Forum:The Howling, getting a little out of control

"a forum where all contributors to this wiki can solve problems and create fixes for continuity holes, speculate, discuss trivia, and offer up theories on continuity and other points of trivia, rather than engaging in these discussions in articles or on article talk pages." Is The Howling's description.

I'm thinking of specifying it a little more to be "with regards to articles on this wiki", as there seems to be an increasing trend of using The Howling as a general forum with posts for example:
 * Who do you want to play the doctor
 * What would YOU like to see in Series 6?
 * Saddest moment in Doctor Who?
 * Favourite least favourite RTD stories

The original idea for the Howling was to stop people pondering on the talk pages of the articles (or on the articles), but all parts of this wiki should still be used towards the view of working on elements of this wiki. It's basically the same reason why we don't allow fanfiction here, there's other places for that, and for the forums there's plenty of other Doctor Who Forums out there; Gallifrey Base, Doctor Who Online are two that come to mind.

I don't spend a huge amount of time in the Howling so I'd like to hear others' opinions on this, would the deletion of the more general forum-esque type topics like those (though not limited to) above make for a better experience? --Tangerineduel 14:44, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the general forum stuff would be best kept to websites completely dedicated to forums. For us it can just make extra work and can also sometimes clog up the recent changes which is kind of annoying. It it's just a poll type question like "Which is your favourite Doctor?" then that shouldn't be there. That's not included in the list above, so shouldn't be there. It doesn't come under fixing continuity holes, nor is it speculation about anything, it isn't a discussion of or trivia itself. (other than the debate as to which is the most popular Doctor) and it isn't a theory on continuity. Polls and such shouldn't be there. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:38, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about. I think it good as it is, as it lets people express their views and ideas about the Doctor Who universe with other Doctor Who fans, and have general discussion about the Doctor Who Universe, even if if it polls. However it does get annoying on the recent changes list. What we could do is open up another section in the forums, where people can have a general discussion.
 * The Howling would then become a place to ask question, such as Wookipedia's Knowledge bank . This would have strict rules about general discussion not being allowed etc. The new page in the forums could then be protected, or changed, so it does not show up in the recent changes, like the templates and any page beginning with 'Tardis:' Mini-mitch 22:06, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry guys it was me who was responsible for like 98% of those forums I won't post another like that ever again sorry again for screwing up the howling that way . Winehousefan, 09:27, July25, 2010 [UTC]
 * How about another forum for this type of discussion? ☆ The   Solar   Dragon  ☆ 09:04, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about another forum for this type of discussion? ☆ The   Solar   Dragon  ☆ 09:04, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat against having a general discussion forum.
 * Having the forums on this wiki is for discussions and other stuff relating to this wiki, other general stuff can go elsewhere. People should be coming to this wiki to read, edit and be involved with creating this wiki, if we had a general forum I just worry that people will come just be on the forums, as I've said there's other sites for that.
 * The Knowledge Base idea has merit, but we've got a lot of 'unknowns' and other elements which usually have lots of answers even if you stick to canon and my concern is it'd just turn into the Howling 2.0. Even with rules it still might devolve into something of a heated discussion over which bit of canon answers a question adequately. (I'm sure we could all come up with questions that would have multiple answers). --Tangerineduel 14:22, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you not keen on the general discussion forum, is it possible to create a new member thing, (like a rollback, admin etc) specially to monitor and control the Forums? These Users could have the power to delete pages that are against the Forums rules, etc general discussion etc. This would be done after telling the User that created the page on their talk page - that the page they have create in The Howling (for example) is against the rules of the Howling and will be removed? Mini-mitch 15:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nup.
 * Those things are standard across all wikis. While the Forums might be a different namespace it's still part of the wiki, the wikia doesn't treat or 'see' the forum as being any different to any of the other pages. --Tangerineduel 15:10, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, well it was worth asking anyways. If we were able to get The Howling as it should be, would User be able to put the tag on pages in The Howling that are against The Howling rules? We could then state clearly that if they want to ask questions like Who do you want to see in Series 6 etc to go to either Doctor Who Question and Answers wiki or 'Start a blog on their User Page, and ask people to contribute to it or go to a website like DigitalSpy that has a section for general discussion about Doctor Who? Mini-mitch 16:25, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

One thing I don't think we've looked at using yet is user blogs... perhaps if we set the rules down on the Howling page that these types of discussion are frowned upon, but users are more than welcome to talk about them in their user blog. Of course, this wouldn't appeal to IPs, but may make some of them more likely to sign up... --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:04, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mini-mitch I think definitely we can put delete tags on forum posts that don't conform to the forum rules.
 * I had forgotten about DW Questions and Answers Wiki! That's an excellent place to direct people.
 * As for blogs, that's also a good idea, but I think, if we were to put that in motion we'd need to adopt some blog policy rules, over on the Harry Potter Wiki, they've recent been working through their blog policy, (see: W:c:harrypotter:Forum:Blog policy proposal, redux for their policy), much of it is already in our Tardis:User page policy, I think it would be useful to have a separate policy for blogs (or maybe add to the user page policy with a section on blogs). --Tangerineduel 14:34, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * So if we can get a set of rules together, and a blog policy, would this mean we're going a head and reverting the Howling to how it should be?
 * Are the admins for Doctor Who: Questions and Answers okay with us redirecting User there? I think The Digital Spy Forums are still a good place to redirecting people, but its up to you. Mini-mitch 15:03, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * We already direct people towards the Doctor Who Fanon Wiki or Doctor Who Expanded (it's on the user page policy), so I don't think there should be any issues.
 * As for forums, I think a list popular forums might be better such as; Gallifrey Base, Doctor Who Online, Digital Spy etc. We'll either have this list of links on The Howling page at the top, or maybe as a sub-page of Tardis:Resources.
 * I'll post a blog and forum policy shortly, based on the things discussed above. Once that's in place then we can start to figure out what need fits within the purview of The Howling. --Tangerineduel 14:44, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * See Tardis:Discussion policy for the policy that covers the forums, blogs and article talk pages. I've also updated the into into Forum:The Howling to be a bit more specific. --Tangerineduel 16:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * So will the topics that are currently in the Howling and irrelevant, be deleted? Mini-mitch 17:47, August 2 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, however have some restraint in placing delete tags on the forum posts is needed, some useful discussion does come from fairly flimsy premises at times. Of course many of the less than useful posts will be deleted. (Sorry that was a very backwards way of answering your question). --Tangerineduel 17:09, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll put the post I feel should be deleted up for deletion, and let you decide if they are needed or not. Mini-mitch 17:55, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also doing a general tidy up, e.g. of all forums that have only one or two replies and the forums is finished/stopped, or that are more that a year, and had finished/stopped. Mini-mitch 18:18, August 2, 2010 (UTC
 * There done most of them, i'll let you deleted them or not, and when you finished, 'll look through the rest. Mini-mitch 19:21, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once we cleared up the Howling, can we archive the pages that remain, and starts with basically a blank sheet? Mini-mitch 21:04, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I'd say is, if the conversations are still ongoing, as in within a week, and you put the delete tag on them, before an admin deletes them, allow the users to give a reason for it not to be deleted. If they are able to explain how it fits in with the policies then the page shouldn't be deleted. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:02, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers
Can we discuss the spoilers aspect. What should we consider spoilers? Should discussion of episodes which have aired in the UK not be discussed? I'm against completely disallowing this, but I can understand why a lot of people wouldn't want them there. I mean, where do we draw the line? Do we wait until places like Australia and the US air them? But then what about countries that don't get it until two months later? Just as we remove the spoiler tags from pages once they air in the UK, spoilers should be considered the same in the Howling.

I would, however, support a compromise. The title could include the episode title the "spoilers" come from. For example, if it contained information from "the Big Bang", and the episode had only aired in the UK, the title would be "Forum:The Big Bang:Paradoxes" or something along those lines. Then, users who hadn't seen the episode would know to avoid it.

I just don't see there being an agreeable time limit before "spoilers" are allowed in the Howling. As soon as an episode airs in a country, people will want to discuss its plot holes etc. Given that we frown upon them using the talk pages, I think it's weird that we would then stop them from discussing it here. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:30, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think since we remove the Spoiler Tag on page after the UK airing, then we should allow for "spoilers" of that episode - but I think they should it should a couple of days after the UK airing, so people who missed it and are planning on iPlayer, BBC Three repeat Sky plus watching etc, are not seeing the spoilers. We could also ask that if they are creating a forum that include spoilers, they MUST put spoilers in the forums title, along with the episode name. e.g. Big Bang trivia aspect (Spoilers) Mini-mitch 15:37, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Stories that have been broadcast can be discussed, they're not spoilers. That's information. We take our information from when a story is first officially broadcast, published or released, so be it; broadcast in the UK, published in the US (in the case of the IDWs) or released (in the case of the Big Finish audio dramas), the location of the reader doesn't factor into this, it's about providing the most up to date information.
 * Spoilers in the forums however seem to often refer to information gathered from un-official sources. This doesn't fit into the forum's rules as what's discussed in the forum still needs to relate to the content of this wiki.
 * I don't think there should be discussions of "spoilers", what I'm seeing so far is people grabbing info from unofficial sources and running with the idea. --Tangerineduel 15:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding the word "spoilers" in the thread title means that 90% of the posts will say "XXXX (Spoilers)" since people usually discuss what have just been shown. Since the title will likely stick forever, that sort of defeats the purpose. --222.166.181.207 16:05, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding the word "spoilers" in the thread title means that 90% of the posts will say "XXXX (Spoilers)" since people usually discuss what have just been shown. Since the title will likely stick forever, that sort of defeats the purpose. --222.166.181.207 16:05, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Archive the Howling (and other forums)
Now that we have tidied up the Howling, could we archive the pages that are not longer active? and also on the Reference Desk and the Panopticon? Mini-mitch 16:02, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * How would this be worked?
 * I'm for adding a banner to the top of them stating something like 'This matter is considered archived - the discussion is over. To discuss this matter please create a new topic, referencing this page'.
 * But I'm unsure about moving it out of the main forum space, while they're not active the topics they cover may be useful (I'm thinking more the ref desk and the Panopticon, but also The Howling). There's currently not a large amount of forum topics in that space.
 * To aid navigation of these pages if it becomes necessary I would add a link to assist navigation as they do on the Forum:Community Central Forum (the next link).
 * But I'm not sure if moving it out of the forum space is the best idea. I can understand wanting to tidy the forums up, but they are useful where they are. --Tangerineduel 16:02, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really out the Forums, but something like what Wookipedia do. (see along the top here and then later here ) Mini-mitch 16:30, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not possible to move them so that the title comes under, for example if we were archiving this page, "Forum archive:The Howling, getting a little out of control". Would that not work? What we need to ask is, which ones should be archived? I'd say around a month after the last post was made to the page (not meaning minor edits to fix red links etc, but actual new posts) would be an appropriate time to archive them. The Thirteenth Doctor 16:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand what you mean Mini-mitch and yes The Thirteenth Doctor it would help but not solve everything. It would mean mean setting up, I think another forum / the systems of the forum; the header, the main page, the categories those sorts of things to make the system work as it does with the current forum.
 * However to maintain the archived forums in the forum namespace (so they turn up in a search of the forums) it'd need I think to be the same as the wookipedia's so it'd be Forum:Reference desk archive.
 * If you're sure on this action I'll get to work on creating the various templates/categories/pages to make sure it all fits together (as I mostly know how to do it as I set up The Howling).
 * I would like an idea of which ones we want to move, as I'll need some pages to test the new archive with. --Tangerineduel 14:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the ones at the bottom of the pages are inactive, so you could try them. Some like here, here and here have little replies on them, and have been inactive for some time. Mini-mitch, 14:51, August 5, 2010 (UTC).
 * Is there really any point in archiving inactive threads that are already at the bottom of the forum? How is it going to aid navigation when the active threads are already listed on top?  When people bring up old topics again, they will either have to copy the information from the old thread or reference it or re-discuss everything; the forum archive will be filled with even more repetitive information.  Moreover, a lot of threads will probably be inactive in between Series, and seeing that more than half of the discussions in Howling deal with continuity issues, people will very likely want to go back to discussing topics like "Who is River Song?", "the Voice in the TARDIS", "the Nightmare Child", etc.  The archive system may make the inactive portion of the page looks cleaner, but in terms of practicality, the active portion of the page will stay the same and it will also be quite inconvenient for users.  This system makes absolutely no sense to me -- I fail to see how scattering information into different pages will help user to find what they want.  The only systems remotely-related to aiding navigation would either be adding searchable categories in the Howling or merging discussions, but the former would be extremely tedious and hard to monitor, and the latter would either result in long and repetitive threads or needing someone to edit down repetitive information which defeats the whole purpose of a discussion.  --222.166.181.143 05:40, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a concern I have, however I believe that on several of those topics people are creating topics that are 'of the moment' like when Flesh and Stone aired or something with regards to who River Song is. In these cases it may be better to start new topics of conversation than having people arguing against people who posted the on the forum before all the information was at hand.
 * By archiving it means people can refer back to the previous conversation without trying to actively argue out of date discussions. In The Howling especially discussions often run to quite a length, making archiving a viable option. --Tangerineduel 13:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Archives ready
The archives are set up, I'm still messing around with the 'look' of the pages, which is why they're low-key at the moment. But the templates, categories, index and layout all function.


 * Forum:Index archive
 * Forum:The Howling archives
 * Forum:Reference desk archives
 * Forum:Panopticon archives

You'll see each of the archives has one page in it that I added to make sure everything linked correctly.

Now, to add a page for each respective you need to change/remove the template header at the top of the forum page, which currently looks like (replace 'The Howling' with whichever other forum title. This adds the nav-banner across the top and the category.

The new one for the archives is: Template:Forum archives header and to add it to pages:


 * For The Howling archive it's:
 * For the Reference desk archive it's:
 * For the Panotpicon archives it's:

When you add the template as described above it'll also add a banner at the top stating that the forum has been archived. (You can see it in action on each of the pages archived; Forum:Adam, Forum:Planet 5 and Forum:Protect story pages?.

As for policy, I'm not against the 1 month after last major edit archive rule, I'll write that into the Tardis:Discussion policy and onto the forum pages unless anyone has any objections to that. Though it could be 2 months (by that point the discussion is usually well and truly ended). --Tangerineduel 15:19, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I've tried it on one of the pages the The Howling, and it seems to work fine. The only things that need to be done are archiving the inactive and unneeded forums, and linking each page to their representative archive. Mini-mitch 15:52, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, added links to forum headers and one on the Forum index page.
 * I've also written it into the Discussion policy for 2 months at least with that amount of time it's certain the discussion has ended and not just gone quiet. --Tangerineduel 15:41, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hold yer horses: The Panopticon is different
I don't care what you do with The Howling or the Reference fora. But I do belatedly register my protest against archiving the Panopticon on the basis of time. As someone who has been one of the biggest contributors to the Panopticon, I can state with firmness that sometimes discussions don't move for months on end. How long, for instance, did the discussion on the naming of K9 last? Well over a year, with posts months apart. Yet eventually progress was made and the post led to actual change on the wiki. Yes, we need to draw a line under discussions and they do need to eventually come to a close. But until and unless they actually close, they shouldn't be archived.

And frankly, it doesn't really matter if they're archived even then. Kinda makes it easier to find discussions if you can just scroll through them in one, time-stamped list. In the preceding discussion, I don't think that the IP user a few posts back was answered: What does it matter if older posts aren't archived? The system will just drop them down, long out of view.

I think we've made a fundamental error here of saying, "Well, The Howling's out of control, so we've got to do something. Since it wouldn't be fair to single that forum out, we need to create a policy for all fora." But, see, that's a faulty logic. It's very fair to treat The Panopticon differently; it does completely different things than The Howling. This is about getting work done and asking questions that have no easy answers. Sometimes it just takes time to build consensus, and even after that consensus is reached, you want to keep discussions in an easily searchable place, so that the discussion isn't mooted again.

What I'm saying is that the discussions that appear to go nowhere aren't hurting anyone by staying at the bottom. But the discussions that actually achieve consensus shouldn't be buried amongst the go-nowheres. Leave the go-nowheres at the bottom of the list on the off chance that someone finds them and resurrects them. But create a special area called "Consensus policies" and put the closed threads there. That way you actually separate the wheat from the chaff.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  22:04, December 4, 2010 (UTC)