|
DoctorWhat posted:Well, I've set up a temporary(?) wiki hosted by ShoutWiki and have sent the ShoutWiki staff a request to upload a fork of the TARDIS data core to the new DWWiki. I'm also working on a style guide for Story articles right now, and also plan to do style guides for character pages. I'm also drafting some general policies. And not have any articles on "Rape" or "gently caress Buddies."
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Well, I've set up a temporary(?) wiki hosted by ShoutWiki and have sent the ShoutWiki staff a request to upload a fork of the TARDIS data core to the new DWWiki. I'm also working on a style guide for Story articles right now, and also plan to do style guides for character pages. I'm also drafting some general policies. I would just focus on the revival for now (maybe with notes on inside jokes or references to old episodes), in case you don't quite get all of the classic ones in, which you seem to already be doing. I always think it's easier to accomplish something herculean if you break it down into smaller tasks, so it doesn't seem as overwhelming. Godspeed, you crazy diamond. Please post the inevitable death threats from the TARDIS Data Core leadership that you receive and have somebody write a joke article for "penis" which lists all of the times they have made the "sonic screwdriver as a penis" joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Is the Data Core leadership actually that nasty? I hope so, that'll be fun. I haven't said a word of it anywhere near that wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:And not have any articles on "Rape" or "gently caress Buddies." We need to know about sex in the Doctor Who!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Well, the real problem with the Data Core's articles on "rape" and "gently caress buddies" and the like is that they're TOTALLY in-universe. They don't acknowledge any real-world context. The whole WIKI is like that. It's awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I like the long run-time for some of Big Finish's stories and there are definitely stories that are more suited to the monthly format, but yeah, for the hit-or-miss stuff, the one hour format really helps for it to be more bearable. I'm in that weird bit of time where Big Finish does a lot of 3-parters (with an additional one-parter), or four small stories, and it's a nice little break. Yeah, some are better for having the long run-time . Scherzo as an example - sorry to keep bringing it up - though it could possibly work as an hour drama, it would completely lessen the impact and the build-up. Then there's others like the Shakespeare Daleks, which would have much improved the story, because it's not faffing about for two hours slowly trying to set itself up on a premise that doesn't require it. Yeah, I think they've hit the right length so far, and like you said, if they need to extend the story, then it's easier to spread it over two chunks, rather than one monolith-sized nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
You'd better make it like Wookiepedia and have literally every possible word linked to an article. Did you want to know how breasts work in the Star Wars universe? Or exactly when someone mentioned hot chocolate? Then visit Wookiepedia!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Scherzo's actually only 90 minutes long, including cliffhanger music and the Doctor's fairytale story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Is the Data Core leadership actually that nasty? I hope so, that'll be fun. I haven't said a word of it anywhere near that wiki. I don't know anything about them personally, but typically, I find that in a group of people who are that invested in a sub-culture, there are going to be at least one or two who feel as if their authority is being threatened when somebody creates an alternative. It can actually be sad more often than it is funny, but every now and then there are some gems. Wikis writing everything in Universe provides some of the funniest corners of the Internet, though. My go-to to make anyone laugh about Star Trek is still to link the "Beards" article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:You'd better make it like Wookiepedia and have literally every possible word linked to an article. Did you want to know how breasts work in the Star Wars universe? Or exactly when someone mentioned hot chocolate? Then visit Wookiepedia! TARDIS Data Core is already pretty much that. They also have EVERY instance of each word potholed - "the Doctor" links to the article for the Doctor like FIVE TIMES over the course of the summary for The Eleventh Hour alone. Half the goddamn words are blue. It's unreadable. Bicyclops posted:I don't know anything about them personally, but typically, I find that in a group of people who are that invested in a sub-culture, there are going to be at least one or two who feel as if their authority is being threatened when somebody creates an alternative. It can actually be sad more often than it is funny, but every now and then there are some gems. Well, I'll be sure to share all the drama. quote:Wikis writing everything in Universe provides some of the funniest corners of the Internet, though. My go-to to make anyone laugh about Star Trek is still to link the "Beards" article. TFWiki does this a BIT, but they get away with it by being INTENTIONALLY funny. The TFWiki article on Humans is great. DoctorWhat fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Scherzo's actually only 90 minutes long, including cliffhanger music and the Doctor's fairytale story. Really? Huh, guess so. It felt longer, in a good way. Then again I was listening to it sitting in a desolate train-station at midnight waiting to get home from work. Sitting in endless unknowing time 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
I mean, I was surprised too. It feels longer. If it was the full 2hrs or 2hrs15 like most Monthlies, it'd have been unbearable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:You'd better make it like Wookiepedia and have literally every possible word linked to an article. Did you want to know how breasts work in the Star Wars universe? I... would think they work like anywhere else. This is a horrible rabbit hole I don't want to go down, isn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I... would think they work like anywhere else. This is a horrible rabbit hole I don't want to go down, isn't it? Did you know Wookiees have three pairs of them?  Do you want to know how a sci-fi sink works, or what a star wars crapper is called? Or that the title and first paragraph of this article were genuinely on Wookieepedia for five years? Wookipeedia is amazing. 
Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Sex? How predictable. You're not really into Wookieepedia until you've read their article on pants, or been unsettled by how few entries are in the list of Star Wars stories featuring eyes. Or researched the back story of Unidentified Man With Pig Nose Edit: Beaten! Gas!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:
This is like some kind of avante-garde poem. Some of my favorites are the Mario Wiki's speculation as to the exact familial relationship with regard to the Mario Brothers, Wario, and Waluigi, the aforementioned Beards article on Memory Alpha (as well as whichever one talks about Vulcan butts), and the section of the actual Wikipedia article on Hercule Poirot which basically argues with itself over when his canonical retirement takes place. edit: Oh no! The Poirot retirement section is slightly less funny than it used to be! There was an actual sentence which said something to the effect of "However, all of this speculation is merely to twist oneself into creating a chronology for a work which was obviously in progress and for which the author changed her mind." It's still pretty good though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot#Retirement Bicyclops fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
But seriously, go down the TFWiki rabbit hole instead. It's a lot funnier and they're up front about the fact that a lot of the franchise is frankly garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
the harry potter wiki (don't ask why I was on that site) has random articles on random extras that appear in one of two scenes in one of the films and never appear again apparently wikipedia's policies banning inane and pointless poo poo actually are good ideas!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I remember listening to the first Forge story forever ago (Six, Evelyn, Project: Twilight?) and not caring at all. Somehow mixing Bermondsey criminals running a dodgy casino, vampires and an evil Torchwood (which was currently airing at the time) and the entire thing being a dull mess. I think the first Forge story predated Torchwood by a good couple of years. I remember I listened to "No Man's Land" simultaneously with season two, and honestly thought Torchwood would be "revealed" as the Forge when the Doctor finally confronted them (I was also 14 at the time). IceAgeComing posted:apparently wikipedia's policies banning inane and pointless poo poo actually are good ideas! Around five years ago, Wikipedia decided enough was enough, and started to crack down on anime fan-cruft. This move prompted a mass migration of weeaboos to a little-known website, where their obsession was not only welcomed, but encouraged; we know it as TV Tropes. Anyway, since the TFWiki has one (heck, even Wookieepedia with its lightsaber up its rear end has one), is this one going to have a page on things that ruined Doctor Who FOREVER? Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Edit: Double-post, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Things that ruined Doctor Who forever: Steven Moffat, Russell Davies, John Nathan-Turner, Graham Williams (etc)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Around five years ago, Wikipedia decided enough was enough, and started to crack down on anime fan-cruft. This move prompted a mass migration of weeaboos to a little-known website, where their obsession was not only welcomed, but encouraged; we know it as TV Tropes. Some people also got tired of Wikipedia's liberal policies and created a more legitimate one - conservapedia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Things that ruined Doctor Who forever: Steven Moffat, Russell Davies, John Nathan-Turner, Graham Williams (etc) You're forgetting, [x] Doctor regenerating, Hurt Doctor, the Doctors kissing anyone, Peter Capaldi being old (no more sexy Eccleston/Tennant/Smith delete as applicable  ), too many Daleks, not enough Daleks, too many gays, the Master being a woman!, the reboot not being like the old series, the old series not being like the reboot, being too silly, too serious oh god my brain's just melted...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
THANK YOU FOR REGISTERING FOR DA-LEKPEDIA. PLEASE VISIT THE "CANDIDATES FOR EXTERMINATION" ARTICLE, WHERE YOU WILL FIND EVERY ENTRY, INCLUDING THE ONE ON DA-LEKS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
I think an entire page dedicated to "Death threats we've received", that simply posts the email/PM/whathaveyou verbatim, with full attribution and no reply from staff, would make for hilarious reading. That alone would be worth the cost of doing the site, surely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:You're forgetting, [x] Doctor regenerating, Hurt Doctor, the Doctors kissing anyone, Peter Capaldi being old (no more sexy Eccleston/Tennant/Smith delete as applicable Let's not forget "reasons that Missy wasn't actually the master at all because I DONT WANT IT TO HAVE BEEN".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
I do think it is worth noting that not all criticism is "They ruined Doctor Who!!!" though, because there is definitely a contingent of people who seem to believe that any form of even minor criticism is frothing rage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I do think it is worth noting that not all criticism is "They ruined Doctor Who!!!" though, because there is definitely a contingent of people who seem to believe that any form of even minor criticism is frothing rage. It's more how it's phrased than anything. Well, yeah, and intent behind it of course. Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I mean along the lines of this and this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Man, the Wookiepedia Ruined FOREVER article is a really transparent ripoff of TFWiki's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:I mean along the lines of this and this. Top of the list of things that ruined Star Wars Forever: George Lucas, of course. I don't know what two-thirds of those things are referring to and I'm happier for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Will the wiki have sortable lists? If you have a list of appearances in a table on the character page, it could be cool to have it both sortable by production/release order as well as chronological order for the character. For some events the actual order would be up to interpretation, but it wouldn't be too crazy. With the current series, it would really only apply to characters like River. If you eventually cover the classic series and the audios (and maybe books, comics, etc) it would be much more useful. There could be icons or color coding for the type of media of each appearance, multiple appearances in the same episode/book/audio could link to each other but otherwise be sorted independently. Are there transcripts or scripts of the audios out there on the web? While the webisodes and episodes seem fairly straightforward to skim through and catalogue, going through the audios basically involves listening to them again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
wikis in general tend to be a terrible format for compiling information about franchises with obsessive followings. Because what makes a good wiki editor and what makes a good fan are two separate things, and in general the Wikipedia editing rules that make the site, at its best, a good resource for general information, are anathema to fans. also the wiki format adds further incentive to fans to piece the franchise into one cohesive canon, which is a stupid project with any piece of media (I have very strong, angry feelings about the James Bond fan theorists, for example). That being said, if a scrupulous effort is made to not give a poo poo about what consistent canon is, a good Doctor Who wiki could be made. Also, notability rules need to be pretty drat stringent. btw, if anyone wants to see an actually good obsessive fan wiki, I always loved this one: http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
The idea of creating "chronological" orders kinda conflicts with my goal for a editorial policy that rejects the notion of a "Whoniverse". This wiki is going to strive to be maximally informative without ever treating the stories involved as "real". Episode articles are about the EPISODES, not the EVENTS of the episodes, if you catch my meaning, and character articles are about that character's REAL-WORLD history, rather than their in-universe history. Of course, that requires episode synopses and suchlike, but those "in-universe" elements can be safely sandboxed, and won't infect the Wiki's core structure. This strategy allows us to dodge many of the issues raised by Doctor Who's endlessly self-contradictory history. So, in an article about "Time Lords", we won't mention Looms until 1992-ish, and we won't mention the Matrix until 1976. Obviously, this strategy is in some ways counter-intuitive, but on the other hand it's much, MUCH more accurate and useful. We're following real life's narratives, NOT the impossible narrative of the Whoniverse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:
Your best bet is the Doctor Who reference guide when you need a refresher on audio stories. It's just straight plot summary, but it's usually thorough enough to remind you what happened if you've heard the audio in the past year or so. I sometimes use it if I'm walking and I end up missing a few pivotal seconds because a loud bus goes by or something: http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:I think the first Forge story predated Torchwood by a good couple of years. Yeah, Project: Twilight was in 2001, Torchwood 2006. Emerson Cod posted:Are there transcripts or scripts of the audios out there on the web? While the webisodes and episodes seem fairly straightforward to skim through and catalogue, going through the audios basically involves listening to them again. Subscribe to Big Finish. On the main range titles, you get a free download of the script.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
double post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
DoctorWhat - I'm not much of a writer, but if you need any HTML/Javascript/CSS help with the site I'll try to help out when I can. Also, I like this distinction: DoctorWhat posted:The idea of creating "chronological" orders kinda conflicts with my goal for a editorial policy that rejects the notion of a "Whoniverse". This wiki is going to strive to be maximally informative without ever treating the stories involved as "real". Episode articles are about the EPISODES, not the EVENTS of the episodes, if you catch my meaning, and character articles are about that character's REAL-WORLD history, rather than their in-universe history. Of course, that requires episode synopses and suchlike, but those "in-universe" elements can be safely sandboxed, and won't infect the Wiki's core structure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
big finish subcriptions are great - i was wary about them until i figured out that it wasn't a true "subscription" in that you have to renew to retain access, just more of a cheap bulk deal thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
I'm not sure exactly what your plan is - is it intended to be solely a production wiki? To what extent do you plan to summarize episodes or note connections between episodes? Do you intend to have a table of character/actor appearances at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:31
|
|