Forum:Temporary forums/Updating the main page & theme

Background
I'll leave User:Bongolium500 to get the ball rolling with the suggestions I believe he has been developing, but having reached the requisite support threshold, I thought it was about time we get this thread officially started. Our main page and theming still tie themselves to an era that is now over; furthermore their general aesthetics, which have long been somewhat unpopular with the community, were selected based on agreements with BBC America, who are no longer carrying Doctor Who in the first place.

For a long time, there were diplomatic reasons we were stuck with that gold-and-purple and that monomaniacally current-Chibnall-era-focused home page, but I think it is time to returned to our more holistic roots. We used to look like this, foregrounding the transmats" which act as starting points for readers to dig into our wide catalogue of pages; on the current iteration, they have been pushed so far down that I had to go back and check they were even there as I prepared to write this page. In this year of the 60th anniversary, I can find no better time, as Bongolium's proposal stated, not only to "bring it all up to date with the current era and branding" (though we absolutely must do that much), but also to highlight more of the vast history of the DWU, on either side of the fourth wall, than just the most recent season.

This page is both a formality demanded by policy for such a big change (hence why we couldn't do this sooner), but also a genuine place for you, the community, to voice your opinions, and make your suggestions, about what we could do with this. I linked the older version merely as an example; the goal is to move forward, not backward! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm contributing to this thread too soon, considering @Bongo hasn't voiced his proposal(s) yet, but I would like to share my attempts at changing the Main Page in my sandboxes; see /Sandbox Mainpage for my attempt at the Main Page, which while mostly contains now-outdated info, does have some good additions such as, an inter-Wiki template used by virtually all other BBC-related Wikis; and /Transmat:IW, an unfinished Iris Wildthyme (and Magrsverse content) , which could be adapted/or finished.  15:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've particularly disliked the current theme since... well, since it was introduced, something that most people I've chatted about will probably now. Now, bringing back old faces seems to be trending right now and it is in this light that I propose we do exactly the same (but for far different reasons). Even though we're not a Doctor Who wiki only, we're still called Tardis Wiki, and the TARDIS is the most iconic thing from the franchise. Building our theme around it seems only natural then.


 * I found this archived version of our Eleventh Doctor page, which allows newer users to somewhat experience what the old themes looked liked (click the button to the right of "talk" to switch between light/dark themes). Obviously a lot of templates, .css and other details changed from then to now, both locally and globally - hell, we were tardis.wikia then, not tardis.fandom! - so we don't need to copy 1:1 what we used to have. But I still would appreciate leaning into that a fair bit, so I made this (very rough) mockup of what we could build towards. We can obviously incorporate other colors into the theme, to make it less monochromatic, but I'm quite fond of the blue/white duo we used to have. OncomingStorm12th ☎  16:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: I know this my above comment isn't exactly about the main page, which is the topic of the thread, but there's no point in changing just the contents of the main page, given that the current theme is built upon the revamp made alongside BBC America. Just to be closer to the topic, I also had this mockup lying around of the main page, back then. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I completely support changing the theme as well, it's been around five years since it was introduced, and not only have we had three new actors and a returning showrunner since then, five years is a third of this Wiki's lifetime. Contra the Marvel Database Wiki, which changes its theme everytime a new movie or television series comes out, which is every few months or so... we really ought to at least update the theme to reflect a current era or idea, even if it isn't for every new major release. 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I also support updating the Main Page. As a related note, that 2017 revision of it is comically broken for Kindle viewers and displays a massive image of the Eighth Doctor taking up a decent chunk of the screen, so reverting to that design is definitely a no-go. Pluto2 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. As I said, I merely pointed to it as the relic of a completely different philosophy for what the page could look like, not as in itself an example to emulate; the main operational element is the Transmats being one of the first things in sight rather than banished to the bottom. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I wasn't originally going to propose that we discuss the theme on the temporary forums as I feel that its the sort of thing that benefits from continual feedback over a period of longer than 3 weeks. Moreover, I feel that the wiki could do with a general reorganisation of our CSS alongside any potential theme redesign that I don't have time for right now and that I didn't want to impinge on CzechOut or SOTO. However, I do like the theme proposed above and so, if we can come to an agreement on it in this thread, I don't see why it couldn't be implemented in the theme designer with any additional CSS tweaks being performed later as and when people have time for them. In general, with themes, I think it's important to stick to current branding. Looking at the logo that is now being used for new releases and on official social media accounts, it is primarily blue with accents of grey and some yellow/gold highlights. I'm not sure how well this grey accent would work on the wiki, but I think keeping the gold could work quite well. No matter what, I feel we should definetly switch to using the blue from this logo.


 * I agree that the transmats should be made more prominent. They also need some improvement on the CSS side of things as the boxes overlap quite heavily and also cut off in some places. They definetly need updating to include information from the last few years. Adding new transmats, while something I would very much like to see (Epsilon's Transmat:IW and Najawin's Transmat:FP are both great), is a little tricky. It involves editing File:TransmatButtons2018.png to add the new icon which requires someone to have some form of skill with image editing. Adding the links then requires editing an imagemap and that requires knowing the pixel positions of each icon. In summary, it can be done but it requires someone with some image editing know-how and some time.


 * And now for the actual main page itself. As we're currently in a bit of a gap between eras, I feel that it could be a good idea to focus on the non-TV side of Doctor Who until the next episode airs and kicks of the next era. In particular, I was thinking that we could have some form of module showcasing the latest releases, perhaps the most recent ten, across all of the series and spin-offs we cover. To aid in keeping this up to date, the template this is on could allow for autoconfirmed users to edit it. Another potential module in this vein could be a showcase of the most prominent characters in recent releases at the moment, possibly such as the Fourteenth Doctor (who's headlining the DWM comic strip), The Warrior (from recent Big Finish releases), the Torchwood crew (from Big Finish's ongoing range), the Fugitive Doctor and Taslo (from the most recent Titan Comics series), Eldrad (from the most recent Cutaway Comics release) and loads more from series and ranges that I don't know enough about. Again, this could be in an autoconfirmed user-editable template and could perhaps use slider gallerys (for an example of one of these, see the top of the Stranger Things Wiki's homepage). This could then easily be updated to include/focus on the main characters of the next run of television episodes.


 * Another thing that I'd like to do is place more of an emphasis on highlighting some of our best articles. A lot of wikis have a featured article system and, while that is something that's probably worth a thread of its own, I've always liked Wookieepedia's status article system which they showcase on their mainpage in their "Article Showcase" section. You'll also notice that this is a feature of the Stranger Things Wiki's homepage. Another thing I think could be cool is to highlight content from our date pages. I have some (very buggy - the left module seems to have completely stopped working and you may need to purge the page twice to make it show stuff for today's date) drafts for this here that could be expanded and improved upon.


 * Moreover, we are in the 60th Anniversary year so we could have some form of module highlighting key events, stories, characters and/or personel from over the last 6 decades. Another thing is that I think we should keep some form of Twitter feed but replace it with @bbcdoctorwho. We could also look at intergrating some other official social medias.


 * What are everyone's thoughts on these ideas? Bongo50   ☎  20:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the theme, I think it's kind of a necessity, even if it doesn't preclude a more thorough CSS overhaul at a later date. Looking at home-pages past and present, it's clear that these things have to be designed with the Wiki's colour scheme in mind — e.g. the silvery or golden transmat portals — and so, it seems to me, if we have a broad consensus to move away from the purple and gold in the near future, we had best know that before we start putting too much work in any home-page design too deeply rooted in the current theme!


 * I strongly second the idea of a "recent releases" module as a permanent fixture. The character highlight is a good idea too, and one which could more easily be replaced with something else of similar size and placement in a future do-over as needed. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just as a first note, the version of the page Scrooge linked above is completely broken for me, there's a giant Paul McGann in the middle.

So I was going to propose this first thing if we got the full forums back, I think it's imperative that we update our main page. Why didn't I propose it on the temporary forums? I'm unconvinced that a project as big as this will get consensus or even should have consensus within three weeks. Doing this "while nobody is looking at us", so to speak, is the best option we have, pushing these changes through and hoping Disney doesn't care in some form or fashion, now that BBCA is unable to dictate what we can and can't do anymore. (Speaking of which, our first order of business should be to remove their twitter feed. Jesus.)

Transmats: I think I've come to disagree with the theory behind Transmat:IW and Transmat:FP, after creating the second. There's just too many spinoffs we could give transmats for and it seems unfair to give emphasis to these two. My current suggestion:


 * 1) Move SJA/Torchwood/K9/Class to a single transmat for the TV spinoffs created in the RtD/Moffat eras.
 * 2) Potentially just delete the location transmat.
 * 3) Create a transmat for the EDAs/VNAs/PDAs/NSAs. (Willing to be convinced quite easily that the NSAs don't belong here. I'm iffy on that.)
 * 4) Create a transmat for Big Finish. We can add BBC Sounds to it if they keep working on stuff, as well as other audio drama companies that might spring up.
 * 5) Create a transmat for DWM/Titan comics (+Cutaway?)
 * 6) Create a transmat for Obverse/Candy Jar/Arcbeatle, including Iris, FP, Cwej, UNIT, and the Black Archive line.
 * 7) Construct our graphic such that we can easily slot in another transmat for spinoffs in the RtD2 era.

It's a big janky, but I think it minimizes transmats while pays due to most of the established spinoffs. My major worry is that Arcbeatle is less established than Obverse, so there's always some worry with that. But if we spin things off to specific transmat pages, we can edit the pages without going through the rigamarole of editing the full main page + graphic.

I endorse at least an exploration of changing the theme, I'd like to consider one based on the new color scheme as well as our old one. I'm also in favor of "recent releases" and "highlighted character". I also note that I was thinking about us working together to write a cliff notes version of DW's history in preparation for the 60th that we could host on the site. Sort of a mix between describing what was happening in the show and the production issues (more like, these actors left the show, these writers joined, these writers were committed buddhists and that showed in their work, or what have you, etc, not backstage gossip - the well established facts that had demonstrable impact on the show). Since the 60th will be distributed on Disney+, there's going to be a decent amount of eyes on it that haven't looked at it before, so having a "quick start" guide to catch people up to speed to where the show's at in the 60th would be incredibly helpful. As well as helping out all the returning viewers who left during the Smith, Capaldi, or Whittaker eras. Najawin ☎  22:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm more optimistic than you about getting somewhere within the three weeks, but for something as unique and as important as this, I think we could see our ways to special dispensations regarding the three-week deadline. As you say - we need to do this. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin's idea of having a "quick start" guide is one I really like and has reminded me of an idea I've been playing with that's almost certainly a topic for its own thread but that I'm going to mention here while I remember: a new namespace, kind of similar to the theory namespace, for guides. Examples could include Guide:Getting started with Doctor Who (which goes over good introductory episodes and series), Guide:Introduction to Big Finish (which goes over the concept of an audio drama and provides recomendations for each Doctor and other prominent characters) or Guide:Faction Paradox (which goes over what Faction Paradox is, good first stories and the prerequisites for each story). They would be more opinionated than the rest of the wikibut I feel could be a valuable resource. On a more on-topic note, I like Najawin's proposed transmats. They feel a lot more maintable and future-proof than what we currently have. Additionally, I'm going to create some drafts for some of the proposed modules over the next few days. If anyone else wants to try putting some stuff together, feel free! Note that the tags used to create the columns on the main page do work on other pages, including user sandboxes. Bongo50   ☎  22:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the transmats should be prominent, but I'm not so sure about a "most recent releases" thing. I think it may be more practical to have a link to the latest year of releases, that way it won't matter so much if whoever is in charge of editing the main page is late in updating or misses a release or something like that.


 * Other changes I propose are getting rid of the BBC America Twitter thread, adding labels to the transmats, and adding a more obvious link to our policies for newer users.LauraBatham ☎  22:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The thing with just having a link to 2023 (releases) is that that is not as visual or immediately obvious to a new reader. As, ideally, all autoconfirmed editors would be able to update it, I don't forsee it becoming too outdated too easily. I already follow new releases pretty closely and would be happy to spend a few minutes every so often updating the module. However, another option could be to automate the module by grabbing information from 2023 (releases) and formatting it in a nice way for the main page. I don't like this as much as it gives less control over how the information is presented, but it is a possibility.


 * There could still be a picture accommodating it to make it more visual and a "New Releases" heading to make it obvious. However, if the main page will be able to be updated by more than just a few people, I agree that it becoming outdated would be less of an issue. LauraBatham ☎  23:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that the main page is still only updatable by admins, but there's a template or module it grabs, and this module/template has some portion that is editable by others. (Or interacts with a text field that's editable by others.) Najawin ☎  23:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct. Currently, if you look at the source for the homepage, there is no actual content on it: it's all just templates. The idea is to still do that, but keep some of the templates unlocked. Sorry about that unsigned message. Bongo50   ☎  00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely support this proposal. We are way too outdated as wikis goes. The wiki needs to look alive by the visuals of the main page and theme alone. Danniesen ☎  01:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I proposed a thread on the subject of quickstart guides / recaps of series so you can get caught up easily. It's not explicitly relevant to this subject and is easy to get bogged down in, (It's a large project after all) so I'm suggesting spinning it off. Najawin ☎  06:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and replace to BBC Amercia Twitter feed with one for the official Doctor Who account as this is very easy and uncontroversial.


 * Regarding the theme, I feel that it would be most helpful to actually make some changes, see what we all think of them and then go from there. Therefore, as it has appeared to be quite popular, I'm going to alter the theme to reintroduce some of the colours from our old "TARDIS Blue" scheme. This can, of course, be very easily reverted, updated and changed further, so please leave your thoughts and suggestions here. I'm going to be announcing this change in a site notice for both logged in and logged out users, linking here, as I feel that it is especially important to get direct feedback from our readers and the wider community. If the change proves popular, we can work on refining it further and fixing any smaller CSS issues over the next few weeks and months. Bongo50   ☎  17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For my two pence worth, I could get used to this. Haven't read this whole thread, but it would be cool if we could not only have blue to represent Fourteen's jacket, but maybe something to represent the colour of the his brown waistcoast? Is that possible, to have a splash of both colours? I don't like change but I'm sure I'll get used to this hehe. The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  18:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * From @Ducky Whovian on Twitter: "If I had to constructively criticise, I think a slightly darker shade of blue would reflect the 'forbidden knowledge' feeling of doing canon deep-dives on your site a tad better, but I do like this blueness a lot."
 * How would a darker shade look? While I do like the most recent shade, a darker blue would look perhaps a little better for the dark mode, and might have a thematic connection to the Wiki's coverage of the obscure and the strange. 19:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about that, it seems like a niche bit of reasoning, even if one I might be broadly sympathetic to. I still think we should consider basing it off of the current branding, so going with a deeper (? less green?) shade of blue, perhaps. But as a place to start conversation this is good. It instantly calls attention to the fact that we're making change, so it's doing its job as a placeholder. Najawin ☎  19:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Something that's worth mentioning: the current blue-ness of the theme is meant to draw directly from the official TARDIS-blue shade (with, possibly, some small diferente for better contrast with the text). Either way, I personally think that it is close enough to the new logo (which itself has dozens of shades spread throughout it, due to the shadows and the glowing yellow).
 * That's not to say we couldn't tweak it, if enough people want that, but I think it really works well as it is. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure how I feel about the blue-on-blue as it is, with having the actual background lighter than the article's background. Just from having a quick play myself I think a darker blue background helps, or a dark gray like the new logo's outlines. Or, and this might be a bit controversial, not having a separate background at all and setting it the same colour as the article body's blue also works well, especially if you put it into wide mode on desktop. Just my 2c! guyus24 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel like I should comment that I liked having an image in the background, I thought it gave the site more personality. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Loving the new theme. Very fitting colour scheme, though I am not opposed to tweaking it if others feel it necessary. LauraBatham ☎  03:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ditto! I don't have much to say regarding visual design matters usually, but something about the new dark mode's blue background with the gold infoboxes is very nice. – n8 (☎) 15:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm one of the lead admins over at Stranger Things Wiki - I designed the 'featured articles' template and system and the main page slider mentioned earlier - and a lot of other stuff over there, including the colour scheme. I'd be happy to help out here, too!


 * I personally feel the Tardis Wiki's look is a bit overly-sanitized. I get that it's tricky, trying to establish theming that accommodates such a vast and storied franchise such as Doctor Who, but I feel the wiki would benefit with just a little bit more personality. The most obvious way to do this would be adding a background image: something subtle, that adds a nice degree of visual texture and randomness, that pleasantly contrasts with the otherwise highly structured-looking articles. Also, I personally like the option to make the pages slightly translucent - it creates a compelling sense of depth (although, it can sometimes be distracting, you have to find a good balance).


 * You would have to find/create an image that isn't overly specific to any one facet of Doctor Who; however, I've always thought an image of the Tardis doors/interior, or the Time Vortex, could potentially work pretty well. But finding the right image usually takes a bit of trial and error to get right. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You'd be more than welcome to rework the featured article system for your own means, here are the relevant templates: w:c:strangerthings:Template:MP-Featured w:c:strangerthings:Template:FeaturedOption TheGreatGabester ☎  18:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The blue and gold combo is great, btw. I'd go for a slightly darker blue, but the shade of gold is great. You could test a dimmer/more saturated shade, but the blue's the main thing I'd tweak. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to start by saying that I love the aesthetic of the Stranger Things Wiki. You guys have done a great job.

I definetly agree about adding some form of image. Perhaps something that is primarily at the top of the page, behind the navigation (which currently looks very empty), and that fades as it goes further down the page could be interesting? As for what this image could be, I'm not sure. It doesn't help that we're between eras and so it would feel dated to have something from the previous era while we can't exactly use an image of something from the next era as nothing much as debued yet.

Is making the background transparent something you've done through CSS? With the right background image, I think that could look great.

Regarding your featured article templates, how often do your purge the main page to display a new article? Have you considered using "choose uncached" at all and, if so, do you know anything about how this might impact performance? Also, how often do you add new featured articles? Is there a community process for this? Bongo50  ☎  19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, glad to see our efforts aren't going unnoticed!


 * A fade could work, but it depends - the transition between the image and singular colour is key, those colours need to gel. I personally think it's better to commit to one or the other.


 * I'd suggest going for something that's anniversary-ish-related - I've just whipped up a concept that uses Tom Baker's 'time tunnel', also made some hue tweaks:




 * Using the diamond-shaped tunnel could make sense, since it's the diamond anniversary, the show itself is re-using the 'diamond' logo, etc. However, since it would need to be changed again for 2024, maybe a still from the 1963 titles is a better option? It's the original, and forever timeless. And you'd have fewer accusations of bias towards any particular era.


 * Making the background translucent is pretty straightforward - it can be done entirely within Theme Designer. Though, adjusting it manually with CSS is also possible, if needed.


 * We don't worry about purging the featured articles - it's a randomised(ish) system. We feed the main template a pool of options to choose from, and occasionally, we'll update the pool, switch some things in and out. Otherwise, the template just kind of does its thing, and we don't worry about it. It would be nice if the template could be 100% random, but the current system works well enough. Plus, we can easily adjust the layout and display of each article option, if needed. Cache is currently a non-issue, as far as I'm aware.


 * The Stranger Things Wiki editing community is unfortunately tiny, so I mostly tweak the pool of options myself, and no-one seems to object (so far). That said, implementing a community process is an interesting idea - it's up to you guys, really. The key is to make sure things are shuffled around on a consistent basis, while putting a spotlight on well-written/under-appreciated/interesting articles.TheGreatGabester ☎  21:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s a sad thing when a wiki dies out and gets abandoned. Especially if it’s unfinished and lack huge chunks of information, of which I have seen a few. Danniesen ☎  22:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I quite like that diamond tunnel background image. It goes well with the colour scheme we already have. LauraBatham ☎  03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I know, right! Only a few minor colour tweaks were needed to make it work. TheGreatGabester ☎  10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That diamond background is nice! FractalDoctor ☎  13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. Let’s have that. Also based on the background on some of the Doctor Who Instragram's Story posts, having this background could turn out to be relevant. Danniesen ☎  13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not thrilled with it, but if people disagree, so be it. Najawin ☎  13:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you know if there's an archive of those IG stories anywhere? I think I know the ones you mean, but they seem to upload and then hide them pretty quickly. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as they’re Stories they go away after 24 hours unless you archive them for safekeeping. Most of them are just one-timers, but they have saved some of them… here’s one: https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE4MTI1MjAxOTUzMjQyMjg2?story_media_id=2675024887873233904&igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 * Ignore the content of the Story, look at the background. Danniesen ☎  14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s one of the last ones. Danniesen ☎  14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, cool. So if you guys wanted to go ahead with that idea, you could just use that screenshot, like I did, or maybe you could pull a screenshot from one of those IG stories, and just rotate it to make it horizontal? You’d have to wait for a opportunity to take a screenshot without the layered text and graphics, I believe those character files sometimes have a few textless frames, at the very beginning? That said, I personally prefer the Tom Baker freezeframe - it has a bit more grit and texture, it’s got more character. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite like the background. If other people like it, we can definetly try implementing it. In advance of that TheGreatGabester, could you share the image you used and the hue tweaks you made? I don't remember seeing a transparent background option in theme designer so I assume it only shows up if you add a background image? Bongo50  ☎  17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure thing - should I share the image at highest resolution, or reduce it to fit Tardis Wiki's file requirements? I'd be happy to temporarily upload it to Stranger Things Wiki, which doesn't have these restrictions, and link it over here - the other STW admins will (probably) be ok with that. And yes, a transparency slider in Theme Designer appears, once an image is selected - if you test uploading any old image, you should see it come up. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If you could upload it temporarily to the Stranger Things Wiki, that would be great. I'll download it asap so that you can delete it again. Bongo50   ☎  18:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, here:


 * The one possible downside is that there's the big Doctor Who logo in the middle - I could Photoshop it out, or find another freezeframe with no logo - this was just the highest quality still from those titles I could find in a rush.


 * For the colour scheme, I put #061837 as the article background colour, #d5ac59 for links, and #071f49 for the community background colour. 75% image opacity should work well. My preferences aren't a monolith, though; feel free to change whatever you like, this is just how I would go about it. Anyway, I hope this helps! TheGreatGabester ☎  18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've downloaded it so feel free to delete it again. I'll have a play around with it. Bongo50   ☎  18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope it's useful. I have no clue what should be done for the light theme, though - my only idea would be to invert the colour scheme, and have a gold background, paired with blue links. I tried to think of an appropriate gold-coloured background image, but couldn't come up with any good ideas. TheGreatGabester ☎  15:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose this could work, if tweaked a bit? The Capitol in Heaven Sent.jpg TheGreatGabester ☎  16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason not to use plain old white in the light theme? I really love the new dark one, but the light version seems a bit muted and nondescript – white might not be an iconic colour exactly, but it does feature prominently in the TARDIS' windows and would pair well with maybe a more saturated or darker blue. (I agree with OncomingStorm12th about liking the old theme, although I personally liked the even older yellow-highlighting links, so possibly my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.) I also concur that a background image would be good, as in particular the top header looks quite bare currently. And I think that gold Gallifrey image might work for the light theme – you'd have to try it out and see – but I definitely wouldn't try to match the article background to it, it's way too dark and saturated a colour for that.

Oh, one more thing – I think I get why the images on the current Main Page are mostly greyed (or ... gold-ed) out until you mouse over them, but maybe consider making an exception for the Twitter feed? It just looks a little odd. Starkidsoph ☎  02:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I plan to entirely remove the weird monochrome-hover affect alongside revamping the rest of the page. I've been very busy the past few days but, starting tomorrow, I'm going to be a lot less busy so will be able to crack on with drafting some stuff up. Bongo50   ☎  07:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm less sure about the Gallifrey image too - I agree, it might work, but perhaps it would better to keep the light theme background a singular colour? Honestly not sure, I just threw it out as an idea.


 * Who knows, the Gallifrey image + a light-gold article colour might work, but since a white background has proven to work before, maybe just go with that? Keeping things simple is sometimes the best thing to do. TheGreatGabester ☎  20:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding a light/white theme, how about a tiled background of grey classic era TARDIS roundels? Would be subtle, but still something. It could be too much, but worth a go? Roundels also tie into the whole TARDIS name, and span across multiple eras of the show and its aesthetic. FractalDoctor ☎  20:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Try it. There’s no harm in that. It can always just be reverted back. Danniesen ☎  21:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Classic TARDIS roundels! That's a great idea for a light theme.TheGreatGabester ☎  21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is related to the main page rather than the current theming discussion, but I've produced a draft of how a recent releases module could work on User:Bongolium500/Main page test/new modules (the birthdays and "On this day..." modules are older tests to be revisited at somepoint. They're both very buggy). Currently, it is showing 8 releases and can go up to 10 but I feel that it is already a lot. What do people think of the size and positioning of everything? Bongo50   ☎  22:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the core concept. It does look a bit squashed though - personally, I'd remove the birthday part and redeposit it somewhere else - maybe in the sidebar? Generally, a wiki's front page looks better when your focus is drawn to one element at a time, as you scroll down the page. Also, I'd be tempted to put a border around each release.


 * Alternatively, you could display the releases via a slider, which cycles through each option. It might be more straightforward and less time-consuming to get right, and they look good on mobile, too. TheGreatGabester ☎  22:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The birthday section is in the sidebar. I'm using mainpage column tags. I do need to stress, though, that the birthday module is here incidentally and nothing will likely be in their current positions, or even here at all, in the real thing. I'll experiment with adding a border to each release tomorrow.

I have considered using a slider and intend to have a play around with them soon, both for this module and some others I want to try out. Mobile isn't an issue, though, as the main page isn't properly shown there anyway. Bongo50  ☎  22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added a border around each release. I'm not sure how much I like it so please do let me know what you think. As for the layout looking cramped, please make sure that you collapse the panel on the right-hand-side of the page. This panel isn't present on the actual mainpage but there's no way to get rid of it in a sandbox so the closest you can get is just to collapse. Bongo50   ☎  10:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm silly for missing that - yes, it looks much better when collapsed. I do think it looks better with the borders.


 * I've also muddled around with a few concepts in Photoshop: Front page- Template concept - TGG.jpg


 * Each box looks a bit different, I tried some slightly different layouts (you can tell I'm a sucker for putting slightly unnecessary horizontal lines everywhere). I referred back to some of Stranger Things Wiki's notice templates, which have 'slim fit' images, for lack of a better word: w:c:strangerthings:Template:Construction w:c:strangerthings:Template:AnyIdea (There's also a few Tardis Wiki templates which are similar, like Template:Cleanup.)


 * I don't know if this concept would fit with the rest of Tardis Wiki's aesthetic, but thought I'd just throw this out there. It might be a bit 'overdesigned', perhaps. TheGreatGabester  ☎  17:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm a total newb so I wouldn't know how/where to start, but I'm glad a couple of other people liked the idea of classic TARDIS roundels as a light theme background. Would just require finding the right picture, and making sure we're allowed to use it. FractalDoctor ☎  18:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Love the idea of these little boxes highlighting the recent releases! Personally, I think the middle design is the one that works/looks the best. OncomingStorm12th ☎  18:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the middle option looks the best. I'll have a go at replicating it later today or tomorrow (probably tomorrow). With using roundels as a background image, I can try it out if someone can provide an image of a single roundel. ThemeDesigner has a built in option to tile images so a single roundel is fine.


 * On a different note, I've made a load of little changes to CSS today, particuarly for the light theme. Please let me know if there's anything that is broken or that looks bad so that I can fix it. Bongo50   ☎  19:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll throw another random idea out there: I found a great piece of fan-art that shows an imagined cross-section of the TARDIS interior. This might not be an ideal option, since it's a fan-made image, but it might lend itself well to a light theme: Light theme concept - TGG.jpg TheGreatGabester ☎  21:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I like it, but you're right that it being a fan-made image would be an issue. If we could find an official line-art image in a similar style, that could look great I feel. Bongo50   ☎  21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The patterns and lines of that made me think of Gallifreyan circular text/patterns. Maybe that would work nicely? Again, something that transcends multiple eras, is quite distinct, and is unique to Doctor Who? FractalDoctor ☎  22:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe there's something in the TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual? Haven't read it. But it's probably where to look. (Noting, again, that I don't like the idea of having an image.) Najawin ☎  22:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of Gallifreyan. If we could find a sufficiently large and official image, it could work well. I've just skimmed through the TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual and, while there's plenty of line art, its either the wrong size to work well as a background image or has annotations.

Najawin, why don't you like the idea of having an image? I feel that the current background is very empty and an image would really help to fill that space. I'd be very interested to hear your reawsoning to the contrary.

In the interest of experimentation, I'm going to trial the Time Vortex background proposed by TheGreatGabester. If its unpopular, we can, of course, revert it, so please do provide both positive and negative feedback if you have any. Bongo50  ☎  23:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I just prefer it being rather one-note. Personal preference. Najawin ☎  23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite like this most recent update with the darker blue and the Vortex background. My only criticism is that, perhaps, we could find a higher resolution image, and without the diamond logo? 23:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree about the logo, it's more distracting that I thought it would be. But there should be better stills to choose from, from those same titles. TheGreatGabester ☎  03:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about this: TEMPORARY_UPLOAD_-_Doctor_Who_-_Time_Tunnelv2.png - again, uploading through ST Wiki to bypass the file size limit. Happy to resize the image/change the file type, if needed. TheGreatGabester ☎  12:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Gallifreyan calligraphy is a nice idea. The roundels would be easier to implement, though - as Bongo50 says, the theme designer allows you to repeat the background image, which would probably work well for the roundels. You'd just need to create a 'tile' image containing multiple segments, that when repeated, creates the 'beehive' pattern. Also, the image could be easily switched out for a different roundel design, which could be interesting. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is this, which is a very high res version of an image that can be tiled. I believe Clayton Hickman himself has recreated the roundels, so he 'owns' this image even though the actual original roundel design isn't his. FractalDoctor ☎  18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been speaking with some non-editors today to try and gather some feedback on what some of the readers of the wiki think about the redesign. The general opinion from the small number of people I spoke to was that the colours are good but the image isn't. One specific comment was that the vortex doesn't fit so well with the structure of the Fandomdesktop skin (where there is one central panel with space on either side) and I am inclined to agree. Looking at the Stranger Things wiki, their background is much more vertical-feeling with the trees and this compliments the boxy and vertical layout of the Fandomdesktop skin. Similarly, Wookiepedia has a lineup of characters with is also quite vertical. Memory Alpha has a piece of very vertical artwork (reminding me a lot of a Big Finish sidebar cover). In contrast, the Time Vortex is more radiant and circular. What are other people's thoughts on this? In the mean time, I've gone ahead and added the new Time Vortex image. Bongo50   ☎  21:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's an entirely fair point, about the lack of verticality. Though, some directionality could be added via the transparency/translucency, drawing more attention to the 3D space - for me, that's the biggest appeal of the STW background, and why we keep coming back to it: the depth and sense of space/atmosphere it provides. And the tunnel is an even more dramatic example of three-dimensionality/depth. But I get that adding the transparency might be slightly controversial, if that's not something this wiki has tried before? So I'm not sure; perhaps something else would be a better fit. TheGreatGabester ☎  21:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite like the similar-but-updated versions of the old appearance User:OncomingStorm12th suggested in the opening post (File:Old themes 11th Doctor - New proposed themes Bill.jpg). I do think white, or slightly faded white, and the deep blue would be better for light mode. I also like having a slightly darker blue for the background of dark mode, rather than the current inversion of that.

Personally, I'm not a fan of having an image for a background— I think it's too distracting while plenty of wikis get it to work well, I don't feel it would on Tardis. (But maybe the discordant Flux-themed background we had just soured me on the idea.) But, I think a design/pattern might work, and the classic TARDIS roundels are perfect for that— I was actually thinking of them myself. There actually was an officially released wallpaper a while back with a design I like (an actual, physical wallpaper, not one for a device), the highest quality I could find so far of this design is here, though the first link has higher quality images for the individual tiles. Chubby Potato ☎  22:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Roundel background suggestions: 1 / 2.  This Wiki also has a great high res background of roundels. FractalDoctor ☎


 * I've had a little play with those 2 images and I've decided to implement the second "image display" set to "full-screen", "background image style" set to "cover", and "image opacity" set to 67%. The image is also set to appear as a header on the mobile light theme. Personally, I really like this, but, as always, let me know what you think and, if it is unpopular, we can, of course, revert. Bongo50   ☎  23:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, and I probably should have checked this before enabling it, what is the source of this image? Bongo50   ☎  23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The source is Clayton Hickman. FractalDoctor ☎  23:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * While this image works great, I'm not sure about how official it is as, while Clayton Hickman has worked on Doctor Who officially, I'm not convinved that this is official and so I'm hesitant. If it's not official and hence Hickman working as a fan, we should, at the very least, contact him to ask for permission to use the image. I'll keep it up for now, though, as everyone I've spoken to has liked it. I think it would be a good idea to do something similar for dark theme. Bongo50   ☎  17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I had some time to kill, so I had a go at making a new version of the 'recent releases' concept (loosely using a copy of Bongo's version as a base). I'm not the best at CSS, but I believe it works ok, and I'm happy with how it looks: User:TheGreatGabester/Main_page_test/new_modules TheGreatGabester ☎  20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So do we want to update the layout twice, both for the 60th and for, uh, after, (Trying to avoid violating our spoiler policy here.) or just update it once? Obviously whatever we do is contingent on the results of our spoiler policy update discussion. Najawin ☎  08:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I should imagine that we'd stick with whatever basic design we come up with, but tweak the contents as appropriate (e.g. altering the ratio of current-season stuff to 60-years-of-varied-history stuff). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This image suggests that the blue-gold logo might be here to stay beyond the 60th anniversary (and I believe RTD confirmed this elsewhere, in DWM, I think?) So while the layout will surely change, the blue-gold colour scheme might end up sticking for a while. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Davies definitely said it's sticking around for a bit. It was more a question of whether we'd do an update for the, uh, bridge, as well as the new era. Because that would inform any suggestions I had. Najawin ☎  13:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the things I've been working on doing while updating the themes is increasing the use of CSS variables. This will make any future changes much easier as, instead of having to change colours in many different locations, it will just involve changing them in a few locations and having all other changes occur automatically via these variables. With the main page, I intend update it again in November and continue to update it regularly after that to keep it relevant. Bongo50  ☎  14:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(At the minute, I'm seeing every link on a given page underlined, and it's very distracting on the eye. FractalDoctor ☎  14:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC))


 * Fixed. This was caused by a recent Fandom change where links that didn't have a high enough contrast to the body text were underlined to make them more visible. Links on light theme were slightly too dark and so I've lightened them slightly to meet the threshold. Bongo50   ☎  16:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Adaptating a bit the background of "a wallpaper shop dedicated to the sale of Classic TARDIS wallpaper licensed by the BBC" I managed to make this, which imo works quite nicely as a background for the light theme. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * On the basis of this being an official image while the previous roundels weren't (which made me feel a little uncomfortable), I have set it as the background for light theme. I also had a little play with it in dark theme and found that making it very transparent works quite nicely. I've set both for now but they can both equally be changed if they prove unpopular. Please let me know your thoughts. Bongo50   ☎  20:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Honest opinion, I like them a lot on light theme. The white roundels compliment the light theme quite nicely. However, I’m not particularly fond of them on the dark theme. I was very fond of the intro sequence tunnel effect for the dark theme. I suggest intro tunnel for dark theme and roundels for white theme. Danniesen ☎  20:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave the theme for today to give time for more opinions to collect. However, on another note, I have finished my second draft of the recent releases homepage module. It's here (as before, please ignore the other modules). I'm not sure if the rounded-ness is too much but I can reduce it or remove it entirely pretty easily. Thoughts? Bongo50   ☎  21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I love the new background. The columns at either side cap the page off nicely. I like the light version and the dark theme version, but open to the dark theme image being different if that's preferred by more people. The roundels are a timeless design, subtle, and span multiple eras. Looks great. (And if they stick, the fan in me is going to be chuffed that my tiny bit of Wiki legacy is suggesting roundels, although I doubt I'm the first to ever suggest it!) FractalDoctor ☎  21:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the light version of the roundels looks great, timeless, etc. I do have a couple of nitpicks, though- I personally feel the columns dominate too much of the background, especially when you're scrolling down the page. They're not bad-looking, they're just nowhere near as distinctive, iconic, etc. as the roundels themselves. So I'd suggest removing the columns, or tweaking the design, so the roundels peek out more (they only peek out when the page is zoomed-out - at least on my screen). Also, the roundels look a bit pixelated, it's not the best resolution (because of Fandom's in-built limitations, I believe). But this can be migitated by making the roundels larger, maybe putting on some noise reduction?


 * Obviously, I'm biased, since I was pushing for the Vortex, but I don't think the dark blue version of the roundels looks that great. I understand the desire to have the themes match, but placing a blue overlay/tint on the same image looks a bit odd. That particular Tardis wall lends itself well to a light theme, not a dark theme. I suggest either a) going back to the diamond tunnel, as Danniesen suggests, or: b) finding roundels from a naturally darker-themed Tardis design - 12/Capaldi's or 13/Whittaker's might work well. TheGreatGabester ☎  00:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The roundels on the light theme look fantastic... the dark theme is okay, I guess. I much preferred the diamond intro image. LauraBatham ☎  02:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Light bulb moment! I like the blue diamond vortex idea for dark theme but... hear me out. The TARDIS interior in "Enlightenment" is darkened with glowing orange roundels. There'd never be a good enough high-res image but I like the idea, if someone could make it.
 * Secondary idea, and this is me going very thematic - the Master's TARDIS interior as seen in "The Ultimate Foe" is black walls with roundels. Not only does this work for a dark theme, but it's fun to imagine the "light theme" being a nod to The Doctor and, conversely, the "dark theme" being a nod to his arch enemy The Master. Light and dark, literally.
 * Just throwing ideas out there :) FractalDoctor ☎  00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am totally in agreement with the idea if such roundel design exist and is usable. Otherwise, we should go back to the vortex. Not the light theme, please don’t touch that, that’s perfect. But dark theme, these roundels gotta go. Danniesen ☎  14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m still gunning for the Vortex (+article transparency), but the Master’s dark-walled Tardis is a fun idea. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been unable to see any option of transparency in the theme designer. I could do it through CSS if it is really desired. I personally prefer roundels to the vortex and that is the general opinion I've seen from the small sample of non-readers that I've spoken to (I aim to increase this sample size in the coming days when I have the time), but I will implement whatever consensus agrees on. Bongo50  ☎  17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Should look like this? That's weird, if it's not visible. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That changes the opacity of the background image on top of the background colour (e.g. the current dark theme background is on top of a blue background and has an opacity of just 20%, allowing the blue to noticeably shade the image). I thought you were talking about making the big center block where the actual content goes transparent? Bongo50   ☎  18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It affects both of those things - or at least, it should. Maybe's there's some strange issue going on - custom CSS, or something? If you increase the opacity, the image should appear behind the article block. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You used to be able to do it in the Theme Designer on the pre-UCP software but it's not there anymore. The transparency on Stranger Things Wiki is done via CSS - see their Common.css, from line 406. guyus24 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, my bad, I didn’t know that was in place. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have more thoughts on updating our current main page, and can do a pretty easy mockup of the new modules for the, uh, November thing, but doing so would technically violate T:SPOIL until we have that thread updating our spoiler policy. Najawin ☎  11:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't normally edit here, or on fandom at all, so please forgive the rando dude popping up. However, I noticed that while logged out that many of the colors are this obnoxious bright yellow that made the site unusable for me, and probably others with certain neurological conditions. The side bar in particular stays that obnoxious yellow even when light mode is turned on. It went to grey when I logged in to leave this comment, so I don't know if that's a general fandom thing or if it can be changed. If it can, since y'all are already playing around with the themes, I'd encourage y'all to change the obnoxious yellow to something more friendly, at least in one of the two themes. Kalany ☎  00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm really sorry to say that the sidebar colours are mandated by Fandom and we are not allowed to change them. The only thing I can suggest is to log in as the logged in sidebar colours are much better than the logged out colour.


 * We do also use a yellow/gold colour quite a lot in our dark theme (such as for the infobox and table of contents). Just to check, is it only the sidebar colour that is problematic or is the yellow/gold we use a problem as well? Bongo50   ☎  07:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A few days ago, I made a post on the r/doctorwho asking for feedback about the theme. The results were not what I was expecting: the vortex background is very popular, although roundels were also prefered by a lot of people. Here's a rough summary of the responses (this will not display properly on mobile):
 * I'm really not sure that we'll be able to pick a background that will please everyone. Therefore, I would like to propose making the background somewhat customisable to the individual user. This can be achieved using the Gadgets extension. I have put together a simple gadget to enable to vortex background. It can be selected at Special:Preferences, the first option under the "Themes" heading. This does, of course, require an account and is also not the most obvious to a more casual editor or reader. What the default background should be is also still very much up for discussion. Bongo50   ☎  20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure that we'll be able to pick a background that will please everyone. Therefore, I would like to propose making the background somewhat customisable to the individual user. This can be achieved using the Gadgets extension. I have put together a simple gadget to enable to vortex background. It can be selected at Special:Preferences, the first option under the "Themes" heading. This does, of course, require an account and is also not the most obvious to a more casual editor or reader. What the default background should be is also still very much up for discussion. Bongo50   ☎  20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * How did I not know about gadgets before? Dear lord, I can have WikiActivity again. Thank you so much. Najawin ☎  21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The default dark theme is nice – the roundels are pretty simple but imo much better than a plain colour. My personal preference is still for the vortex, so Bongo50, the gadget is much appreciated! Just a note that it understandably doesn't play well with the light theme; switching to light with the gadget enabled produces a rather muddy effect of mishmashed theming. I suppose it's out of the question to have theme customisation located more conveniently, akin to the lovely light-dark toggle in the header/navbar? The image itself is a little low-fidelity: maybe future and purely hypothetical seasons of Doctor Who might prove a suitable source for similar vortex depictions. Aside from that, I actually really like the light theme on mobile, but I'm still not completely convinced by the almost pinkish article background on desktop? The mobile version's light grey goes better with the roundels, which are great. Starkidsoph ☎  07:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I completely forgot about light theme when I made the gadget. I'll change it to only add the vortex in dark theme. Bongo50   ☎  16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I will admit, the resolution for the vortex image is not the best. I really feel though, that if I can just get a higher resolution still, it will look much, much better. Does anyone know what my best bet would be, for finding a high-quality still? TheGreatGabester ☎  18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Time Tunnel background concept v3.png about this? I spliced together two stills in Photoshop, in order to remove the diamond logo while maximising the resolution. (I know the file might be in breach of the image guidelines; again, happy to upload to STW, if need be.) TheGreatGabester ☎  19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the background image, when applied through theme designer as the default background image, is compressed to around 130kb. When I set up the background image used in the gadget, I manually compressed the background image used to a similar level, 141kb. I'm concerned avout going higher to ensure that the image loads quickly, without using up too much bandwidth and, for those on limited plans, data. I could try this new image, but I'd have to compress it a lot first (it's currently over 3mb≈3000kb). Bongo50  ☎  19:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That's all understandable. If it's not too much effort, I do think the tunnel variant would look much better if this new image was used; it has more textured edges (i.e. the part that's visible when scrolling through articles, the sides). Even taking compression into account, I'm 95% sure the edges will look more appealing. This particular freeze-frame is a bit more visually interesting, as well.


 * Still not keen on the blue-tinted roundels - if this is the route that's been committed to, I think the Master's black and white roundels, as suggested by FractalDoctor, would be more effective. TheGreatGabester ☎  15:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go at using a compressed version of the new image soon. With regard to the roundels, using the Master's black and white roundels is entirely dependent on whether a good image of them exists, or whether someone with graphic design skills is able to put something together. I certainly don't have those skills. Bongo50   ☎  19:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just in case it's relevant, I found Help:Background images recently. Najawin ☎  01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that that's up to date. Certainly, background images do now show, in a limited capacity, on mobile. Bongo50   ☎  19:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's completely ridiculous that BBC America could ever dictate the wiki's design. The show is British. The BBC itself are the only ones who should've had that power, not BBCA's owner AMC Networks. Focus on the franchise's home market. Digifiend (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear that the BBC shouldn't have that power either. We're an independent site, run by volunteers. Najawin ☎  19:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To further discuss the wiki's theme and background image, please propose a new thread at the temporary forums.


 * To further discuss the main page design, please go to Talk:Doctor Who Wiki.

Logo
This is something I will look into. I plan to produce a mockup of every theme and variation proposed so far which I will post both here and in as many places around the internet as I can in order to get as many opinions as possible. I will do this in the next few days.

In the meantime, I would like to discuss logos. I think a logo based on the current logo used on all recent releases would be great, perhaps based on Doctor Who Magazine ' current logo with the text "Wiki" replacing "Magazine", or possibly even with the text "Tardis Data Core". I have found someone who is willing to create this logo for a price that I am very happy to pay myself. Before I do, though, I'd like to check that this is something that other people like the sound of and work out the specifics, such as what text to use. Bongo50  ☎  18:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Total sidenote but theme related: has the format of Fandom Wiki changed its font thickness today? Suddenly it looks smaller/thinner for me, the default text, and it's hard on the eyes on some screens. FractalDoctor ☎  18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bongo50, I think that's a great idea, with the logo. It would make sense, given it's a variant of the official logo and in-keeping with how Doctor Who Magazine have designed theirs. It could be done in a variety of different ways, as you suggested, or have "TARDIS" curved over "WIKI" to replace the "Who", and then "Data Core" in a rectangular box beneath it. Any which way it was designed, I think it'd look great and would freshen up the whole Wiki. FractalDoctor ☎  18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the thinner text, could you post an image of the issue? Does it happen on both themes or just one? Bongo50   ☎  19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've opened 5 other Fandom Wikis and it's the same across all of them which use the default text. It's like the font weight is thinner, and it also doesn't appear to show when something is in bold anymore either. I assume Fandom may be updating its default text, or is having an issue their end. Uploaded a screenshot here. FractalDoctor ☎  19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not getting this issue. Is anyone else getting it? At a glance, I'm not seeing any reports of this issue in the Fandom Discord server. It might be worth joining and reporting it, or contacting Fandom support. Bongo50   ☎  19:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's definitely new - I've opened the wikis with different browsers too. It's likely not an issue, but just their new default font weight. The 'issue' for me is that nothing that should be in /bold/ is showing in bold, but hey. I dunno. Would be interested to know if others are seeing it too? Doesn't matter much, I'll adjust, just thought it was worth noting, especially if it is an issue about text in bold not being visible as such. FractalDoctor ☎  19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, I have a big soft spot for the existing logo - it's simple, but effective. If it were up to me, I'd update the "Data Core" font to match the current branding, and otherwise leave it untouched. The design makes the most of Fandom-imposed limitations on logos (in terms of dimensions). TheGreatGabester ☎  20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * FractalDoctor has communicated my thoughts on the matter perfectly. Yes, our logo is simple/effective, however there's variants of it that are almost 10 years old. Who's logo has had four in the same time span (not that I think we necessarily need to change ours every time Who does it, but I think it's rather nice to keep up with current branding, in some ways.
 * Having the text parallel DWM's format of "TARDIS / Wiki / Data Core" is probably the wisest, both in terms of resembling the original, and in keeping with the general shape of the logo. Anyone familiar with Rafe's BF covers could be rest assured our (new?) logo is in safe hands. OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest - I don't mind the logo the Wiki has now, but it just feels lacking somehow? Yes, the TARDIS itself is recognisable but it's basically a black TARDIS with bland white text. Using the new (/old) diamond would help not only freshen up the place, but I feel as though it would add a new sense of relevancy to the Wiki. Plus, due to the way the new logo has been designed, it not only nods to the legacy of the programme but it also ties into its future too. Feels like a winner to me. FractalDoctor ☎  21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don’t mind the current logo used on the wiki. HOWEVER… it screams that the wiki does not do renewal because it has been the same old logo since forever, and it is colourless, uninspiring and just plain boring. No one says the wiki has to renew its front logo every time the show does, but every once in a while would be a good thing to show outwardly that the wiki also can renew itself. Danniesen ☎  22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm fond of the current logo, but a new one could be a good idea. However, I don't really think the diamond logo would work well. I don't see it working for a website logo, and personally... I just don't like the idea. I do really think the logo should have the TARDIS as part of it. But, I do like the idea of changing the font, and something like the one the franchise's new logo has could work. Kind of like on the doctorwho.tv website, or that photo from a few days ago of [name redacted] in front of the sign saying "Home of the Whoniverse" (linking it might constitute a spoiler...) Chubby Potato ☎  23:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As concerns the new logo working for a website logo.... well all we need to do is look to our fellow Doctor Who Magazine website! We can, more or less, make our own logo about as large as their, and ours would have basically as much text as it has.
 * Personally, I think the diamond logo could work quite effectively. OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A diamond-shaped design, unfortunately, would probably look tiny due to Fandom's in-built limitations. The current image is better optimised; because it is rectangular, the text takes up more of the available space, and appears larger. A diamond logo can be implemented, but it would necessarily be much smaller than what currently exists. So it would be a trade-off, basically. TheGreatGabester ☎  00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Again using the DWM logo, I've previewed more or less what it'd look like if we used the diamond logo. Now, I admit the "Magazine" bit staaarts to look a tad too small, but well... the advantage of having someone do it for us from scratch is: we don't need to hold ourselves to the exact proportions of the original. If we made the equivalent of "Who" sliiightly smaller, we'd have room to make the equivalent of "Magazine" bigger, thus solving the problem. I'm still convinced it could work, personally.
 * PS: I have purposefully not cropped of my file so that everyone could get a broad idea what the full size of it would be on their screens. Please open the file in full screen. OncomingStorm12th ☎  01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * How does that logo look when you scroll down and the minimised navbar appear? FractalDoctor ☎  01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hm, this wasn't something I considered before, I must admit! Perhaps unsurprisingly, it looks very small and not the most readable. (This time I suggest you open my image at full size *and* click on it/zoom in)
 * However, I don't think it's the end of the world. Consider the equivalent logos on Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia: their logos (which are both beautiful, mind you) also look very small and not much distinctive. I don't this this should be a particular reason to hold us back from designing a logo; such is the nature of the minimised navbar. Another possibility is to not display our logo in it (though, again, since our "sibling" Wikis don't do it and are fine by doing so, so could we). OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I figured it would be tiny but it still works, I think. The diamond is distinctive, and your examples of other Wikis running with logos that shrink to barely anything prove that we shouldn't dismiss a logo purely based on what it looks like at minimised sizing. I'm still for the diamond logo idea! FractalDoctor ☎  23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What about riffing on the horizontal variant of the new logo? Best of both worlds.TheGreatGabester ☎  15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If it were up to me, I'd take the existing design, swap out the fonts, and put the 'data core' in a single line, underneath 'Tardis' (which would work best with a wider font). TheGreatGabester ☎  15:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

With the deadline approaching - any further thoughts regarding the logo? Fractal Doctor ☎  21:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm still happy to commission something if other people agree that it would be good. ,


 * Honestly, I still don't think there's any issues with the existing logo, I think it looks great, but that's just me. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the current logo, but I think something that actually resembles current branding would be better. Bongo50   ☎  19:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring here and do a little design of what might look good on the site.

We can also get a little creative here. For instance, what if for the start of November 2023 and for no particular reason, Beep the Meep hijacks our logo? (Keep in mind, the final three images posted above are not the actual *pitches*, they are more like proofs of concept. I understand that, for instance, we might not want to use an actual DWM comic image in this practice. But I wanted to very quickly show some basic ideas)

But even if we agreed on this idea, I think it would need to move to another T:TF submission. For now, the best thing is to try to agree if we like the text in any proposed logo, then leave the rest for another day. OS25🤙☎️ 16:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I like your logo ideas. The idea of changing the logo is cool, but I'm not sure how many people would be able and willing to contribute. If we could get a few logos, it would be brilliant, though. Bongo50   ☎  16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I love these as a way to update our design to the new branding, something we failed to do for Chibnall's logo. Even if only a single-digit number of people are contributing new icons, it would still be a lovely way to make the wiki more dynamic. – n8 (☎) 17:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I love the idea/s as pitched by OS25🤙☎️. If we had variants to cycle through, great, but even if we don't, I like the way the font has been updated to sort of match the "horizontal" version of the curent branding logo. Fractal Doctor ☎  18:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Really hope there's enough support for an updated logo. Fractal Doctor ☎  11:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just discovered the Russian Wiki and I love how fresh the new DOCTOR WHO logo looks at the top. Bold and bright. It'd be a huge shame IMO if we didn't have one that swapped out the words for "TARDIS WIKI" Fractal Doctor ☎  15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To further discuss the wiki's logo, please propose a new thread at the temporary forums.

Transmats
Just trying to get a bit more organized. The above discussion on background and CSS is great, but I figured with a task as large as this a bit more segmentation is a decent idea. The first mention of updating transmats discussed Transmat:IW and Transmat:FP, but I suggested instead we changed our transmat system in the following way:


 * 1) Move SJA/Torchwood/K9/Class to a single transmat for the TV spinoffs created in the RtD/Moffat eras.
 * 2) Potentially just delete the location transmat.
 * 3) Create a transmat for the EDAs/VNAs/PDAs/NSAs. (Willing to be convinced quite easily that the NSAs don't belong here. I'm iffy on that.)
 * 4) Create a transmat for Big Finish. We can add BBC Sounds to it if they keep working on stuff, as well as other audio drama companies that might spring up.
 * 5) Create a transmat for DWM/Titan comics (+Cutaway?)
 * 6) Create a transmat for Obverse/Candy Jar/Arcbeatle, including Iris, FP, Cwej, UNIT, and the Black Archive line.
 * 7) Construct our graphic such that we can easily slot in another transmat for spinoffs in the RtD2 era.

Though there is some concern that it would involve editing File:TransmatButtons2018.png. Does anyone have feedback or strong objections? I could take the time to mock up a new slate of transmat buttons, but since I don't really do graphic design, having last used a photo editor consistently, uh, ~10 years ago, and only using it sporadically since, it would require a time investment that I'm willing to give, but would like to have not wasted. So I'd prefer to settle on a hard plan/design before doing so. Najawin ☎  06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I’d be happy to try my hand at some graphic design, using the current image as a reference. However, I’m not that familiar with the expanded media, so I could just make a few 'template' roundels (if such a thing doesn’t exist already), which can be further modified by someone more knowledgeable about the wider media.


 * Also, someone mentioned changing the layout - please don’t! Unless there’s a compelling reason to do that, because it looks great as-is. TheGreatGabester ☎  11:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I quite like this arangement of transmats. I have minimal graphic design skills and certainly would not be able to construct anything usable here, so if either of you, or someone else, is able to do it, that would be great. I do think having a blank template roundel would be immensly helpful in ensuring that we can keep this updated in the future. Bongo50   ☎  16:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So the obvious criticism is that the grouping of transmats is somewhat arbitrary, and does things like groups SJA/K9 with Torchwood and Class. Still not sure if I think it's the right call as a result. Just to show everyone what my ideas for designs are, 1 and 2, though both would involve smaller transmat circles than are currently on the main page.


 * I think the reason the current layout was discussed for being changed is because it privileges the current era far too much and this wasn't our call. It was forced onto us by BBCA/the Chibnall era. There's ~3.5 whole pages of content related to the current era before we get down to the transmats, when in reality there needs to be at most 2. I absolutely despise the idea that the makeup designer and casting director are more important than the transmats, no offense to them, and our main page still says "friends" rather than "companions" simply because the Chibnall era liked using that term. Najawin ☎  22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, the transmats are being wasted in their current position. They're not being treated like the centerpiece they very clearly should be. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies if this slightly conflicts with the image restrictions - the file might be too large, but since it's transparent/a png, maybe it's fine? Not sure. Anyway, here's two versions of a transmat mockup with a more circular design, as suggested by Najawin. I also tried to incorporate the beehive/roundel pattern, from the current version. I think this looks pretty interesting, though perhaps a bit too busy? TheGreatGabester ☎  18:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I really like these mockups. They're great. Normally, images larger than 100kb aren't allowed and pngs aren't often allowed, but I've added an admin note to their file page explicitly asking for them not to be deleted. Bongo50  ☎  19:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to note that what I intended was far closer to a decagon, but I think the more vertical design actually works better given the dimensions of our main page + sidebar. Mixed on the removal of the circular gallifreyan, but there's a decent case to be made that it's too busy. Absolutely fantastic! Najawin ☎  05:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This looks great! I'm very excited for transmats to be usable again. – n8 (☎) 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I really like them as well. I was always a fan of them and wasn’t thrilled when we didn’t get something better when they went away. Danniesen ☎  14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We should have them in gold though, so they can stand out. Having them in blue on a blue theme makes them too… idk… NOT stand out, in lack of better phrasing. Danniesen ☎  14:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I’ll probably add the circular Gallifreyan back in - this was just a quick test, trying out an alternative layout. Does anybody know: do those symbols on the existing transmats hold any deeper meaning? It seems like they don’t; that those patterns are designed to compliment each individual image, but I thought I should ask.


 * Cool, I’m very happy to refine this design further. However, I don’t want to spend any more time on it for now, not until the desired contents of the transmats have been agreed upon. This design has 12 slots, but I can change the number, if people want more or less stuff on there. Once that is decided, it would be great if you guys could share image ideas (for inside each transmat). But yeah, I’ll wait until all of that’s been figured out. TheGreatGabester ☎  16:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be a good idea to also change the Doctor Who logo to the current one? Or should we keep that as the original, such as it used to be? Danniesen ☎  21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The existing DW transmat looks ace, I wouldn't dare change it! TheGreatGabester ☎  19:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Deciding on transmat content
I'm personally still undecided on whether or not we should go for lots of transmats, each covering one thing, or just a few transmats, each covering multiple items. Bongo50  ☎  20:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * My only concrete idea is to do one transmat per spin-off show, plus one for Big Finish, but no idea about the others. Since my DW knowledge is limited, I'll largely stay out of this conversation. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly against one transmat per spin-off show, this puts too much emphasis on TV. I think my proposal is a decent place to start, with people suggesting how they'd change it. (Of course I do.) Najawin ☎  18:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just reiterate what the plan is: the content ought to be decided before proceeding to make the designs, hence the section split.

Najawin, what are EDAs/VNAs/PDAs/NSAs? TheGreatGabester ☎  13:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, Virgin New Adventures, BBC Past Doctor Adventures, BBC New Series Adventures. Najawin ☎  19:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, I'm not sure how highlighting the TV spinoffs is particularly problematic, since Doctor Who, at its core, is a franchise defined by/rooted in TV.


 * I'm assuming though, that all those book series would fall under one transmat? That might be tricky -- I looked through the articles for those series, and there's not much of a shared visual sensibility. So yeah, I would really appreciate suggestions - maybe the 'rule of cool' ought to apply, if there's a particularly iconic front cover that could be used? Maybe one of the DW logos could be used, though maybe it's confusing, if the main DW transmat also contains a logo.


 * What about this: on the draft I made, there's a upper section and lower section. Maybe the TV spin-offs and similar visual media could occupy the upper section, and all non-visual media can occupy the lower section? TheGreatGabester ☎  14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well it being a violation of T:NPOV is probably the issue. :P I did admit that having them all under one transmat might be pushing it, given that Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures maybe shouldn't be in the same transmat. But the idea of 3/4 transmats for these shows, c'mon. I think 2, be it for old RtD/new RtD, or young/old demographic is already fair.
 * Alien Bodies is pretty iconic, as are some of the other EDA covers. But I think other people can comment on what they think for the actual design, I think the grouping of content is more important than what graphic we use to represent that content. (There's all sorts of ways to represent the novels.) Najawin ☎  17:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I had mind for the top section (one transmat per bullet). This is visual media which isn't part of the core series:
 * SJA
 * 1) Torchwood
 * 2) Class
 * 3) The Peter Cushing films (not 100% on this one - whether these all have be set in the DWU, I don't know)
 * 4) K9 series (not 100% on this one either)
 * 5) Something else

Some of these could be substituted with whatever hypothetical spin-off shows are announced. Again, I'm just basing this off my own concept, which features 2x6 groups of transmats.

I'm just not sure how merging the TV spinoffs would even look like as a transmat - just a bunch of logos kind of arranged around each other? Or characters? It's one thing to say, let's merge them all, but whether that'll yield a visually appealing result, I'm less sure about. So I'm more inclined to keep them separate.

I'm more on the fence about the non-visual media; maybe to be consistent, it might be better to give individual book series their own transmats, though I'm having a hard time mentally visualising it. TheGreatGabester ☎  09:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's an absolutely wild violation of T:NPOV if we don't give each series their own transmat. (Something some of us have criticized the current front page for.) But it's practically impossible to give each series its own transmat, due to how many series there are. The books I listed are just the BBC ones. There's also Iris Wildthyme (series), Faction Paradox (series), Lethbridge-Stewart (series), Cwej: The Series, The Black Archive (if we're including non fiction), Bernice Summerfield (series), just off the top of my head. Not to mention the comics and audio. Which is why I suggested consolidating multiple "similar" series in terms of medium under a single transmat. The issue primarily becomes what design to use, but, again, there are obvious solutions, like splitting the graphic in half, or using a clapperboard to represent televisual, or something like that. Najawin ☎  17:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Encompassing every single series is obviously an impossible task, and therefore we must try and reach a compromise. Also, I get where you are coming from in terms of sentiment when citing T:NPOV, but please remember that is about writing of articles/weigh of in-universe sources.
 * That said, I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't give too much of a focus on the TV spin-offs in detriment of EU media. Given all spin-offs are now in the past, I think it's viable that we do a single transmat for all of them, and, in terms of books/audio/comics/other medium, we could perhaps try grouping them by publisher, instead of simply by series? So, instead of doing single transmats for NSAs, EDAs, PDAs etc, we do a single transmat for BBC Books? One for Arcbeatle Press instead of Cwej: The Series, P.R.O.B.E., their novelisation, etc? One for Obverse Books covering its FP and Iris output?
 * In terms of audio, the obvious pick is one for Big Finish, with another obvious candidate being BBC Audio and their audiobooks of novelisations/annuals.
 * For comics, we could do one for Titan Comics and another for Cutaway Comics, I'd probably also do one for DWM, but in general terms, not just their comic content.
 * Even like this, we'd probably run out of slots pretty quickly, but we can and must give some priority to most notable and/or current media, over giving every.single.thing. the same weight in our design. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * OncomingStorm, that's all pretty reasonable - a publisher grouping would make sense.


 * I've tried my hand at a combined spinoffs transmat, and yeah, I'm still not convinced that this is the best idea -- it looks quite squashed, even with only two logos - there's no Class, K9, etc. Also bear in mind, that in the design I've suggested (which again, could change a lot), the 'orbiting' transmats are considerably smaller than the main DW transmat. Even if they weren't smaller, I'm inclined to make each transmat's design as stripped-back/non cluttered as possible - and one way to achieve this would be giving each show its own transmat. TheGreatGabester ☎  00:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, T:NPOV, while composing both an IU component and an OOU component, also has a section prior to them which says
 * Write dispassionately and objectively. Give all media equal weight; television episodes are not "better sources" than comic strips or audios.
 * Which has been taken by some to be a stronger requirement. So there's a thread on the docket about interpreting T:NPOV in part due to this. At the very least it's a "spirit of the law" thing.


 * I again point out that my suggestion was


 * 1) Move SJA/Torchwood/K9/Class to a single transmat for the TV spinoffs created in the RtD/Moffat eras.
 * 2) Potentially just delete the location transmat.
 * 3) Create a transmat for the EDAs/VNAs/PDAs/NSAs. (Willing to be convinced quite easily that the NSAs don't belong here. I'm iffy on that.)
 * 4) Create a transmat for Big Finish. We can add BBC Sounds to it if they keep working on stuff, as well as other audio drama companies that might spring up.
 * 5) Create a transmat for DWM/Titan comics (+Cutaway?)
 * 6) Create a transmat for Obverse/Candy Jar/Arcbeatle, including Iris, FP, Cwej, UNIT, and the Black Archive line.
 * 7) Construct our graphic such that we can easily slot in another transmat for spinoffs in the RtD2 era.
 * Now, I think there's room to be flexible here. Torchwood and Class are much more similar than Torchwood/SJA. So splitting up tv spinoffs by age group rather than era might work. (I figured putting all the active stuff in one place TV wise for spinoffs would be a good idea.) I figured that the EDAs/VNAs/PDAs are all similar enough to be grouped together, and then the NSAs are continuous with the EDAs and PDAs. Kinda. Obviously the NSAs and VNAs aren't all that similar, but each one has similarities of some sort to the EDA/PDAs. BF is so big it deserves a spot, and BBC Sounds did some work recently. BBV is probably not going to be active in the near future, so not worth mentioning, Magic Bullet is ded, but there could be others that spring up. So just think of that as an audio drama spot. Similarly, give a spot to the current people who are doing comics.


 * That leaves us with what to do with the other book publishers. I figured that we'd just throw them all together. Maybe it's a little unfair, but it consolidates three spots into one, and so we still have room for all the other transmats we currently have, like "tech", "characters", etc. Najawin ☎  00:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, as OncomingStorm pointed out, this is a graphic, not an article. Policies to do with writing articles need not apply here; this is about creating a visual overview. By the same token, what is/isn’t going to work from a purely visual standpoint needs to be factored into the decision-making process.

So full disclosure: I will lobby for certain choices, if I feel it makes for a stronger, more compelling design. The importance of that can’t be overstated. I agree with Oncoming’s sentiment: trying to reference every single thing, while also weighting all of those things equally, isn’t that realistic, and it won’t necessarily translate to a great-looking design, either.

I’ve warmed up to the mini-graphic I just made - it works well, when I shrink it down and add it to the larger design. I think splitting up the spin-offs by era would actually make a lot of sense. One for SJA/Torchwood, one for Class, and in the future, another for potential RTD2 spin-offs. Could be a pretty good balance!

Those other transmats (characters, tech, etc) might not be carried over. We’ll see how we go, but I suspect they might be a bit out of place going forward. and again, I like that “per publisher” idea - I think I’ll create some rough layouts showing how that could look. TheGreatGabester ☎  05:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * How's this? Transmats layout concept.png TheGreatGabester ☎  06:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, let me stress that the first section of T:NPOV makes no reference to articles. So there's a clear interpretation of the rule that suggests it applies to the entire wiki. (I don't want to go too in depth here, but you see those drop down menus at the top of the wiki? They used to not link to expanded universe stuff - focusing instead on BTS production people, and there was a large push from certain people in the old forums to change them, one of the arguments being T:NPOV.) Moreover, while the graphic is, well, a graphic, the transmats are articles. Now, they're out-of-universe articles, but they're articles never the less.


 * We can go with per publisher. I was hesitant to recommend it in part because I don't feel it's particularly future proof. Obverse has stood the test of time, as has Candy Jar. But Arcbeatle is still relatively new, as is Cutaway. As much as I want them both to stick around, they could do a Random Static on us.


 * So I'm not a Cushing fan, someone else will have to tell you if they think that's a good idea, I see it as more of a footnote like Shalka. My proposed pairing was SJA/K9, Torchwood/Class, for age reasons. And if we're doing the publisher idea, we're missing at least Candy Jar, and Cutaway. Maybe BBC Sounds / BBV, if we want to include them (tbf, I wouldn't, at least not at the moment). Najawin ☎  06:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't really see why we would dedicate a whole transmat to the Cushing films. There's only by my count nine stories associated with it that the wiki considers valid sources (with the remainder being parodic comic strips set in the Quinn/Howett Doctor Who? parallel universe). I'd be more open to a general "1960s Doctor Who" transmat covering the myriad stories where the Doctor is depicted as a human, ranging from the Cushing films to the TV Comic stories to the World Distributors annual content. This could introduce new readers to this weird and wonderful era of the franchise where the very concept of a Time Lord had yet to exist. But that likely muddles the waters too much. I do like the publisher idea for transmats. Pluto2 ☎ 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That's completely fair - also, I agree, the general 60s Who idea is interesting, but wouldn't work in this context.


 * I only brought up the Cushing films, because you can arguably classify them as 'spin-offs'. I was seeking to pad out the top section for live-action media (and make a placeholder which can be swapped-out for future spinoffs). However, maybe I should just reduce the number of spin-off transmats, and if new spin-offs become a reality, this issue can be picked up again.


 * Also want to mention: I think K9 should have its own transmat, since it wasn't made by the BBC/BBC Wales (despite being released in the RTD1 era). That's what makes the most sense to me: one transmat per era + associated production team. Which means that if multiple RTD2 spinoffs happen, they'd also fall under a single transmat. TheGreatGabester ☎  07:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a random note: I'm sharing new tweaks to the design by uploading new versions of that last image. If there's a good reason to keep an older version in-tact, I'll make sure to do so by uploading separate images again. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume the premise is that the asymmetry is because of the different mediums? Meh. But then again I'm not thrilled with sorting by publisher anyhow, so w/e. (If you're going to do that, maybe do audio and comics on differing sides as well? So then you have TV / Audio / Prose / Comics all sorted into groups? Just a thought.) Najawin ☎  19:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think having a degree of asymmetry is visually interesting, but I’m still figuring out the appropriate amount, as well as the overall arrangement/proportions. It’ll take a fair amount of trial and error to get right. I can certainly try some kind of four-sided design, though that would remove most of the negative space, it would risk becoming cluttered. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I need to revert to the original design, with 4-6 transmats on the top, 4-6 on the bottom, keeping it semi-symmetrical. The more I stray from the original layout, the more awkward it looks. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, I just uploaded yet another draft, moving it back to the original layout (more or less). The Cushing transmat could be replaced with something else, it's just a placeholder. TheGreatGabester ☎  00:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Current draft looks good to me (in terms of composition and content). Only thing that seems lacking to me is a transmat for Doctor Who Magazine (which could maybe replace Dr. Who-related content, but I'm happy with adding another one at the top, between/over K9 and Class. OncomingStorm12th ☎  15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Have posted yet another draft, which contains both a Dr. Who transmat and a DWM transmat. There's an alternative layout which only has 5 transmats on the top, if you want to remove Dr. Who. But again, I've kind of put that as a placeholder, expecting to switch it out with a transmat for RTD2 spinoffs, a bit further down the line.


 * Once the content/layout has been 100% agreed upon and decided, finer details, like the design of each individual transmat, the colour palette, etc., can be further discussed in the "Creating/refining the transmat graphic" subsection. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm still iffy on the company approach, as well as using the Cushing films - I don't think having one side being fully live action is a good idea, and you've already deviated from that. But it's Candy Jar, not Candy Box. You might want to ask other users if we're missing anybody notable in the recent (15ish years) past. (Also, the VNAs were not under BBC books. Did we decide to just lump them together?) Najawin ☎  18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, some fair points. I’ll remove the Dr. Who transmat, and add a VNA transmat. Current idea is to have books and comics on the lower side, and everything else on the top. I’m not sure how else I could organise it, except by totally randomising the placements, I’m not convinced that would work.


 * Similar story with the company approach. It’s the most obvious + straightforward way to get this done, to employ the various company logos (maybe with the exception of VNAs). TheGreatGabester ☎  23:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

* DJ Khaled voice * Another one. (another draft uploaded.) TheGreatGabester ☎  15:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To return to a previous point in this forum, I actually think that the Cushing films have more of a valid claim to being on the mainpage than K9 does. I'm actually not 100% convinced why we would include the K9 show, as it's something akin to BBV or the like. OS25🤙☎️ 08:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well certainly that's a loaded phrase in 2023. tbh, I'm not super bullish on K9 either, but that's because I'd lump all of the TV spinoffs together, and it's just one of them. It seems to me to be akin to Candy Jar but for TV, with the exception that it's no longer being made, as is the case with all the TV spinoffs atm. I don't see why either BBC or TV primacy should be our concern, but I'm realistic that there's going to be some level of concession on these issues towards TV media, though, personally, I'd like to keep it small. With that said, why is K9 in particular where you're concerned? Rather than the other spinoffs? I'm aware of some rights controversies, but are they really that intensive? Najawin ☎  08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've not seen K9, but I believe the show presents itself as part of the wider DWU (despite the BBC being uninvolved). The Dr. Who films do not (though this wiki still treats it as a valid source).


 * The thing is, future spin-off shows are almost definitely coming. So regardless of how important/relevant the existing spin-offs are deemed to be, this new design needs to be future-proofed, and able to accomodate further spin-off transmats. I just don't think one transmat is sufficient. TheGreatGabester  ☎  12:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Which is why my original proposal suggested splitting it into defunct tv spinoffs and the upcoming ones that will be ongoing. Najawin ☎  19:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I just disagree with the notion, that just because a spin-off show has concluded/is no longer in production, it somehow isn't relevant anymore? You can twist that logic around in all sorts of ways; by the same token, you can say the Virgin New Adventures shouldn't get its own transmat, since that line of books has concluded, yet I've still added one to the latest draft. I'm gonna stand by my view, that there shouldn't be one transmat per spin-off, but there should be one transmat for all spin-offs made in a specific era, under the same production team. From that, you get one for SJA and Torchwood, one for K9, and another for Class. If this proves to be unpopular, I'll be happy to change it, but I think this is a good balance, personally. TheGreatGabester ☎

Well, yes, I did suggest combining the VNAs, PDAs, and EDAs. (Along with the NSAs.) Part of my goal is explicitly to keep the number of transmats manageable, especially given that we still haven't discussed the IU transmats related to tech, aliens, etc. Are we just abandoning those altogether? Are we focusing entirely on serieses as opposed to allowing people a guide to the world the franchise inhabits? Najawin ☎  00:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Something like that might need to be its own template, at this stage. Depends what admins think - for better or worse, the design I’ve made is basically just an expanded version of the left side of the existing transmats. I think a table of characters, creatures, etc. might be the better way to go, because then, you can implement a semi-randomised feature, with different images and links popping up each time. That could be quite cool? TheGreatGabester ☎  11:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, part of my goal is to shrink the page, as I think it's far, far too big. People might disagree with me. But that's my reasoning for approaching transmats as I'm doing. The page is far too long as we should try to trim it down. In order to do that, we must also keep the transmats manageable. Najawin ☎  20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, but surely it’s possible to slim down the front page, while still adding new stuff? Removing the old, replacing it with the new? I don’t think long is necessarily bad, as long as all of the content feels necessary/is good quality. I don’t know though, would be interesting to get a range of opinions on that (and whether those aforementioned elements strictly need to be included in the new transmats). TheGreatGabester ☎  21:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Spin-off situation
People may or may not be aware by now: there’s been multiple reports, including one from Deadline, saying there’s a UNIT spin-off in development, starring Jemma Redgrave. I’m bringing it up to ask: when would be the most appropriate time to add yet-to-be-released spin-offs to the transmat design? I could make a new transmat with a generic UNIT logo, but perhaps it’d be better to wait for when there’s more information/an official logo? TheGreatGabester ☎  14:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would wait, yes. Preferably after the 60th at minimum. Najawin ☎  20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it's best to wait. No spin offs have been officially confirmed yet, never mind anything else. Fractal Doctor ☎  20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Deadline is pretty official. And they’re not saying stuff like “if” and “maybe” here. But I agree that we should wait until after the 60th with that. We don’t have a name for it. Just that it’s about UNIT. Danniesen ☎  20:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but even that article says it's been reported by other sources, and they confuse Series 14 with Series 15 at one point. I believe it, don't get me wrong, but I feel it's only right to wait for official BBC confirmation in this case. I also agree it should wait until after the 60th :) Fractal Doctor ☎  12:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Series 15" was before they made a rewrite. It was a simple typo that they fixed. The article says “BBC sources confirmed”. Deadline wouldn’t write this if they didn’t know for sure. Not saying we shouldn’t wait, as I also did agree, mainly because the spin-off didn’t have a name yet, but just saying that Deadline is a valid source. Danniesen ☎  13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just playing devil's advocate. There have been reports in the past which have also said "BBC sources confirmed" - doesn't mean anything until the BBC actually confirm for themselves. Fractal Doctor ☎  18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, seems to be a clear consensus to wait, prob til at least the 60th.

Just fyi, though, this is what I think I'll do: the Big Finish transmat will be placed above K9/to the right of DWM. The slot previously occupied by Big Finish would then be used for the RTD2-era spin-offs transmat. That way, you'd have a 'row' of four spin-off related transmats, chronologically arranged going from left to right. Sound good? TheGreatGabester ☎  19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating/refining the transmat graphic
I personaly like the design produced by TheGreatGabester to the right. It's got plenty of room for lots of transmats. Bongo50  ☎  20:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts on the background circles? They're purely decorative - I might remove/adjust them as they might make it trickier to update the graphic, though it depends on what people think of them. In any case, I'll also make a little transmat "update kit" thing, with the isolated components, which will make the transmats easier to adjust. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the background circles. I think they look great. Some form of "update kit" would be great and solve a lot of the problems with the current transmat graphic. Bongo50   ☎  20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To further discuss the transmats, please go to Talk:Doctor Who Wiki.

Deadline for consensus
I see there's a deadline for consensus, for the 27th - a deadline to decide a specific plan, or simply to agree that some kind of change should happen? Also, it would be great to get more info about what people would like to see in the new transmats - in the design I proposed, there's more transmats to work with (which are of a smaller size). But, I also saw some mention of hosting all the TV spinoffs through a single transmat. TheGreatGabester ☎  21:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The deadline for consensus was implemented for temporary forums to stop threads lingering for weeks unresolved, allowing us to get through a lot of issues quickly. However, I feel that this really would benefit from a longer deadline. Therefore, what are people's thoughts on removing said deadline for this thread? Bongo50   ☎  22:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought that was already agreed upon. I note, again, that some of these discussions cannot take place while our current spoiler rules are in effect. (/Grumbles about there being two threads with 18 votes for over a week and neither have been started./) Najawin ☎  22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * With that in mind, perhaps this is a case of "order of operations” - might be better to let the spoiler discussion run its course first before continuing to make plans, while also extending this thread’s deadline. TheGreatGabester ☎  22:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "two threads with 18 votes", it's all very well for the proposals to have existed, but there were no OPs for either. But thanks to Nate, that's no longer true of the spoiler thread, so do head over to Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 4: Changing the Spoiler Policy! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think we should stray from the "3-weeks guideline" (if we do so we’ll just end up in a new mess), but I do think we should extend this discussion, so I vote that we push another 3 weeks on this one. Should give us enough time to allow "The Spoiler Thread" to run its course. Danniesen ☎


 * I support extending the deadline another three weeks as well. Pluto2 ☎ 19:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to extend this thread by 3 weeks so I will do this. The deadline for this thread is now the 17th of February. Bongo50  ☎  20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A further extension might be needed? If the idea's to wait until the wrap-up of the Spoiler Policy discussion, then there'll be a three-day window to wrap up this one; probably wouldn't be enough? TheGreatGabester ☎  12:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I’d like to make people aware that there are only 2 days left for this thread to be concluded, unless we give it another 3 weeks extension. Danniesen ☎  20:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the original extension wasn't enough for it to meet its intended purpose so this thread will now be extended by another 3 weeks. Bongo50   ☎  20:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Although good progress is being made, a further extension is probably needed. It's not entirely clear to me, if the conversation pertaining to the background image(s) is entirely concluded, but in any case, ironing out the transmats will probably take more than three days. I can continue tweaking the design if the thread concluded, but getting community feedback is really important. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Today's the deadline - again, think a further extension is needed. Hopefully, it'll be the last one. TheGreatGabester ☎  15:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm going to extend it again. However, I think it could be a better idea to reopen Talk:Doctor Who Wiki and move the discussion there. Thoughts? Bongo50   ☎  17:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If the idea’s to get around extensions (?) Maybe? I think we’re close to ironing out everything relevant to this thread, and this should be the last extension that’s needed. But moving it would be up for the admins to decide, whether you guys would want this to be a on-going conversation. Or, one or more slots could be added to the temp forums. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to moving the discussion there, provided that after the changes the talk page is again locked, as per Czechout's reasoning on the talk page, and provided that it wouldn't violate the spoiler policy. With that said, I don't believe we're as close as TGG thinks. Transmats are step 1. The next step is completely redoing the main page for the new era. Najawin ☎  19:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Noticing we’re approaching deadline again, with this thread far from being close to consensus. I suggest we start getting this ball rolling if we don’t want another extension. In that case it will be the third extension, I believe. Danniesen ☎  07:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This last extension was 1 week to give Bongo time to set up the talk page. I'm sure it'll be fine. Najawin ☎  08:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I forgot to include that in the spoiler policy closing post, but yes, at least in a highly specific case like this, it would be acceptable to -tag a talk page and carry on a spoiler-including discussion there. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC

Spoilers
Alright, now that The Spoiler Thread is concluded, apparently this thread is supposed to discuss how prevalent spoilers will be on the main page. Hopefully people are more receptive to the line of argument on this topic, but I think that there is substantial reason to only allow official press releases (and perhaps official publicity shots while still in spoiler territory) as spoilers. The main page is the face of the wiki, all of the arguments made about how easy it is to avoid the spoiler pages obviously don't apply. So which spoilers should we show? Those every fan is expected to see - the ones that are part of the intended viewing experience of the show. (And or interactive experience of the franchise) Najawin ☎  15:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with that, yes. Though I think I would extend it to official announcements/press releases from any of the relevant DWU production companies; for example, I feel like Big Finish's big song-and-dance about Christopher Eccleston returning is in the same area, and I could imagine a home-page design with a place to highlight such a thing. Thoughts? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on how we decide to change MP policy to reflect more than just the show? Someone else had a proposal for this in the spoiler thread that they deleted, can't recall who. I'm not fully against the idea, but, you know, would need to be fleshed out. Najawin ☎  16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely would like to reflect more than just the TV series on the main page. Bongo50   ☎  19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the main page should reflect more than just the TV show, especially since this Wiki has so much coverage of audios, spin-offs, comics, etc. Maybe the TV stuff should somehow take some precedence, but other stuff should also get some limelight too IMO. Fractal Doctor ☎  19:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As TheGreatGabester highlighted, we should have the transmats going. Perhaps with more “arms” than shown in the above image. And perhaps we could have more than one transmat. Then we can link to the different TV shows, the audios, the comics, the novels and the games. Danniesen ☎  19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean multiple transmat graphics as opposed to multiple transmats, as that's already going to be happening. Part of my goals here, personally, are to trim down the main page. I think it's way too big. Multiple graphics are likely to run into issues in inflating the size of the page. In addition, there are further questions about what's notable enough for a transmat graphic. (eg, which BBC novel lines are important enough to get their own transmats? This is already an issue for my proposal, and, believe me, it's one I'm annoyed with. Or which video games. Future proofing the graphic is something that's nice to do if possible.) And then are the individual leaves of the transmat graphics notable enough to have their own transmat? Consider The Lonely Assassins (video game)? Does it merit a full transmat as opposed to a page? I'm unconvinced. Maybe the adventure games do. But not much else on the video game front. I don't think that's a good idea, in short. As for the main page highlighting more than just the show, there are two ways to approach that. The first is that at all times, in addition to focusing on the TV show, we have both the transmats and further discussion the expanded universe in some form or fashion. The other is that when something important happens in the context of the EU we change the main page to focus on it, either by focusing exclusively on it, or placing it there along with the TV show, as well as having the transmats at all time. (Perhaps BBC licensed properties being full replacements, farther afield ones being alongside.) As T:NPOV violating as it potentially is, I think I prefer the latter. Shorter page, serves the community better imo. Does require more work from editors. Najawin ☎  20:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Individual stories, seasons, games, etc. are definitely not getting their own transmats, haha - at that rate, you're basically creating an infinite fractal! (No disrespect intended to FractalDoctor 👀) There's even been talk of having a singular transmat for all spin-off TV series, stuff like that - it should stay pretty general and non-specific. TheGreatGabester ☎  20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what's meant by that Danniesen - the smaller branching circles are themselves transmats, they're just smaller than the central "Doctor Who" 'core'. The exact size and proportions can be altered if requested, but that was the basic idea: to create a mini "Doctor Who" mind-map of sorts, with the original design as the inspirational basis. The circles are currently blank, as the transmats' contents aren't decided yet (and indeed, the entire design might be radically reworked, depending on how the discussion pans out).

I propose that there should be a two-stage process in regards to making the new transmats: 1) Arriving at a consensus as to the desired contents of each transmat (and how many there should be), and 2) finalising the new design, crafting each individual transmat design, etc. It doesn't make sense - for me, or for someone else - to iterate any further until those contents have been decided. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry… got the terms confused. I meant the core could have several more transmats. Not in terms of one for every season. More like one for every Doctor, one for Torchwood, one for Class, one for SJA, one for K•9. Then another for each headlining companion and one for the main crew behind. Or something like that. Danniesen ☎  20:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So just to keep things organized, I'd suggest you take this up to the "transmats" section above. But as stated I don't think this is a good idea, and it seems to be the exact opposite of what other people want. Najawin ☎  20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Danniesen: I think a front page template displaying all the mainline Doctors is a good idea, but transmats aren't a good fit, in my opinion. Each "Doctor" transmat would need to be tiny; I'm not keen on the idea.


 * Najawin: I'm proposing we go through a semi-formalised process to create the new transmats. As part of that, I think this thread should have a new section, containing two subsections: one for deciding the transmats' contents, and one for finalising the graphic & working out the fine details. Or, alternatively, the existing Transmats section could be split into multiple segments. I could do this myself but would prefer to hear back from an admin. TheGreatGabester ☎  20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * At least, this is a plan that makes sense to me. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that this plan did not get admin attention and has arguably stalled the thread. Najawin ☎  17:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Arguably, the thread hasn’t been stalled, and the attention has just been somewhere else since it was proposed. I’ll say we keep jumping this thread up, so it gets the attention back. Danniesen ☎  19:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I like this plan and will implement it as subsections of . Bongo50   ☎  20:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion
I feel that this thread has began to loose its focus with conversation becoming very spread out and stretched over multiple topics. Therefore, I have decided to close this thread and move the discussion about the main page, its redesign and the transmats to Talk:Doctor Who Wiki. Hopefully, this will achieve some more focus and produce some more changes than this page has. Note that, due to the fact that we have elected to allow some spoilers on the main page, a similar level of spoilers will be permisable on this talk page. The only other disucssion that I feel is actively ongoing is about the logo. I think this would benefit from a thread of its own where it can, again, receive more focus. If anyone is particuarly passionate about this, feel free to propose it. Bongo50  ☎  20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)