Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Style advice

This page has been spun out from the main page. The history of the MoS can be found there. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons or series?

There is no justification for departing from the agreed British English terminology of 'series'. The reason this term is found in some placed is explained here [1]. It says, The twenty-six separate runs of Doctor Who were never referred to as "seasons" by anybody until Jean-Marc Lofficier misused the term in his Programme Guide in 1981. Rather than being corrected in later editions to the more correct "series", it was adopted by the "super-fans" and eventually spread throughout TV as the Yuppie generation gradually took control of the airwaves. The term "season", in British TV at least, was used to describe the entire output of a particular channel over a certain part of the year. "Seasons" generally ran from the New Year to Easter, from Easter to mid-summer, from mid-summer to autumn, and from autumn to Christmas. Individual shows, including Doctor Who, were always referred to as serials or series, and each new run of Doctor Who was announced on air as being "a new series", never "a new season". Technically speaking, Doctor Who was a series of serials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the lengthy discussion at Talk:Doctor_Who#Series_or_season you commented here Martin? I realise this is a talk page but it seems to say rather plainly that discussion of the MOS go on the project talk page where it is more likely to be seen. If you wish to continue this please take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. Thank you. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity section

This section seems to encourage a creep of trivia into the articles. From what I've seen so far, there is a lot that can easily be placed into a production section (writing of the script etc). Might it be excised for the sake of clarity? WikiuserNI (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current iteration of the MOS doesn't encourage trivia creep; it's intended to discourage it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor Who MOS does state under the continuity section "the existence of these sections often encourage unexperienced editors to include unsourced information or original research". I'm not sure if that's meant to refer to the production and reception or the continuity section, but certainly the continuity section seems to encourage editors to mention when a small plot point or prop is referenced again elsewhere in the series.

For example, from the continuity section of Pyramids of Mars; "At the end of the episode, the Doctor alludes to having been blamed for starting the 1666 Great Fire of London, which was shown to have been sparked by an exploding hand weapon in the Fifth Doctor episode The Visitation." It's not terribly important to our understanding of either episode surely.

While the Whoniverse may be a different kettle of fish to most other fictional universes, we are after all writing about the episode and not the universe. Such things are handled differently by other franchise projects. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns. I've been trying to get rid of continuity sections for the most part, but have come up against reasonable opposition. There is an understanding on the project that these sections are okay if we can source everything to reliable sources, and I've been trying to minimise continuity sections in favour of the content being in production sections (for example, "The Stolen Earth" has no continuity section; its continuity points are dealt with as the writer deliberately inserting continuity references). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity != Plot

Continuity is not part of the plot. Please adjust your MOS. --91.10.58.184 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to the plot, therefor it is sub-classed under plot. — Edokter (talk) — 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this style advice be updated?

It seems that although there have been a few tweaks or admin edits since, the last time there was an edit to the content of this guide was seven years ago. Consequently, parts of it would seem to be updated - for example, various official style guides, including MOS:TVPLOT, now say that actor names shouldn't be included. Before trying to 'fix' anything here, I thought it might be best to start a discussion. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]