Forum:How should we cover the Last Great Time War?

I'm gonna do a big peice on the time war, making pages about the stages, and can no one make any massive changes to anything to do with the Time War. thx---Si http://images.wikia.com/tardis/images/e/e4/Si_HTL_Seal_Leader.PNG 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How many stages? Causes of the Last Great Time War (Genesis etc), The Last Great Time War (I would suggest that 'the main part of...' could do with a re-think as a title) - covering what we know about the War (i.e. very little all things considered), and Aftermath of the Last Great Time War (van Staten's Dalek, the Void Ship, the Jagrafess and the Game Station, etc). Only suggestions of course. I don't think it necessarily needs more than one big article, but... --Gai-jin 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW if you're going to start splitting the existing LGTW article up into chunks which replicate the content, could you delete that content from the original article? Otherwise folk are going to potentially make changes to the original article which won't be reflected in the sub-articles, which is a shame. As an example of what I mean, look at the page on the Master - when the UNIT years material was made into a separate page, it was removed from the main page. Thanks. --Gai-jin 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need a bunch of separate articles covering the Time War? I mean all the various articles refer to it (within the limits of their article). Couldn't we just have one other page which brings all that together (with a bunch of links) rather than having a page for (The beginning, (Middle, and (Half-way nearly the end...of the Time War. It just seems a messy way of doing things have a separate page (especially for the main part of the time war) which is mostly just conjecture. --Tangerineduel 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I think you have a point. There's a limit to how many different worthwhile articles you can write about an event which a) occurred offscreen, b) the details of which have deliberately been left extremely vague, and c) possibly by its very nature is difficult to talk definitively about (history going into spasm etc). --Gai-jin 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)