds around what this is going to do for the show and the community. We really need to prepare, and we're not taking it seriously. There's a very real chance that in a year we're going to have substantially more vandalism and/or substantially more new people who are attempting to edit articles. We need to have plans in place for how to deal with that and to capture the extra eyes that will be brought, both for the fanbase and for the wiki in particular. How do we successfully integrate these new people? And yes, that word choice there is important. These are serious topics that we need to start thinking about now, and maybe I'm completely wrong, maybe nothing happens. But I don't think I am. And if I'm right, your proposal will be actively harmful. Najawin ☎  21:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar module talk
Just creating this section for now, I'm sure we'll use it soon. Najawin ☎  07:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the main page should have some form of module highlighting new releases in all mediums and series that we cover. I have previously put together something for this, demonstrated in the main section of this page. However, I think this would work better smaller and in the sidebar. Thoughts?  Bongo50   ☎  17:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Transmats
This discussion is continuing on from Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Updating the main page & theme. Bongo50  ☎  20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Deciding/finalising the transmat content
Hey, so I'm gonna continue where we left off - here's the current draft of the new transmats, for reference.

I think we've almost wrapped-up the discussion surrounding the layout + the transmat contents, but I want to be 100% sure before moving on to the next step (ironing out the details + the individual designs)

The new transmats, as they currently stand, are entirely about real-world media - we have representation for the main series, the TV spin-offs, Big Finish, DWM, and the various print publishers.

This is a little different to the existing transmats (included here for reference), which is 50% media, 50% in-universe stuff. I've seen differing sentiments, in regards to this:


 * From what I can gather, Najawin would prefer to retain in-universe related transmats.
 * In the above section, Bongo50  mentions creating a module highlighting key characters on the main page, while OS25 put forward the idea of prominently featuring pictures of all the mainline Doctors, etc.
 * In theory, if one or more of these concepts were implemented, I'd argue the in-universe related transmats will become increasingly redundant.
 * (I specifically mentioned having a semi-randomised template, with a table showing different links to different characters, articles, etc. at different times, but I don't want to get too off-track.)

If it becomes clear there's an overwhelming desire to retain the in-universe related transmats, I'll willingly go back to the drawing board and hash out a new layout. Otherwise, I think we should move forward, and start figuring out all the fine details (for which I have many more thoughts + questions to share - but one thing at a time!)

So yeah, what do people think? TheGreatGabester ☎  14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Every time I see this transmat, I think it looks great, but it's so weird that Doctor Who Magazine is the highest, and is grouped with the TV shows. I'm absolutely certain people would click that thinking it's just the logo for the TV show. OS25🤙☎️ 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point - I just shifted the top side around so all the spin-offs are on the left side, is that better? TheGreatGabester ☎  15:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think so. But it does feel like we could easily split SJA and Torchwoood, then move DWM down to the bottom. like, I really don't think we need something like Candy Jar. OS25🤙☎️ 15:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to do that, though I doubt Najawin will be on board with it, as they made clear in the old Slot 3 thread. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

tbh, I'm not sure if we need to keep the IU transmats. I understand why they exist. But they need updating. My earlier proposal kept them because I felt it would be a more radical change to get rid of them, and I asked about keeping them because, well, a lot of work went into them and there's probably reasons to have them! (I haven't gotten that far in my historical dive on the forums yet.)

I'm at least a little skeptical - I don't know if most users will click on a semi-random topic on the front page and want to see a random page related to that semi-random topic, but, then again, most users won't go to the front page, they'll search for what they're looking for and leave. But, again, I dunno. I'm not sure Bongo's proposal fills quite the same niche though.

As for splitting SJA/Torchwood, let me note that I don't want to merge the two, I wanted to merge SJA/K9, and Torchwood/Class. I wanted to have groupings that encouraged people to treat the shows as for similar(ish) demographic groups. I think merging SJA/Torchwood is a bad idea, but I also think letting each show have its own transmat is a bad idea, and a violation of T:NPOV. The only reason this is being done is because other people have decided to focus on the production circumstances of the various entities, rather than something like the medium, which has dramatically increased clutter. (Also, Candy Jar has published/been around more/longer than Arcbeatle, surely if anyone goes it's them. No offense to the Arcbeatle fans/employees.) Najawin ☎  19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I just feel this T:NPOV argument is a non-starter. If this was really constituted a violation of the rules, then the original transmats should’ve never been approved in the first place! I want this design to reference + connect to as much stuff as possible, but at the end of the day, it’s a graphic and visual overview, not an article. I also don’t understand the assertion that the current approach has led to more clutter. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * So I've recently discussed some of the genesis of T:NPOV at the temp forums, I think you read that, but I'm not sure. Suffice it to say that it's far from clear that it's a non-starter, it seems to line up with the original intent of User:Mantrid. (To be fair, the discussion was concerning an article, but the wording Mantrid used was very broad.) Why would these transmats be made even if they violated the NPOV? There's a simple answer to that, the wiki wasn't being consistent in applying the NPOV. Which is something many of us had criticized the wiki for. (Again, the dropdown at the top didn't list EU characters back when the forums were up, and some of us had to push hard to change that.) (I note also that even the person who wrote up T:NPOV has been rather staunchly against EU media in many different ways at different times. So while the policy is there, that doesn't mean it's applied correctly.) It's nontrivial that T:NPOV just applies to articles, the first part seems to apply to the entire wiki. At minimum it's in violation of the spirit of T:NPOV.


 * On the clutter issue, I did specifically mean compared to my proposal. You have quite a few more media transmats than I proposed, is all. Najawin ☎  21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it’d be great to get other perspectives on this matter. I’m not an expert on the policy; all I’ll say is, it seems strange to treat the origins of a policy as if it were holy scripture, that just seems like a strange way to approach issues. TheGreatGabester ☎  22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's a pretty standard reading on how to interpret policies - often we look at the surrounding context to where policy originates as to how precisely to interpret it. (See, for instance, what User:NoNotTheMemes did just recently at Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration.) It's not the only one. And far be it from me to suggest that everyone has to ultimately accept my reading of the policy as The One True Reading. But it's both grounded in a standard reading of how to interpret policies, along with past implementations of the policy of question. So it's clearly not a non-starter. Najawin ☎  00:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m just frustrated, because it seems like we’re going round in circles having these kinds of debates. That policy is specifically about writing, is it not? I just feel that this is a pedantic point and it’s not productive or necessary to discuss it any further. Even bearing in mind that the policy need not apply here, I’ve tried to make it as even-handed as possible. But at some point, you have to say “good enough”, and move on. Because otherwise, I fear this discussion will drag on far longer than it needs to. Trying to find some arbitrary ‘perfect’ solution to this supposed issue is not worth the time. TheGreatGabester ☎  00:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * So there are sections about T:NPOV that are specifically about writing. But the very first bit about it is not clearly about solely writing. The origin of the policy was in a conversation about canon policy for writing articles, but the phrasing used was very broad.


 * But let's step back a second and ask, why are we discussing it right now? Well, there was discussion about splitting the SJA/Torchwood transmat, and I made it clear that I don't think the current transmat structure is optimal, but having a transmat for every TV show is a violation of T:NPOV. (I didn't even ask for one transmat for TV spinoffs together! Originally I proposed one for the old ones, one for the upcoming ones, but I've been willing to compromise even further than that.)


 * However, this statement was apparently controversial, and you suggested that my reading of T:NPOV is untenable. It's very much not. That's what prompted this discussion. Najawin ☎  01:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree, that opening paragraph is clearly about writing! It starts by talking about writing, and ends by talking about writing. One sentence says “give all sources equal weight”, which is still in the context of a paragraph that’s all about writing; I maintain that this point is rather pedantic. You’re right to say the phrasing of that one sentence is broad, but you refuse to accept the context of that surrounding paragraph. TheGreatGabester ☎  10:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello hello hello. Here to cut the Gordian knot to hopefully break us out of the loop: although we moved this discussion out of the Temp Forums to free up a slot and hopefully, dynamise the conversation, the present discussion still has the "force" of a Forum thread, by which I mean that it is capable of altering policy. Regardless of the current wording of T:NPOV, it would be perfectly possible for this discussion to introduce a new exception to be mentioned explicitly on that policy page, whereby the main page/the Transmats are exempt from the normal application of T:NPOV.


 * Granting that this is possible, I personally think this is a good and even, if we make certain assumptions, a necessary idea, although that is not necessarily an endorsement of the specific setup above. There are way too many branches of the DWU for it to be possible to put them all on a graphic and have it still be legible. As a sanity check, most of the not-wes would already consider it highly radical of us to include the likes of Cutaway and Candy Jar on the home page on the same level as something like DWM; if what we're worried about is conveying the Wiki's general ethos of treating the EU equally, something like this graphic will, IMO, achieve it. I'm intuitively certain that no one is going to look at something like this mockup and think "ah, I see Torchwood and SJA have separate listings whereas the different Cutaway spin-offs don't, so this Wiki must buy into TV-primacy and tiered-canon thinking". Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello hello hello hello. One upped ya'.


 * Thank you, you've made some points I was struggling to articulate. Legibility ought to be the guiding principle when designing any kind of visual overview/graphic. If you try to strictly apply writing-centric rules to the realm of graphic design, of course you'll run into problems; those rules were not designed to address this matter.


 * By the way, have posted a new draft. Added radial gradients, made the lines slimmer; one of the lines is now over-extended, to accentuate the overall diagonial-ish composition. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Since you've been clear that you're not thrilled with this line of discussion I'll keep it brief. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree. What is not reasonable is to maintain that my point is a non starter when I've cited textual evidence, precedent, and original intent. Whether or not these things are how you care to interpret policy - it's perfectly reasonably to only care about the text, and to insist that I need far more textual evidence than I've provided - it's frankly ridiculous to suggest that I don't have good reason for acting the way I do.


 * Moving on to the point of the graphic, I feel like this is a failure to take yes for an answer. We're arguing right now, not over whether TV should have a single graphic, nobody has suggested that, or even two (one for the main show, one for spinoffs). We're discussing whether we should set the shows we already know of at three transmats, or more, up to five. (And, indeed, the current graphic has four.) I already compromised on my idea that we put all the dead and gone spinoffs in one transmat. At the minimum here we're still ranking the (medium, publisher) pair (well, modulo K9) three times higher than any other on this graphic. Given that we're pretty sure more spinoffs are coming, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we should try to merge Class/Torchwood, K9/SJC. (Especially since there was a thread on whether or not to add Class to the transmats on the old forums and the conclusion was to not do so - albeit, imo, for poor reasons, as well as the general, well, everything, of K9.)


 * I'm also, you know, realistic, and have given up on my idea that the new spinoffs be shunted off to a single transmat. I think it's pretty clear that each new spinoff is going to have its own transmat at this point. The concern is just why we're prioritizing shows that have run their course over EU content that hasn't. (And before someone makes the obvious responses, remember that I wanted the VNAs/PDAs/EDAs/NSAs to be a single transmat, and Big Finish is already up there.) Najawin ☎  19:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the non-starter comment, maybe that was going a bit far. However, I think we have to honour legibility and practicality, as Scrooge says, and if that means making an exception to T:POV, then so be it. There are times where it’s appropriate to strictly enforce rules without question, but some issues ought to be approached with more flexibility.


 * If I haven’t explained it clearly enough already, the ultimate goal is to have four transmats for spin-off shows, in total. With the fourth RTD2 transmat being added at the appropriate time (probably above Class, to make everything as symmetrical as possible). That still leaves you with nine other transmats covering print media + Big Finish; that’s over two thirds. The problem, though, is that any notion of “fairness” is highly subjective. You can say that the nine transmats are too little, too many, etc., but ultimately there’s no objective yardstick to decide this. So, to reiterate, there is a need to move on from this topic, because I’m not interested in debating this forever. TheGreatGabester ☎  12:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it was mentioned one time, in a thread that was closed an hour later and shunted us over here. (So I just now saw it, after you mentioned it again!) I mean, fair enough on that point. But at this juncture I'm not convinced that we're best serving the needs of our readers. Why are all the RtD2 era spinoffs under 1 transmat? Why do they have "less priority", as it were, than K9/Class and TW/SJA? Your decision to make things about production rather than just medium and/or intended audience is having some really weird implications. I just fundamentally don't understand it. If this is a point about graphic design on our front page, why would we prioritize production circumstances for how we split things up? Najawin ☎  20:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I never said it was purely about production, it was to do with era as well, and chronology. But I'll explain my thought process further. To my mind, Torchwood and SJA are far more closely associated, with them even crossing over in the S4 finale; that's why they're in a shared RTD1 transmat. Those two were joined at the hip from a production standpoint, both branching from the revival. However, K9/SJA have nothing in common besides a vaguely similar tone, as with TW/Class. It's a matter of preference, but I'd posit the time + context in which these shows were made, and their relationships with each other is the far more significant factor. Again, it's just a matter of preference, though. Don't understand the less priority argument, as under this proposal, RTD1 and RTD2 would have one transmat each. Am also just confused at this point, because at different times, you've been arguing for more and less show-centric transmats, I'm finding it hard to keep track. TheGreatGabester ☎  11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, I'd consider K9 to be from the same "era" (whatever that means if we're not talking about production) as TW/SJA, insofar as it's off chronologically, this is simply because production took a while to get rolling. So I don't think that explanation works. I also don't think the crossover explanation works, as for how marginal the references are to the shows generally. (Each one had like, what, 3 characters? SJA might have had 4, but two K9/Mr Smith.) So all we're left with is the production angle. Which, as I stated, I think is a mistake.


 * Now, you could characterize what the shows I've highlighted as "vaguely similar tone", but instead let me be clear what you're referring to here. Intended demographic is what's similar between them. This entails a "vaguely similar tone", but it's rather a more fundamental issue, and it's something we should be cognizant of.


 * My ideal situation would be 1 transmat for old shows, 1 for new. But I don't think this will happen, and I've accepted that. After that, I think we should minimize the number of transmats for old shows, they're not particularly relevant at the present time, but be cognizant of the fact that users coming to our site will want to see transmats for the new ones. I think doing the reverse is perhaps the worst option possible, as it will only serve to confuse readers.


 * But I don't think we're convincing the other, so perhaps we need other people to comment. Najawin ☎  19:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, even if the current layout gets implemented, more or less in its current state, it's by no means set in stone. I'm putting together a "transmat kit" + designing the graphic in such a way so it can easily be modified/updated, either by myself, or someone else. So there's no reason to stress over it. In my opinion, it would be better to implement a new iteration of the transmats sooner rather than later, and if they need updating further down the line, they can be without too much effort.


 * And I agree, it'd be great to hear from some other commenters. TheGreatGabester ☎  22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Refining the graphic + ironing out the details
Sometime in the next few days, I'll share a lengthy-ish post outlining various thoughts/questions about the fine details of the new transmats. Stuff like colour palette, the Gallifreyan-esque circular symbols, the 'flatness' of the images, etc. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, that “experimenting with the wiki’s design!” message ought to link here now, strange it hasn’t been updated. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops, that's an oversight on my part. I've changed it. Bongo50   ☎  20:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I'd like to bring up various aspects of the new transmats' design - I've got various thoughts, ideas, questions, etc. that I'd like to bring up. In no particular order:

The colour palette
I've been sticking with the gold-sepia colour palette from the old transmats, with pure white highlights. This seems to be pretty uncontroversial, but this can be changed if requested.

The embellishments
On the original transmats, there's a lot of interesting - albeit somewhat extraneous - visual details. There's lot of Gallifreyan-ish symbols (or specifically, symbols from the TARDIS computer?) super-imposed onto the various images. Additionally, there's lots of little lines and circles layered about, I believe just to create a bit more visual interest.

However, since the new transmats are smaller, some of these elements simply aren't gonna work anymore, or at the least, need to be tweaked going forward:
 * The biggest change I'm proposing: removing the overlaid symbols, with the likely exception of the central Doctor Who transmat. I've attempted to reproduce some of these symbols and overlay them, but it's my opinion that it looks cluttered; doesn't work as well on the smaller scale. Retaining these symbols also makes the transmats way harder to update, going forward.
 * I also think the various diagonal lines should mostly be removed - however, on my latest design, I did add a diagonal line that runs through the entire graphic, from the top left to the bottom right. In my opinion, this would be a great way to honour the look of the original transmats, while emphaszing the already-diagonal layout of the new design.

That all said, I'll like all those little circle-bubble things to stick around (They're cute!)

A transmat within a transmat?
Here's a random idea I'd like to throw out there: due to the 'SJA' logo within the RTD1 transmat being circular, that logo itself could act as a mini-transmat. Just a fun idea. It should be entirely possible, based off my knowledge of how the 'map' feature works (the thing that integrates the links into the image)

Keeping it flat(ish)
This sort of relates back to the transmats being smaller; I think these smaller transmats ought to function more like icons, and as a result, I've purposely tried to make each individual design look a little bit flatter. However, I'm aware that it's very easy to go overboard, making everything looking sterile and boring, so I'm experimenting with radial gradients, layering grain, etc.

Anyway, am interested to hear what people think, as always; getting feedback is super helpful. TheGreatGabester ☎  15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I persoanlly really like your transmat design. The colours look good. I agree that the symbols probably wouldn't work at the smaller scale. While the transmat within a transmat would work from a technical perspective, I'm not convinced that this is a good idea from a usability standpoint. I think making the icons a little bit less flat could work well. Bongo50   ☎  19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Completely fair on the SJA point, just wanted to throw it out there.


 * In regards to the flatness: with the K9 + DWM transmats, I experimented with retaining a little bit of texture, depth, etc. while still simplifying the overall look. Kind of like printed/'cell-shaded' graphics, made up of a limited set of colours. I like how they turned out, so I might try carrying that over to the other designs? TheGreatGabester ☎  17:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like how the K9 and DWM graphics look. Bongo50   ☎  17:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added some details/swapped out some images for Big Finish, The New Adventures, BBC Books and Obverse; how's that? TheGreatGabester ☎  15:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Couldn’t figure out how to ‘de-flattify’ the others, but probably not a big deal if they don’t look 100% the same? TheGreatGabester ☎  13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I like these changes. Bongo50   ☎  19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It might take me a few weeks to finish up the changes to the design, I’m pretty busy with other things at the moment. However, I do think this is fairly close to being implementable - obviously, the transmat pages themselves still need to be created, but I won’t involve myself in that process. TheGreatGabester ☎  11:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and it'll take more than a couple secs to put together that 'update kit' thing, too. But I'm committed to that, I think it'd be super useful. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I look forward to it. Bongo50   ☎  20:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Have uploaded a new draft adding the 'bubble' things back; also experimented with an additional over-extended diagonal line. Still yet to create the transmat kit. TheGreatGabester ☎  16:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Bongo50   ☎  17:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, at this stage, I think the graphic might be implementable, unless you or anyone else have any tweaks you'd like made? Maybe you'd want the transmat kit done first, too; it's entirely your choice. Though, I guess the plan's to update the whole page all at once, rather than taking a piece-by-piece approach. TheGreatGabester ☎  11:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we need to actually write the new transmats first. They don't necessarily need to be finished, but they need something. Bongo50   ☎  14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And it's going to need to be a wiki-wide project. Maybe post an announcement in T:TF asking for volunteers and set up a sandbox? Najawin ☎  19:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)