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)

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)

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)


 * That study was specifically in reference to people talking about how they thought it was wonderful how bright and vibrant our franchise was and that we should show it. The study actively refutes this idea. Najawin ☎  15:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If anything, doesn't this study suggest that our home page only being yellow/sepia is problematic due to yellow being an issue for children with ASD? OS25🤙☎️ 17:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If all you read is the headline, sure. Our "yellow" isn't actually that similar to what they used in their experiment. They used #F1D50B. Ours is less bright and less saturated. (It's technically more luminous, which is an interesting nuance, but the weirdness of HSB vs HSL is what it is.) Much of the colors we've now forced people to see are quite bright. See also:
 * It is well known that our eyes are provided with three different types of cone cells for color perception, L, M, and S, which correspond to the perception of red, green, and blue light, respectively. When yellow is perceived, however, both L and M must be involved. The perception of yellow should thus be the most heavily sensory-loaded of the perception of any type of color. Its perception is bearable for TD children, but could be over-loaded for children with ASD whose sensitivity to sensory stimulation is enhanced.

So rapid shifting between these cones, which, again, we've forced upon them, would be even worse. Would it be better for a different filter to be used other than yellow, such as just grayscale? Perhaps. But in a choice between a single color and a barrage of colors overwhelming someone it's very clear which way the line falls. Najawin ☎  19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually having seen the new main page, I will have to say that I agree with Najawin and all the bright colours are a bit overwhelming and in your face and aargh. It's very hard to focus on any one thing or notice what each thing is. I think I preferred the sepia, to be honest.  Aquanafrahudy  📢  20:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm so glad the sepia urine-stained yellow is gone from the homepage. I do agree that maybe the photos need tweaking or changing - in response to Aquanafrahudy, a compromise could be made if we found photos that complimented each other more when aligned in the grid we have. The photos for Tennant and Tate work well together, for example, since they have the same plain coloured background. Maybe we could work on finding photos where the characters/crew are generally all looking a particular way, or against similar muted/plainish backgrounds, which would reduse the "busy-ness"?

I refer again to this site/page - https://www.doctorwho.tv/characters - even though there's a mish mash of colours, generally speaking, lots of the backgrounds are blurry/hazy/simple colours, and this makes the overall 'noise' much lesser, IMO.

Also, the "Step Back in Time" feature feels busier to me not because of the colours but because of how small the circles are and their close proximity. If the grid were changed to be 3 rows of 4, and slightly bigger circles, it'd be clearer.

I prefer colours. But, if we really had to go back to a filter, I'd much rather use a good blue than the yellow we used to have. — Fractal Doctor @  21:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure blue is possible on dark mode? Too similar. But Step Back in Time is the main offender. Both because of the high level of details in the small circles and because of the very vibrant colors used. Najawin ☎  21:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just gonna give my two cents - the colourful images work fine, imo. I think a revised colour filter would look better, but it's not a huge issue. However, I take issue with the captions - some of them are now poorly contrasted with the underlying image with the filter being removed, with Murray Gold's icon being the most egregious example:

A text glow/drop shadow could work; overlaying a black gradient to the bottoms of images, on which the text sits, may also work.

(As a side note, I'm really not a big fan of the real-world half of the 'Partners in Crime' section; inevitably, it'll probably always seem like a somewhat arbtitrary collection of subject matters). TheGreatGabester ☎  20:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added a drop shadow. Bongo50   ☎  21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, can we actually shrink the images? Having them overlap like that looks really confusing, and since there's a gap between the two rows, it stands there should be a similar gap between images. OS25🤙☎️ 02:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Display design
Maybe we could use another 'section' on this Talk page for 'display' discussion? In any case, I had 10 minutes earlier so I came up with a very basic grid idea that could look less 'busy' for the homepage. Just a proof of concept, rather than a fully thought-out idea tbf, so feel free to criticise and toss aside if you don't like it! I just used the idea from the top of the homepage where we have a cast/crew grid without using the circles, and wondered if it'd look cleaner. I also added 'links'/titles to the top row, again just to see how it could look. I dunno! (I also struggled to find some images but went with as many as I could that felt 'clean' - although I know this is all subjective.)

Outing myself as a "light mode" user once again. — Fractal Doctor @  12:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope no one takes general offense to this, but the top of the home page is the part that needs the most reworking, I insist that we do not redesign the rest of the page to match it.


 * I know that I designed this part of the landing, but abandoning the circle design for something far more clunky and spacious just weeks after we picked the motif seems irregular. OS25🤙☎️ 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No offence taken, OS25. I didn't really think too much about the different shapes. Do you feel that the "Partners in Crime" and "How to Doctor Who" sections need roundels/circles too, to match what's below, and have roundels all the way down? My design of a rectangular grid was just a suggestion to reduce how 'busy' it feels. I love the circles, and I love that they sort of tie into the background/TARDIS aesthetic... but I do think many in a row (and small/squashed together) as with "Step Back in Time" doesn't help matters. Not only do they need representative images but they also have their logos in the designs too, and the tiny circles aren't great. Unless we simply enlarge those circles and have 3 rows of 4? — Fractal Doctor @  13:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My alternative suggestion would be to simply keep the design we have now, but remove the respective logos from the circle images and have clickable links below each one (sort of how the current "Partners in Crime" grid does now). That could help reduce the overwhelming 'busy' aspect of those particular circles. — Fractal Doctor @  14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, no offense to you, but I think every idea you're suggesting here would make the page more busy less organized and more overwhelming. There is no tenant of graphic design that says you can only use one kind of shape. If anything, in the future we can talk about making the "cast/crew" module less tall to fit the rest, but stretching out the rest of the page isn't going to fix anything. OS25🤙☎️ 14:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, forget the proposal I made above with the rectangle design. We agree on this. All I'm getting at is that "Step Back in Time" feels busier than the modules above it because it has 2 rows of 6 roundels - thus they are smaller, more cramped, and is more visually messy (IMO) than the preceeding modules. All I'm suggesting is we simply bump 4 of the roundels on to another row, meaning we can make them all slightly bigger (akin to modules above) and make the images more visible at a glance. Even just comparing the "Rabbit Hole" module to "Step Back in Time" - the former is less overwhelmingly busy because it has larger circles and the detail can be seen more clearly, and that's simply by having 5 roundels per row instead of 6. — Fractal Doctor @  14:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If an admin agrees with this, I'm fine to test it out. Step Back in Time was the section I spent the least time perfecting because it was mostly a test before it was suddenly on the landing. OS25🤙☎️ 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. Bongo50   ☎  14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Just seen the "Step Back in Time" circles now spread to 3 rows of 4 and already I think it's a massive improvement. Still quite colourful but more readable at a glance. — Fractal Doctor @  15:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Still has many of the same issues for me. That section is better, but not good. And while Step Back in Time was the worst offender, Further Down the Rabbit Hole, Alice? has similar issues. There's slightly less visual noise, but there's still a lot. And the color issue is still an issue. I think part of the problem is that we've forced everything into this area and so there's just so much visual information that you have to tone it down in some way, either by removing color, or by making it less dense, like with the large rectangle idea.

I would agree with OS25 that there's fundamentally no need to switch to rectangles and that I wouldn't mind, in principle, a change to the top section of the main page. It's the content that's there that I'm concerned about, not the specific aesthetics. I mocked it up super quickly, it's obviously rough. (With that said, I prefer minimalism and don't, personally, like the circle design, but this is my personal preference and I don't really care that much. I don't think the main page aesthetics should be dictated by personal preferences but instead by thinking about how to welcome new users. So it's half a dozen of one, six of the other.) Najawin ☎  19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast/Crew section images
Might I suggest that the brand new promo photos that just got released (Tate, Tennant, etc.) be used for the Cast/Crew section at the top of the homepage? I know we don't typically use promo art but they are, IMO, really beautiful and would really pop! Plus, they have a similar background so they'd all look good in a grid. — Fractal Doctor @  18:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My view on this is the same as above, bright colors are not a selling point but instead something that should be seen as disqualifying. The pictures actively hurt my eyes. Najawin ☎  18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We can always desaturate them if we like the composition and recency but are put out by the vibranc! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Desaturating them slightly would work. I just think we'd be sort of mad not to use them. They pop, they're as recent as can be, and promote all of this year's specials. Plus, they have a nice style/consistency to the art. (When it comes to Wikis, I often see new official material being used, except on ours. It'd be a shame not to use them in some capacity.) — Fractal Doctor @  19:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Desaturating images can go a long way. Just something I threw together in a few minutes, along with the roundel/circle theme the rest of the homepage has.

— Fractal Doctor @  14:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * when people have actually articulated their reasons for liking something, they've given their reasons
 * You mean the fact that it "pops", "is vibrant", and "has bright colors"? These just are preferences - if general ones.
 * Anyway, I guess this could go round in circles. We must obey the study it seems, so we can't use officially made promotional images, dammit.
 * Oh dear lord did anyone say this? Did anyone say "we must obey the study"? No. The issue, as it has been in every discussion relating to design choices, is that if there are non preferential reasons to avoid doing something, whereas the reasons to do it are solely preferential, it loses. Period. Give me non preferential reasons! In your hypothetical the accuracy of our coverage of the episode would be so severely impaired by restricting ourselves that we just couldn't make that determination. But no such condition holds here.
 * but that would then be at odds with the rest of the homepage further down which itself is quite vibrant and colourful.
 * Yes, as is being discussed above, the rest of the page is a problem too.


 * (To note, while those images are released promotionally, they also seem to be part of the specials, so I don't think by our standards they're promo images. Not a correction, just making sure everyone is on the same page for this discussion because it actually does matter.) Najawin ☎  14:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that we're now speeding towards November, is there any movement on this discussion? — Fractal Doctor @  18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Top of the page distinct modules concept
I've had a look at various other TV/film/media Wikis and one thing I've noticed is that some of them have small 'introductions' to main characters or elements. At the moment, with our current design, we simply have 2 little roundels for 14/Donna and their captions stating the name of said characters and that's it. No further info/context. What if we had a small overhaul at the top of the homepage which would always feature the incumbent/current Doctor and companion(s), with some behind the scenes faces just below it?

I've mocked up a very basic idea - you have the 2 lead characters, which would always be Doctor and companion, in the current case, Doctor 14 and Donna, along with a very brief sentence which also links to 'the Doctor' generally as well as 14's page and has links to the respective actors. You'd then simply swap this out for Ncuti's Doctor 15 when he arrives, and the same for the Donna 'module' (swap this out for Ruby Sunday when the time comes). If there are ever more companions, just add another 'module' underneath that follows the same design. So when you come to the homepage, you're immediately greeted with the main lead characters of the current show, with a tiny introduction (kept mostly 'in universe' if that's the preference), followed by 4 at most tabs to real-world pages (Bad Wolf could be swapped out if the company ever changes hands - Gold could be swapped out if the composer changes, etc). Then below is when you get to the "How to Doctor Who" history bits and then you start exploring the 'Whoniverse' more generally with the spin-off material etc.

I also incorporated the roundel image design so it would be in-keeping with the remainder of the page as it stands. I just thought having 2 small modular sections to say "hey here's the current Doctor and who they are!" and "hey this is the current companion" would help differentiate the tabs a bit, before you hit other crew/behind the scenes/IRL creatives.

— Fractal Doctor @  14:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I like this a lot. Bongo50   ☎  17:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bongo. Kinda just threw the design together but it could work with them contained within a box, or just a simpler 'list', or even have the two side by side. I just liked the concept of having the "Doctor + Companion introductions" right there, impactful, as you arrive on the Wiki, followed by everything else that spins off from them :) Part of the inspiration came from my own experience of visiting Wikis for shows I was new to - it's nice to see on the homepage, at a glance, who the main characters are with a short biog, before delving deeper. Hopefully others like it too, cos I think it'd be a neat feature to implement (regardless of how it's designed). — Fractal Doctor @  19:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I still think that if we're going to have a header for the non-cast, it should be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" OS25🤙☎️ 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be open to debating heading titles. I just randomly came up with a phrase for my mock-up tbf; I didn't think too much about that. (I also like the phrase "Pull to Open" which seems fitting.) — Fractal Doctor @  20:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to be a downer, but I'm not sure about that, to be honest. I personally feel it's a little overdesigned, and I don't know if it would translate well to the mobile page, either. Though maybe it just needs to go through a few iterations, I'm not sure. TheGreatGabester ☎  16:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We should not worry about mobile. They see something different. The focus here is making sure that it works on desktop. Bongo50   ☎  17:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I designed it so it has the little connecty line from 14 to Donna, etc. but in reality it could literally just be 2 rectangular boxes with a border, one after another. It can be simplified. — Fractal Doctor @  18:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me note that I prefer everything being one section, which is why I mocked it up that way, but unlike the above, for me this is strictly a preference. Other people can feel free to do whatever if they disagree. I just have a thing for minimalism. Feel free to change. Najawin ☎  19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that we're now speeding towards November, is there any movement on this discussion? — Fractal Doctor @  18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just me, but I actually think the front page looks pretty good at the moment. One minor thing that bugs me though: I would make the "Welcome to the TARDIS" text a bit smaller, so it fits on one line.


 * I have a bit more time on my hands, so I might be - not 100% promising - able to work on new transmat designs. However, the proposed in-universe transmats, which seemed to have been more or less agreed upon, may require a different approach. I'm unsure if the 'cel-shaded', minimal approach I was exploring would work when applied to character portraits, images of creatures, etc. TheGreatGabester ☎  20:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Update
Although this may be a little premature, given that Doctor Who The Official Annual 2024 is technically the explicit EU debuts of the Fifteenth Doctor and Rose Noble, and the first mention of Ruby Sunday, shouldn't information about them now be added?

Feels counterintuitive to have a page on Fifteen while the Main Page pretends like he doesn't exist... 22:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Tales of the TARDIS
Would anyone object to be replacing with ?

Bongo50  ☎  18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks fantastic to me! All I'd suggest is moving the link from Whoniverse to Whoniverse (BBC iPlayer). 18:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the thingy for the "Remembered TARDIS" probably shouldn't link to just "The Doctor's TARDIS" - the page is currently at The Doctor's TARDIS (Tales of the TARDIS), although that's likely to change. I agree with replacing a series fairly few cared about with a series which just released and people will actually give two sods about, though (i.e. I generally agree with the replacement). Cookieboy 2005 ☎  18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, for the reasons Cookieboy stated. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not linking to The Doctor's TARDIS (Tales of the TARDIS) was an error that I have fixed. I'm going to go ahead and make the replacement. Bongo50   ☎  19:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is good for now, but the long term goal for that template should be it either being phased out or simply listing the most recent releases in Whoniverse fiction. Tales of the TARDIS should not be on the home page in, say, 6 months. OS25🤙☎️ 22:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Doctors Template Ordering
So I've suggested this in the past, and I guess I'll do it again. I think the "Who is the Doctor?" should be at the top of the right column, not the bottom. It doesn't make sense anywhere else - putting it after "There's more than just TV" doesn't make any sense, and burying it below some of our most obscure pages doesn't really serve any purpose.

The ideal ordering for those templates is: Mainpage Box Doctors, Mainpage Box Random, Mainpage Box Welcome, Mainpage Box TotT, and then the rest. I know it's weird to put the "welcome" template so late, but if you actually look at its contents, it is setting up the EU templates. It should absolutely not go first. OS25🤙☎️ 22:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)