FANDOM


  • CzechOut
    CzechOut closed this thread
    13:14, May 10, 2013

    CzechOut wrote: I'll make you a deal. If you clean up the pages — give 'em a proper lead in which you note the biggest things that happened that day — then I'll figure out a way to feature it on at least the main gateway pages. Show me that you're dedicated to making these pages look great and I'll give you the tech to feature 'em.

    As you start to think about how to make these pages better, you might find yourself wanting to open up a debate about whether we want to split each of these pages in two and have two 1 January pages — 1 January for in-universe events and 1 January (real world) for real world events. You might also think about what kind of pictures might illustrate these pages, since most have nada. Or you might think about ways to improve the appearance of information. Should, for instance, births and deaths be in a sidebar? Is there a particular year's events that deserve highlighting in a sidebar?

    Again, if you can make these pages look great, I guarantee you they'll be featured prominently.

    The above was from New Homepage - 2013. I replied with the following:

    SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I think we should recruit several editors to aid in this process. I agree that the date pages have a lot of work to be done. Even if I were to do it alone, though, and commit to doing 10 of them per day, it would only take me about a month.

    As far as sections are concerned, I believe on the Wikipedia date articles, they have an "events" section, then "births," then "deaths." I think we could benefit from something similar. So, if we're going with splitting the articles (brilliant suggestion; never thought of it - maybe I shall indeed open up that debate), on the out-of-universe pages, we'd have any big events (like 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who) in the introduction, then a "Releases" section with all the releases, then a "Births" section, then a "Deaths" section. In the in-universe pages, we might have the most key event or aspect of the day in the introduction, an "Events" section, then "Births" and "Deaths" sections. I think, though, that if we split up the articles, it'd be harder to come up with leads for the real world date articles. Should I open a new discussion in the Panopticon about date pages so we can get onto this new project as soon as possible? I feel like this is getting off the topic of the new homepage.

    So this is me, bringing this discussion to its own forum. Let's start off with the first two questions:

    1) Should we put subtitles like "Births" and "Deaths" as suggested above?
    2) Should we split date articles into two, as per Czech's suggestion? This would mean, for example. 31 May and 31 May (real world).

    What are your thoughts?

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, in relation to lead, if there are multiple events for one date, what's our rule for what gets priority as the lead? Do we prioritize the TV episodes over everything else? Events over births? Major parts of story arcs over small stories? Newer stories over older ones? We need to establish rules for this, as well.

      Take 7 February, for example:

      The first event's a birth, the second's a rather major event for Earth's history, except it's from a Doctor Who annual, and the third is from a major television episode, except we never even see it happen. The Blink event was in a way only mentioned, although it was narrated and crucial to the story.

      So... Which one would we choose as the lead?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I also petition we get rid of this on articles:

      Events

      to be added

      If the dates come, we can add the section ourselves. I think it looks unprofessional.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108 wrote: I agree.

      I'm assuming you're agreeing to get rid of the empty "Events" sections?

      Anyways, as of yet, there are four things I'm implementing on all the articles:

      1) As long as an article has at least one in-universe event, I'm adding leads. See my second post and respond to tell me how we should prioritise events.
      2) Changing from "{Actor's Name} ({Character's Name} in {Media Type}: {Story Name}) died in {date}" to "{Actor's Name}, who played {Character's Name} in {MT}: {Story Name}, died in {date}." I find unnecessary brackets like that look unprofessional.
      3) Changing things about actors births from either of the above two, to "{Actor's Name}, who would play {Character's Name} in {MT}: {Story Name}, was born." They hadn't played the character yet, so it seems wrong to say that they "played" in in past tense.
      4) I haven't started yet, but I'm going to start getting rid of empty "Events" section.

      I'm now going to restart from January before I continue, since I've added a couple of things to my to-do list on date pages. If anyone has any objections to the above four... things... I'm implementing, please state your objection and why below as soon as possible. If you guys disagree with anything, and give a good reason for it, I'll just undo the "bad" edits. Thanks.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I have another suggestion, though I have a feeling it will gain opposition. To have something similar to on story page - previous day and next day. Yes, I know, at the moment, we already have a calendar there. But we hardly put every episode of the season on Midnight (TV story), now do we? Plus, let's say you're on 31 January. How do you get to 1 February? At the moment, you'd have to either type it in yourself, or click on February and then click on the date on the calendar there. That is hardly as convenient as it should be.

      Also, I just want to reiterate that it is really getting on my nerves and I would like to put subtitles for "Releases," "Births," and "Deaths." It feels really disorganised having them all mixed together as they are now. However, I obviously can't just make this decision on my own. This is a big issue that makes a difference on about 365 pages. I cannot implement this until (or unless) I get general approval. Opposition would also be appreciated, as it would help me better understand the situation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I unfortunately can't give this important project my full attention at this precise moment. So I might miss various nuances of this discussion. Forgive me if I come back later than you'd like to squash something you've already done.

      Let's concentrate on the one thing that's non-controversial that you can be getting on with immediately: the emplacement of leads. You've already started on that, and I'd probably make that my major focus over the next few days.

      • When there aren't that many things that happen, I think you can safely dispense with the bulleted lists and just turn things into a proper paragraph. Just remember to use bold according to T:BOLD and to obey T:TENSES by keeping things in the strict and simple past tense.
      • When there are multiple things that happened, and one of them seems clearly more important than the other, use a construction like 26 June. There, the Amy and Rory's wedding in 2010 is the centrepiece. Most of the other events require that first event to happen. So you highlight the big events, then drop the others into a bulleted list under a full sentence like:
      Amongst the other notable things that occurred on this day were:
      Of course, it's not always that your lead event needs to be causal, as it is on 26 June. But there are going to be days where the events of one year dwarf the importance of events on the same day in other years.
      • When there are multiple things that happened with none of them seeming dominantly important, your lead should be something vague, but which nevertheless brings order to the page. Something like:
      7 September was notable for a number of highly varied events on Earth and its parallels:
      And then you just launch into a bulleted list

      I'd recommend, for now, that you make this your primary task. Of all the things that need to be done to these page, the one "emergency" is that they don't have leads.

      I'll be back in other posts to respond to other things that you've talked about above.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just caught myself making an error common to these pages. In fact it's so common that it's the category name, which I will now change. These pages are about days, not dates. When we speak of 1 January, without a specific year, we're talking about a day of the year — not a fixed date. So while I change the category name, please make sure the pages themselves do not make this elementary error.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The new category name is category:Days of the year. Please continue making chronologically sequential edits in order to minimise edit conflicts. Just passed 17 January. Process will take about 45 minutes from the time of this post.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Pleas immediately suspend your practice with respect to your point 2, above.

      There is no need for elaborate constructions like:

      As partially explained on your talk page, these articles should be wholly in the past tense. None of this conditional nonsense. Actually, we don't need the dependent clauses at all. This is a wiki. If people don't know who William Mervyn is, they can just click the links. We want them to click the links. The construction should simply be:

      Done.

      These are articles about days of the week, not about the people born on those dates. Birth and death information — indeed all BTS info — should be as minimal as possible.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thank you, Czech, for responding. For the record, I did 26 June myself just yesterday, in case you didn't realise. I like your idea with a vague lead if there's nothing specifically more important than the others. It's a really good idea, which I will as of now start using. It seems you're suggesting (or implying) that I get rid of the "Events" section entirely, and just replace it with the words,

      Amongst the other notable things that occurred on this day were:

      after my lead in the introduction.

      As far as the days/dates issue, now that I know, trust me, I won't make that mistake.

      ...Is there a way to change the name of the thread?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You can change the name of threads by editing the first post. But I've done that for you.

      We're on 5 April, btw.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Two things (well... maybe three...)

      1) You want me to get rid of all that unnecessary information in the births/deaths points. Consider it done.
      2) When you say "Please continue making chronologically sequential edits in order to minimise edit conflicts," I'm going to assume you meant the exact opposite and wrote continue instead of stop. That would only be logical.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No, I meant continue. Don't want to stop your momentum. As long as you do things in chronological order, you won't interfere with the bot. It's at 1 May now, btw. At roughly the top of the hour it'll be done. If you want an up-to-the-minute check on progress, just go to Special:Contributions/CzechBot.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • BTW, the reason for stripping away all that irrelevant info from BTS is that it makes Special:WhatLinksHere more useful. If you do a WLH on the current state of 24 April, you'll see that Snakedance is linked there. That makes it seem like 24 April is of importance to Snakedance. But it's not. It's only of relevance to Preston Lockwood, who was in Snakedance.

      WLH searches, and other reports that utilise WLH, are only as good as the care with which we link.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • BTW, totally agree with the complete elimination of the "Events" subhead. It's really ambiguous, and isn't as effective a demarcator of IU and OOU information as simply having no section head except for the BTS one.

      (But since we may soon divorce the BTS section, anyway, the issue of demarcation may well be moot. Still, "Events" would be pointless even if there were no split. The whoel page is about "events".)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh. Got it. Cool cool cool. Bot's pretty quick.

      Anyways, I edited your edit of the name of the thread, since "Day of the week" means Sunday, Monday, Tuesday..., not January 1st, January 2nd...

      Two more things while I still have you:

      1) I'm going to assume that the format of 5 April, for example, is the British format. If not, it's a bit weird that we call the articles that. But I'm fairly certain that is the British format.
      2) I've noticed an inconsistency that's not specifically about day pages:
      On 4 January, for example, it says:
      There are two problems here. The first is: episode or part? (or is this just because it switched from Episode to Part after Hartnell left?) The second is: 2 or two? How do we represent numbers here in this case: numerically or with words?
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • BTW, I'm noticing now on 24 April that there's this awkward refusal to just link to Hartnell episode names. When you come across Hartnell episode air dates, just link to the episode name and don't worry about including the serial name.

      So

      Good Bad
      * [[1965]] - "[[The Space Museum (episode)|]]" was first broadcast.
      * [[1965]] - "The Space Museum", Episode 1 of [[TV]]: ''[[The Space Museum]]'', was first broadcast.

      Remember, per T:ITAL, Hartnell episode names get put into double quotes. So "The Space Museum" is the ep, The Space Museum is the serial.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Agreed. The whole page is about "events." Funny, and true.

      On the subject of WLH searches, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now how to go about searching for all pages that link to a specific page. I figured it would be a logical type of search to have. It would be especially useful when I notice that a lot of people are making common spelling mistakes in links, which I could find in two seconds with this search. So... off topic, but how do you go about doing this kind of search?

      And thank you for the brief on things I should look out for in regards to Hartnell episodes. Should I get rid of "Part one" in post-Hartnell pre-McGann episodes as well?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, you got the Bot to get rid of "events?" Well that's save me some work. Did you do anything about the annoying "to be added" in those sections? Now it'll seem even more out of place if you didn't think of that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Snap! Looks like we hit on one issue simultaneously. As for the episode/part thing, this derives from people being precise. I don't think we've ever ruled on whether we should attempt harmonisation between the two systems, because the show itself used "episode" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and switched to "Part x" sometime in the Pertwee era. So it really is "Episode two of The Krotons and "'Part one of Castrovalva."

      For the moment, let's assume that the editors who placed this information on the pages did so very carefully. I think it's a fair assumption that they did so accurately.

      But I think we should convert all numbers to lower case words. So you should use the format in your 4 January example and place the word part or episode at the beginning of the sentence, capitalise it, and then add the word form of the number: "Part one", "Episode six", "Part three", etc.

      As implied before, when naming any Hartnell episode prior to The Savages, episode one, you should only use the episode name. So just "Bell of Doom", not "Bell of Doom" (part 4).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Oh, you got the Bot to get rid of "events?" Well that's save me some work. Did you do anything about the annoying "to be added" in those sections? Now it'll seem even more out of place if you didn't think of that.

      I think I have in the past eliminated Events and to be added, but people keep adding it back. I haven't made that bot run today, no. I wouldn't have thought it was on every page again, so I'll leave it to you this time.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Technical side note:

      Each category declaration on the pages of days of the year has a sort key code which allows the pages to display in chronological order in a category listing. Please don't delete this key. If you accidentally do, it's a four digit code, where the first four digits are the month and the second two are the date. So:

      [[Category:Days of the year|0101]] is on 1 January
      and
      [[Category:Days of the year|0930]] is on 30 September
      

      If we do go on to split up these pages into RW and IU pages, we'll need to remember this trick when building the new pages.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You didn't run that bot today? That's weird... Look at the edit history of 26 June. Latest edit by CzechBot. Was that you personally, then? It seems to be in conjunction with the category change.

      In response to the "technical side note," got it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh. Wait... I think we meant that you did run the above mentioned Bot but didn't get rid of "To be added"s, right?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Given what you know of me so far, do you think I'd ever intentionally remove a section head but leave behind to be added?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Given what you know of me so far, do you think I'd ever intentionally remove a section head but leave behind to be added?

      True true true. :-) But, in that case, please explain away why the edit history says that the Bot got rid of the section head on February 1st at 16:49?

      .....Or did I misread you again? Do you mean that you did do it, and obviously wouldn't forget? I am really bad at this...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, there's not much distinction between me and the bot. It's not like it runs wild in an unsupervised way. I think you're not reading the revision history carefully. Select your edit at :31. Then select CO edit at :06. Then press "compare selected revisions". Then walk your way through each subsequent edit and you'll see that CO took away "Events", while CB changed categories. Not sure where you're getting this straggling to be added thing from.

      Hmmmm, looking through the edit history, I guess CB never did clean empty sections from this category. Sorry for that element of confusion. But I do regularly run such scrubbers elsewhere, and they do take away both the header and the to be added. You can see an example of this at this diff.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oops. You're right. I was comparing mine and CB's. That only happened because I opened the difference from an email update. Sorry about the confusion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What about other extra information, like where they were born? For example, on 1 January, where I was about to restart my editing chronologically before my computer froze for an hour:

      Should all that extra information be considered useless and, like you said, making WLH more useful, or is this good information that important to the sentence that's a good product of editors' efficiency? I mean, 1 January doesn't really have anything to do with in-universe Birmingham and in-universe England.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'd say keep a one word description of the person (actor, writer, producer, director, whatever their highest position was) and the name. Job title pages have so many links that WhatLinksHere can never be terribly meaningful. So:

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 1) I agree that including a one word description of the individual would be extremely useful, and, especially now that we got rid of what they wrote/who they played, etc..., it helps you get a basic sense of what they did and who they were/are. I think it would add a lot to the clarity of that section. Do you object to me adding job titles to all births and deaths?

      2) I'm assuming the above applies to how they died too, right? So instead of:

      I'd just put:

      Right?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yeah. Though if you wanna throw in a professional title there you can. So it could be:

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • T:SPACING warns against putting extra vertical spaces into articles.

      Good Bad
      *Point 1
      *Point 2
      *Point 1
      
      *Point 2
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As a matter of record keeping, you should probably add

      {{delete|This article has no in-universe information, and should be moved to [[{{PAGENAME}} (real world)]], then deleted until such time as in-universe information can be found about this day}}

      to pages like 31 January.

      Since these articles are in-universe articles, they cannot exist with only a behind the scenes section like 31 January.

      By marking with {{delete}}, you'll be creating a list of all the pages that need in-universe information found.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • To pick up on a question of SmallerOnTheOutside's and to expand on CzechOut's explanation the last story to have their individual segments to be called "Episode" was Invasion of the Dinosaurs ever story after that its segments were known as "Part".

      Words for these Episodes/Parts is better as that's what's used in the title sequences.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: T:SPACING warns against putting extra vertical spaces into articles.

      Thank you for telling me about this. I was wondering which was correct.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: As a matter of record keeping, you should probably add

      {{delete|This article has no in-universe information, and should be moved to [[{{PAGENAME}} (real world)]], then deleted until such time as in-universe information can be found about this day}}

      to pages like 31 January.

      Okay, will do. Most day articles don't have any in-universe information, which is the main reason why I want to have a discussion with several people on whether or not we should split all the articles into in-universe and real world.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, there's no discussion needed on that point. They will be split. We can't have in-universe articles without in-universe information.

      There might be questions of exactly how the split occurs or what we call the new pages, but the fact of splitting is non-controversial.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No, I was referring to having a discussion as to whether all day pages, whether or not they have in-universe information, should be split. Number one, it keeps it consistent. It also helps with linking, so anything out-of-universe that takes place on a date will always link to Date (Real World), and anything in-universe always just Date. Otherwise, linking would get confusing since you don't know which articles are split.

      I've got plenty of reasons but there's no point in listing them until we have several people having the discussion. When that time comes, do you think I should start a new thread, considering this one is already so long and we haven't even discussed this topic?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Is there a reason we can't just continue the way we have been with a behind the scenes section and a in-universe section?

      Will it be helpful to readers for us to split the pages?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We don't need a discussion on whether to split this information. If an article has no in-universe information, it gets deleted. So if we want to keep the BTS information at all, it must go into a separate article, and one with a dab term attached.

      And there's no doubt about which gets the un-dabbed term. This is already covered by long-standing policy. Let's say you have Brian Cox. You know that this person is the the in-universe character with that name. Brian Cox (actor) is the actor. The in-universe term always "wins" the un-dabbed version of the PAGENAME.

      Similarly, 1 January must be an in-universe article.

      Now, how we might split the article and what the dab term might be for real world stuff — yes, that might the subject for debate.

      But that we should delete an article called 15 September because there's no in-universe material about that particular day? Nah, that's just a straightforward application of existing rules.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Tangerineduel wrote: Is there a reason we can't just continue the way we have been with a behind the scenes section and a in-universe section?

      The point is that many of these day articles don't actually have an in-universe section.

      Will it be helpful to readers for us to split the pages?

      Yes, because it's the only way to preserve the BTS information and hold true to our disambiguation policy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Czech (it seems) brings up a good point. It's only according to Tardis policy. In the same way that we need to have Dalek and Dalek (TV story) (since one's a species and one's an episode, but both have the same name), but still have Closing Time (TV story) rather than Closing Time. That's just the way we do things, and it makes sense.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

      Reread what you've typed. Your two "options" are actually the same thing.

      If we have an article that has nothing to do with the DWU, we delete it. Someone creates Bob Nobody. We delete it, because there is no such person in the DWU. We don't ask anyone. We don't hold a debate. We just do it. That's completely uncontroversial.

      Dates are absolutely no different. If there is no in-universe information about 14 September, we delete it. We've long carried out this practice with respect to years. For instance, we don't have a year 7 page or a year 2689 page. It's not because these years don't logically exist within the DWU. It's because the basic tenet to the creation of any article here is that it must be mentioned (or at least explicitly shown on a calendar) in a DWU story.

      With years, we've already been through the deletion of articles that were solely comprised of {{timeline}}, or the useless lead, "The year 3456 was the 56th year of the 35th century."

      There is absolutely nothing controversial about deleting a day of the year page where no in-universe event is known to have occurred. If that page happens to have only production information on it, then the only way to save that information is to put it onto a page of its own.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Sorry, put the wrong emphasises:

      I think we're all addressing different issues. If I understood correctly, both Tangerineduel and I are addressing whether or not be should split all day pages into Day and Day (Real World), while you're still only talking about how we should definitely delete day articles with no in-universe material and move BTS of those articles only to Day (Real World). Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

      Note now the emphasis on all. This means "including articles which do have in-universe information." I think all of them should be split up (and, obviously, we can hardly have a page about an in-universe date if there's no information) into Date and Date (Real World.

      See my last post. Now it occurs to me that it's actually policy to do such a thing. Once we're making 31 January (Real World), we have to make 30 January (Real World), whether or not it's specifically needed in that one case.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • In the word of our own Disambiguation Policy:

      Rather than requiring editors to memorise a changing chart of which titles got dab terms and which didn't, we now simply require all story names to have a disambiguation term attached.DAB policy

      The same applies to dates, the way I see it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Czech (it seems) brings up a good point. It's only according to Tardis policy. In the same way that we need to have Dalek and Dalek (TV story) (since one's a species and one's an episode, but both have the same name), but still have Closing Time (TV story) rather than Closing Time. That's just the way we do things, and it makes sense.

      Well, you're looking at something similar and coming to the wrong conclusion about how we got to those titles. You're basically saying, "These titles have dab terms in parentheses, so therefore the reason they do must be the same." There are many reasons why something might get a dab term — or, perhaps more to the point, there are many reasons why an un-dabbed term might be a redlink.

      Closing Time is just about the only example you'll find of a redlinked name of a televised story, so don't use it as your guideline. All stories are dabbed by rule. But stories are allowed to keep their undabbed name as a redirect, as long as it doesn't conflict with any in-universe term. The only reason "Closing Time" remains a redlink is because it's believed that the common term "closing time" must exist in the DWU and that, therefore, the undabbed term should remain open for the use of a potential in-universe article.

      However, you'll find that just about every other story name doesn't behave like this. Colony in Space, Pyramids of Mars, The Caves of Androzani, The Gunfighters — they're all redirects to the dabbed term. Story titles are universally dabbed because the normal application of T:DAB left us with some stories that were dabbed and some that weren't, which was a) confusing to new users (evidenced by the huge number of wrong links — Castrovalva, I'm lookin' at you) and b) a bitch to program around.

      So, in effect, the reason that the serial Castrovalva is at Castrovalva (TV story) is because in-universe terms get precedence. The reason that Four to Doomsday is at Four to Doomsday (TV story) is because Castrovalva is at Castrovalva (TV story) and it overall makes better sense to have all stories follow the same pattern.

      Only the reasoning behind the Castrovalva move applies to the day of the week situation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No, I disagree with the way you've quoted Dab policy and are saying it universally applies to all day of the year articles. Again, as I've pointed out above, stories are a specialised thing.

      I don't think we should just say, "all dates must be dabbed". The broader thrust of dab policy is that undabbed terms mean in-universe articles. If we just dabbed every day of the year PAGENAME, we'd be losing something of syntactic importance.

      And the point is that if you're using a link to 15 January on a story page to indicate broadcast date, you don't mean the in-universe date anyway. You mean the real world date. Thus, having 15 January and 15 January (real world), allows us to more accurately link to dates.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think you're misunderstanding. I'm in no way implying that the Dab policy in regards to stories also applies universally to all dabbed articles. That would be stupid. But look at the rest of the page.

      Before it, you're talking about how, for example, the serial Castrovalva (TV story) must be Castrovalva (TV story since Castrovalva has its own article. Then you go on to say that editors cannot possibly know which stories get (TV story) and which don't. Which is why it was decided that all stories get the dub.

      Which means, in regards to day articles, there are two solutions:

      1) Have 31 January redirect to 31 January (Real World) until such a time when we have in-universe info on 31 January. (Upon rethinking, this seems most logical)
      2) Do what I suggested, which is split up all day pages, so that editors know that whenever they link to a date in an out-of-universe page or a BTS section (unless it happens to be referring to something in-universe), they always add the "(Real World)" tag.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So. Unless anyone can find another reason why we need to split them all up, I conclude that we leave redirects to Day (Real World) on Day, and don't split up the pages until such a time when there's actually a need. I'm pretty sure that's what Czech wants too.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: And the point is that if you're using a link to 15 January on a story page to indicate broadcast date, you don't mean the in-universe date anyway. You mean the real world date. Thus, having 15 January and 15 January (real world), allows us to more accurately link to dates.

      Wait. I'm confused. Now you're agreeing with my original position? Just to clarify, my original position was that we should split up all day articles into, for example, 31 December for the in-universe day and 31 December (real world) for real world day, because it, in exactly your words, "allows us to more accurately link to dates." So... was that an agreement? A misunderstanding?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Please point the an example of where you think I disagreed. Look at the very first post where you quoted me from another thread. The way I see it, I introduced the notion of splitting the articles into this discussion.

      Note that I am not saying that you should go ahead and split the articles. At this point, you do need to remain focused on getting a lead for each and every day's page, and marking those pages that have no in-universe info.

      Indeed, lemme make super clear that you cannot split the articles. You don't have the necessary permissions from the software to do it efficiently.

      When you've gotten to 31 December with your rewrites, then it'll be time to think about how we make the split, whether "real world" si the dab term we wanna use, what sort of plan the bot should use to change links in the articles, etc.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I was never planning on going ahead with it, and I know it's actually impossible for me to do so. Just, once we got into the discussion and Tangerineduel addressed the issue, I started getting into the topic, hoping we could get to a semi-conclusion. It was only when I reread the dub policy that I thought that it's actually policy to do such a thing, and wanted to point this out. After I thought it through, I realised I wasn't necessarily right.

      If I work straight pretty much without break, I should be able to finish the entire year by the end of the day (Right now, in my time zone, it's 12:45 pm). If I take more breaks, by the end of tomorrow. I'm proceeding at a pretty high speed.

      But... Just for the record, what's your personal opinion on whether or not we should split up all the record? Obviously, this merits full discussion, which will happen once I'm finished the whole year. But what do you personally think?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Man, sometimes I think you're moving so fast you're not actually reading what's being said.

      I'll say it one more time. Please read carefully, cause I am, yanno, kinda busy:

      All in-universe pages must have at least a sentence of in-universe content. If they don't, they must be deleted. That's policy.

      Since we probably don't want to lose the BTS information on pages that have no IU content, our only option is to create a RW version of the page. and delete the empty IU page.

      This does not merit "full discussion", since it is obvious application of a fundamental policy. That discussion has already occurred a long time ago, long before you joined us.

      The only thing that really needs discussion is what should the dab term be. But we needn't worry about that now. Just finish the IU side of things and the marking of what articles need deletion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay. Sorry. Continue... doing... stuff...

      I'll just finish off the articles...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just did 8 May cause I found a new fact to put there. Hope that doesn't mess you up.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Don't worry. If you're ever wondering whether or not you can do something to a day page, just check my contributions to see where I'm at. Since I had a terrible migraine today, I haven't done much since for several hours. But, have no fears, I'll work on it tomorrow (and take more breaks so I don't get more migraines) and I'll probably finish by the end of tomorrow (in my time zone - 04:00:00 UTC).

      Nulla Sollicitudo

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I was only letting you know because I'm aware that some people work on pages offline, and then import them all at once. So I just wanted to gie you a heads up in case you were that kinda editor.

      There's no strict timeline for completion on any of this. Get over your migraine. The wiki will still be here.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm not one of them. But that could be useful some time. Out of curiosity, how would I be able to access the page if I'm offline. That would work if I was working on one page only; I'd just copy the entire text into a Word document and work on it there. Which I would definitely do if I were to write several paragraphs, so that I wouldn't lose all my work. Which has happened... all too many times...

      But how might I do it with several articles? This could be useful in the future.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well I don't recommend it because it goes against the whole idea of wiki editing. The notion is that we should all be working collaboratively. By going to an offline editor what you're effectively doing is bypassing any intermediate edits between the time you dump to your word processor and then return your changes to the page.

      I strongly advise against it, but there are still people who do it.

      If you must do it, thoguh, please make sure that your word processor is set to plain text. Don't just import to .doc (Word) format and then export from there again.

      .doc and other rich text formats tend to introduce strange characters that we later have to clean up.

      Also, if you're going to edit an article offline, I strongly advise you to put up the {{inuse}} tag so that you discourage intermediate edits. If that fails to discourage people, though, please make sure you check what intermediate edits have happened since you started working offline, and incorporate them into your offline version as much as possible.

      If you're going to work offline, you must also be mindful of any preloaded formats associated with the pages you're creating. You must use the latest preloadable format available. That's why I think it's best simply to start your articles online, using the preloadable formats from the pulldown list to start the first one of a series. Then, if you make more of a similar type, use the custom page input box to type in the name of the page whose format you're duplicating.

      So let's say you're adding a bunch of days of the week (just to bring this discussion back on topic). Create [[1 January (real world)] using the pulldown for the default timeline page. Then, start 2 January (real world) by putting 1 January into the custom preload box. Then, let's say you get to 25 February you take a break for a few days. When you return, start 26 February by using the pulldown to make sure that the format for timeline pages hasn't changed. Start 27 February based on 26 February and continue on until you need another break. Rinse and repeat.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Got it. I was just wondering. I know you're probably going to get mad at me for asking this, but doesn't adding (real world) still merit discussion? I know, it's not relevant until I'm finished what I'm doing now, but now we seem to have drifted onto that topic.

      Also, I'm now in the habit of checking each date on WLH before I apply the delete tag just to make sure that no one forgot to add something to the page. Please note that I only started doing this at 28 February so any day before that is not final. I'll check those once I've reached 31 December.

      Oh, and one more thing: don't I have the power to move the articles without in-universe material myself using the feature that used to be called "rename?" From what I understand, that button moves the contents of the article to the new page and leaves a redirect at the old page, which is exactly what we want, unless you're planning on running the bot to change every 5 January to 5 January (real world) and every 6 January to 6 January (real world) and so on. So why am I just adding the tags, as opposed to just "moving" them myself, barring, of course, the fact that it hasn't yet been discussed what we call them. Knowing me, I probably completely misunderstood what the "move" feature does and you are now about to correct me.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not retyping it:

      CzechOut wrote: The only thing that really needs discussion is what should the dab term be.

      As to your second graf: good thought, but it might get very tedious, depending on the length of the report returned by WLH. Don't let it distract you from the central mission of getting what's there now into proper shape. The WLH reports aren't going anywhere.

      As to your third: you honestly don't have the power. That's no a "convenient lie" or a "white lie" or any kind of a lie. Moving a page isn't about one little click. It's about making sure that the result doesn't add confusion.

      If you move the page, you'll create a bigger mess, because you will necessarily leave behind a redirect, which is wholly undesriable in this case. Our goal here is to consistently use 1 January as a link for in-universe pages, while 1 January (real world) becomes the link for out-of-universe pages. This requires a delicate touch — and a bot — that you just don't have. It's no reflection on your skill set, but the permissions you have in the software that underpins the wiki.

      You flatly have no realistic shot at manually moving all the links to the old page. That's not a challenge to your abilities or hyperbole when it comes to mine. By adding {{delete}} you're giving me a list by which I can easily have the bot change all the links as necessary.

      Remember the change we made on the category? It's like that. Think how long it would have taken you to make that change manually and compare it to the 45 minutes or so it took me.

      It is simply a waste of your time as an editor to move pages. Literally, it's beneath you. What I've found in my twelve-ish years of wiki editing is that you should always let a bot do the maintenance so that you can spend your time with the hard work of creativity.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Further to the above, the only time you — or any other non-admin — should move a page on this wiki is when it's okay to have a redirect.

      For instance, let's say that the name of an upcoming episode is "The Next Episode". You should start the page at "The Next Episode" and then immediately move it "The Next Episode (TV story)" unless:

      • there is another story called "The Next Episode"
      • there is an in-universe concept called "The Next Episode"

      In these cases, you should start the page at "The Next Episode (TV story)" and immediately slap a {{you may}} note at the top of whatever page on the wiki is called "The Next Episode". That way, people can enter "The Next Episode" into the search bar and either easily see where to go because of the auto-suggest, or have a back-up signpost on top of the page that has the un-dabbed term.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Knowing me, I probably completely misunderstood what the "move" feature does and you are now about to correct me.

      Caught it. I figured you'd give a multi-paragraph response explaining how I don't have the capabilities. Predicted that.

      As far as WLH reports, maybe you're right: I should be concentrated on the main stuff. I'll do that later. But, for the record, if I were just adding the delete label to every page without in-universe information, it would probably take it 10-20 minutes. Excluding the odd page that I spend close to two hours working on that you proceed to delete immediately afterwards. :-(

      So should I just do so and then you'll run the bot and move those pages? Then, once the bot's finished, I'll continue editing?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut
      CzechOut removed this reply because:
      Post was mostly about subjects being discussed on user talk pages. Confusing to those who came here expecting discussion of the days of the year pages.
      04:08, February 5, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • Yes.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I'll do it after I reply to you. I'll let you know once I've reached December 31st.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Completed. Finito. Reached 31 December. A whole year in just over an hour. Please run the bot now to delete the pages and move the information to [ [ { { PAGENAME } } (real world) ] ]. I'll work on the new articles in the morning. Now I can give leads to the real world articles!! I'm excited I finally get to do something other than deleting and adding delete labels. Anyways, as they say, allons-y! I'm going to sleep.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, we're not really close to making the real world pages yet.

      We will now take a one week interval in which other people may register any reasons why (real world) is a bad dab term, and offer others the chance to give a better one. (Those wishing to contribute to this discussion may click through to Thread:121578.)

      In the intervening time, SOTO, you now have to do a little bit of research. Please go to http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=42551331&ics=1&pid=a. In the "exact phrase" box, make separate searches for each of these terms:

      • 1 January
      • 1st January
      • January 1
      • January 1st
      • January the first
      • first of January

      Using the results of each of these searches, improve our article 1 January, on both the in-universe and BTS sides.

      Rinse and repeat for the remaining days of the year.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The other thing is that you really haven't finished the first pass yet. Don't get me wrong: what you've accomplished so far is very much appreciated. But you said:

      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I also petition we get rid of this on articles:

      Events

      to be added

      And then we talked about how it was silly for there to be such a section, since everything on these pages was an "event" of one kind or another.

      Well, a number of pages still have this structure, such as 25 December.

      Also, you've failed to convert any number of the existing behind the scenes sections along the lines we agreed. 18 October, for instance, still has constructions like

      • 2010 - TV: The Vault of Secrets Part 1 was first broadcast.

      Remember that we said upthread we were going to change that to:

      • 2010 - Part one of The Vault of Secrets was first broadcast.

      Further, there any number of pages like 28 April where we're still giving far too much information on birth/death lines.

      Remember how we said upthread that things like:

      would be converted to:

      This task is still largely undone on most pages.

      But most importantly, you still don't have leads on all the in-universe pages yet. 8 April, for instance, has no lead at all, and the history shows you haven't in any way touched it.

      So, even if we didn't have to wait for others to agree to the dab term, we'd still be a bit away from doing any kind of page move.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's because I haven't gotten that far. I only stopped towards the beginning of April and just deleted all the to be addeds and added the delete tag. I just don't think time should be wasted. While the discussion is going on, I can still be working on them. And, don't worry, I'll definitely be finished all of the above (and probably also a lot of research and adding information too) by a week's time when the discussion's closed. As I said, though, I will be busy today, as I was yesterday, so I can't do much on this very day. Tomorrow, however, as I said earlier, I will be back on this project in full force.

      Also, I'm extremely surprised I missed 8 April. I'm actually on 14 April. Please, note, though, that once I complete my process on all day of the year pages, I will flip through every page again to make sure I didn't skip any and to fix any mistakes I made.

      The only reason you'll see my name in the edit history of an uncleaned-up page is either because I've added information in the past, or because of me adding the delete tags. Please note, once again, that I am, in reality, still on 14 April.

      I remember full well what I've been doing all this time. Please note that I'm also cleaning them up in ways that we haven't discussed, liked keeping other things consistent and short, and applying new-ish policies (like adding "(TV story)|" and the like) to the neglected pages.

      Anyways, as much as I'd love to get back to work this second (which I really really would), I'm very busy. If you notice any mistakes I've made prior to 14 April, please notify me here.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Update: I've gone until 22 April now. It needed a major rewrite. Take a look at the difference. It's now probably the most unique lead you're ever going to find on a day of the year article, given as the day itself actually has quite a bit of significance in-universe. I added a lot of information there and made it more clear.

      You can thank me later :-). More importantly, though, shouldn't we open a discussion on whether or not to split all the pages into two now too (also over in a week), so that we can do it all at once? The way I see it, it wouldn't hurt to have two discussion on a similar topic at once.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: More importantly, though, shouldn't we open a discussion on whether or not to split all the pages into two now too (also over in a week), so that we can do it all at once? The way I see it, it wouldn't hurt to have two discussion on a similar topic at once.

      I've answered this several times now. See posts 56 and 64, the very first post, and several others in between. The fact of needing a BTS version of every day of the week — all of them, every single one of them, each of the 366 possible days — is non-controversial, and an obvious application of existing policy.

      The only matter up for discussion is the nature of the dab term itself. We do not need a discussion to split the articles. Splitting the articles is the only way that we can both obey policy and keep the BTS information on the majority of pages.

      Please do not ask this question in the same way again. If you feel that I have not answered your question, please rephrase your question.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, we're obviously not understanding each other on this matter, but I nevertheless have a feeling that we're both talking about the same thing regardless. Just to clarify, I mean that we should split up articles that do have both in-universe and out-of-universe information in into Date and Date (real world), as opposed to just moving the articles that don't have in-universe information to Date (real world). I'm sure you think that this is a given, but I just to want clarify.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The prefix TV is unnecessary in constructions like:

      You only need prefixes for clarity. In this instance, no other form of Doctor Who is "broadcast episodically for the first time", so therefore we must be talking about a television episode.

      It would actually be far more helpful if you could add the network than the prefix. Thus:

      This would then allow us to specify (later, as it becomes important) the premieres of various episodes on other national broadcasters. For instance, there's significance to the broadcast premiere of "The Bride of Sacrifice" both on BBC1 and BBCA.

      Note that the premiere networks are:

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Right. So I don't need TV: . I was meaning to ask you about that, but I noticed that, for the most part, the TV: was used everywhere, including in sentences. So I just made an assumption.

      On the topic of the BBC channels, are you suggesting I add the specific channel? I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of your last point.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm pretty sure only part of Torchwood series 2 premiered on BBC Three, with the early episodes and Exit Wounds being on BBC Two.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I can tell you just by going through the month of January with WhatLinksHere reports that we are missing a lot of in-universe dates — not to mention BTS ones.

      Just to give you one example, a good deal of The Witch Hunters happens on specific dates. The chapters are in fact titled by date. So we know what happens on 14 January 1693, 16 January 1692, 11 January 1692, 15 January 1691, and a host of other specific dates.

      A lot of what you're currently marking with {{delete}} just needs a little bit more research.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I made that exact point a couple of days ago, and you told me I should concentrate on worrying on what's already there. If I may quote:

      CzechOut wrote:

      As to your second graf: good thought, but it might get very tedious, depending on the length of the report returned by WLH. Don't let it distract you from the central mission of getting what's there now into proper shape. The WLH reports aren't going anywhere.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, that was the first phase: "getting what's there now into proper shape". But it's not the final phase before we move on to article separation.

      When I pointed out that you weren't actually finished with phase one, you then said that you were working back from the top again and that you'd gotten down to mid-April. You then asked for comments about how to improve what had been done through April.

      My comments were for January pages, which, by my estimation, are now in phase two: finding a way to avoid deletion of the articles that you've already marked for deletion.

      I am not saying that you should suspend your current activity of finishing phase one.

      By all means, get to 31 December on this "second pass of phase one" before you worry about my comments about January.

      I'm just saying that on your next pass through, your primary goal should be checking the WLH and the search page I gave you in order to make sure that we're not a) deleting pages that actually do have easily-discoverable in-universe significance or b) missing really basic out-of-universe information (such as premiere broadcast dates and release dates).

      Don't get frustrated. You're doing a great job. It's just a mutli-phase project and we have to make sure that it's being completed in a thorough and careful way.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm not kidding; I was actually just about to post just that. I've developed a plan, actually:

      P1: Fixing what's there. I have a lot of things to implement and I'm now taking into account the last two things that you brought up.

      P2:

      1) Fixing mistakes I'd made
      2) Applying new things that you tell me to fix
      3) Doing research, which would include:
      a. WLH
      b. Real world birthdays and Real world deaths
      c. Searching on the website you gave me

      Then I'm sure I'll have to repeat.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • By the way, to keep it consistent, should I for example be putting "BBC1" or "BBC One?" I know they both work as links, but which should I go with? I'd like all the articles to be perfectly consistent.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, so I find most of this to be unnecessary. But besides that point...

      Would this change make it so that non-valid sources could be added to pages? For instance, could the page 2013 say

      ==Behind the Scenes==
      *The non-valid story Dimensions in Time was set partially in the year 2013.
      
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Certainly not "non-valid." Possibly "non-canonical" or something along those lines. Hmmm...

      Actually, I have an idea: Since we're splitting the pages, the real-world pages only include real-world information. So I suppose we can still have a behind-the-scenes section of the in-universe information, where we have information not considered part of the DWU by us. For example, we can include dated information from the Brilliant Book 2012. Obviously, we're not there yet. But I just wanted to put the idea out there in advance so you can think about it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • One more question: when did we start broadcasting on [[BBC America] regularly? I'm not American - I watch in on Space - so I'm not sure about this. Once I'm adding what channel they were broadcast in, wouldn't it be helpful to include all the main channels - not just the main one in the UK. Would it be edging on over-the-top to include BBC America? I don't think so, but maybe you do. I've seen it several times, including both, but it's hardly constant. What are your thoughts?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't remeber exactly when it was, but it started around series 2 or 3. I'll research later.

      Also note that our wikia avoids using the word "canon"

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The Sci-Fi channel broadcast the first runs of series 1-4, then BBCAmerica took over during the 2009/2010 specials and onwards.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Let's end this talk about Dimensions in Time, The Brilliant Book and any other invalid sources right here and now. These are not valid sources, which means that they cannot be used to write our in-universe articles. Normally, we would say that information from these sources are then allowed in the behind the scenes section.

      But because we're splitting to a full page of behind-the-scenes stuff, there simply isn't any other place to put it.

      Invalid source information may therefore not be used in any capacity whatsoever on any page within the larger category of category:dates.

      This position is not up for debate. We will not in any way try to accommodate the narratives of these 20 or so licensed-but-invalid stories within our date pages. Of course, as licensed material, it's fine to mention the release dates of any BBC product on the BTS day of the year page. But you will not introduce any narrative material from these stories on any date page — day, month, year, decade or century.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I won't. But what about the BBC1/BBC One issue? Which one?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And should I be saying

      ...was broadcast on BBC One and Syfy.

      for Series 1 to Series 4

      and

      ...was broadcast on BBC One and BBC America

      for the Specials to present?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • BBCA's broadcast of Doctor Who began on 21 November 2006, when it broadcast Rose. It then was the US national network for reruns of Doctor Who, which premiered on SciFi up to and inclduing Journey's End.

      During this period, BBCA was the US premiere network for Torchwood, which it always was until Starz took over that role with The New World.

      The first DW episode that actually premiered on BBCA was The Next Doctor,[1] and the network has had premiere rights ever since.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's a bit different from what I found, but since I wasn't watching the show back then, I'll take your word for it :)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thank you, Czech. I suppose afterwards we'll add the BBCA reruns (aka. ... premièred on BBCA.). At the moment, though, everything post-The Next Doctor should now say

      ... was first broadcast on BBC1 and BBCA.

      Or

      ...was first broadcast on BBC One and BBC America.

      You still didn't address that tiny issue.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, I won't. But what about the BBC1/BBC One issue? Which one?

      What do you mean which one? I gave you a very explicit breakdown. Follow it exactly, please.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, thank you. I think I understand. So BBC1 for a good majority of the old series and BBC One for the new series? Did they like change the name?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: And should I be saying

      ...was broadcast on BBC One and Syfy.

      for Series 1 to Series 4

      and

      ...was broadcast on BBC One and BBC America

      for the Specials to present?

      Definitely not. Lotsa issues here.

      In the first pace, DW was never originally broadcast on SyFy, only on SciFi. (The network was called SciFi until March 2009, several months after their contract to be the original broadcaster of DW in the US had expired.)

      In the second place, no story prior to A Christmas Carol ever premiered in the US and the UK on the same day. So you can't really use the construction "premiered on BBC One and SciFi" – ever — and you can only use the construction "premiered on BBC One and BBCA" in some (maybe most) cases post-2005.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Right. That does make sense. Then we'll add the American premières later. Still, not priority at the moment.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut
      CzechOut removed this reply because:
      Off topic and a clear violation of T:POINT.
      19:06, February 6, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • Just mentioning on the whole BBC America issue etc, it will probably be a bad idea to include the releases from non-UK countries because one you start, where would you stop? If you have info from the US, then logically you could have info from Australia, Canada, Brazil, Denmark, Korea, Israel etc... Do we want to include the broadcast from all countries, because imo it should either be all or only UK (which would be the original world release).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That is true. Except BBCA is actually a branch of BBC, the host. Space, where it's broadcast in Canada, isn't either. Also consider that this is an English wiki. Our Hebrew version can have information on where it was broadcast in Israel. Our Danish in Denmark. Etc. The UK and the US are not only the most prominent English countries, but also the countries with the most Who viewers. Adding Canadian information is stretching it, but not infeasible. How many Israeli Whovians are going to be coming here? They can go to the Hebrew version (not that we actually have date pages there... yet...). The main two Whovian, and Anglophone, areas are Great Britain and the States. Let's say that our viewers are split half-half between the two. Those are the two main areas we should cover. Just putting in my two nickels (it's hard to find two cents in Canada now...).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm actually inclined to side with Imamadmad on this one. Country of first origin only. There is an entire wiki devoted to the broadcast dates around the world. I can make up a little template that will squeeze a link to http://broadwcast.org into the story's infobox, and that'll be that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay. I'm outnumbered, then. I won't add American broadcasts any more. I'll delete the ones already there in the next run. I still stand by my own points, but no one else is agreeing with me. I guess the link might work. As long as you include the link, I'm fine with only including British broadcasts.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Think if it's notable we should list it. BBC America airing the Aztecs and that one time PBS aired the Five Doctors special edition despite everyone claiming that it was never aired are notable and thus should be noted.
      
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well I suppose special 2013 reruns might be notable. Also, the exclusive-to-US documentary (forgot its name) is especially notable. It's its country of origin.

      Or the first ever broadcast of Doctor Who in America. The Five Doctors you mentioned is also notable, in my opinion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Except BBCA is actually a branch of BBC, the host.

      Perhaps aside from the main thrust of the conversation, but I think you'll find BBCA is not actually a part of the BBC. Operated by a commercial subsidiary of the BBC proper, yes - but it's fully independent and has to bid for BBC proper programs like anyone else. Essentially, BBCA is just an American cable network with an obsession for British TV shows.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The bot is now emplacing the {{dwcast}} template, which at least partially obviates the need for specific mentions on day of the year pages. If people really wanna know when The Ark in Space debuted in their neck of the woods, they just have to go to The Ark in Space (TV story)#External links.

      I disagree that we need to make mention of things like The Aztecs in the day of the year pages. It's not particularly notable — from the perspective of the day of the year page — that an audience of under a million got to see the serial in the US in 2013. It's notable enough to put on The Aztecs, of course, but it hardly makes the particular day of the year noteworthy.

      The Five Doctors and the TV movie are somewhat special cases in that the technical global premiere were on local TV stations. These should be noted, and then the generally accepted global premieres should be noted on the appropriate day page for those events.

      However, we shouldn't use the day pages to note the British premieres of the TVM, Miracle Day, K9 or anything else that quite clearly did not premiere in the UK. That information can be on the story page, of course, but in order to avoid clutter on day pages, only the global premiere should be recognised (with, again, the special exceptions of Five and the TVM).

      And Baziel's BBCA point is well taken.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Wasn't it at least originally a proper branch? In the same way as HMV?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Obviously, The Doctors Revisited is a notable mention, though. So... pretty much everything in only the time and channel in which is was originally broadcast. Once again, makes sense.

      Are these tags/templates on only the story pages? Or are there also going to be tags on the day of the year article with a link to all broadcasts of that day?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Wasn't it at least originally a proper branch? In the same way as HMV?

      I don't believe so - the BBC proper is funded by the British public and government and is controlled by a charter - they must serve British public interests, not commercial purposes.

      As such any commercial activity (including vids/dvds and anything with ad breaks) is generally controlled by the subsidiary company BBC enterprises/worldwide (as the government wouldn't allow the British public to foot the bill of a commercial venture) and is pretty much independent of the BBC proper. The decision that the BBC proper would not pay for or be directly associated with worldwide enterprises seems to have been taken around a decade before BBCA even existed.

      That only took a little research ;-)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I see that the TV prefixes remain, even after you've made it crystal clear that you're talking about "broadcast on BBC1. It would be helpful if you could remember to delete the TV at the same time you add BBC1.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I believe I've been deleting TV consistently since you made the suggestion. I didn't go back and apply that to the older pages yet; I'll do that in the next run. Still, I'm only human; I make mistakes. Can you please give me an example of where I neglected to delete TV?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    •   Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I'm a bit clumsier than I thought. But, as I said, I'll be restarting and fixing mistakes like that in the second round. I'll be more attentive in future edits, but, don't worry, I'll be fixing any mistakes I made next time 'round. Thank you for noting it, though. I'll pay extra attention to this in the next stage.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, what's going on with 26 May and then 1703. Are you sure that Planet of the Spiders actually gives Samuel Pepys' date of death? I mean, can you tell me precisely where in POTS this mention occurs?

      I think it's a red herring, and a violation of T:NO RW. See, what you don't know is that there was a time when all these date pages were riddled with information that came from a conflation of real world and in-universe facts.

      A typical scenario was: Leonardo da Vinci is mentioned in City of Death. We know from history that he was born on 15 April 1452. (Ah! Add 15 April to your remove TV list.) Therefore, 15 April would then bear the line "1452 - Leonard da Vinci was born. (TV: City of Death)

      But of course City had said no such damned thing. I got a lot of these buggers outta the system, but you may have just unintentionally resurrected one.

      So unless you can tell me exactly where we get Pepys' death date from, we need to delete 1703 and your line from 26 May.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • One sec, let me look over the script quickly.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It does not. Sorry. I figured there was some validity in the statement. Please delete the page again. I'll get rid of the statement in 26 May.

      PS: Don't worry; I added your Datemove tag

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yeah, I don't think you'll encounter the T:NO RW-offending statements too often these days. But a big tip-off is if there's a previous deletion of the year page from me or Tangerineduel. We spent several weeks combing over the years pages back in 2010-11.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The main difference is 26 May had a source, whereas the deleted 1703 had a [source needed] tag. I figured the new source was correct. Next time when I see that you or and Tang deleted it, I'll check the script myself for verification.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, the other question is, of course, what do you mean by "script"? Most scripts haven't been released officially, so there's still some question as to the veracity of fan-made scripts. They're probably okay, but they're no substitute for actually watching the ep yourself. I use the various online scripts as a way to narrow down what scene I need to be looking at, but I always try to work off the serial itself.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not usually official scripts, no. Fan-made. Not necessarily perfectly accurate, but accurate enough to search for tid-bits of information. I'd usually just find the spot and then actually watch that scene, but I don't have that specific serial on hand at the moment. But Pepys only gets a small mention - just to check if his death is mentioned doesn't necessarily warrant a re-watch of the entire serial. If, however, he was a major character in the story, then I'd re-watch the episodes for any mentions.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What do I do about pictures? Like main articles images? Take a look at 2 June, which is where I'm stopping now to go to sleep. There's a picture (not yet some sort of main image) that's now under the date navbox. In fact, it looks like it's part of the BTS section (which, of course, won't be a problem for long, as there will soon be no such thing as the BTS section)! Number one, which should go first? Number two, if you want to have main images whenever possible, how would they be formatted on the day pages (considering there's no infobox) and how would they be distinguishable from just regular images demonstrating small points?

      Anyways, something to think about. I'll leave you with this question for the night. I think I'll try going to sleep.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • {{DateNav}}, {{Timeline}} or any variant in that family is always the very first thing on the page. This means that, from a pure design standpoint, the next graphical element on the page would need to be on the left, somewhere below the bottom of {{DateNav}}. Since 2 June (a page which incidentally needs TV removed) cannot bear the photo, it must be eliminated from the page altogether.

      Very few of these in-universe day pages will have enough text to justify a picture. But those that do, perhaps like 22 April, should be illustrated.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Right. Okay. I always thought that pictures were preferable no matter what. But, I suppose, considering it's pretty much a one sentence article (excluding the BTS section), the picture's unnecessary. Thanks for the response.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Right. Okay. I always thought that pictures were preferable no matter what.

      This is a common mistake, leading to pages being jam-packed with pictures. It's important that our pages, at least in the Wikia skin, obey certain basic rules of layout and design. One of the biggest is that of using pictures to break up text and to move the eye downward, compelling readers to scroll down the page. If you have two graphical elements on parallel to each other, that effectively stops momentum and registers in most people's eyes as "weird".

      A good rule of thumb, therefore, is that if the page displays entirely on most desktop browser screens that are opened to more or less maximum size on a monitor at standard resolution — you probably only need one graphical element in the body of the text. You can take two only when the body of the text below the bottom of the first graphical element for more than 150% of the height of that first graphical element.

      So let's say that the graphical element is 200 px high. You can only add a second graphical element if you've got 300 px of text below the bottom margin of the first graphical element, when your browser is fully open to right around 1200 X 900.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Right. I think I understand that. So, back to specifically the topic of day of the year articles, articles like 22 April or 26 June. Articles like 25 December or 1 January, where a lot happens, we'd probably have several pics. But tiny articles like 2 June that have a line or two of text don't get images.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If you think you'd have "several" pics at 1 January, you've totally missed my point. 1 January, if it were kept in its current form, but had the BTS section divorced, wouldn't be capable of supporting a single pic, much less "several".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Sorry; I hadn't looked at 1 January when I made that statement. I actually considered editing it out afterwards. I haven't looked at that page in a while. I had made the assumption that, since it was a major holiday, there would have been a lot of things happening like on 25 December. The reason I didn't check is because my computer ran out of battery and I won't be able to retrieve my charger for at least another hour. So I've been posting on my phone, which is, for the record, really difficult to do. The length of this thread keeps on making it crash. I apparent ally don't have electricity either, so I can't even charge my phone. Anyways, point is: I won't be able to work on the pages for at least an hour.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I'm back. I got rid of the following on 23 June; I just want to clarify that this is the position we're standing by:

      I did this because I believe we agreed that we're not including repeats, or premières on other channels. I will continue doing this. Just putting this here in case there's any objection.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, what's our view on DVD releases and their regions. Would I say "... was released on Region 2 DVD" or would I just get rid of it entirely. Are we going to go with what we do with broadcasts, and only talk about the native region of the ep, or the first region it was sold in?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Releases on DVD should be included. It's useful in part for people searching for releases on the year.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Note that the premiere networks are:

      Can someone confirm that Reset through Fragments aired originally on BBC Three (and not BBC Two), hence the two episodes on 13 February, and the lack of any episode being mentioned airing on Friday 28 March? I seem to recall that's how it was, especially considering my edits on 16 April.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Okay, I'm back. I got rid of the following on 23 June; I just want to clarify that this is the position we're standing by:

      I did this because I believe we agreed that we're not including repeats, or premières on other channels. I will continue doing this. Just putting this here in case there's any objection.

      Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, what's our view on DVD releases and their regions. Would I say "... was released on Region 2 DVD" or would I just get rid of it entirely. Are we going to go with what we do with broadcasts, and only talk about the native region of the ep, or the first region it was sold in?

      Eh, does this matter, really? I'm inclined to believe that since we are now moving close to creating whole new articles that focus on the DVD releases that most people won't be looking for this information on the day of the year pages. I for one would cut DVD/VHS releases altogether, save for maybe the ones that are the important ones — first in the media type, last in the media type. In other words, I'd mark the coming and passing of the ranges, not the individual titles.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Tybort wrote: Can someone confirm that Reset through Fragments aired originally on BBC Three (and not BBC Two), hence the two episodes on 13 February, and the lack of any episode being mentioned airing on Friday 28 March? I seem to recall that's how it was, especially considering my edits on 16 April.

      Perhaps it would be easier for you to give us your source, and then we can run that to ground. I always thought it was straightforward: BBC3 for season 1, BBC2 for season 2 and BBC1 for season 3. That was the big press at the time which I seem to remember, and that's frequently how it's described in retrospect.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

      Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired most of those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Eh, does this matter, really? I'm inclined to believe that since we are now moving close to creating whole new articles that focus on the DVD releases that most people won't be looking for this information on the day of the year pages. I for one would cut DVD/VHS releases altogether, save for maybe the ones that are the important ones — first in the media type, last in the media type. In other words, I'd mark the coming and passing of the ranges, not the individual titles.

      I'm not sure I understand completely. Can you please give examples of what you think should be kept?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Nevermind, Tybort. The source is barb.co.uk, which is hard to disagree with. I guess we go with the chart as given at wikipedia:List of Torchwood episodes. I've checked a few of the weeks of that season, including the ones you mentioned, and the WP:DW seems (predictably) sound. For instance, the week ending 30 March 2008 shows TW only on BBC 2, with a ratings figure of 2.976, and nothing on BBC 3. Though Barb don't give ep names, this is consistent with there being no new episode this week, as the WP:DW chart states.

      Hmmm, interesting. That was a wrinkle I'd totally forgotten about, if I ever knew it. That double-broadcasting was quite a clever way for the BBC to sort of artifically cushion TW against an inevitable ratings decline. I don't think I'll ever quite look at series 2 quite the same way again. Thanks for catching this, Tybort.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

      CzechOut wrote: Hmmmmm, interesting question. I would certainly agree that repeats for BBC Wales stuff is non-notable. However BBC1 repeats of classic series episodes might be another matter, because it was so rare. Something in the back of my mind is resisting getting rid of information about the BBC1 repeat of The Evil of the Daleks, for instance, just because it was so extraordinary. And the BBC1 repeat of both "An Unearthly Child" in 1963 and the serial An Unearthly Child in — what was it? — the early 1990s both seem historically significant.

      Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

      Precisley what I was thinkng.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • ...the reason I asked for confirmation was that I didn't have a source. I just sort of "knew" because I was there.

      BBC's episode guide for series 2 backs up the BBC Three "premiere" for all those episodes. It looks to me that on 13 February 2008, Adam aired at 9pm on BBC Two, and then Reset was on at 9:50 on BBC Three.

      Not sure what the best analogy for that sort of thing is. I know the Australian soaps air on 5* immediately after the preceding episodes show on Channel 5. Maybe it was similar to that?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Hmmmmmmm, interesting answer. But shouldn't you consider the BBC America repeats of one story per Doctor historically significant, as it was/is in celebration of the 50th Anniversary, plus I think the first time BBCA aired those episodes? That's only in the same logic as the repeat of The Unearthly Child in the 90s is historically significant, which I agree with.

      Well, no, not exactly. See BBCA exists on reruns. Indeed, every broadcaster out of the UK depends on reruns of Doctor Who, since they don't originate the programme. So Imamadmad's point is well-observed: BBCA is not demonstrably more special than Space, ABC, TVNZ, CBC or any other national re-broadcater.

      The difference with the November 1963 rebroadcast of "An Unearthly Child" is that it happened on the originating channel, and one that almost never reruns anything. As North Americans, you and I don't have too much experience of this phenomenon. If ABC reruns an episode of Castle, or SyFy shows us BSG one more time, we might be disappointed. But we don't think of it as extraordinary. It's a part of the everyday television experience in North America. It's what our broadcasters do because none of them actually has original content to fill their schedules for 365 days of the year.

      But this isn't so with the BBC, and it especially wasn't true with the original version of Doctor Who. Most Doctor Who stories have, to this day, never been rebroadcast on BBC1. That's why BBC tv and BBC1 reruns of The Evil of the Daleks are worth noting, while BBC2 and BBC3 repeats of The Family of Blood are not.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, and the other thing is, there's an entire wiki devoted to noting broadcast dates, to which we now can link with {{dwcast}}. So, since our research will never compete with theirs, it's best just to make it easy for our readers to find that information and leave it at that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Well, no, not exactly. See BBCA exists on reruns. Indeed, every broadcaster out of the UK depends on reruns of Doctor Who, since they don't originate the programme. So Imamadmad's point is well-observed: BBCA is not demonstrably more special than Space, ABC, TVNZ, CBC or any other national re-broadcater.

      The difference with the November 1963 rebroadcast of "An Unearthly Child" is that it happened on the originating channel, and one that almost never reruns anything. As North Americans, you and I don't have too much experience of this phenomenon. If ABC reruns an episode of Castle, or SyFy shows us BSG one more time, we might be disappointed. But we don't think of it as extraordinary. It's a part of the everyday television experience in North America. It's what our broadcasters do because none of them actually has original content to fill their schedules for 365 days of the year.

      But this isn't so with the BBC, and it especially wasn't true with the original version of Doctor Who. Most Doctor Who stories have, to this day, never been rebroadcast on BBC1. That's why BBC tv and BBC1 reruns of The Evil of the Daleks are worth noting, while BBC2 and BBC3 repeats of The Family of Blood are not.

      You make a very good case. BBC1 re-broadcasted The Unearthly Child during the hiatus, right? Was it in 1993? The 30th Anniversary? The only reason I think that the episode/Doctor reruns are significant is because they're in celebration of the 50th, a huge event, and the first time America, now a fairly large Who audience, gets to see some of them.

      So far, Space hasn't been doing anything. They'll probably do a marathon or something in November. What about other countries outside of the UK? Can anyone tell me what they're doing?

      'Cause I agree, yes, regular American reruns aren't important. But this is the fiftieth. A giant mark in our history. I think it's notable to mention what the Americans, I'd guess second in place for most percentage of Whovians (after the UK, of course), do to celebrate it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, no. Lol. You think the US is that big an audience? Nah, it's tiny. As a percentage of population that knows about Doctor Who, it's probably New Zealand that's the winner. That's why Tom Baker as the Doctor in the 1990s was a big enough draw to warrant his use in commercials about, of all things, financial instruments.

      Next up is Australia, where it's broadcast on a real national broadcaster and gets about 1/16th-1/20th of the whole population each episode. Then there's Canada, where it has a tradition on the CBC and now is pulling numbers on Space that are roughly BBCA-like. So, yanno, 1 million viewers in a country of 30+ million versus 1 million viewers in a country of 300+ million. (Obviously DW's reach in the US is a little more once you factor in iTunes and DVD sales, but still, you're talking somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of the population — and a little more if you factor in all the people who have seen it at some point and are still alive.

      It's total hype that DW is a big deal in America. It's, at best, a bigger deal, amplified by the multiplicative effect of the American media's outsized footprint on the internet. It's a bigger deal, now that there's an actual network in charge of its broadcast (rather than individual PBS stations). But that network only covers about 75% of the country, and its reach is severely limited by the fact that it's on cable, but not basic cable.

      Yes, there are ways to paint the story of DW on BBCA so that it looks great: fastest growing network on cable, biggest ratings on that fastest growing network, biggest downloads of seasonal TV on iTunes, advertisement in New York City, cover of TV Guide.

      But you've gotta keep your eye on the ball: raw numbers of people who are watching the show. And when you put all of the numbers together, you're nowhere close to the bog-standard episode of Castle — or even Lost or Heroes, really. Remember, in the UK, DW rates favourably compared to even huge, once-in-a-lifetime sporting events. In the US, the very worst and most insignificant NFL game beats DW's rating by a factor of 20 or 30.

      Also, the fact that DW does not stream for free in the US — even for the limited time of a couple of weeks after broadcast — is pretty unusual and is certainly limiting its reach.

      The situation is improving in the US, but the words Doctor Who still elicit blank stares.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't care if no one watches it, it's rare (to quote your post above) and notable. Your apparent prejeduce against American audiences doesn't make the country or reruns any less noticable.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You realise I am American, right? How could I be prejudiced against my own people?

      I was responding to SOTO's specific statement that the US must be the second-biggest percentage of Who watchers, and pointing out the demonstrable untruth of that.

      And I'm just backing up Imamadmad's point that if we start listing American premieres on day of the year pages then we'll have to logically list Rhodesian, New Zealand, Kenyan, Italian, Russian, French and everyone else's premiere dates. That takes up too much space, and it's completely unnecessary, given that there is another, very well-researched wiki for that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And I'm backing up Smaller's point that if we list "rare" reairings of classic episodes on BBC1 then we should list "rarer" airings of classic episodes on BBC America.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, and you aren't quoting my post just by using the word rare. You're taking my definition of rarity out of context and misapplying it. If BBC1 replays an episode of Doctor Who, that's rare to the point of near-uniqueness. It goes against their remit. They're supposed to have something new to transmit at every hour of the day, particularly back in the 1960s and 1970s.

      If BBCA transmits The Aztecs, that's nowhere near as big a deal because a) it's not the American debut and b) transmitting old episodes of DW what BBCA does.

      Granted, it might have been the BBCA debut of The Aztecs. But that's about it. It's not even the first time BBCA have run so-called "classic" episodes of DW.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh, and we know that it's not even the 21st century North American airing of The Aztecs because that was done on Space prior to the coming of series 1 on CBC.

      I mean, you really have to squint your eyes hard to find what's so groundbreaking about The Aztecs on BBCA.

      Remember, there's a difference between surprising and noteworthy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I disagree. BBC America airs classic who so rarely that it is very noteworthy.

      I actually fail to see why we need to diferentiate between these things.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You have a short memory, or are simply young. Classic DW used to be a regular feature of their schedule. Used to be a part of SciFi's, too.

      So lemme prepare you in advance for the month of August. It will not be fair or true to say that the BBCA broadcast of the TV movie (if they do it) is the first American broadcast of that movie since 1996. This popped up pretty regularly on SciFi, since SciFi is owned by Universal, co-owner of the TVM.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I've just spent 20 minutes trying to get this to load, then ten writing a response, then my computer decides to crash and lose my entire response. I don't even remember what I wrote. I'll try again, though:

      My point, despite what you might think OS, isn't about rarity. It supports it, yes, but it's a side note. My point is that it's a big thing for the viewers in celebration of the fiftieth.

      In fact, I agree with Czech for the most part. I don't want small things like reruns in America (even if it's the premiere in the States) in the articles. As he said, we can provide a link for that.

      What I do think is that we should include whatever each country does in celebration of the 50th, the biggest mark in Doctor Who history so far. For every country that does so. I think it's very notable. As I said, it's the biggest event is DW History and it would be both useful and interesting for future visitors to look back (or even present-day viewers from different countries) and see what everyone did to celebrate.

      BBCA shows The Aztecs - not noteworthy.

      Americans get to see The Aztecs in celebration of Doctor Who's 50th anniversary - noteworthy.

      If someone can give me a reasonable argument why it's specifically wrong to talk about countries' celebration, then I'll change my mind. Until then, this is my opinion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's wrong to characterise this as "Americans get to see The Aztecs for the first time". It's not the American debut. It's not the North American network debut. It's not the first time available in NTSC format so that it could be viewed in America.

      It's a rerun with some hype surrounding it, designed to get you to watch it. That's all.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Sorry. Scratch "for the first time." But, at the moment, I'm still standing by my opinion that 50th celebrations are noteworthy. I'd stress more the words "in celebration of Doctor Who 's 50th anniversary," rather than "for the first time."

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't know, man. It seems really problematic. I can kinda see it as a point on The Aztecs (TV story) page, in the sense that "this was the story chosen by BBC America to represent the William Hartnell era during their 50th Anniversary celebrations." That's fine. As long as it's not in the lead of the piece and is just one of the story notes, fine.

      But it's not something that makes the day of January the 27th very notable. It's not a "we gotta write this down on the calendar" kinda thing. If it had been aired on the 50th anniversary of The Aztecs itself — 23 May 2014 — then you'd have something you could put on 23 May.

      What's actually notable about 27 January is the BBCA debut of The Doctors Revisited - The First Doctor.

      Starting down the path of noting when a particular serial was re-run on one network other than BBC1 implicitly means that all of them are fair game.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Good point. But isn't the purpose of the date pages to record what happened on that day? If I wanted to know what happened on 27 January, 2013, I wouldn't know to look on The Aztecs (TV story). (unless I went to the trouble of using WLH - which I shouldn't have to) I'd look at either 27 January or 2013 (or both) and the information wouldn't be there. In ten years, someone who's really young now will want to know what happened on that day. He'll find The Doctors Revisited but he'll never know that, in conjunction with the documentary, BBCA also broadcast The Aztecs.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I see you reworded the sentence in The Aztecs. Appreciated, but who would know to look there?

      You want to know when The Aztecs reaired? You check The Aztecs (TV story).

      You want to know what happened on January 27th? You check 27 January.

      I think it'd be useful to include the information on both, so that, no matter from which direction you're looking for it, the information can be found.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Imamadmad wrote: I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?

      Well, you know what, once we're at it, since it's easier, let's just delete every article on this wiki, so we don't have to go to the trouble of editing it!! (that was sarcastic by the way - but pretty much your logic)

      I don't think we should take the lazy route and just delete things mindlessly.

      Also, by your logic, we shouldn't even be displaying any broadcasts at all, so that we don't have the rule "some from certain channels and times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't." Because that is exactly the rule we're reinforcing for original broadcasts.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote:

      Imamadmad wrote: I just think all info on reruns should go. I mean, they really aren't that significant nowadays, especially with video/DVD allowing people to re-watch old episodes whenever. Also, wouldn't it be easier to enforce a blanket rule rather than say "some reruns from certain times are noteworthy enough, while most times they aren't"?

      Well, you know what, once we're at it, since it's easier, let's just delete every article on this wiki, so we don't have to go to the trouble of editing it!! (that was sarcastic by the way - but pretty much your logic)

      I don't think we should take the lazy route and just delete things mindlessly.

      You have well diagnosed a proplem that I have noticed on this site recently. Good job, sir.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's completely unfair, SOTO. Imamadmad is thinking in terms of broader policy. You should, too.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • First broadcast is noteworthy. Subsequent broadcasts of those same episodes are not. That's what I'm saying.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just don't think we should take a one-size-fits-all approach. Not all information is the same, and we shouldn't treat them the same, either. It could just as easily say in our policy, that we include {such and such} repeats, but not anything else.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Imamadmad wrote: First broadcast is noteworthy. Subsequent broadcasts of those same episodes are not. That's what I'm saying.

      See. That's logical and well-based. "Wouldn't it be easier...," in my opinion, isn't.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • To be fair Czech, Smaller is just thinking of individual pages and what people needed when visiting them. You should too.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I can feel another fight come along. And I'm in the middle of it. Please, instead of attacking each other, let's have something resembling a debate. Anyways, we're looking at the problem from different sides. I'm looking at it mostly from the stand-point of what user will want to find on the pages, and Ima - can I call you that? - is looking at it from the standpoint of the simplicity of policy for editors. How about we address this on all sides?

      So. First. Viewers (priority IMO): I think that viewers will come to day of the year pages and want to find reruns and releases, especially the special ones (redundant...) like the ones celebrating the 50th, and the rare ones. What do you guys think about this?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Please don't call me that. My username doesn't have spaces for a reason.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Fine. Imamadmad.

      Second. Policy: I actually agree mostly with Imamadmad on this one. We obviously can't have a really broad policy that means every single broadcast and release requires debate. We need to make one definitive rule. The simplest way is to just say no to everything post-original-broadcast. I don't think we should do this. We need to discuss the other notable broadcasts and create another definite rule.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • But just how many people go to dates pages looking for non-first releases of stories? Original releases, yes, birth and death dates, yes, other important historical notes, yes, but re-releases, not really notable in my opinion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108 wrote: But just how many people go to dates pages looking for non-first releases of stories? Original releases, yes, birth and death dates, yes, other important historical notes, yes, but re-releases, not really notable in my opinion.

      It doesn't matter what "they are looking for" it matters "what we can give them."

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: It doesn't matter what "they are looking for" it matters "what we can give them."

      Absolutely, positively not. It is our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. We could give them so much information that they just don't read the page at all.

      Remember, we are editors. It's our job to present material in a comprehensible way — not just dump everything, willy nilly, onto the page.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And again, there is another wiki that does nothing but list global rebroadcast dates, and has access to many more reliable sources than we likely ever would. We're not depriving anyone of information: we're directing them to a better source.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Absolutely, positively not. It is our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. We could give them so much information that they just don't read the page at all.

      Remember, we are editors. It's our job to present material in a comprehensible way — not just dump everything, willy nilly, onto the page.

      True. But it's a question of what's important enough to be displayed, and what the viewers will look for.

      In response to Shambala, I'm sure lots of people would go looking for first releases in their areas. Apparently, http://broadwcast.org has this information. Czech, correct me if I'm wrong, wants to put a link to this wiki.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: And again, there is another wiki that does nothing but list global rebroadcast dates, and has access to many more reliable sources than we likely ever would. We're not depriving anyone of information: we're directing them to a better source.

      Right. What I said. Once again, need to reload page more often. Anyways, now that I've looked through the site, I don't see any pages on dates. I'd understand how the template would work on story pages, but how would it help us on the day pages themselves?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: ... how would [broadwcast.org] help us on the day pages themselves?

      It doesn't. It's not important to day pages when a rebroadcast happens. Given that you could claim that just about every episode of Doctor Who has been rebroadcast — somewhere — on every day of the year, rebroadcast dates are completely trivial to day of the year pages. They're only slightly significant to story pages, so that's where the link to broadwcast.com can be found.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: It doesn't. It's not important to day pages when a rebroadcast happens. Given that you could claim that just about every episode of Doctor Who has been rebroadcast — somewhere — on every day of the year, rebroadcast dates are completely trivial.

      Yeah, that's a really good point...

      Anyways, yes, agreed, regular rebroadcasts are trivial and should never be included in the day of the year pages.

      But what about first broadcasts in other countries? Personally, this is a maybe - if you do one, you have to do all. Still. Could be discussed.

      What about celebrations of the 50th? Personally, I find these important and I think we should feature these on the pages. All the rebroadcasts specifically in celebration of the Fiftieth of every country should be featured, IMO.

      We have to look at every unique broadcasting instance and decide if that group gets the okay or not. You want to include the unique repeat on BBC1? Discussion. I want to include the unique repeat on The Aztecs on BBCA? Discussion. After all this, we'll have decided what outside of first broadcasts, if any, will be featured. So, what other examples of uniqueness am I missing?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not just no, but hell no. We will not have a situation whereby we have to discuss every single premiere broadcast around the world to determine whether it belongs in a day of the year page.

      This needs to be simple and understandable. There will be people down the road who won't have participated in this conversation, and they shouldn't need to refer to this conversation to understand the rule.

      The rule needs to be simple, like Imamadmad said. The only thing that the day of the year pages should have is the premiere broadcast in the country of origin, with exceptions only for those stories which technically premiered on local channels prior to a network debut.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No, I was actually suggesting that we go through every possible situation now so that we can create a clear and simple rule. I was in no way suggesting that we leave it up for debate every time. Refer to one of my previous comments:

      "We obviously can't have a really broad policy that means every single broadcast and release requires debate. We need to make one definitive rule."

      Anyways, what you say is true and highly logical. I still think we should include celebrations of the fiftieth, but it's hardly my choice. But, barring that, I agree that the most logical solution is to include only the first broadcast in the country of origin. Any objections? (that means outside of us four - we all pretty much know where we stand)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Maybe there can be a page dedicated specifically to 50th anniversary celebrations around the world somewhere on this wiki

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That is actually an amazing idea, Imamadmad!! We could have a Doctor Who Fiftieth Anniversary page. Then we could have sections on all the different celebrations - 50th Anniversary Special (but now yet... Spoilers!!), The Doctors Revisited, the e-books, reruns in celebration of the 50th, etc... Of course, the special and TDR get their own pages, anyway, though.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I like this idea. On RangerWiki, the Power Rangers and Super Sentai wiki, they have a page on the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of Power Rangers, its called Power Rangers 20.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: That is actually an amazing idea, Imamadmad!! We could have a Doctor Who Fiftieth Anniversary page. Then we could have sections on all the different celebrations - 50th Anniversary Special (but now yet... Spoilers!!), The Doctors Revisited, reruns in celebration of the 50th, etc... Of course, the special and TDR get their own pages, anyway, though.

      Yeah, then we could also just list off all the crazy Anniversary stories this year - Prisoners of Time, Hunters of the Burning Stone, A Big Hand for the Doctor; the works.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm a little dubious of this latest proposal. I tend to run like hell from "list of" pages which are not automated in some way, and automation is only possible with categories or SMW.

      So since a category is virtually required any way, why would a list page with an awkward title that implies, "Hey, this is the official name of something," be preferable to just a category page? Everything we could possibly mention on the page would surely have its own page, so why not just slap these 50th anniversary releases into their own category and call it a day?

      If people wanted to find all the 50th anniversary releases, all they'd have to do is click on category:50th anniversary releases.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • But there are also things that won't have their own pages. Like the one episode/Doctor on BBCA (yes, I'm still on about that). Unless we put that as a section on The Doctors Revisited (page yet to be created). In fact, I think I'll create a mock-up later today when I have time. Then we can discuss more fully.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, unique case:

      Notable enough for a day of the year page?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, unique case:

      Notable enough for a day of the year page?

      Absolutely not. No such peripheral stuff should be in any page in the broader category:dates. We're only about events in the DWU or events about licensed DWU stuff.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure before I deleted it. I'm on the case...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: But there are also things that won't have their own pages. Like the one episode/Doctor on BBCA (yes, I'm still on about that). Unless we put that as a section on The Doctors Revisited (page yet to be created). In fact, I think I'll create a mock-up later today when I have time. Then we can discuss more fully.

      You really need to get off this anniversary stuff and return to the main work of the pages, please. We're spending so much time on this relatively minor stuff that we're losing momentum on the project proper.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I haven't been working on it. I've been busy with other stuff lately. I'm still considering creating a mock-up, but certainly not now.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Just a progress report:

      Sorry. Computer hasn't been working. I've managed to do a couple edits and responses on my phone, but I haven't really been able to continue this project. Now I'm borrowing someone else's computer, and I'm back in the game. I am currently on 10 September. 112 days (approx. 3 months, 20 days) to go.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Cool. Keep on keepin' on.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Some job titles are starting to get out of hand. Take a look at 21 October:

      That takes up a lot of room. Plus it's wordy, and it draws more attention to his death than anyone else's, or to episode four of The Abominable Snowmen's broadcast. Perhaps we should only pick one job, and one job alone. But which job would that be? Which of the above should be considered more noteworthy? The one that he served in for the longest period of time? The one that he contributed in the most? The one that's the highest position? The one that gains the highest authority? And which one of the above applies?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yep, only one. The highest one, which in this case is PUM. (Generally speaking, the highest position is also the one that gives the most authority and the one they had the latest in their career. Most people don't become a director and then accept a role as a production assistant.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm guessing it's PUM because he's not an assistant. Still, Mark Gatiss, for example, is both writer and actor. I guess writer would be the highest, as writers have more control over the process. I remember there being a case where I literally could not choose one over the other. I'll let you know if I come across it, or a similar case, again in the future.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • From that, I'm guessing that executive producer/head writer, editor (in the comic strip sense), co-producer and script editor are "higher up" than just writer.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, for instances of people playing themselves, they seem to mention on day of the year pages their usual profession, such as TV personality Alan Sugar. Is that fine?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That is what I have been doing. If someone's a DJ and made an appearance as himself, he's not an actor; he's a DJ.

      I also find writer to be more notable than script editor, as the writers do the real job - they provide us with the stories. The editors are simply crew who clean up after them. Call them their cleaning ladies. :-P

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, look, I'm probably not going to be able to give you a rule that fits in every case. But if a person has risen to great heights in different departments, go ahead and give the highest credit in each department.. There aren't too many people like Gatiss. So there's little problem calling him "writer and actor Mark Gatiss". That's fine.

      The issue with D'Oyly-John is that all those credits were from a single department.

      Just use your best judgment. Is it sensible to say, "production assistant, location manager and director Graeme Harper"? No, he's just "director Graeme Harper". Is it "prose author and television writer Russell T Davies"? No, it's just "show runner Russell T Davies" (or, if you're talking about him in connection with Torchwood or The Sarah Jane Adventures only, then it's "creator Russell T Davies").

      You shouldn't have too much problem with this, because I doubt we really have too many people at D'Oyly-John's level on day of the week pages.

      That observation sparks the questions, "How senior do you have to be to get noted on a day page? Are we doing to start noting the birts and deaths of practical electricians? Cyfle trainees? I mean, where does it end?"

      And those questions make me think, well, why should we have births and deaths on day of the year pages — at all? Why not just have the info at real world birthdays and be done with it? I'm not really seeing the advantage of noting birthdays on these day pages at all.

      I mean, fine, keep the real world birthdays and real world deaths pages for those who really are into that minutiae. But let's keep 1 January (real world) for genuine production information. After all, the day of someone's birth is not actually relevant to the production of Doctor Who, is it?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I also find writer to be more notable than script editor, as the writers do the real job - they provide us with the stories. The editors are simply crew who clean up after them. Call them their cleaning ladies. :-P

      That is the case in the BBC Wales series, but certainly not in the old days. From 1963 to 1989 the script editor was one-half of the "production team". Along with the producer he (cause it was always a he) was the only permanent part of Doctor Who's above the line staff. Script editors back then are what we would today call the head writer.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: That is the case in the BBC Wales series, but certainly not in the old days. From 1963 to 1989 the script editor was one-half of the "production team". Along with the producer he (cause it was always a he) was the only permanent part of Doctor Who's above the line staff. Script editors back then are what we would today call the head writer.

      With that in mind, then:

      That makes sense... I hadn't known that script editors were the equivalent of the head writer, in the old days. Good to know.

      Also, maybe we shouldn't include births and deaths of actors who only appeared once or twice in tiny roles. We should definitely include major Doctor Who personalities, like Doctor actors, companion actors, Head Writers, recurring writers, recurring directors, founders...

      But I don't think we should include every single actor. We already have two pages for births and deaths. You have no idea how many actors have appeared in Who! Which is why I started adding "who portrayed the Third Doctor," for example, to highlight the actors that played the Doctor. I also added this for the first writer, the first director and the founders. But maybe we should not even include the less significant actors at all.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The phrase "who portrayed the Third Doctor" is really not necessary.

      I dunno, man, the more I think about this, the more I think day pages shouldn't have any births or deaths. It's entirely irrelevant to the production of DW.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I can definitely see where that's coming from. I still think we should have the births and deaths of people important to Who, but I can definitely see the logic in your opinion. So then it'd only be release dates? I suppose we could leave a link to the section at real world birthdays and deaths at the bottom of the page...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Though I think that we should include pretty much everyone that's in bold in the birthdays and deaths pages. That's Doctors, companion s, major recurring villains, and producers and writers etc... that played a major role in Who. That's practically word for word from the pages. The rest should go. We can put links there, as I suggested in my last post.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't see the point in removing this information.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree with Ottselspy25. Apart from makin the pages emptier, what would it achieve? The links are sending people to the actor pages, which will send them to the character page which will send them to episode pages which... You get my point. They're a starting point for sending people around the wiki. Therefore they are useful to have, and interesting as well. Also, putting the info back would be one hellofa job, especially as the information is already there now.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I know quite a few people who come to this site for info. My friend runs a Doctor Who fan site and comes here for his fact files. Why remove info that people are looking for? I don't care how it looks, it's what's there that matters.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm always against getting rid of useful information. But, if we must shorten the lists, then I'd include what I mentioned above. I definitely do not think we should get rid of all births and deaths. In fact, I'd personally prefer it if we kept all of them. If we do, however, I suggest we highlight the major players - by saying things like "who played the Third Doctor" or "who directed An Unearthly Child, the very first Doctor Who story, or "who brought back Doctor Who after its 18-month-long hiatus." These people are crucial to Doctor Who and should be highlighted.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: I'm always against getting rid of useful information. But, if we must shorten the lists, then I'd include what I mentioned above. I definitely do not think we should get rid of all births and deaths. In fact, I'd personally prefer it if we kept all of them. If we do, however, I suggest we highlight the major players - by saying things like "who played the Third Doctor" or "who directed An Unearthly Child, the very first Doctor Who story, or "who brought back Doctor Who after its 18-month-long hiatus." These people are crucial to Doctor Who and should be highlighted.

      This is a very slippery slope. One day it'll be "Let's only add really notable actors to date pages" and the next day it's "You know, audio and book releases are not really that necissary," and then it's "I think we should remove all non-TV info" then it's "you know, I think we should only cover TV stories..." I'm exagerating for the later two, of coarse; but I still dislike the idea that any info is "more notable" or "important" than others and thus the others should go. I also fail to see why we must seperate episode pages, but apparently this has passed out of reach.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Nah, I'm not buying it. There's no reason to duplicate the information. All of it is on the birthday and deaths pages. All of it is easily accessible. It wouldn't be getting rid of anything. Rather, it would be focussing attention on it and presenting the information in a much less haphazard way.

      Again, it does not matter to the production of Doctor Who what some actor's birthday is. It doesn't matter one bit when JNT died, because he wasn't in production of DW at the time. Putting all this information on a dedicated page gives people a focus for their enquiries.

      It means that the real world day of the year pages have a natural limitation point. We would be saying, this is where we put production- and broadcast-relevant information only. It would be "this day in DW history", not "this day in DW birth and death days".

      Imamadmad is quite incorrect when she asserts that this move would leave us with a lot less information. Far from it — we'd be freeing the page up for the tons and tons of interesting, date-related info about the production of Doctor Who that we've only barely started to cover. I could fill up these pages with information solely from the Hartnell years.

      What's interesting about links to actors is not what their birthday is, but:

      • on what day were they hired?
      • on what day were they first/last in front of the cameras?
      • on what day did they formally submit their resignation?
      • on what day did they audition?
      • on what day did they first meet their co-star or producer?

      There's just a ton of information that these articles are missing because we quite mistakenly believe that their birth/death day matters one single iota to Doctor Who history.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: This is a very slippery slope. One day it'll be "Let's only add really notable actors to date pages" and the next day it's "You know, audio and book releases are not really that necissary," and then it's "I think we should remove all non-TV info" then it's "you know, I think we should only cover TV stories..." I'm exagerating for the later two, of coarse; but I still dislike the idea that any info is "more notable" or "important" than others and thus the others should go. I also fail to see why we must seperate episode pages, but apparently this has passed out of reach.

      You misunderstood. I'm actually agreeing with you. I'm not saying we should begin only including certain people. What I'm saying is that the majority, let's face it, are actors who've appeared in tiny guest roles in one or two stories. I simply think that the people most crucial to Who should be highlighted, so that they can be pinpointed in the sea of somewhat less important (no offence to them) people to Who. So actors who've played the Doctor, the first this, the first that, creator of Doctor Who, creator of Torchwood, the guy who brought Who back to our screens in 2005, etc... These people ought to be highlighted in the articles by adding a little bit of information on what makes them special on their birth and death points. While most people would have only [job] [name] was born/died, Tennant might, for example, get, Actor David Tennant, who portrayed the Tenth Doctor, was born. It makes his birth stand out, as it should, given as he's has provided to Who much more than, say, Harold Innocent, who was born on the same day.

      After reading Czech's comment, though, I can feel my opinion swaying. He's brought up some interesting info topics, and some good points. We could always consider only including what's in bold in the birthday and death pages, although I'm sure Czech'll be completely against including any births/deaths at all.

      Can you create a template that'll go at the bottom of every real-world day page, and link to its section in both the birthday and death pages? I don't mean now, but do you think that would be a good idea? It would tell you to go there to find out who was born and who died on that day.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OS25, I haven't proposed the actual removal of any information. I'm just concerned about delivering in a clearer fashion. Consolidating all birth information on a page called real world birthdays isn't destroying information; it's making it easier to find.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I disagree with Czech's statements that info shouldn't be added because it belongs somewhere else. That's the thing; people get interest through what's on a page. A reader may see "JNT was born in the year blahblahblah". Then they'll go "Gee, I don't know a lot about JNT. I THINK I WANNA KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT JNT!" Then they research JNT on our cite and we're happy. The info belongs on both pages, because info sparks interest. The way I see it, there's no reason for both 23 November and Real world birthdays should both have info on the birth of the guy who played Frankenstein.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
      • on our site
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As a compromise, what do you think about having a third set of date pages, in the format 1 January (births and deaths)? We could then create a little template that would allow the user to easily flick back and forth between all the days of the year pages.

      1 May in

      the DWU • production history • vital statistics

      WikipediaInfo

      Apr

      May

      Jun

                  1
      2 3 4 5 6 7 8
      9 10 11 12 13 14 15
      16 17 18 19 20 21 22
      23 24 25 26 27 28 29
      30 31          
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's actually brilliant!! I'm going with this. That would definitely facilitate moving between versions of the day pages. Plus it's nice and simple. It also separates the two completely separate types of information. Believe me, this is the perfect guide for the viewer: the DWU, the production history, and the births and deaths. I'm all for this and (births and deaths)!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And, don't worry, I'll have no trouble creating the pages and separating the info if we end up going by this. I'll finish up stage one right now.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not to press my luck, but since we're creating 366 pages at a time anyway, I kinda think there should be yet a fourth set — 1 May (releases). This will let us further focus the pages and make them even more useful to our readers.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: And, don't worry, I'll have no trouble creating the pages and separating the info if we end up going by this. I'll finish up stage one right now.

      Well, again, the pages should be created by bot/admin, as discussed a llllllllooooonggggg way upthread.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Might as well since we're already going down that path. So what sort of information's left for 1 May (real world)?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Well, again, the pages should be created by bot/admin, as discussed a llllllllooooonggggg way upthread.

      Right. But if created by bot, I can still go through and sort the information into the four pages.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That seems like a good layout and system.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Might as well since we're already going down that path. So what sort of information's left for 1 May (real world)?

      What's left? What's left? You make it sound like it's slim pickings. Well let's see:

      ... and so on.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We might want to change (real world) to (production), though, since 3 of the 4 proposed variants are also "in the real world".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Got it. I was just wondering. Does "releases" mean both original broadcasts and DVD releases? (for example - or website releases, magazine releases...)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: We might want to change (real world) to (production), though, since 3 of the 4 proposed variants are also "in the real world".

      I was going to suggest that, but I figured it might complicate things as we'd agreed on that name. But, I agree, (real world) would be too broad, as the name encompasses the other pages as well, meaning it's not a good name. (production) sounds fine to me.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yeah, I would tend to think that it's in the spirit of our guiding principle of media equality that (release) would contain all primary releases of all media.

      I'm a little wary of DVD releases being included though, because we have, in principle, an agreement on another thread to create pages that will thoroughly cover home video releases much more deeply than these day pages can. I think it's probably best to just consider the release of An Unearthly Child to be 23 November 1963, period.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay. I'm actually kind of excited that our ideas are actually going somewhere... :P

      These new ideas feel much more organised than the original plan. I think, for now, I won't get rid of the DVD releases, but I won't be adding new ones either. We can get rid of them later, when the home video plans start to shape. For now, they're information, pending possible future deletion. That's how I've been handling them.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well let's sit with this change of tack for a day or two and see if any other day range ideas come to us. Then I suppose we'll have to, as it were, "break it out of committee", and put it to a specific vote that attracts the attention of the whole community.

      I think at this point many users have probably started ignoring this thread because it's rather like a whiteboard between those who are actively interested in the minutiae of day article editing. A massive change in day of the week organisation like this deserves another, separately highlighted discussion, which I'll put forward once we've had time to sit and think for a full day or so about all the changes we want to implement.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Do you think there's enough date information out there about toys and other non-narrative merchandise, to justify 1 May (merchandise)?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Well let's sit with this change of tack for a day or two and see if any other day range ideas come to us. Then I suppose we'll have to, as it were, "break it out of committee", and put it to a specific vote that attracts the attention of the whole community.

      Okay. Sounds cool. In the mean time, I can clean up my own mistakes, and start doing a little research and adding all information I can find.

      As far as merchandise, it would take a lot of research, but I would not be surprised to find we can fill up all the day pages easily (except the extreme difficulty of finding the info) with merchandise information. There has been so much merchandise, it's... unbelievable....

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yeah, the trick is whether we can actually find the release date of Doctor Who wholewheat pasta shapes in tomato sauce, or Doctor Who Frubes or even the precise release date of particular sets of Character Options figures.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What about magazine releases? Sense those have stories in them (usually), shall we treat them as story releases themselves?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Magazine releases are a bit tricky, especially when it comes to the pre-1991 DWM. After that, we hit a point where we know exactly when DWM came out, because it's on the cover. (Well, it can be extrapolated correctly from the cover, at any rate.)

      But before that, DWM might not be so easy to precisely date. It might be something purely for the January (releases) page, for example.

      Americna comic books are going to be a bit of a bitch, too, especially Doctor Who (1984). We can probably still find solicitation dates for most IDW issues, but we'll likely have to do some hard core research there.

      For DWBIT and DWA, I suspect user:The Librarian might be able to help us sort out the meaning of the cover date, if he chooses to respond to messages on his talk page, which he frequently doesn't. However, he's put in a lot of false information about cover dates in the past, so we might need to ask him then verify elsewhere.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!

      Precisley what I was asking.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I notice you made a badge for this. Smart - it'll attract users to edit these pages. I was going to suggest it a long while ago, but completely forgot.

      It was a bit weird when it told me I made my first edit on a Days of the Year page though... Hardly my first.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Coupla points for you today:

      • Game of Rassilon badge thing is only in beta. :) It's now turned off, cause I don't want it attracting a lot of new people in the process until we get the split done. But I did want it in place and working so all I have to do is flip a switch once the whole thing is set up.
      • The badges are a part of the answer to a question I think you had earlier. Eventually there will be five categories — one for each of the separate ranges of days, in addition to the overarching category:days of the year category. Eventually, days of the year will be hidden and every single page having to do with a day will eventually belong to days of the year and it's own more specific category (like category:Production calendar, category:Release calendar, whatever) so that the contest can be run from it. (We do this same sort of thing with category:vehicles and category:Earth mammals.)
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Now, have you come up with any additional calendars, or are we ready to make our proposal to the rest of the community with:

      • in universe
      • releases
      • vital stats
      • production history
      • merchandise
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think we're ready to make the proposal.

      But why does merchandise get its own calendar? Shouldn't it just be part of "releases?"

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, just to confirm, "production history" includes things like filming, hiring, auditions, etc... Does it also include announcements to the public? If not, we need to choose which other calendar it should be part of.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Um, we talked about merchandise yesterday, upthread. You seemed to be okay with it. Have you changed your mind?

      And yes, public announcements are made by, or at least under the ægis of, the production team.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, I was there yesterday, and, yes, I did agree with including it. But, if you look upthread, you'll notice that both OS25 (who suggested it) and I questioned whether or not it deserves its own cal. If I may quote...

      OttselSpy25 wrote:

      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Well if we do find them, they'd just go under, (releases), wouldn't they? They certainly wouldn't get their own dab term!

      Precisley what I was asking.

      Just wondering, do we have any reasons for it to have its own calendar? If so, I'm all for it. I just presently feel it'd be a waste of a cal.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Which is technically correct:

      On 21 December, 1981, ............

      or

      On 21 December 1981, .............

      I've been consistently including the comma, but I'm curious to know if I'm actually right.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If DD MM YY, comma only after YY. If MM DD, YY, comma after DD and YY.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Got it. I'll fix that in the next round.

      But it should never be MM DD, YY here. That's American.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Eh, that's not strictly true. And I mean both sentences of your final paragraph. It's not really "American" and it's not forbidden here to use MM DD, YY.

      I draw your attention to T:DATES, the last paragraph of which does allow for what is erroneously thought of as the "American" method of MM DD. It's allowed, but we discourage the creation of redirects on that format.

      The key is that you use the same format in any single article.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, I read that, but, considering it's the preferred format, it's the one I'm using. Yes, it's not technically disallowed, but I'd prefer to have consistency between all the day pages, not just within each individual one.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't want to jump the gun, but should we start planning the format for the new calendars? I have plenty of ideas. That way, once the public makes a decision, we can get started right away on the pages without having to have a discussion first.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's your option, of course. Just please don't correct uses of what you're quite wrongly calling "American" and suggest to other users that you're doing the right thing while they have done the wrong.

      And don't misread what's meant by "preferred". T:DATES is largely talking about the preferred way of titling the article — not of actually using dates in articles. There is no preference when it comes to actual usage of dates in articles. Date format is in no way policed by bot.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Received. But, considering that's what's currently being used in the day articles, I can still fix it if someone uses the American, as it would be inconsistent in that specific article.

      Anyway, can we discuss the format or should we wait?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If you wanna start listing some of your ideas for the next phase, sure, go ahead.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay. Number one:

      For "vital stats," things like "was born" and "died" would get extremely redundant. Unless you want to start adding information like where they died/were born, we'd have to do something like this:


      WikipediaInfo

      Apr

      May

      Jun

                  1
      2 3 4 5 6 7 8
      9 10 11 12 13 14 15
      16 17 18 19 20 21 22
      23 24 25 26 27 28 29
      30 31          

      On 1 May, many people were born and many died. The following is a list of every birth and death of individuals who have appeared in, or have connections with, the Doctor Who universe and its related media:

      Births

      Deaths

      WikipediaInfo


      Yes, the first sentence could do with a rewording, and, yes, you might say that there isn't enough info to constitute a whole section. (1 May doesn't have anywhere close to as many births and deaths as certain other days) But consider the alternative:

      Redundant, no?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If you're creating the pages by bot, then empty pages would automatically be made. See 19 July, for example. There should only be two pages for the moment: 19 July and 19 July (vital stats). In my eyes, there are two solutions:

      • While I sort the information, I can add delete tags to these empty pages.
      • Before we create the pages, I put tags on the day pages to signify which pages should be created. Like a tag for every calendar. Then you set the bot to create "broadcasts" pages only for those with the broadcasts tag. The tag can even be a hidden message with [[5 June (vital stats)]], for example. That way you can create pages at [[{{PAGENAME}} (vital stats)]] to every page that links to it. If that makes any sense...
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
      • Please continue using full sentences for births and deaths, but use exactly the full sentence that we agreed before: [title] [name] was born (or died). You've already done the majority of the pages this way, so it would be a ridiculous waste of time for you to go back and convert them. As things stand T:FULL SENT still applies. If at some point in the future we wish to strip down to what you suggest we can do that easily through bot run, because you've used the same sentence structure repeatedly.
      • Pages for all real world days will be created. We can assume that real world days exist, but that we currently don't know anything about it. The rules are a lil different for in-universe pages. I'll probably create all the real world pages with a template that says we don't know of any info for that date, and then, as you add in the info, you'll remove that template. What's left behind will be those days we trulyknow nothing about. But we won't erase delete real world dates simply cause they're empty.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh and there won't be a previous day/next day thing like you've mocked up. There's a fully linked calendar. Why on Earth do you need prev/next day functionality in addition to that? (That's just a rhetorical question, cause the answer is, "You don't.")

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, thanks.

      And the reason I added next/previous day is because you can't easily travel from the last day of one month to the first of the next. {{DateNav}}, as it stands, does allow easy travel between 31 January and 1 February. Maybe there's something we can put only on pages for the end of a month?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Maybe a previous month/next month feature instead of previous day/next day feature?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No but we already sort of have that feature in the calendar itself. Note the very top of the cal. Thus, the only way to get from 31 January to 1 February is to click on February and then click on the 1 in the calendar there. A bit of a hassle.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Then it's only 2 clicks. Hardly that much of a hassle.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not to you, it isn't. But I'm thinking of the viewers with bad Internet. I, for example, have extremely poor Internet connectivity, and that extra "click" can mean up to one extra minute of load time. Which is why, personally, while editing, I simply type in "1 February" in the URL, as opposed to having to wait the additional time. I would, as would, I'm sure, many other people, appreciate it if there was a quicker method of going from the end if a month to the beginning of the next.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I have a proposal for how to make it unnecessary to have two pages for calendar dates. We could do it the way that Memory Alpha and Memory Beta do it and have all in-universe references to calendar dates on the month articles, and reserve the individual date pages for real world events.

      Also, I do not think it is necessary to have separate pages for production and releases, just separate sections on each page. Doug86 02:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Hey, guys. If anyone's been watching Wiki Activity, you may have noticed that I've created mock-ups, as sub-pages of my user page, for 1 May (a generic day) in all calendars (except "Merchandise," so far). Here's a directory for (and notes on) these pages:

      This is the in-universe page. Pretty much the same as what's already at 1 May.
      Production history. For this one, I haven't yet found real information, so I fed it with information from DWTV (which, yes, I know, is not a valid source). Please note that this piece of info will not appear in the actual version of this page; it's merely there as an example of what's to come... (I like the sound of that!) It's also, for the record, not technically correct, as the DWTV article, which can be found here, states that the filming took place that week, meaning sometime before 1 May.
      Here, I tried something new: adding publisher for books and short stories, and comic book series for comic stories. Since we've been adding channel of initial broadcast for television stories, why not publisher of initial release for prose? It only makes sense.
      Vital stats. Pretty much what I posted above. I kept the sections for "births" and "deaths," for now.

      Anyway, as we discuss, anyone is free to edit and/or update these pages to make them the perfect exemplary day of the year pages. Obviously, once we actually create the new pages, we can forget about this, and progress without it, but we should use these pages, at the moment, to demonstrate what it is we want for these pages, and to test out our ideas. In case there's any sort of complication stemming from the fact that it's a branch of my user page and not any of yours, I hereby grant anyone the right to edit the above pages.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Doug86 wrote: I have a proposal for how to make it unnecessary to have two pages for calendar dates. We could do it the way that Memory Alpha and Memory Beta do it and have all in-universe references to calendar dates on the month articles, and reserve the individual date pages for real world events.

      Also, I do not think it is necessary to have separate pages for production and releases, just separate sections on each page. Doug86 02:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

      I'm personally against removing the in-universe information from day pages. It sort of defeats the purpose. Plus, considering our policies regarding out-of-universe information, it would seem odd to have day of the year pages, which clearly exist in the DWU, reserved for non-DWU material. That goes against all our core values!! We put dab terms on the out-of-universe pages over the in-universe ones - now all of a sudden we're pretending like days only exists outside of the DWU!? I personally see this as going against everything this Wiki stands for...

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think that's a little strong, SOTO. Doug's suggestion isn't "going against everything this wiki stands for". As a frequent user of MA, I understand their organisation system well. Indeed, Sulfur once proposed the MA system in our forums.

      And it went over like a lead balloon.

      The reason is pretty simple. Most Star Trek fiction uses stardates, so they don't have a lot of in-universe "normal" calendar days to deal with.

      The DWU only uses days of the year, and precise dates are often crucial to the telling of DWU stories. Consequently, there's often enough information about in-universe days of the month to justify a page under our usual article-creation rules.

      In short, the MA "all on a month page" approach won't work just because of the inherent difference in the franchises.

      Really good idea, though.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Sorry, you're right - a little too strong. Anyways, do you agree with me adding the publisher for prose, and the comic book series for comic stories, in the same vein as adding the station in which a television story was first broadcast? Also, did you take a look at my mock-ups? Can you fix 'em a little, if you feel it's necessary?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'll get around to them as I can this weekend. The one thing I'd ask you not to lose sight of is fully completing this first round. I just discovered some NO RW violations yesterday on day pages as they currently stand. And several still had superfluous TV prefixes. Please, let's worry first about examining every single line that presently exists. In particular, let's make sure that everything having to do with a real world personality, thing, place or concept actually has the date attached in the DWU.

      Let's also now have another round where we beef up what's there by doing the searches that I mentioned waayyyyy upthread. Let's really get the in-universe page done before moving fully on to the proposed pages.

      But, yes, I'll be reviewing your mockups and pitching in ideas as they occur to me.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, obviously, the (releases) range will contain info from all media, to the extent that it's known. I think, however, that we should eschew prefixes on the releases page altogether and use other words to convey meaning. Otherwise you're going to end up with a metric ton of TV, PROSE, AUDIO and [[COMIC}], which might not be the most helpful thing to readers. We might consider phrasing things like:

      • The short story [whatever] was published in [Anthology].
      • The TV Comic story [whatever] concluded in issue [whatever].
      • and so on
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: I'll get around to them as I can this weekend. The one thing I'd ask you not to lose sight of is fully completing this first round. I just discovered some NO RW violations yesterday on day pages as they currently stand. And several still had superfluous TV prefixes. Please, let's worry first about examining every single line that presently exists. In particular, let's make sure that everything having to do with a real world personality, thing, place or concept actually has the date attached in the DWU.

      Let's also now have another round where we beef up what's there by doing the searches that I mentioned waayyyyy upthread. Let's really get the in-universe page done before moving fully on to the proposed pages.

      But, yes, I'll be reviewing your mockups and pitching in ideas as they occur to me.

      Thank you. Yes, I'm currently reviewing the day pages and fixing things. Also note that I only started deleting TV: and adding was broadcast... in April, I think. That is, I'm actually taking a break from that to add DWM releases. Then, once I've cleaned up the pages as they stand, I'll start adding in more information and doing research. I would recommend you bring up the subject of the split calendars to the public soon, though, so that there can be enough time for full discussion before we create the pages. I want to be able to open the new pages as soon as we're ready.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

      Whoa whoa whoa. Explain what you're doing.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: Yes, obviously, the (releases) range will contain info from all media, to the extent that it's known. I think, however, that we should eschew prefixes on the releases page altogether and use other words to convey meaning. Otherwise you're going to end up with a metric ton of TV, PROSE, AUDIO and [[COMIC}], which might not be the most helpful thing to readers. We might consider phrasing things like:

      • The short story [whatever] was published in [Anthology].
      • The TV Comic story [whatever] concluded in issue [whatever].
      • and so on

      Got it. I'll start implementing that right away. Also, I'm assuming that I'd be able to add something extra for firsts and lasts of a series? For example:

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote:

      SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Also, just to note, I am now adding all DWM release dates.

      Whoa whoa whoa. Explain what you're doing.

      On all Doctor Who Magazine pages, from DWM 1 to DWM 456, have a "published on" date in the lead. This is presumably taken from the cover date, hence the day it was published, or printed. I'm adding the information to all those days, which will add a lot to the (releases) pages. Why, are these dates wrong?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS