Talk:Doctor Who Wiki

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

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

For editing assistance and guidance, please contact an admin.

Transmats
Ironically, it seems to me that the recent forum has sorted out everything but the Transmat design. Effectively, unless someone corrects me, the plan is that my "spin offs" module will link to the relevant pages and not transmats.

With this in mind, it's now time to go back to discussing TGG's transmat design. However, with that comes, in my opinion, discussions of the Transmat space itself. I think we need to really talk about updating this space, as I think it's barely been touched since creation and doesn't serve quite the purpose that it could. As Bongo suggested in his closing post, I'd like to recommend a shift to in-universe transmat topics.

I'd also like to recommend the landing pages be rewritten to favor more heavily new readers (as it stands, some landings read as if they're trying to explain how to edit first and foremost, which I think defeats the purpose). OS25🤙☎️ 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all fronts. Bongo50   ☎  20:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hiya, just to let you guys know: I can't really contribute to the transmat discussion/produce new transmat concepts until partway through August; am very busy with other commitments at the moment. But I'll say this: I don't think there is an especially pressing need to get new transmats figured out just this second. Even just getting the main page up-to-date is a massive improvement. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I generally think there's no harm in waiting, as you said. At the very least, until August, we can perhaps discuss what we want the Transmat landings to be like. Personally, I have trouble building excitement for them but I do think they need some change. OS25🤙☎️ 20:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. No one is obligated to edit, and it gives us time to actually create the transmat landing pages. Bongo50   ☎  20:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding a new "expanded media" section to the sidebar
As discussed in the closing post of the recent forum, there's enough room on the sidebar for at least one more mini-module. It's been suggested that we either create one about prose fiction or video games. I however would also like to recommend stage plays as a contender - I know it's controversial as they've been historically non-valid, but I think it's a very interesting topic to read articles on. But personally, I'm currently thinking that video games would work the best as there's an interesting history of Doctor Who and gaming.

Also, can I recommend a different ordering for the right column templates? I'm thinking the most logical order is Template:Mainpage Box Doctors, Template:Mainpage Box Random, Template:Mainpage Box Welcome, then the rest. It makes more sense to put the majority TV template first, then the random template, then all of the "not TV" templates in a row. OS25🤙☎️ 21:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Bongo50   ☎  12:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that ordering would make more sense, yeah. I'm no expert on expanded media, so no opinion really on awarding mini-modules, but I just wanted to say I love the Doom's Day box! Although it misspells "seek" as "seak". (Also, maybe reconsider the comics heading "Stripped for Action"? Apparently it's a reference but I'm not sure it quite conveys the intended meaning...) I would put in a strong word for un-desaturating the images, but that's just my preference in general – I think the monochrome is too visually uninteresting – so I'm willing to shut up about it if everyone else likes the aesthetic. Off topic for this particular thread, but I think borders around the images might be nice for the "Partners in Crime" section, and it really needs to visually separate characters and creatives more clearly: right now it sort of looks like Julie Gardner is playing the role of Russell T Davies. Maybe even a little caption denoting their jobs? Starkidsoph ☎  13:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made a new section for discussing this. I personally think ending the era of monochrome is earned. Also, I want to voice my opinion that having the "crew" at the top of the page should be a temporary measure only done as we don't have pages for the other characters yet. The moment that the first special airs, I would personally like to have the other leads replace RTD, BW, Julie and MG. OS25🤙☎️ 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the Doom's Day box typo. Thanks for pointing it out. Borders can be added, but I don't see why it's needed if I'm honest. I agree that it would be good to move the crew away when we have more character pages. Bongo50   ☎  20:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and create Template:Mainpage Box Games, as I feel confident this is the option that casual readers will find the most interesting. I've added a few just to make the template function, but I encourage everyone to add sections based on games they are passionate about. Short of flash games and the such, I see no reason that most DW games can't be featured in some way in the rotation. OS25🤙☎️ 23:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll probably do a section for The Edge of Reality given I've just played it so it's fresh in my mind. 00:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added it. The placement and order is all open to change. Bongo50   ☎  06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well can we change it then? 😂 OS25🤙☎️ 13:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Saturation
Okay, so this is a big thing. I personally have long petitioned for us to abandon the whole "monochrome until you hover over it" thing. I think it's a very bland look, and generally I think the whole "everything has to be blue, yellow, or grey" thing is very 2017. I personally think our landing would look a lot better if the images were naturally in full color and then perhaps there was a white glow when hovering over images. Sort of like w:c:doctorwhofanon. OS25🤙☎️ 16:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with having the pictures on colour, the monochrome look is slightly bland. Aquanafrahudy  📢  19:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If it were up to me, I'd change the whole yellow aesthetic on the homepage, but I understand it's in-keeping with the theme/look of the rest of the Wiki, so fair enough. But I'm also in agreement - let's have bright colours please. It looks so washed out and unappealing as it is right now, IMO. — Fractal Doctor @  20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm open to removing it, although I'd like a few more opinions before doing so. Bongo50   ☎  20:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree for the reasons discussed before. Too many visual stimuli. Najawin ☎  20:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your perspective here, but I think it's worse to have too little visual stimuli, which is what we currently have. Visual stimuli is good! It's what inspires people to look at things and click on them. If the thumbnails on YouTube were all in black-and-white, the algorithm would collapse and the site would run out of money in a fortnight. There's no point in having a bunch of "please click on this" buttons if they're all drab and indistinguishable at a glance. OS25🤙☎️ 21:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * One thing I love about Doctor Who in general is how 'colourful' and vibrant and loud it is. Colour would make the main page so much more visually interesting. You can still retain a simple design, but use colour. Do any other Wikis use the 'washed out' desaturated look we currently have, and do they really look as exciting or as interesting as those which use colours? I'm unconvinced.


 * Even the official website uses a whole range of colour - https://www.doctorwho.tv/characters - and everything pops. It's just so much more attractive to the eye, IMO. You want your website to be colourful and visually popping, surely. We want people to get lost in links and clicking on stuff, opening the Wiki across multiple tabs, etc. — Fractal Doctor @  21:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The issue is about how much visual information is present. We've just radically upped it. You want to do so again. The pictures chosen actually have a lot of visual content - it's pretty overwhelming for me when they're all on screen at once. Now, my experience is not universal, and I use a desktop, which isn't standard. But I'm very hesitant to increase it even more. Najawin ☎  22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggested borders around the images, because I think that might be a good way of balancing visual consistency with interest. If those links – I also had the roundels two sections down in mind – were full-colour images with thick gold frames (or whatever accent colour), they would be separated a bit more, so it doesn't look like they're trying to be a contiguous whole, but they'd look harmonious and intentional. Like, if we just made the images in the sidebar boxes full colour (which I definitely think should be done), the buffer of the solid gold box means they wouldn't clash with anything, so I'm proposing a lower-key version of the same principle be applied elsewhere. Starkidsoph ☎  00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I just don't see the landing as it currently is as overwhelming. It's, at worst, just whelming. OS25🤙☎️ 02:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. It's trivial that everyone will react to different amounts of visual stimuli in different ways. As it stands the images are just scaled down versions of images that were designed for a much larger scale, with additional detail added (the titles). They have a ton of information present for someone who might have a difficult time filtering that info out. Adding color compounds that problem. Najawin ☎  03:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Removing the color makes the issue much, much worse! At a distance and thumbnail level, without color all those circles are just grey lifeless blobs. Adding color gives a sense of contrast which makes them easier to discern - I simply can not comprehend the argument that adding color removes details. OS25🤙☎️ 03:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not about distinguishing the different circles, it's that there is strictly less information contained. This is trivially true. Adding more information makes it more likely to overwhelm people who have difficulties filtering out visual noise. See here for more, we want to avoid bright colors in particular. The lack of vibrancy is a selling point! Najawin ☎  05:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The lack of vibrancy isn't a selling point. It's dull, it's all just washed out and blends into the background. As I said before - do any other Wikis use the 'washed out' desaturated look we currently have, and do they really look as exciting or as interesting as those which use colours? I'm unconvinced. I mean, contrasty black and white would be one thing (and I'd argue, better) - but the washed out yellow is just horrible to look at, IMO. — Fractal Doctor @  10:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I also think my issue with the main page more generally is the sheer amount of yellow. The images look so washed out and ugly to my eye because everything's yellow - their filter, the sidebars, the titles, etc. Maybe simply tweaking the opacity of the images would help, so they're not /so/ faded into yellow - and changing titles (eg. Explore the Universe) to blue (eg. #456291) would help define sections of the main page more and therefore look overall easier on the eye? (All subjective ofc.) — Fractal Doctor @  11:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the hover-over effect, and don't mind the desaturated look. However, the desaturation and brightness reduction combined is a bit too much, imo (I'm aware that the brightness reduction is just caused by the reduced opacity, but still). Would be curious what it would look like with just the brightness reduction, or with just the desaturation. TheGreatGabester ☎  12:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to implement any of these for a trial period, see how it goes? Starkidsoph ☎  01:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm open to that. Bongo50   ☎  06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What if, for let's say a week or two, we switch all the images to being full-colored, with a white glow when you hover over them. Then, if people like that, we'll keep it. OS25🤙☎️ 15:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Count me in. Anything has to be better than the current washed out page. — Fractal Doctor @  17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll trial it for a few days. Any feedback anyone can give on this would be very appreciated. Bongo50   ☎  17:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As stated, I think this is actively harmful to those with difficulty processing too much information. (And have cited articles to this effect!) But at this point I think people have decided to disregard this. Najawin ☎  17:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement with the removal of the filter. I never liked it, and never understood why it was put there. The filter can look good in certain circumstances. On this wiki though, it was just hideous. Danniesen ☎  18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the colours are a huge improvement, although I like OS25's idea of something to highlight when you mouse over a link. I also do still think the top cast-and-crew section could be more "presented" – the images don't really look like they were created or chosen to go together, which in itself is fine, but maybe the effect of just being right up against each other isn't so great. In general I don't find it overwhelming at all, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people might – though Najawin, I couldn't see anything in the study you linked discussing the effects of many colours together or other visual busyness? It seemed to just be looking at preferences for particular individual colours, and intensity within those. Do you personally experience these problems with the new homepage design, or were you speaking more generally? Starkidsoph ☎  01:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Spinoffs
Just to note, I don't think we'd consider Doom's Day, TLV, or The Adventure Games as Spinoffs proper, and I still don't know why OS25 gave them circles. (The first two are multimedia projects that existed largely within the normal domains we're already covering and the other was explicitly billed as part of S5.) I don't think they belong. Fully agree with all the others, given the compromise. Najawin ☎  20:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand this line of argument if I'm being honest. They're series that readers may be interested in, no matter whether they're classed as spin-offs or not. I also feel that spin-off is a much looser term than you seem to use it as. These are series, outside of the franchises undebatable main series (the TV show), that are still part of the franchise. This is, in my mind, a spin-off. But, whether they're spin-offs or not, I still feel they warrant inclusion here as they're things that fit in naturally that readers may want to find out about or use as a place to dive a little deeper into Doctor Who, outside of the main show. Bongo50   ☎  20:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * But this approach means that every separate Big Finish series should get a circle. Or that every different comics run should. Or even more video games. So there's a line somewhere. These specific ones are ones that have reasons not to be there - TLV in particular was not billed as a series, but as a single story. Doom's Day was billed as both, to be fair, but it's so similar to TLV that I'm treating it the same. It's a multimedia event that is part of other things we already list. And TAG was billed as part of S5. Hence why those in particular shouldn't be there. Najawin ☎  20:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I specifically ended up choosing the term "Expanded media" for that section. Nothing that is listed there is not "expanded media" - and I think Doom's Day justifies being where it is because it is a series of stories and is currently running. When it ends, we'll take it off the main page and replace it with something else. We might swap it with BBC Books or something. OS25🤙☎️ 21:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The idea that every BF series should get a circle, and every comic run should... is, frankly, just silly and taking things to the extremes. I'd say Doom's Day warrants its place, by virtue of being current and ongoing, and a player in the 60th anniversary celebrations. TLV and the Adventure Games are more debatable, I agree, but I'd say the Adventure Games are good because it's nice to have /some/ gaming content on the front page (although maybe a more recent game release would be better suited in this case?)


 * We can argue what's warranted til the end of the universe, and a line has to be drawn somewhere, but we can't just argue indefinitely or do monthly polls. It's also not easy whatsoever to draw up rules or criteria because Doctor Who is so vast and ever-changing, with hundreds of spin-offs and expanded media content. The whole "step back in time" section is so subjective - what's the alternative other than nuking it from the homepage? Maybe a "Randomiser" whereby we select 20 things and we highlight two or three of those things every couple of months? Even that would have its issues. I'm not sure there is a clean solution to this one. But, equally, I don't see the harm in having TLV and Adventure Games etc. on there too?


 * BF ranges shouldn't get their own circles because they fall under Big Finish, which has its own circle. However, Reeltime and BBV are seperate entities, as is TLV, as is Virgin Books, etc. So I feel like they all warrant inclusion for that. I think the section is fine as it is - and we can swap things out as time goes on, depending on what gets released and what happens in the future. Noting it as "expanded media" is also a good call, to avoid endless arguments about what defines a 'spin off'. — Fractal Doctor @  11:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)