Forum:The original Panopticon

Because we are one of the 100 original Wikia wikis, our existence predates multi-threaded forums which are now commonplace throughout the Wikia domain. Consequently, our very earliest community discussions took place on a single page called Tardis:Panopticon, rather than today's Forum:Panopticon. New points were added by the use of sections. This is the final form of that original Panopticon page. If you want to see the archives of the original Panopticon — that is, the very earliest community discussions on this wiki — please see forum:Archives of the original Panopticon. 14:54: Wed 05 Oct 2011

Greetings! Here in the hallowed halls of the Panopticon, members of the TARDIS  Index File wiki community may gather to discuss various issues and topics regarding the operation of the wiki. It is not, however, a place for idle conversation or off-topic discussion that doesn't directly concern the TARDIS Index File.

Important! The following types of questions do not belong on the Panopticon page:


 * Newcomers' questions. Please take the time to read the introduction and  help pages before posting.
 * Facts and canonical questions. Questions regarding specific facts of the Doctor Who universe should be posted at the Reference Desk.
 * Bug reports should be forwarded to the administrators.
 * Issues concerning specific articles should addressed on that article's talk page.
 * Questions for an individual member should be posted to that member's talk page.

After a period of time, inactive discussions without any long-term value will be deleted from this page. A discussion that may be of use in the future for reference purposes may be moved to a different section (like the FAQ page), or added to the  thread which archives the original Panopticon.

Please remember to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ("~"), or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar.

Things to Do
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon.)

Wiki Project Logo
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon.)

Cast
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon.)

Capitalisation
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon.)

Extended Cast
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon)

Transcripts
(This topic has been moved to the thread which archives the original Panopticon)

User pages and welcoming newbies
I'd like to encourage everyone to please add content to your user pages so we can get to know each other better. Don't need your life story. Just add whatever you feel confortable divulging. Some email or other contact info would be nice. If you're worried about spambots getting your email address, just write it out as I did on mine, without an actual link.

I'd also like to encourage everyone to contribute welcoming messages, compliments and, if necessary, critiques (make that polite critiques) to the user pages of new contributors. Quite a few people are contributing one or two things and then disappearing, and I think the lack of feedback is making them think their contributions are not appreciated or welcome. --Freethinker1of1 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting off track
(Relevant sections of this subject have been moved to the Canon Policy talk page)

Doctor Who Book Format
What is going to be the standard format for all the Doctor Who novels, as none of them have been made yet? Maybe we should make a page to experiment, like Suggested Format for Television Story Entries, only Suggested Format for Doctor Who Novels.--GingerM 15:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be put together a format when I have time. Right now, I'm wanting to get this site back onto emphasis on the fictional Whoniverse, as I originally intended for this project and was agreed upon by the other founding members, who have since left after everything went off on this whole behind-the-scenes tangent. There is too much of that on the site, and it really belongs at Wikipedia, not here.

--Freethinker1of1 22:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, since the original messages posted under this heading, a template for the novels has already been created (see Template:Infobox_Novel). I think that the novilzation infobox should be an adaption of this template. --Mantrid 21:41, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Working on it :) Although I don't think we need the Enemies section - quite a lot of the information that is in the novels is already covered in the actual televised story section (barring Nightmare Fair, Mission to Magnus, etc). I've got almost all the Target novels, so running up the info isn't a problem, and I've a scanner so we can get the covers - but several of the Target novels have more than one cover, due to re-releases, etc.  All of mine are original editions, but do we want to offer the alternative covers for viewing as well?
 * -- Taleya 23:07 18 Oct 2005 (AEST)


 * How's this one for Marco Polo look? I've also updated  Frontios,  The Visitation and  An Unearthly Child.
 * -- Taleya 23:14 18 Oct 2005 (AEST)

I've kinda been mucking about with one for the Frontios Novelization - what do you think? It's relatively easy to obtain the information in the table, and I think inclusion of the ISBN may help readers look for the book elsewhere. I was also thinking possibly including a deviations section - many of the Target novels for instance have marked expansions on or deviations from the televised versions of the episodes.

--Taleya 07:07 17 Oct 2005 (AEST)


 * I quite like the Frontios Novelisation page and I like the idea of having a page for each novelisation. Also the library number could be included (some novels have it on their spine) and we could also have pages on the novelisations of TV stories that were never made, like Mission to Magnus. (Also is it spelt novelisation or novelization as according to dictionary.com they're both correct?)

--GingerM 16:12, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * the useage of Novelisation as opposed to novelization is a regional thing. I'm Australian, so I use the S rather than the Z, which is the US version. However, when I was putting the data in the Frontios pages, it was already listed there in template form with a Z, so I left it as such.


 * Kinda bugs me though :P


 * EDIT - actually, that may well be an issue. I just noticed your hyperlink tossed to the S spelling rather than the Z - we're going to need to set up redirects for each one to suit all typing modes... (I've set one up here on the results for Frontios Novelisation)

--Taleya 04:03 18 Oct 2005 (AEST)

I've also tweaked the book format slightly - a link to the televised episode entry would probably be a good idea! --Taleya 05:32 18 Oct 2005 (AEST)

Some Further Thoughts on Canon Policy
(This subject have been moved to the Canon Policy talk page.)

Suggested Changes to the 'Character' Pages
To remain in keeping with the 'in-universe' perspective of the wiki, I wonder if we should be using 'individual' (as the Star Wars wiki does) rather than 'character' as 'character' suggests fiction.

With the above point in mind, I would suggest changing the heading 'Character Description' to 'Biography'.

I would suggest that we should decide that all entries be written in the past tense. At the moment there is a noticeable mix of tenses in some of the Character Descriptions (eg Ian Chesterton).

I would propose using an infobox template for characters/individuals. I also think it would be a good idea to include some or all of the information that has been included in the info boxes for Doctor Who comapnions in the main wikipedia (eg Ian Chesterton).

I think a question that a lot of people might come to this wiki to find an answer for is 'which TV stories/comic strips/books/audio stories does 'character X' appear in?'. With this in mind, I think it important that we aim to list EVERY appearance of a particular individual in all media. For most incidental characters I think this information can be included in their info box. However, for long-running companions and Doctors etc, this list could become quite long and unwieldy (and is already becoming that way on existing character pages such as Barbara Wright. So, for these longer lists, I would suggest having a separate page which we link to from the Individual's info box. For example, on Ian Chesterton's page we could include the link 'Full List of Appearances' which would take you to the page Ian Chesterton – List of Appearances. This list would be split in to the canon categories previously suggested, and each of these categories would, in turn, be split in to sub-categories (eg under Prose Stories you would have BBC Past Doctor Adventures under which would be listed the book The Face of the Enemy. Obviously such a list would always be a work in progress and there should be a notation to say as such.

As an aside to the above, I think we should avoid using acronyms such as PDA or EDA (or at least link them to a page where they are defined). We shouldn’t assume that users know what PDA stands for etc.

I have done a partial re-edit of the Ian Chesterton page to show how all this might work. I hope you agree that it at least looks better than it did before (compare it to Barbara Wright. --Mantrid 18:31, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * On the list of appearances page should we include when they appeared in archive footage like when in Ressurection of the Daleks(?) the Doctor went through all his companions and past selves and they were seen on screen. Should we put that there and put next to it (archive footage)?--GingerM 15:25, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think these sort of appearances should be indicated because they may be of interest. However, as you suggest, I think a notation should be attached - eg 'flashback sequence' or 'cameo' etc. I would suggest making these terms linkable so that (eventually at leat) we can have a page that defines what exactly we mean by 'flashback'. --Mantrid 17:12, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

--Freethinker1of1 11:22, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually created links for "PDA, EDA, etc." on one of the character pages; I just haven't gotten around to creating the actual pages. I'm beginning to think the general categories of "Televison series" and "Expanded Universe" may actually work better. While some folks may completely disavow an entire media category as canon, quite a few may accept most of the stories in a given format save one or two. I know of many people, for example, who accept the BBC novels as canon with one exception, - "War of the Daleks." With Expanded Universe, it's simply a matter of deciding which individual stories outside the television series you accept as canon, regardless of the media format.

For ease of reference, I propose dividing the character files as follows:


 * Biography
 * Personality
 * Habits and Quirks
 * Mysteries (or Discrepancies)... optional. continuity hiccups like the Doctor pre-Pertwee having just one heart. and things we simply don't know, like Susan's parentage.
 * Quotes.

in emulation of a reference page which existed a looong time ago (back when Nitro 9 served as the unofficial WHO homepage) somebody had a page with the eye colors and hair colors (and even heights!) of prominent characters so that you could, if you, wanted, look up the Davison Doctor's eye color for your fan fiction or PDA. -- (re-edited) *Stardizzy* 19:42, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding height and eye colour doesn't sound like a bad idea to me (though where we would get accurate information about the heights of characters, I'm not sure!). --Mantrid 12:30, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Good comments. I had started to think that some of the listing were becoming unwieldy, but I've not been contributing for a while due to work pressures so haven't had a chance to think of how to fix things.  I do like the new-look that you've created for Ian's page, Mantrid.  I also hadn't noticed my tendancy to flip between tenses!  But that's one of the many great things about doing this in a community - as there's always someone who'll notice these things!  I'm now going to re-edit the existing pages into the new template, and I'm also going to edit the text to sort out the tense. Kazzab72 08:59, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad you like the look of the Individual template Kazzab72, and the new pages you've created using it look great. One thing I'd like to suggest though if I may, is that we need to reference the source of particular bits of info in the longer biographies. I think the revamed entry on The Master is a good example of this with the information source being sited at the end of each paragraph in brackets. --Mantrid 12:29, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Before it gets confusing can we please make sure that on the individual pages and on the list of appearances pages we create links to BBC Past Doctor Adventures, not BBC Past Doctor Novels as the first name is the widely-used one. Ditto for Eighth Doctor Adventures.--GingerM 13:46, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sub-Headings in Articles
I would like to suggest that it would be a good idea not to include 'empty' subheadings in articles. In other words, I don't think sub-headings with no text below them should appear in the Wiki. My reason for this is that it makes pages look untidy and it also makes the wiki appear 'unfinished'. So, I would propose a guideline that no subheadings are added to artciles until there is text to go with them. This appears to be the ruling adopted by the Star Wars wiki, and I think it looks the better for it. (By-the-way... I am guilty of this as well!) --Mantrid 22:17, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Outside Sources - Canon or Not Canon?
(This subject have been moved to the Canon Policy talk page.)

Year Pages
On the year pages, e.g. 1720, what should we actually put on them? It's already split into History of Doctor Who and History of the Doctor Who Universe (which is a bit confusing/difficult in mu opinion, as it's easy for stuff like "--- was published in January 2001 or something but what about thingss like deaths of people who have been mentioned in Doctor Who like Samuel Pepys? Which category does his death fit into? And how much detail do we put on them as we cant for example put the whole synopsis of The Visitation on 1666 can we? Should we put the outlines of the story on it or even just say "events in The Visitation take place now"?--GingerM 20:00, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * The division between "History of Doctor Who" and "History of the Doctor Who Universe" is to separate events which occur in the stories from those which occured in the real world and which influenced the development of the series. Events which occurred in the stories, were referred to in the stories, and the births and deaths of historical figures and other characters which appear in or are referred to in the stories fall under "History of the Doctor Who Universe." While the historical figures also existed in the real world, they are treated in the stories as fictional characters, often with considerable license. (The H. G. Wells in "Timelash" is markedly different from the real H. G. Wells in our own history, according to the biographies I've read.) Births and deaths of Doctor Who cast and crew members, original transmissions or publications of stories, and the publication of books and other media which played major influences on the series, - i.e. "The Time Machine," - fall under "History of Doctor Who." One less confusing alternative I'm considering is placing events which occur in the Doctor Who universe under "The Doctor Who Universe" (or Whoniverse, as some call it), and events in the history of the series under "The Real World."


 * As to the individual stories, I think its enough to simply list a story whose events occurred in a given year, with a link to that story's page, as I've been doing. "Events in (story title) occur at this time" is a good alternative, but could prove problematic for stories such as "The Chase" or "The Daleks' Master Plan," in which the Doctor and company travel to several different times in the same story, unless one specified the individual episode or chapter.

--Freethinker1of1 13:55, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

--Freethinker1of1 16:58, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at Memory Alpha, I notice that they put the fictional and behind-the-scenes events in two separate timelines, Timeline and Production Timeline. Production and broadcast of episodes are given their own indivdual pages, i.e. "1966 productions" and births and deaths of cast and crew are listed under Star Trek births and Star Trek deaths. This might be a better way of dividing the fictional and behind-the-scenes events from each other, as it is less confusing. Births and deaths of historical figures in the fictional stories would still stay on the fictional timeline pages, or perhaps they should be deleted entirely if they are not specifically mentioned in the stories, like Charles Dickens in "The Unquiet Dead."


 * Im for keeping the information all on the same page, if it can be clearly separated. Also if we deleted information that wasn't specifically mentioned in the stories, some of the pages would be completely empty, like Matthew Hopkins. I think we should keep the extra info and all the information together on the same page. Originally I was asking what we were putting on the pages as I didn't know the way we were setting it out. It might be difficult to separate the production details from fiction as in Doctor Who, fact and fition overlap frequently.--GingerM 17:12, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Categories
I've noticed that not all articles being created are being given a category. I think this is important and would advise that all articles should be categorised. It's also important to note that some articles might need to have more than one category. For example, The Doctor is an Individual but he is also a Time Lord.

Below is a list of categories and sub-categories that I've devised. It's very much a work in progress with more categories to be added. The way it works is that a category is a sub-category of the next category on the left. For example, Doctor Who Annuals is a sub-category of Prose Stories which is in turn a sub-category of Doctor Who Stories.

Categorising each and every page correctly will utltimately allow users to easily find there way around the site and help them find what they are looking for and other related pages. So, let's make an effort to add categories to every page. If you're uncertain how to categorise a page, add a note to its related discussion page.

There's a useful special page that lists all the Uncategorised Pages on the wiki. Perhaps we could start to work through these?

--Mantrid 10:55, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * We need a category to put the dates and years in. Should it be called Time, or something like that?

Also do we have to put "Novels" on the end of Virgin Missing Adventures and Virgin New Adventures. If you look at their wikipedia page here and here they're called Virgin New Adventures / Missing Adventures. Also the logos say Doctor Who Missing Adventures and The New Doctor Who Adventures so shouldn't we go with the most commonly used version?. --GingerM 15:20, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the reason I originally added 'novels' was to make it clear what they were. I think self-descriptive names for categories is a good idea. Just 'adventures' could be anything - audio, TV, comic-strip etc. However, I am of course happy to go with the majority decision on this. --Mantrid 17:09, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the actual pages shouldn't have 'novels' on the end, e.g.Virgin New Adventures and either the category have 'novel' on the end or divide it further (making a novel category and putting the categories into it). Just some ideas. Any opinions?--GingerM 14:26, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we already have Category:Prose as a category, so I'm not sure we need to introduce another level. If we split things up too much it starts to be confusing rather than helpful to users. I'd be happy to change the names to include novels if that's the popular choice. As long as we're consistent. --Mantrid 17:40, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

--Freethinker1of1 02:18, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha uses the category "Timeline" for its year pages. Seems like the best one to use. I have no preference either way for what to call the categories for novels.


 * 'Timeline' sounds good to me. I've added in to the table below. --Mantrid 05:45, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at the list of uncategorised pages, I've got it down to a few that I think, don't fit into any category. Any category ideas for pages like The Cave of Skulls fit, as they aren't TV stories, just episodes which make up the TV story? Also where should we put things like producer and director?--GingerM 17:08, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, shall I move the category table to Tardis:Category Network as I think it's very useful but it takes up a lot of space.--GingerM 16:48, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I would put articles about individual parts of the early stories under TV stories, as they are related articles. Articles like producer and director would best fit under Doctor Who crew, as they are generalized articles on these roles. The table seems ready for its own page. New categories can always still be added as needed. Special:Categories might be a better name though, as this is what people are more likely to serach for. --Freethinker1of1 23:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll put the category table on Tardis:Categories as you can't edit a special page and I'll finish off the categorizing.--GingerM 15:16, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * This might not be the right section for this question, but can I ask what the value is for having separate pages for individual episodes? Surely we should be treating each story as a single entity? If we're going to have a page for The Cave of Skulls does that mean we're also going to have a page for Planet of Fire - Episode 3 etc? --Mantrid 18:08, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Particularly as all the information about the individual episodes, original brodcast date, ratings, etc., could just as easily be placed on the pages for the entire stories. They would get problematic, as "The Mutants" is the title of both an individual episode from the Hartnell era, - part of "The Daleks," I believe, - and also a complete story from the Pertwee era. "The Roof of the World" is the title of both an individual episode of "Marco Polo," and also one of the Audio Dramas. I would personally prefer that these instead have redirects or disambiguations, as necessary. --Freethinker1of1 01:06, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

(for Category Table see Tardis:Categories

Naming Policy
On the character pages, do we add their rank to the page name, e.g. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart or Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart with Brigadier as a redirect? If you look at The Indestructible Man there are loads of characters with ranks, so before I make the articles, I want to know which page to create them on, (e.g. Commander Hal Bishop or Hal Bishop?) --GingerM 09:40, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we don't include ranks as part of a name. Certainly this is the accepted standard on other wikis (see Grand Moff Tarkinon the Star Wars wiki. However, as with the Star Wars wiki, I think we should make sure we have re-directs for obvious candidates (eg Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart). --Mantrid 18:15, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I've moved the content from Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart to Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart with a redirect, and will be making redirect pages for "the Brigadier" and "the Brig," with a disambiguation for "Lethbridge-Stewart," since this can refer either to the Brigadier or his family. Listing Sgt. Benton under "John Benton" may be problematic, as his first name was never given in any of the television stories, - but then, none of those stories gave last names for Polly or Zoe, either, so it will just have to serve. --Freethinker1of1 03:49, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * If an individual's first or surname is never given in the serial but given in other media (John Benton, Kiy Uvanov and many more), where should the main article be?--GingerM 19:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on the previous discussions about canon, if the full name is not established on screen as part of the television series then only the name that is given is canon. As such, we should probably only be using canonical names as the titles of pages with the additional parts of the name mentioned under the Expanded Universe heading (as is done in The Master). So it should just be Benton, Uvanov and Polly etc. --Mantrid 08:41, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Context
For articles like, BBC, are we going to put information on that wikipedia would, about the whole organisation, or is our information going to be the BBC in context with Doctor Who? Which perspective are we going to do these articles from?--GingerM 19:39, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode Design
At the moment, there are two designs for the episode pages.


 * One is much bigger with lots of information, but a boring template box. (see here for an example.)


 * The other one has a nicer template box but has hardly any information compared to the above one. (see here for an example)

We can't stay with both of them, so I think we should have all the information from the first design, put with the template of the second design to make our "episode design", because at the moment it's not consistent.--GingerM 18:59, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think having a decent story page for each TV story should be something of a priority for this Wiki. That's why I started to do a bit of a tidy up and add a photo for each story from The Tenth Planet onwards. At the moment the main Wikipedia has better pages on each Who story than we do here. --Mantrid 06:42, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * But with the story designs from The Tenth Planet onwards, you lose at lot of information compared to the older design.--GingerM 15:23, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I did the pages that you are referring to. However, the only reason I removed a lot of the sub-headings was because there was no information to go with them, not because I thought that information shouldn't be there. I just think a page of empty sub-headings looks untidy and unfinished. Once someone has info to add for one or more sub-headings (whatever they may be) I'm all for adding it in. I certainly didn't intend the sub-hedings on, for example, The Macra Terror to be the only sub-headings. Let's expand each TV story page as and when the info is ready to publish but keep them concise and tidy in the meantime. I think The Invasion page is looking great. --Mantrid 19:23, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the story pages should be revamped in a way that combines the best of both story page designs. From this one, I would keep the template box design,  References,   Cast & Characters,  and External Links.  From this one, two paragraph summary,,  Crew,  Story Notes, Ratings,  Continuity,   Influences,  Location Filming,  Quotes,  and Story Arcs (if applicable).  I prefer "Enemy" to the American-sounding "Bad Guys,"  and this, Broadcast dates, and Duration can be left out of the actual article as this info is included in the infobox anyway. Part of "Cultural References" could be merged with "References," while the rest could just be included under the Story Notes.


 * We earlier discussed the necessity, or rather lack thereof, for giving separate pages to individual episodes of the earlier stories. I really don't think we need separate pages for the DVD release, Video release,  or "In the Media," either. Click on "DVD release" for "An Unearthly Child" and you get a whole page devoted to the single sentence, "This story has not yet been released on DVD." What is the point in that? This kind of informtaion could just as easily be included on the main story page, and "Reference Media" sounds better for "In the Media."  Having separate entries for the Target novelizations does make sense, as they do often deviate from the television version, and some of these deviations were used in the later Virgin and BBC novels, as well as by Lance Parkins in dating some of the stories.


 * There also doesn't seem much need for a separate page for the uncredited cast; they could still be listed with the regular cast with "uncredited" in parentheses after each actor's name. Finally, there's the separate pages for each production code, again consisiting of just one or two sentences. If the production code has to link somewhere, why not to a single page which lists the known production codes for every television story?


 * I've been working off and on revamping the page for "The Invasion." I'll try to get it finished and use it as an example of what I'm trying to convey here.

--Freethinker1of1 17:52, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added a "Public Releases" section as their is too much information for it to stay where it was (see The Invasion and The Three Doctors).--GingerM 17:45, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * What shall we do with the pages, An Unearthly Child Media and An Unearthly Child Statistics? Merge them, delete them, leave them?--GingerM 19:29, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, probably too much info to be included on the main story pages, and too useful to be deleted. Perhaps we should leave them and place in sub-categories such as "Reference Media" and "Story Statistics?"

--Freethinker1of1 23:10, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

User page templates
I added a few user language templates after seeing User:IanWatson's page, and deciding to do the same to my own user page. Howhever, none of the templates were on this wiki so I copied some and added a few categories, updated the Tardis:Categories page and, voila! The wiki now has a few language templates, so if people could find the time to either add the existing language templates to their Userpage (look at mine for the table), or, if your language doesn't have one on the wiki yet, add it, then use it for your userpage. Also, could users add their userpage to Category:Users. Thanks.
 * --GingerM 17:40, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Duplication of Wikipedia Doctor Who pages
I notice on the 'about' page of this wiki that we're saying:

'This site is not attempting to copy or replace Wikipedia's Doctor Who WikiProject, but rather to compliment it, just as Memory Alpha compliments the Star Trek WikiProject on Wikipedia, rather than attempts to copy or replace it.'

However, I'm wondering why we can't copy across some of the entries on Wikipedia as they are, in some instances, much more evolved than what we have here. They even have articles on subjects that we don't have anything at all for (eg Ice Warriors. I don't see anything wrong with copying, adapting and expanding the info on Wikipedia. It is after all covered by the same GFDL license and as long as we credit each article appropriately, we are well within our rights to use the material. This is exactly how the Star Wars wiki developed and look at that now. It bothers me that the Doctor Who info on the main Wikipedia is, in some cases at least, better than it is here on this dedicated Wiki. So, I propose we start copying info across. Any takers? --Mantrid 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was originally resistant to the idea of copying Wikipedia articles because of the risk of the site being merely a "fork" of Wikipedia, which I understood was against Wikicities policy. That seems far less of a concern now, as we have begun expanding our scope beyond that of the Doctor Who WikiProject, and they are finding limitations to the subjects they can cover. Minor characters and lesser-known spinoff material, for instance, don't usually meet the "notable" criteria of Wikipedia's more general scope of topics, and are often subject to deletion for this reason. Further, we can always expand and edit the original Wikipedia articles to better fit this site - no need for instance to always say that something or someone is "a fictional such-and-such on the British science fiction television series Doctor Who," since one may safely assume that anyone visiting our site is reasonably familiar enough with Who to have a general idea of what something or someone is, and just wants more detailed info. That said, I see no problem with using the articles as you suggest. Anyone else?

--Freethinker1of1 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Freethinker. I would certainly agree that the material on Wikipedia would have to be adapted to fit the stlye of our wiki here I think many of their articles will be a good starting point on which we can expand and enhance. --Mantrid 06:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Spammers and blocking
Owing to the recent and persistent instances of spamming, especially for adult websites when we have a fairly general age-range of visitors, and since we now the option of blocking IPs "infinitely," I suggest we adopt the policy of permanently blocking spammers without warning, while retaining the usual policy of issuing warnings first and then blocking for limited periods for minor vandalisms. --Freethinker1of1 02:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Referencing
Has anyone else attempted to add references to any of the pages. I was going to attempt a page which used footnotes to indicate which story the material came from but despite repeated testing in the sandbox i cant seem to get it to work. Does anyone know how to put proper footnotes in the article (I have been through all of the Wikipedia help pages and none of them seem to be working) --Amxitsa 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am putting in referencing for some articles but still cant get it to work. What do people think of this sort of referencing? --Amxitsa 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried on another wiki a while ago now, but I couldn't get the annoying thing to work either, so ending using brackets like this: -(1), then having a section at the bottom with: (1)-, but it looks a bit messy and amateurish.--GingerM 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's Get Organised
I have not been as regular a contributor here as I had hoped. So, I hope you don't mind me saying that I think this Wiki has gone a bit off-track. There is a great lack of consistency in pages being added. Previously agreed styles have either been forgotten or ignored (most notably the 'in-Universe' perspective for fictional elements). There is a complete lack of a structured approach to establishing and building this Wiki with people very much working indepently of each other. As a result we have pages dedicated to the most minor and obscure story elements but also have no pages at all, or empty templates, for major Doctor Who subjects (eg many of the TV stories). The bottom line is that, at the moment, this isn't a very good Wiki site. In fact, at the moment, the Who fan is probably better served by the main Wikipedia site. I think the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis are great examples of what we should be aiming for. There is a lot to be learned from them in terms of organisation and consistency. Here is my proposed 'plan of action', much of which is inspired by these two Wikis:


 * Firstly, I think everyone should talk much more. Posting ideas and thoughts here or in some other 'community' page. We could even set up some kind of Forum or Bulltin Board. This would be a better Wiki and more fun place to visit for all of us if we really developed it as a community that shared, cooperated and developed together.


 * Let's establish a list of priorities in terms of what needs attention. We should at least cover the same ground as the Who entries on Wikipedia. I'd suggest that first on the priority list is that every TV story page needs to be completed and consistent with each other. This is quite a big job, so let's not be too ambitious and just agree on and add the minimum essential information. I'd (immodestly) suggest my own The Tenth Planet entry as a good standard.


 * We need to agree on a consistent style. I would suggest returning to the idea that all fictional entries should be written from an 'in-Universe' perspective. In other words, as if they were real. This will mean avoiding articles that begin 'The Sontarans first appeared in the Doctor Who TV story, The Time Warrior etc'. Behind the scenes information can be added beneath the main entry for a page under a 'Behind the Scenes' heading.


 * We need to finally establish a way of dealing with canonicity and contradictory information. Personally, I don't think the use of a separate 'Expanded Universe' section (eg see The Master) has worked particularly well - especially as some pages will contain information that is entirely based on Expanded Universe material. I'd like to propose the rather radical approach that we treat all information exactly the same, regardless of source, as long as it is a professional and/or BBC licenced product (ie not from fan-fiction). However, I'd add that if we do take this approach, then every element of information needs to have a source attributed to it. See Klingon History at the Star Trek Wiki to see how this might work. Also, any contradictions or speculation could be added in to the article as indented, italicised asides. Also see Klingon History for what I mean by this and how it would work. By abandoning canon and siting all information sources, we allow the user to make up their own mind on what they accept as their own personal canon.

Well that's enough from me. I hope you appreciate that I'm not saying all of this just to have a go. I just think that this could be a great and useful Wiki that would compare well to the Star Trek and Star Wars wikis. We just need to pull together more and provide a more helpful and structured path for new contributors. Let's talk! --Mantrid 07:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mantrid. Like you, I have been away for some time and not contributing much, largely due to a recent move to an area where regular internet access was difficult to obtain. (I now have DSL.) I too have noticed things getting way off track in my absence. We seem to be back into a quantity vs. quality rut.

No one is talking to anyone, everyone just decides to go do his/her own thing while ignoring the fact that while a wiki is something anyone can edit, it is also intended to be a group effort. A forum or bulletin board would be a good idea. Wikia does provide discussion lists for users, but I personally never liked the system because I didn't consider it very user-friendly and so never put it to use. Something along the lines of a Yahoo! or MSN Group might be better, especially since it would help promote the site.

Yes, we need to get the TV stories finished as our first priority, particualrly as many are still in the old format which I admit I never liked. Your article on "The Tenth Planet" is, I think, an excellent "how-to" example.

Yes, get back to "in-universe" treatment of fictional subjects. I think most people visiting this site are familiar with Doctor Who enough to know that Liz Shaw "is a fictional character in the British science-fiction television series Doctor Who" without being told. And while it was my idea, the "Expanded Universe" thing does have some bugs, as you pointed out. Your suggestion does look better, especially as used by Memory Alpha.

There also seem to be too many dictionary style entries being written, - one sentence saying "so-and-so was this" and nothing else. I think more detail would be appreciated. Even though this wiki should ideally cover as much Who-related material as possible, if something doesn't merit more than one sentence, it probably is too trivial to warrant an entry. More likely, people just don't know what function the stub template serves, as a note telling visitors, "this is all I know or was able to find about this topic; if you have more info, please add it." That may itself be the fault of the tutorial pages being so scant on information. We seem to forget many folks coming here to contribute are newbies to the whole wiki concept.

Since so many pages need work. It might also be a good idea to employ templates like Wikipedia uses, i.e. ones that say "this article needs work or clean-up."

Well, my thoughts on the matter so far. I'll add more if I think of them. --Freethinker1of1 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to put in my two-hundredths-of-a-dollar, the sad fact is that alot of the new people coming to this site are like myself-- either new Whovians altogether from the new series, or old fans re-discovering their love of the show through the new series. I would love to contribute to some of the older TV listing, but by that point I'm relying on the VHS tapes I happen to have lying around.

The long and short of it is that we're going to have alot of information on the new series right now, with information on the old series trickling in as people re-read their fan guides or re-watch the tapes themselves. I agree with your idea of switching back to the in-universe formatting (I need to do that myself for my Krillitane Oil article). As for getting another message board altogether, I'd rather keep the amount of digital paper we need to follow to a minimum. I want to be a contributor here for sure, but I'll also admit this is a casual contribution-- i.e., when I have time and desire to do it. That also means that I don't mind reading the Panopticon while I'm here, but adding a few more steps into the process... but then again, maybe I'm just being a bad fanboy. ^.^ --The Professor 01:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)