On Tuesday 03 May 2005 12:35, Alexander Dante wrote:
> --- In whoconcord@..., "barter_tim" <barter_tim@y...>
>
> wrote:
> > Hi there I'm Tim and I'm a new to all this!
> >
> > I'm just a random fan who's done nothing of interest for who.
>
> That covers most of us ;-)

Indeed it does.

> > Now, this concordance.
> >
> > I've been fantasising about creating something very similar to
>
> the concordance / database for some years now, but it's only
> ever been a fantasy. Nevertheless I`ve had some thoughts over
> that time that I thought I'd share in case you find any of them of
> interest.
>
> Absolutely. Progress is still slow at the moment and we're still very
> much in the formatiove stages.

What he said.

> > First off, of the groupings / themes that have been mentioned, I
> wonder if it might be possible (or practical) to be more specific
> and have sub-groupings available to those people inputting
> data. My reasoning is that a hell of a lot of useful data can fall
> outside or be seen to fall outside of your categories.
>
> Absolutely. The database will be more comprehensive and updateable,
> while the concordance will be contextualised by theme. There *are*
> sub-headings for the first concordance (Time Lords and Gallifrey) in
> the files section.

Yep, I think the stuff that falls outside of the current categories should be
relatively easily picked up once we've done a decent sized chunk of the work.

> > There are certain areas of info that could create some wonderful
> essays, examinations and extrapolations and I wonder if these might
> warrant being more specifically sought.
>
> Interesting point. Again, essays would fit into the concordances more
> than the database (IMO), but also form the bulk of producing the
> written material. Perhaps essays can be posted as discussion points
> or threads open to comment so that the final version of a concordance
> can draw from the discussion rather than the views of one person.
> YMMV and comments are appreciated on this.

Yep, essays certainly belong better in the concordances than in the database.
I think that the final version of an essay will have to be written by just
one or possibly two people, but that's obvious to anybody who's ever taken
part in an internet debate. However, compiling in thoughts from a discussion
thread will definitely enhance the quality.

> > Below are some additional groupings / sub-groupings that I
> personally would have people look for.
>
> > Books: fictional books within the whoniverse & relevant real
> books.
>
> > Culture: Religion / Mythologies
> >
> > The Sciences: Spacio - Temporal Physics; Exotic Elements,
>
> Artificial Elements & Alloys; Psy, Omniversal & Universal
> Topology; Planetary Classification; Universal Physics:
> Dimensions, Transcendental Beings (in relation to Hierarchical
> Universal Structure) & Biomorphology.
>
> > Scientists: fictional scientist biographies from the whoniverse &
> relevant real scientists.
>
> >Technology.
> >
> > TARDIS.
> >
> > Design: Spacecraft / Ship design, Architectural Design & Design
> evolution.
>
> > Galactic / Intergalactic Geography, Habitation & Migration,
> Relations, Co-ordinate Systems.
>
> > General Historical Contexts: Politics, Technology / Science,
>
> Religion, Migration.
>
> Some of these can be developed as themes in their own right. If
> people want to take ownership of a theme (whether its listed or not)
> then we can work on that too.
>
> My only caveat is its best not to focus on things that would compete
> with what's in the marketplace already. Thus "I'Who" covers the books
> pretty well and might make a books theme redundant. However, that
> wouldn't invalidate them as contributions towards the database.

Yep, a books theme would be too similar to I, Who. The only media where there
isn't currently a guidebook by story is the comics. But yes, a lot of those
could be workable as themes. Personally, I particularly like the idea of the
mythologies one, though I can see it being a less popular volume.

> > Also, there may well be additional sub-groupings that may only
> become obvious to researchers. As such there could also
> perhaps be a quick way for sub-groupings to be created at the
> user end as the project evolves.
>
> I agree, but I'm not sure that's addressable now, other than as an
> evolving list of themes.

Indeed.

> > I wonder If it's worth inviting the 3D / Illustrative Doctor Who
>
> community to work alongside this project to create realisations
> of the worlds, spaceships, creatures, objects, star charts. This
> would begin to make the worlds of the novels and audios so
> much more stimulating. I for one would love to see the Rutan
> spaceships in Lords of the Storm, the Venucian Clock &
> Venusians in Venusian Lullaby, the late Empire's spherical /
> lattice space ships or Martions underneath their armour. 3D
> Graphics would also enhance temporal physics explanations or
> talk of the Doctors 3 stranded TNA / DNA. In fact this is just the
> sort of project to get the 3D community excited and make these
> tomes sailable to a much wider audience. A visual infantry of
> TARDIS components is, I suspect, already partially done out
> there!
>
> Er... wow. Obviously the answer is "yes" in terms of aspirations. If
> you have the skills, the time and the inclination to take a lead in
> this area it would be pretty fantastic. It might be worth setting up
> a sister group to take that forward, so the buffs are in one place
> and the designers in another. As things get going the number of posts
> by be potentially overwhelming.

Yep, illustrations would be fantastic. A sister group would be ideal for this.

> > Given a large visual component I can imagine volumes such as
> Earth Past, or Sol System Prehistory, covering the Silurian /
> Mondosian / Early Martian societies. Visual renderings of the
> vast crystalline Silurian cities and dirigibles as well as the
> underground Martian cities could create stunning
> accompaniments to the wealth of knowledge relayed in such
> tomes.
>
> > In this manner, we could end up relaying an expanded universe
> that even managed to drag people in who weren't directly
> interested in continuity.
>
> This sounds very Deagostini. I've been half expecting them to
> announce the launch of a DW publication in that vein. I don't know
> how they do it but it would be great to see something similar for Who.
>
> > Also, especially in terms of character Biog.'s, I know this is
> obvious but have you approached Lars Pearson, Lawrence Miles
> & Tat Wood? Their I Who & About Time volumes strike me as
> being incredibly useful. Might they be interested in editing a
> volume or two or even publishing the concordance at Mad
> Norwegian Press?
>
> Being selfish for a moment, I'd say yes to approaching such people as
> contributors, and if anybody wants to then feel free to contact them.
> But these guys write books under their own names, and while the list
> of credits for assisting them might be nice, the last thing I'd want
> to see is all the work done here, and all the credit happening "over
> there".
>
> In terms of the database its a free online project. In terms of the
> Concordance, it's probably not to put money in the pockets of the
> authors, but to fund future volumes that will make the project
> sustainable.
>
> Taking leadership for editing themes is where the most active members
> can earn full credit. I'm two or three "new blood" names on the front
> of each volume. My own reward (I hope) is to be one of the names on
> the first volume.
>
> > Finally, I have to ask about your safeguards with regards to
> research. In one of the posts I read there was a worry about
> opening the project up in case you got any old Joe typing in
> rubbish. But I had a thought (which admittedly may prove too
> hard to administer)
>
> > To remove that possibility of rubbish being entered, and the
> possibilities of typos, misassumptions and bias while
> increasing the delivery speed of your data, could you not open it
> up and request the same research from perhaps 3 individuals
> who would each send their findings to a fourth – an invigilator.
> That way any disparities could be checked with the others until
> consensus was reached. The invigilator would then pass on or
> enter the agreed info into it's relevant groupings / sub-groupings.
> That way anyone in the Dr Who community could contribute and
> a research hierarchy would be in place to ensure that all
> information was complete. You could have many volunteers who
> were just happy invigilating and (or) entering data and many who
> were happy researching.
>
> Thats similar to how I'd envisage the Concordance volumes working.
> Having 1 or 2 editors pulling together and cross-checking relevant
> entries.

I've been trying to work out how a system of checks could be feasible with the
database, though at the present moment it's not needed. Checking is also more
important with new contributors than with experienced ones - certainly the
first few submissions should be checked very thoroughly to ensure it's not
someone trying to wreck the project, and make sure that they're capable of
contributing material of a high enough standard.

Also, on the one hand, we want to be able to check the work that's being done.
On the other hand, it's ultimately going to be an awful lot of work to check
each individual entry, so those who volunteer to check information need to be
dedicated.

> > You could even put a request in the letters page of DWM, or
> failing that, a small ad. That would get your contributors up.
>
> It's a thought. The old walking first and running later analogy
> probably holds for now. Until we have processes, tangible examples of
> how this will work, and rigorous ways of managing things, a high
> number of contributors would probably overwhelm us. But once we are
> up and running, maybe.

I've mentioned it on a couple of threads on Outpost Gallifrey where people
have been saying "I'd really like there to be a book like this", but I agree,
no publicity push until we've got up and running. Best places to advertise
would probably be DWM and Outpost Gallifrey, when we're ready for a publicity
push.

> > I expect some of these thoughts may have come over as being a
> little naïve, but this is the first time I've been able to air
> them!.
>
> > In my Fantasy world, where I've won the lottery, this project is of
> course all very easy as I'm paying researchers, invigilators, data
> inputers, 3D artists, Graphic Designers & Web people. I have a
> multi volume output, each one in colour with a CD inside, also
> containing the data. I have a cross referenced database being
> continually updated and I have this expanded database being
> turned into a huge interactive computer game with hundreds of
> who fans building worlds and gaming in said worlds as we
> speak.
>
> > Still perhaps it's possible anyway, even without a million!
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> We share a vision, I think. But in your terms I'd say the path to
> relaity could be a long, but not impossible one. I'd be interested to
> hear Stephen's take on this.

Colour would probably be infeasible in the concordances unless we can get
extensive sales. I like the idea of having the CD inside, however you've
ideally got to package it in a way that means you can access it
cross-platform (i.e. windows, mac, and linux), and having it searchable makes
that much more difficult from a technical point of view.

> > PS. Are the Dalek Chronicles considered canon?
>
> Good point. They should definately be referenced as a source.
>
> AD

Hm, the question of canon is going to pop up more than a few times - we need
to establish a methodology of dealing with the issue. Not so much in terms of
what to include (I think we've already agreed to try including everything
that's at least semi-official), but in terms of conflicting information from
different sources. Do we establish some kind of heirachy of sources, or try
to find workarounds for conflicting information, or use a combination of both
methods? Or do we simply note that the information conflicts, and not venture
an opinion on which is correct?

Steve