By separating the information, not only would we give people more precisely what they're most likely looking for, but we'd have the ability to dump discrete amounts of information on various navigation pages within the newly created "Transmat" namespace.
So on the as-yet-uncreated Transmat:Stories we could very easily create a dynamic "released on this day" box. Or at Transmat:Behind the scenes we could, with one command, chronicle "this day in production history".
We really wouldn't have that kind of flexibility if we continued on with the one-size-fits-all approach that we're now using.
Note that this is an extremely practicable idea. A lot of the heavy lifting here can be done by bot, and SmallerOnTheOutside has enthusiastically offered his assistance in any manual cleanup required.
So, whaddya say? Good idea? Bad idea? Not sure? Give your thoughts below — but, please, limit your responses to this subject. This thread isn't about whether we'll do the same with year pages, or about the visual design of any element of the project. It's just about whether it's a good idea to perform the split.
Releases. Production is for going-ons behind the scenes, such as cast read-throughs, filming, audio recordings, announcements, meetings, emails, etc... Releases is for however the finished product reaches the general public.
I think he's referring to the Hebrew wiki. Ziv, if you don't want to split on your wiki, you can split it into sections if you so wish. How could the split here affect you? Couldn't you put language links to one centralised w:c:he.doctorwho:במאי 1 in each of the 1 Mays here?
Great idea, but wouldn't it take quite a long time?
Depends on what you mean by "it". If you mean the physical creation of the pages, no, that's a snap. If you mean "getting the pages to a reasonable state of completion", the truthful answer is more complicated. I don't expect the (people) pages to be particularly difficult, because we have lots of good data on births and deaths, and a few users who really like that work. I don't expect (releases) to be too difficult because we know an awful lot about that too. The most difficult of all is the (production) stuff. That might take quite a bit of time, because we haven't done that much scholarship on the ins-and-outs of hiring/firing/commissioning/cancelling. But we do have some information already and we can lay the groundwork quite quickly.
Overall, I expect the pages to be viable within no more than a day of the close of this thread, and "reasonably complete" a varying amount of time thereafter, ranging from two weeks to a year.
No! I don't think you should do that, it will create a mess in this Wiki and in others.
If you wish to do the split thing, I think it's better to create sections in the article.
Please define how you think it would be a mess on this wiki. That's the only concern of this thread. Existing w:c:he.doctorwho links would still be useful here, as all these date variants will be linked. So you might arrive from he.doctorwho at 1 May, but there'll be a big link there to the other 1 May pages.
I said this before that I was in favor of tabs, and am even more in favor of tabs if the alternate is this many alternate pages. If we're going to make multiple pages, why not tabs? I didn't think the previous arguments against this were that strong, and they seem largely negated by this alternate set-up.
It was brought to my attention that the other issues I raised here were not only off-topic but had been specifically mentioned as not in the scope of this thread. As such, I'm removed them so people don't get off track.
Something tells me you didn't quite make it past the first paragraph of the thread:
Give your thoughts below — but, please, limit your responses to this subject. This thread isn't about whether we'll do the same with year pages, or about the visual design of any element of the project. It's just about whether it's a good idea to perform the split.
You were specifically told not to talk about the visual design or whether this will be employed on year projects. If you wish CzechOut to re-explain why we can't use tabs, then ask him at his talk page — although I'm sure he's too busy to respond straight away.
I posited the question a week ago on the previous thread and never received a response.
And a large part of my question about the tabs is in regard to linking. There are two arguments made against tabbing--one was that nesting was harder on editors but the larger argument seemed to be that it would be to hard for editors to link directly to the different pages. If we tabbed, then I don't see why we have to link to a particular tab. It's all there together and super easy to navigate (if we don't tab, I think we do need to direct link). I don't understand why something that made linking to hard for editors a couple weeks ago is now not a problem. Czech is also presenting this set-up as not just important for the reader of the day of the year page, but also as important in terms of links. I don't understand that argument, I don't know where it's coming from and the flip-flopping on this position has me confused, in large part because I don't know what's propelling these opinions. This is being presented as helpful for transmat, but it's not explaining what these new transmat pages are.
I'm trying to understand why the idea behind this has changed so drastically.
Also, my opinion of this subject changes depending on how it's formatted. I'm not necessarily in favour of this without tabs, so how it's formatted seems to me to be an important part of the discussion. At the very least, it needs to be understood that my opinion in favour of this, at least at this point, is dependent on formatting.
As I understood it, the main argument against tabs was that the feature might disappear any day now. (File pages now appear to be using the tab feature, so it seems to be pretty solidified at this point. Still, Czech does know better.) Also, whatever this transmat namespace is (believe me, I'd like to know as well) is implied to somehow not be compatible with day of the year pages if they remain on one page.
The other argument against tabs is that you can't dump the contents of particular tabs on page. There's no version of tabs under consideration by Wikia that will allow us to do what we can do by physically separating the articles. Tabs aren't flexible. Please do not derail this conversation into a discussion about the merits of tabs. I understand that the tab issue might influence your decision, so I'm answering your question here. However, if you have more questions about tabs, please ask them on my user page, not here. The proposal before us is whether it's a good idea to actually split the articles — not about alternate approaches or formatting concerns.
Ok. got it. What is it exactly that we are trying to do? Just split the pages up? Or more? This conversation seems to be centered around the benefits, but I'm not sure I fully understand the benefits. This will have an affect on transmat pages but I don't know what transmats are. Is there anything else I'm missing or is it just the transmat bit?
Well I don't know how much there is but there's random stuff, like...Billie Piper's single re-charting. It's not particularly important, just the first example I could find by randomly summoning a date page.
Honestly, that's not important enough to merit highlighting on a day of the year article. But let's say, just for the merits of this discussion, that it was because of that recharting that she got cast as Rose (which would make it more important), then it would go under production, because it relates to production.)
We generally don't cover things such as weddings or milestones unrelated to Who, but we would have Tennant's wedding on the people page, since he's a Doctor, he met his wife on-set of a DW production, and his wife is the Doctor's daughter (in two senses).
Finally, an example of unorthodox release info would be S7B being released early and BBC's comments.
well it's notable in terms of showing how doctor who propelled her completely unrelated singing career. it's not directly related to the production, but it's showing the effects of the production.
I am more aware of the types of items we have on year articles than day of the year article but I was wondering. I know that the things that would likely be an issue are few and far between but I'd like us to have some plan for them. I wouldn't want something that we'd put on a day of the year article now to be left off in the future simply because of how we're drawing these divisions
Is it possible to at the same time split the dates into a separate namespace? That would, to my mind, at least keep things neat.
It would be inadvisable for at least two reasons. First, it would simply add unnecessary keystrokes to a name. Instead of 1 May, we'd have Date:1 May or somesuch. Second, it would imply, given the way we otherwise use namespaces on this wiki, that the date pages were subject to different rules than normal pages. And that's really against what we've been trying to do with the date pages for several years now. Our point with these pages — which unfortunately were ignored and allowed to run wild for the first few years of the wiki's existence — is that date pages are normal articles, which must have leads, full sentences and all the other things that other articles must have.
Harry Potter Nerd And Geek wrote:
Can't we have sub-headings, like the Harry Potter Wikia? It's just that it will be really confusing when you click on 1 January.
Part of the issue is that some dates don't exist in the DWU, which means we can't have a page for them because they don't "exist". They would only exist for us to have a behind the scenes page for them in order to cover the behind the scenes pages.
Subheadings are what we have at the moment. But as you can see looking between our 1 January page and the HP 1 January page there is a sizeable information difference. Even with specific years there's a large difference our 1998 and HP 1998 with regard to the amount of information we have to manage.
Couple of questions: 1) The behind the scenes day pages are just going to be split from the in universe ones, am I right? Not deleted altogether? I use them on a very regular basis. 2) I notice the day pages are all locked for editing. Is that part of this process?
Yes and yes. All info from bts sections will be split into the various pages that have now been created. The central pages are locked as CzechOut is currently readying the pages for this very proposal. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me or — better yet — Czech at one of our talk pages.