--- In whoconcord@..., "paul.clarke96@b..."
<dr_clarke_2@h...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I've stayed out of a lot of this, because I think the actually
format
> is best left to you technophiles :)
>
> However, a couple of things of interest - I have complete scripts
of
> both The Dark Dimension and The Curse of the Daleks. I'm also
> currently working through Discontinuity Guides for the Virgin NAs
in
> chronological order for Stephen's site (and of course, for fun :) )
> and I keep finding relevant bits of info. Along with all the other
> guides on Stephen's site, there is a vast amount of novel based
info
> available to cull should it be required.
>
> I think my best option is to sit back and await further
> suggestions/instructions!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kopyion
Feel free to dip in. I guess the next steps are as follows:
1) Populate the Source List
2) Create a control sheet for each source used
3) Create a concordance entry form (which matches up with what both
Stephen and I have set out) to be completed for each
4) Agree task allocation
5) Get started !!!
Hi guys,
I've stayed out of a lot of this, because I think the actually format
is best left to you technophiles :)
However, a couple of things of interest - I have complete scripts of
both The Dark Dimension and The Curse of the Daleks. I'm also
currently working through Discontinuity Guides for the Virgin NAs in
chronological order for Stephen's site (and of course, for fun :) )
and I keep finding relevant bits of info. Along with all the other
guides on Stephen's site, there is a vast amount of novel based info
available to cull should it be required.
I think my best option is to sit back and await further
suggestions/instructions!
Cheers,
Kopyion
--- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 March 2005 11:15, Alexander Dante wrote:
> > I can't tell if anyone's viewed the draft source matrix, so I've
listed the sources from there below as a starter for ten. Please feel
free to comment/note omissions.
>
> Sorry, I only took a cursory look at it before. Now I'll note some
things that are missing (including some very obvious ones) and a few
more that look like they're in the wrong category.
I wasn't too fussed on categories so long as things got covered.
What's missing is the main thing. What categories and why probably
needs fleshing out.
> > Source:
> >
> > The Old TV Series
> > The New TV Series
> > TV Apocrypha
>
> What precisely is covered in TV Apocrypha? I'm guessing things like
the original version of Shada and cut scenes, possibly K9 and Company,
but the term by itself is unclear.
I'd used it as a catch-all to cover any TV source not covered by the
TV series
> > The Novelisations
> > Missing Episodes
>
> Is this a reference to the junked episodes (in which case why does
it need to be seperate from The Original Series) or unused scripts
(e.g. the Masters of Luxor) or a bit of both?
Both.
> > Script Books
> > Dimensions in Time
> > Curse of the Fatal Death
> > Dark Dimension
>
> Do we have enough of a script to make including this possible?
Is completeness an issue? There are synopses available, and there is
*supposed* to be a full script somewhere.
There's probably a whole load of stuff under "projects that never
were" - from Ostrander's Inheritors of Time through to Paul Cornell's
"The Three K9s"
> > The Cartmel Masterplan
>
> I presume this is referring to the document detailing it that was
mostly published in Lance Parkin's History of the Universe. It
probably belongs in the Other Apocrypha section, seeing as it's a
writers' guideline.
I had it as TV Apocrypha simply because it was stuff that informed TV
series production without actually being transfered to TV.
> > The Leekley Bible
>
> Is this actually available in a form we can reference? And ditto the
above comment about sections.
Yes. It appears in various forms - the recent Eighth Doctor special,
the Gary Russell/Philip Segal Book, and the L'Officier N'th Doctor book.
> Also:
> The TV Movie
> Search out Space (surely it's as canonical as Dimensions in Time)
Yeah. I'd just lumped the movie in with the old series.
> > The Books:
> >
> > K9 Adventures
> > Companions
>
> These two should probably be in spin-offs.
Official spin-offs. I'd restricted spin-offs to stuff that wasn't BBC
sanctioned. Again, this probably needs clarifying.
> > Missing Episodes
> > New Adventures
> > Missing Adventures
> > EDAs
> > PDAs
> > NDAs
>
> Telos Novellas
> The Missing Season Targets (unless this is covered in the TV section)
That was what the "Missing Episodes" reference referred to.
> > Video:
> >
> > Shakedown
> > Downtime
> > Cyberon
>
> The Auton trilogy
> Time Rift (it may be fanfic, but it is very explicitly referenced in
Vampire Science)
Notable fanfic should be covered, probably under "Other Apocrypha".
There are many pieces of fanfic referenced in books (on another forum
I'm reading the background of Pengallia, who only appeared as a
one-liner in The Infinity Doctors. And then there's the whole
Audiovisuals thing.
> > Audio:
> >
> > Exploration Earth
> > The Pescatons
> > Slipback
> > Paradise of Death
> > Ghosts of N-Space
> > Doctor Who
>
> Is this intended to be the TV Movie? If so, it's blatantly in the
wrong section.
I think it was actually a reference to the BF audios.
> > Bernice Summerfield
> > Dalek Empire
> > Unbound
> > Gallifrey
> > UNIT
> > BBV Adventures in Time & Space
>
> As we're lumping the spin-off audios into the audios section rather
than the spin-offs section, you forgot the Sarah Jane Smith series.
Agreed.
> > Online:
> >
> > Death Comes to Time
> > Real Time
> > Shada
> > Scream of the Shalka
> >
> > Comics:
> >
> > Annuals
> > TV Comic
> > Countdown
> > DWM
> > Classic Comics
> > Radio Times
> > Other Marvel stuff
> >
> > Stage Plays:
> >
> > Curse of the Daleks
> > Seven Keys to Doomsday
> > Inheritors of Time
> > The Ultimate Adventure
> > Empress of Othernow
> >
> > Short Stories:
> >
> > Annuals
> > Radio Times
> > DWM
> > Adventures in Time & Space
> > Charity Anthologies
>
> The Decalogs
> The Short Trips Collections (both BBC and Big Finish)
> The Benny anthologies
>
> > Games:
> >
> > FASA RPG
> > Time Lord
> > Find Your Fate
> > Destiny of the Doctors
Some of the older computer games also have stuff that needs
referencing. Splinx the Invisible Cat anyone?
> > Spin offs:
> >
> > Kaldor City
> > Faction Paradox
> > Bernice Summerfield
> > Silver Fist ArcHives
>
> PRoBE
> Surely the K9 picture books (and probably the Companions books)
should be in here rather than the books section.
See my comment above. Maybe we need Oficial Spin-Offs and Unsanctioned
ones.
> In fact there are quite a few things in other sections which also
belong here (various series of audios for a start).
>
> > Other Apocrypha:
> >
> > Writers' Guidelines
> > Interviews
> > Anecdotes from reference books/fanzines
>
> Why are the Leekley Bible and Cartmel Masterplan not in this
section? They are, after all, a subset of writers' guidelines.
I meant book writers' guidelines
> There may be some things I missed.
Inevitably.
AD
--- In whoconcord@..., "Michael S. Lucart"
<jafytown@p...> wrote:
> >The Books:
> >K9 Adventures
> >Companions
> >Missing Episodes
> >New Adventures
> >Missing Adventures
> >EDAs
> >PDAs
> >NDAs
>
> There'd also be the Technical Manual. And various other Target ones,
such as the "Making of Doctor Who" book put out where Dicks and
Letts(?) gave the Doctor's name in it, reproduced in the Rassilon tomb
in 'Five Doctors.'
>
> I didn't see DWM listed in there other than comics. I'd think it's
various other sources (the Prologues to the MAs for example) and other
listings would prove to be of interest. Of course, the Comics listing
could just be a blanket-coverage of the magazine in general.
DWM strips and short stories (including preludes) get covered. There
are some more unusual sources (Like Gary Russell's "Legacy of
Rassilon" in DWM #100) that might also require a covereage.
> Oh, and the TVM magazine special as well.
>
> I'm a newbie here (first post) so hopefully I didn't end up
repeating stuff already been said :)
Post away Michael!
AD
There'd also be the Technical Manual. And various other Target ones, such as the "Making of Doctor Who" book put out where Dicks and Letts(?) gave the Doctor's name in it, reproduced in the Rassilon tomb in 'Five Doctors.'
I didn't see DWM listed in there other than comics. I'd think it's various other sources (the Prologues to the MAs for example) and other listings would prove to be of interest. Of course, the Comics listing could just be a blanket-coverage of the magazine in general.
Oh, and the TVM magazine special as well.
I'm a newbie here (first post) so hopefully I didn't end up repeating stuff already been said :)
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 11:15, Alexander Dante wrote:
> I can't tell if anyone's viewed the draft source matrix, so I've
> listed the sources from there below as a starter for ten. Please feel
> free to comment/note omissions.
Sorry, I only took a cursory look at it before. Now I'll note some things that
are missing (including some very obvious ones) and a few more that look like
they're in the wrong category.
> Source:
>
> The Old TV Series
> The New TV Series
> TV Apocrypha
What precisely is covered in TV Apocrypha? I'm guessing things like the
original version of Shada and cut scenes, possibly K9 and Company, but the
term by itself is unclear.
> The Novelisations
> Missing Episodes
Is this a reference to the junked episodes (in which case why does it need to
be seperate from The Original Series) or unused scripts (e.g. the Masters of
Luxor) or a bit of both?
> Script Books
> Dimensions in Time
> Curse of the Fatal Death
> Dark Dimension
Do we have enough of a script to make including this possible?
> The Cartmel Masterplan
I presume this is referring to the document detailing it that was mostly
published in Lance Parkin's History of the Universe. It probably belongs in
the Other Apocrypha section, seeing as it's a writers' guideline.
> The Leekley Bible
Is this actually available in a form we can reference? And ditto the above
comment about sections.
Also:
The TV Movie
Search out Space (surely it's as canonical as Dimensions in Time)
> The Books:
>
> K9 Adventures
> Companions
These two should probably be in spin-offs.
> Missing Episodes
> New Adventures
> Missing Adventures
> EDAs
> PDAs
> NDAs
Telos Novellas
The Missing Season Targets (unless this is covered in the TV section)
> Video:
>
> Shakedown
> Downtime
> Cyberon
The Auton trilogy
Time Rift (it may be fanfic, but it is very explicitly referenced in Vampire
Science)
> Audio:
>
> Exploration Earth
> The Pescatons
> Slipback
> Paradise of Death
> Ghosts of N-Space
> Doctor Who
Is this intended to be the TV Movie? If so, it's blatantly in the wrong
section.
> Bernice Summerfield
> Dalek Empire
> Unbound
> Gallifrey
> UNIT
> BBV Adventures in Time & Space
As we're lumping the spin-off audios into the audios section rather than the
spin-offs section, you forgot the Sarah Jane Smith series.
> Online:
>
> Death Comes to Time
> Real Time
> Shada
> Scream of the Shalka
>
> Comics:
>
> Annuals
> TV Comic
> Countdown
> DWM
> Classic Comics
> Radio Times
> Other Marvel stuff
>
> Stage Plays:
>
> Curse of the Daleks
> Seven Keys to Doomsday
> Inheritors of Time
> The Ultimate Adventure
> Empress of Othernow
>
> Short Stories:
>
> Annuals
> Radio Times
> DWM
> Adventures in Time & Space
> Charity Anthologies
The Decalogs
The Short Trips Collections (both BBC and Big Finish)
The Benny anthologies
> Games:
>
> FASA RPG
> Time Lord
> Find Your Fate
> Destiny of the Doctors
>
> Spin offs:
>
> Kaldor City
> Faction Paradox
> Bernice Summerfield
> Silver Fist ArcHives
PRoBE
Surely the K9 picture books (and probably the Companions books) should be in
here rather than the books section.
In fact there are quite a few things in other sections which also belong here
(various series of audios for a start).
> Other Apocrypha:
>
> Writers' Guidelines
> Interviews
> Anecdotes from reference books/fanzines
Why are the Leekley Bible and Cartmel Masterplan not in this section? They
are, after all, a subset of writers' guidelines.
There may be some things I missed.
SG
I can't tell if anyone's viewed the draft source matrix, so I've
listed the sources from there below as a starter for ten. Please feel
free to comment/note omissions.
Source:
The Old TV Series
The New TV Series
TV Apocrypha
The Novelisations
Missing Episodes
Script Books
Dimensions in Time
Curse of the Fatal Death
Dark Dimension
The Cartmel Masterplan
The Leekley Bible
The Books:
K9 Adventures
Companions
Missing Episodes
New Adventures
Missing Adventures
EDAs
PDAs
NDAs
Video:
Shakedown
Downtime
Cyberon
Audio:
Exploration Earth
The Pescatons
Slipback
Paradise of Death
Ghosts of N-Space
Doctor Who
Bernice Summerfield
Dalek Empire
Unbound
Gallifrey
UNIT
BBV Adventures in Time & Space
Online:
Death Comes to Time
Real Time
Shada
Scream of the Shalka
Comics:
Annuals
TV Comic
Countdown
DWM
Classic Comics
Radio Times
Other Marvel stuff
Stage Plays:
Curse of the Daleks
Seven Keys to Doomsday
Inheritors of Time
The Ultimate Adventure
Empress of Othernow
Short Stories:
Annuals
Radio Times
DWM
Adventures in Time & Space
Charity Anthologies
Games:
FASA RPG
Time Lord
Find Your Fate
Destiny of the Doctors
Spin offs:
Kaldor City
Faction Paradox
Bernice Summerfield
Silver Fist ArcHives
Other Apocrypha:
Writers' Guidelines
Interviews
Anecdotes from reference books/fanzines
--- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...> wrote:
> No comments on this? Which of the two methods of automatically
posting entries into the database would be better for this group?
Batches would probably work best, but I'm still not sure how one group
would work in dealing with two linked but different projects.
The concept of the online database is all-encompassing and more prone
to regular updates. Once it has critical mass it will require somethig
all of its own to manage it (rather like the who_scripts group does
with episode transcripts).
If we can get a couple of themed workstreams off the ground - and
develop them here - then the format of entries can be synchronised.
Tables in word or excel would be up to the job for an entry template,
but without someone making editorial decisions for each workstream
there is the potential for a lot of mess and disagreement.
My suggestion for workstreams to get the ball rolling is:
#1 - Time Lords of Gallifrey
#2 - UNIT and the modern era
#3 - The Daleks and Skaro
I'm keen to take #1 forward myself, with a co-editor (any volunteers);
on top of this, we'd need a stream leader/editor for #2, #3 and
anything else that came along.
Workstreams can be managed by threads.
> Incidentally, have we submitted this group to the Doctor Who
Webguide, because that might help get some more contributors.
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, opening things up to a
wider audience is good for quantity, but it makes management and
project control quite difficult. I'm also quite keen that participants
of a group do something, hence my request for people to give profiles
and express their interests. I am thinking of using the polling system
as a way of getting people to register their interests. Comments on
this are welcome.
Whoniverse.org already has some critical mass, so for the database a
wide audience is a better idea (ensuring that the sharing of data with
the Concordance site is in the Ts and Cs). This would then mean
batches of entires could be dropped into the Files section for
reference as we go along.
AD
On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:50, Stephen Gray wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 12:31, Alexander Dante wrote:
> > This is a great idea Stephen. As it requires people to re-register,
> > and as we may be using the information differently, can I ask people
> > to post entries both as an email to this group *and* as an entry on
> > the database? It may be a duplication but it would also be a useful
> > back-up.
>
> I'm making a lot of progress with my coding, and should have the basic
> entry forms and the search function ready before the 26th. Then it'll just
> be the update functions, and the functions to reorder appearances, and also
> some admin functions.
>
> I could easily code it so that all entries are e-mailed here by the system.
> I have included agreeing to contributions being used by this group in the
> terms and conditions of registration (I think it's the first item). Anyway,
> there are two ways to implement the automation.
>
> The easiest way would be to e-mail each entry as it is entered. However,
> that would mean a separate e-mail for each entry, which has the potential
> to flood the group if a lot is entered all at once. The alternative would
> be to send them in batches. It would take a bit more coding, and would
> probably require some manual intervention (i.e. someone would have to
> specifically activate the code to send the summary), but might be more
> manageable.
>
> Oh yes, I thought I might add a "notable inhabitants" field to the places
> and "notable members" to the species and organisations tables.
>
> Steve.
No comments on this? Which of the two methods of automatically posting entries
into the database would be better for this group?
Incidentally, have we submitted this group to the Doctor Who Webguide, because
that might help get some more contributors.
On Friday 18 March 2005 12:31, Alexander Dante wrote:
>
> This is a great idea Stephen. As it requires people to re-register,
> and as we may be using the information differently, can I ask people
> to post entries both as an email to this group *and* as an entry on
> the database? It may be a duplication but it would also be a useful
> back-up.
I'm making a lot of progress with my coding, and should have the basic entry
forms and the search function ready before the 26th. Then it'll just be the
update functions, and the functions to reorder appearances, and also some
admin functions.
I could easily code it so that all entries are e-mailed here by the system. I
have included agreeing to contributions being used by this group in the terms
and conditions of registration (I think it's the first item). Anyway, there
are two ways to implement the automation.
The easiest way would be to e-mail each entry as it is entered. However, that
would mean a separate e-mail for each entry, which has the potential to flood
the group if a lot is entered all at once. The alternative would be to send
them in batches. It would take a bit more coding, and would probably require
some manual intervention (i.e. someone would have to specifically activate
the code to send the summary), but might be more manageable.
Oh yes, I thought I might add a "notable inhabitants" field to the places and
"notable members" to the species and organisations tables.
Steve.
I have uploaded a draft matrix of sources into the files section, and
cross-referenced against concordance themes which can be added
to/amended.
Probably best not to add new themes to the table at this point. But
feel free to discuss themes here.
AD
--- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...>
wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 March 2005 14:12, Alexander Dante wrote:
> > --- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > OK, here's how the database as I had envisaged it would look.
Each
> >
> > individual database would include the following information, with
> > brief notes where I feel it is useful. Oh, and each entry would
> > include details of who contributed to it.
> >
> > They're not a million miles apart from the concordance entry
format,
> > so a combined database would work.
> >
> > Do we want to agree how to approach sources, and maybe open up
some
> > slots for volunteers to start trawling some of the info?
> >
> > AD
>
> Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I've been debugging my
code. I enjoy
> writing code, but debugging it is just horrible. Anyway, I've now
got the
> insert character code working fine. The other sections should be
easy.
> However, it's currently very basic - you have to be allocated a
story and only enter data for that story. I'm going to extend it to
allocate multiple stories, and a setting for any story. I also need
to extend it to put stories in order. Oh, and you have to log in and
be activated to enter anything (can't just have any surfer putting
stuff in on a whim).
>
> Anyway, it's set up at http://www.whoniverse.org/database/entry/
>
> Anyway, yes definitely we should agree how to approach sources and
open up slots for trawling info.
I've done a source list - now where did I put it?
> Incidentally, it should be quite easy to enter info from the new
series to the database as it airs.
This is a great idea Stephen. As it requires people to re-register,
and as we may be using the information differently, can I ask people
to post entries both as an email to this group *and* as an entry on
the database? It may be a duplication but it would also be a useful
back-up.
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 14:12, Alexander Dante wrote:
> --- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...>
>
> wrote:
> > OK, here's how the database as I had envisaged it would look. Each
>
> individual database would include the following information, with
> brief notes where I feel it is useful. Oh, and each entry would
> include details of who contributed to it.
>
> They're not a million miles apart from the concordance entry format,
> so a combined database would work.
>
> Do we want to agree how to approach sources, and maybe open up some
> slots for volunteers to start trawling some of the info?
>
> AD
Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I've been debugging my code. I enjoy
writing code, but debugging it is just horrible. Anyway, I've now got the
insert character code working fine. The other sections should be easy.
However, it's currently very basic - you have to be allocated a story and
only enter data for that story. I'm going to extend it to allocate multiple
stories, and a setting for any story. I also need to extend it to put stories
in order. Oh, and you have to log in and be activated to enter anything
(can't just have any surfer putting stuff in on a whim).
Anyway, it's set up at http://www.whoniverse.org/database/entry/
Anyway, yes definitely we should agree how to approach sources and open up
slots for trawling info.
Incidentally, it should be quite easy to enter info from the new series to the
database as it airs.
--- In whoconcord@..., "kopyion" <dr_clarke_2@h...>
wrote:
>
> > Welcome aboard Paul!
> >
> > To be honest, you may be right about the size of the project. I
> > certainly see it as "too much for one person", hence the idea of
> > people slipping off and doing themed volumes which might feed into
> > Stephen's database.
> >
> > It seems to me that the whole idea of sharing research is a good
> one,
> > and that there's a whole number of projects which might feed into
> what
> > Stephen wants to do online. We're just at the ideas stage, so feel
> > free to join the debate before we work out the "action plan"! ;-)
> >
> Well, there might be merit in the encyclopedia entry format, each
> entry split into subcategories as has already been suggested (name,
> appeared in, history, etc etc). Alternatively, the reason I like
the
> Discontinuity Guide so much is that it makes it possible to search
> sources, which is another option - a cross-referenced database of
> sources, including comic strips, short stories, novels, the lot.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kopyion
For characters, http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/doctorwh.htm has an
excellent approach (I mention this because one of our new
Newapocrypha members was responsible for the above example), which
covers:
Real Name
Identity/Class
Occupation
Affiliations
Enemies
Known relatives
Aliases
Base of Operations
First Appearance
Powers/Abilities
History
AD
> Welcome aboard Paul!
>
> To be honest, you may be right about the size of the project. I
> certainly see it as "too much for one person", hence the idea of
> people slipping off and doing themed volumes which might feed into
> Stephen's database.
>
> It seems to me that the whole idea of sharing research is a good
one,
> and that there's a whole number of projects which might feed into
what
> Stephen wants to do online. We're just at the ideas stage, so feel
> free to join the debate before we work out the "action plan"! ;-)
>
Well, there might be merit in the encyclopedia entry format, each
entry split into subcategories as has already been suggested (name,
appeared in, history, etc etc). Alternatively, the reason I like the
Discontinuity Guide so much is that it makes it possible to search
sources, which is another option - a cross-referenced database of
sources, including comic strips, short stories, novels, the lot.
Cheers,
Kopyion
--- In whoconcord@..., "kopyion" <dr_clarke_2@h...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone. I was directed here by Stephen Gray, because I've
> been contributing to his Novel Discontinuity Guide (my real name is
> Paul Clarke). I've also been contributing TV and audio reviews to
> Outpost Gallifrey for about three years. I'm considering, basically,
> lifting bits of my continuity guides were relevant and reformating
> where necessary to provide bits of info about the topics in question.
> If anyone has suggestions on where to start or what specific gaps
> need covering for each topic please say so now :)
>
> I'm slightly floundering here - this looks to be a big project!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kopyion
Welcome aboard Paul!
To be honest, you may be right about the size of the project. I
certainly see it as "too much for one person", hence the idea of
people slipping off and doing themed volumes which might feed into
Stephen's database.
It seems to me that the whole idea of sharing research is a good one,
and that there's a whole number of projects which might feed into what
Stephen wants to do online. We're just at the ideas stage, so feel
free to join the debate before we work out the "action plan"! ;-)
AD
> > However, the dates match up with those used in the history
section,
> which are explained.
> > With the discontinuity guides, those by Paul Clarke have his name
at
> the bottom of the page. Those I've written don't have a name at the
> bottom. Those where we both contributed material have both my name
and
> his at the bottom, and I have versions of all the jointly-authored
> guides which are solely my material on my hard drive. If you think
> Paul's material is worth incorporating in some way, I can ask him if
> he's happy with that, or if he would like to contribute to the
> concordance himself.
>
> I definitely hold the view that any bulk owner of content should be
> part of the creative team if there is an intention to use their
work.
>
I'm entirely happy to contribute (and, indeed, quite flattered to be
asked).
Cheers,
Kopyion
Hello everyone. I was directed here by Stephen Gray, because I've
been contributing to his Novel Discontinuity Guide (my real name is
Paul Clarke). I've also been contributing TV and audio reviews to
Outpost Gallifrey for about three years. I'm considering, basically,
lifting bits of my continuity guides were relevant and reformating
where necessary to provide bits of info about the topics in question.
If anyone has suggestions on where to start or what specific gaps
need covering for each topic please say so now :)
I'm slightly floundering here - this looks to be a big project!
Cheers,
Kopyion
--- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...>
wrote:
> OK, here's how the database as I had envisaged it would look. Each
individual database would include the following information, with
brief notes where I feel it is useful. Oh, and each entry would
include details of who contributed to it.
They're not a million miles apart from the concordance entry format,
so a combined database would work.
Do we want to agree how to approach sources, and maybe open up some
slots for volunteers to start trawling some of the info?
AD
Accidentally sent this directly to Alexander, rather than to the group. Oops.
Subject: Re: Whoniverse Database proposal
Date: Friday 25 February 2005 01:01
From: Stephen Gray <bouncelot@...>
To: "Alexander Dante" <alexanderdante@...>
On Saturday 19 February 2005 21:29, you wrote:
> --- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...> wrote:
> > On Friday 18 February 2005 13:34, you wrote:
> > > --- In whoconcord@..., "bouncelot" <Bouncelot@f...>
OK, here's how the database as I had envisaged it would look. Each individual
database would include the following information, with brief notes where I
feel it is useful. Oh, and each entry would include details of who
contributed to it.
People:
Name (used as one search field)
Aliases (used as the other search field)
Appearances (sorted in a rough chronological order for recurring characters)
Mentions (i.e. places they're mentioned, but don't appear - particularly
important for characters like Zodin who never appear)
Species
Gender (there will probably be plenty of "unknown"s and "N/A"s here)
Native Era
Native Place
Whether they are a companion, a member of UNIT, or a real person. (may add
other similar categories if they come up)
In Brief (very short description for when a search turns up 2 or more
entries) Description (detailed who they are, what they look like etc.)
History (detailed what happened to them)
Places:
Name (used as search field)
Location
Timeframe (rough idea of the period or periods the place exists or is
important)
Appearances (sorted in rough chronological order where relevant)
Mentions (especially if it was never actually visited)
In Brief (very short description for when a search turns up 2 or more
entries) Description (detailed where it is, what it looks like)
History (detailed what happened there)
Races:
Name (used as search field)
AKA (nicknames, alternative names, etc also used as search field)
Homeworld
Appearances (sorted in rough chronological order where relevant)
Mentions (especially if they never actually appeared)
In Brief (very short description for when a search turns up 2 or more
entries) Description (detailed what they look like, their culture etc.)
History (detailed history of the race)
Organisations:
Name (used as search field)
AKA (any alternative names or nicknames, also used as search field)
Location (where they are based)
Timeframe (which era(s) they are active in)
Appearances (sorted in rough chronological order where relevant)
Mentions (especially if they never actually appeared)
In Brief (very short description for when a search turns up 2 or more
entries) Description (detailed who they are, what they are for)
History (detailed history)
Objects:
Name (used as search field)
AKA (any alternative names - also search field)
Made by
Used by
Function
Appearances (sorted in rough chronological order)
Mentions (especially if the item is always offstage)
In Brief (very short description for when a search turns up 2 or more
entries) Description (detailed what it looks like, what it does)
History (detailed history)
Technobabble:
Name (the actual technobabble, used as a search field)
Details (what it appears to mean, especially the context in which it is used)
So there it is. Unless someone suggests some improvements to the format,
that's how the data from the Whoniverse database will be organised. It should
be possible to carry info across between the two projects quite easily. Any
speculation within the content will be clearly marked as such. If a specific
bit of info is unknown, it will be marked as 'unknown'.
Stephen
-------------------------------------------------------
> --- In whoconcord@..., "Alexander Dante"
>
> <alexanderdante@g...> wrote:
> Just to ask everybody to introduce themselves (unless they have a
> full yahoo profile) - a short biog. saying who you are, what your
> contribution would be etc. etc. And to agree to abide by the rules!
As Adrian's answered this, I guess I should also:
Stephen Gray, webmaster of Who reference site The Whoniverse. Willing to allow
my material from the site to be pinched wholesale, and to write entries on
whatever. I seem to have acquired a reputation as an expert on UNIT, so I
guess I'll be contributing particularly to that volume. Also, I had been
thinking of adding a searchable database of everything TV, books, and audio
to my site when this project was announced. So I've suggested combining the
two projects.
Stephen
--- In whoconcord@..., "Alexander Dante"
<alexanderdante@g...> wrote:
>
> Just to ask everybody to introduce themselves (unless they have a
> full yahoo profile) - a short biog. saying who you are, what your
> contribution would be etc. etc. And to agree to abide by the rules!
Adrian Middleton.
Ex-fanzine editor 1991-1996 (Apocrypha, Neuton Flow, Rumours and
others); Happy to contribute to the Gally concordance; Happy to
publish volume 1, and possibly more.
--- In whoconcord@..., Stephen Gray <Bouncelot@f...> wrote:
> On Friday 18 February 2005 13:34, you wrote:
> > --- In whoconcord@..., "bouncelot" <Bouncelot@f...>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Carried this over from NewApocrypha.
> > >
> > > My original idea with the database was an a-z of everything
broken down into the following sections: people, places, alien races,
organisations, objects, technobabble, and named historical events.
> >
> > That's pretty similar to the themes. I would think an online A-Z
would cover everything *without* themes, while books stuck to
thematic/context led volumes. Obviously there has to be a difference
in "added value" between the two.
>
> My idea was less an online A-Z and more an online database. The
reason I split it into "themes" was because of the way I wanted to do
it. I could do it with a search field and a finished webpage for each
search, but I wanted the option of programming in more advanced
searches in the future, I've designed it with a number of fields in
the database for "biographical" information.
That makes sense. For a book themes are simply used to make the size
of each volume manageable (and complete), and to add context.
> Because each of these "themes" is different, the biographical data
is different for each group. I had also planned a "general" search
function for cases where you don't know which "theme" you're looking for.
Good idea.
> > > Each entry would have had brief details relevant to its category
along with two longer sections - description and history, though
history would have been omitted from the technobabble and historical
events sections.
> >
> > Historical events would work better online IMO. A printed history
needs constant updating when there is an ongoing series.
>
> As does an online one...
Yes, but in terms of timescales an onlibne update is ongoing. For a
book you haver to wait a while before you pull the revised edition
stunt. I must confess doing it POD means that after the initial print
run you could do annual POD updates. 2005...2006...2007 Yearbooks for
example
> As I already have a historical timeline section in the Whoniverse, I
was going to restrict this to named historical events, giving brief
details of them - rather than try to catalogue every event of any
kind. So the Dalek Invasion of Earth would be there, but the Doctor
meeting Napoleon wouldn't.
I avoided the Historrical because of Lance's AHOTU update.
> > Technobabble needs to connect up to the science of Doctor Who, so
bookwise is probably best fitted into a dedicated volume.
>
> For the printed version, definitely it fits best into its own volume.
>
> > > My aim would have been to build up a team who each took a story
at a time and catalogued it, with a forum to discuss issues arising
and keep track of who's doing what. I'd also planned to only include
TV, books, and audio just to keep it manageable.
Again sensible. for a book approach (especially where you cover A-Z)
its harder to be comprehensive, hence the reliance upon themes.
> > > As far as technical details go:
> > >
> > > I'd got as far as working out the structure, and an interface
for retrieval and input, though I'd not started on programming in the
security part of input to ensure only team members entered data, and
> > > I'd not worked out the best way of handling updates to entries.
> >
> > The Whoscripts group uses a task management database to ensure
stuff is allocated. the first task is to agree the source material,
and then get volunteers to cover off different subjects, either by
medium (books, audio etc.), by theme (harder to do), or by Doctor.
>
> My scheme was a web-based interface to a MySQL database for entry
and retrieval. I'd planned to allocate a story at a time, and have
each person restricted to entering info for that story. With recurring
characters/places etc, I probably would have had people adding their
detailed info (description and history of whatever) after the previous
entries, or allowing them complete freedom to edit said previous entries.
First stage has to be agreeing sources and cataloguing them. It's
possible to it book by book, episode by episode etc., but that slows
the process and front-loads the data. A thematic approach does spread
the data out more evenly, and by prioritising themes according to
reader preferences (do the poll everybody!) it makes the most wanted
part of the content available first (useful for growing interest in
what you are doing).
> > > Not sure quite what the best approach is to combining the two
projects, but I'm sure we can work it out.
> >
> > Hope so!
>
> The most obvious approach (assuming no seismic change in the methods
of either project) would be to share data across the two projects. So
anything entered into the database that's relevant to the volume(s) of
the concordance currently being worked on gets put into the
concordance and vice versa. There's probably an easy way of doing it.
Agreed.
> > > Oh, and any and all material on the Whoniverse that doesn't have
somebody else's name on it is freely available if we want to
incorporate it into the concordance. At the moment that means
everything apart from Paul Clarke's discontinuity guides, and the
contents of the new reviews section.
> >
> > Thats useful. Can you post a link/links to the relevant sections?
>
> Well, I've got a history section at
> http://www.whoniverse.org/history/
> a biography of the Doctor at http://www.whoniverse.org/biography/
> the UNIT Files at http://www.whoniverse.org/unit/
> lists of characters from some of the novels (together with one-line
> descriptions) at http://www.whoniverse.org/cast/
> and some of the discontinuity guides were written by me at
> http://www.whoniverse.org/discontinuity/
> There are a couple of other sections which aren't really of any use
for the concordance. Though I've just realised whilst typing this that
the Newbies Guide section (which details important info to understand
what's going on in particular stories) might be publishable in its own
right if I ever get it up to date.
>
> The history and biography have details of where I've got all the
information from.
> The UNIT files doesn't have any such annotation, and some of the
details are made up by me, so it's probably not directly useful,
except, perhaps to identify UNIT-related info.
For an A-Z the facts have to be presented, with nothing "invented".
Creative input needs to be clearly labelled as speculation. That said,
there's no harm in referencing creative stuff from unofficial sources
(say, the FP stuff), just so long as you don't quote from it.
> However, the dates match up with those used in the history section,
which are explained.
> With the discontinuity guides, those by Paul Clarke have his name at
the bottom of the page. Those I've written don't have a name at the
bottom. Those where we both contributed material have both my name and
his at the bottom, and I have versions of all the jointly-authored
guides which are solely my material on my hard drive. If you think
Paul's material is worth incorporating in some way, I can ask him if
he's happy with that, or if he would like to contribute to the
concordance himself.
I definitely hold the view that any bulk owner of content should be
part of the creative team if there is an intention to use their work.
> Oh, and as a disclaimer, pretty much every section has gaps of some
kind - particularly in covering the audios. However, the gaps are
steadily decreasing. Also, there is no coverage of the comic strips
anywhere on my site.
cue Andrew Kearley
> On another note, I've just noticed that both the e-mails I've got
from whoconcord say that they're from the author's e-mail address,
rather than the groups. I had to manually add the group to the "to"
field to send this e-mail to the group. This might be contributing to
the lack of postings on the group in addition to the (now solved)
non-access to the archive. If I were you, I'd double check all the
groups settings.
I did. And did again. even weirder, I posted a reply to you and it's
not here!
Must be the ghost in the machine ;-)
AD
On Friday 18 February 2005 13:34, you wrote:
> --- In whoconcord@..., "bouncelot" <Bouncelot@f...>
>
> wrote:
> > Carried this over from NewApocrypha.
> >
> > > Just wondering if it would be possible to combine the two
>
> projects - at least to a certain extent. Create an online database-
> based version and a publishable version.
>
> > I don't see why not. I was worried I may have bitten off more than
>
> I could chew when I first mentioned a concordance, especially as my
> own interests are Time Lord/Gallifrey focused, which is why I am keen
> to do that as the first volume. A single editor *would* take forever,
> hence my idea to break it down into "themes and teams".
>
> > Care to take this conversation over to the whoconcord site?
> >
> > AD
> >
> > Taken over.
> >
> > My original idea with the database was an a-z of everything broken
> > down into the following sections: people, places, alien races,
> > organisations, objects, technobabble, and named historical events.
>
> That's pretty similar to the themes. I would think an online A-Z
> would cover everything *without* themes, while books stuck to
> thematic/context led volumes. Obviously there has to be a difference
> in "added value" between the two.
My idea was less an online A-Z and more an online database. The reason I split
it into "themes" was because of the way I wanted to do it. I could do it with
a search field and a finished webpage for each search, but I wanted the
option of programming in more advanced searches in the future, I've designed
it with a number of fields in the database for "biographical" information.
Because each of these "themes" is different, the biographical data is
different for each group. I had also planned a "general" search function for
cases where you don't know which "theme" you're looking for.
> > Each entry would have had brief details relevant to its category
> > along with two longer sections - description and history, though
> > history would have been omitted from the technobabble and historical
> > events sections.
>
> Historical events would work better online IMO. A printed history
> needs constant updating when there is an ongoing series.
As does an online one...
As I already have a historical timeline section in the Whoniverse, I was going
to restrict this to named historical events, giving brief details of them -
rather than try to catalogue every event of any kind. So the Dalek Invasion
of Earth would be there, but the Doctor meeting Napoleon wouldn't.
> Technobabble needs to connect up to the science of Doctor Who, so
> bookwise is probably best fitted into a dedicated volume.
For the printed version, definitely it fits best into its own volume.
> > My aim would have been to build up a team who each took a story at a
> > time and catalogued it, with a forum to discuss issues arising and
> > keep track of who's doing what. I'd also planned to only include TV,
> > books, and audio just to keep it manageable.
>
> > As far as technical details go:
> >
> > I'd got as far as working out the structure, and an interface for
> > retrieval and input, though I'd not started on programming in the
> > security part of input to ensure only team members entered data, and
> > I'd not worked out the best way of handling updates to entries.
>
> The Whoscripts group uses a task management database to ensure stuff
> is allocated. the first task is to agree the source material, and
> then get volunteers to cover off different subjects, either by medium
> (books, audio etc.), by theme (harder to do), or by Doctor.
My scheme was a web-based interface to a MySQL database for entry and
retrieval. I'd planned to allocate a story at a time, and have each person
restricted to entering info for that story. With recurring characters/places
etc, I probably would have had people adding their detailed info (description
and history of whatever) after the previous entries, or allowing them
complete freedom to edit said previous entries.
> > Not sure quite what the best approach is to combining the two
> > projects, but I'm sure we can work it out.
>
> Hope so!
The most obvious approach (assuming no seismic change in the methods of either
project) would be to share data across the two projects. So anything entered
into the database that's relevant to the volume(s) of the concordance
currently being worked on gets put into the concordance and vice versa.
There's probably an easy way of doing it.
> > Oh, and any and all material on the Whoniverse that doesn't have
> > somebody else's name on it is freely available if we want to
> > incorporate it into the concordance. At the moment that means
> > everything apart from Paul Clarke's discontinuity guides, and the
> > contents of the new reviews section.
>
> Thats useful. Can you post a link/links to the relevant sections?
Well, I've got a history section at http://www.whoniverse.org/history/
a biography of the Doctor at http://www.whoniverse.org/biography/
the UNIT Files at http://www.whoniverse.org/unit/
lists of characters from some of the novels (together with one-line
descriptions) at http://www.whoniverse.org/cast/
and some of the discontinuity guides were written by me at
http://www.whoniverse.org/discontinuity/
There are a couple of other sections which aren't really of any use for the
concordance. Though I've just realised whilst typing this that the Newbies
Guide section (which details important info to understand what's going on in
particular stories) might be publishable in its own right if I ever get it up
to date.
The history and biography have details of where I've got all the information
from.
The UNIT files doesn't have any such annotation, and some of the details are
made up by me, so it's probably not directly useful, except, perhaps to
identify UNIT-related info. However, the dates match up with those used in
the history section, which are explained.
With the discontinuity guides, those by Paul Clarke have his name at the
bottom of the page. Those I've written don't have a name at the bottom. Those
where we both contributed material have both my name and his at the bottom,
and I have versions of all the jointly-authored guides which are solely my
material on my hard drive. If you think Paul's material is worth
incorporating in some way, I can ask him if he's happy with that, or if he
would like to contribute to the concordance himself.
Oh, and as a disclaimer, pretty much every section has gaps of some kind -
particularly in covering the audios. However, the gaps are steadily
decreasing. Also, there is no coverage of the comic strips anywhere on my
site.
On another note, I've just noticed that both the e-mails I've got from
whoconcord say that they're from the author's e-mail address, rather than the
groups. I had to manually add the group to the "to" field to send this e-mail
to the group. This might be contributing to the lack of postings on the group
in addition to the (now solved) non-access to the archive. If I were you, I'd
double check all the groups settings.
Carried this over from NewApocrypha.
> Just wondering if it would be possible to combine the two projects -
at least to a certain extent. Create an online database-based version
and a publishable version.
I don't see why not. I was worried I may have bitten off more than I
could chew when I first mentioned a concordance, especially as my own
interests are Time Lord/Gallifrey focused, which is why I am keen to
do that as the first volume. A single editor *would* take forever,
hence my idea to break it down into "themes and teams".
Care to take this conversation over to the whoconcord site?
AD
Taken over.
My original idea with the database was an a-z of everything broken
down into the following sections:
people, places, alien races, organisations, objects, technobabble, and
named historical events.
Each entry would have had brief details relevant to its category along
with two longer sections - description and history, though history
would have been omitted from the technobabble and historical events
sections.
My aim would have been to build up a team who each took a story at a
time and catalogued it, with a forum to discuss issues arising and
keep track of who's doing what. I'd also planned to only include TV,
books, and audio just to keep it manageable.
As far as technical details go:
I'd got as far as working out the structure, and an interface for
retrieval and input, though I'd not started on programming in the
security part of input to ensure only team members entered data, and
I'd not worked out the best way of handling updates to entries.
Not sure quite what the best approach is to combining the two
projects, but I'm sure we can work it out.
Oh, and any and all material on the Whoniverse that doesn't have
somebody else's name on it is freely available if we want to
incorporate it into the concordance. At the moment that means
everything apart from Paul Clarke's discontinuity guides, and the
contents of the new reviews section.
Stephen
PS, the archive (OK, it's only 4 messages) doesn't seem to be
available to view. You might want to fix that.
Just to ask everybody to introduce themselves (unless they have a
full yahoo profile) - a short biog. saying who you are, what your
contribution would be etc. etc. And to agree to abide by the rules!
If people don't want to contribute, or feel now they are here, it's
not for them, please unsubscribe.
AD
Just to start things off, I have uploaded a word file (in
Files/Volume 1/Section 4 - People) which lists possible entries under
Section 4. This gives an idea of scale - there are about 1,000 names
listed here, and it isn't complete.
It can be edited for names to be added, but first the criteria:
Any character, who has appeared or been referred to, who has had
directly engaged with the Time Lords of Gallifrey as a race.
Characters who have engaged with a single Time Lord (such as the
doctor), but not with aspects of his culture, are excluded from this
volume. Thus not all of the Doctor's companions would be included.
All entries should emphasise the context in which characters engaged
with the Time Lords of Gallifrey.
AD
For the first volume (The Time Lords of Gallifrey) I am proposing the
following structure:
Section 1 – Culture
1. Education
2. Politics
3. Religion
4. City Life
5. Beyond the City
6. In the Country
Section 2 – Ecology
1. Gallifreyans
2. Flora
3. Fauna
Section 3 – History
1. Prehistory
2. The Bright Past
3. The Old Time
4. The Interregnum
5. Middle History
6. The Modern Era
6. Future History
Section 4 – People
Section 5 – Places
1. Gallifrey
2. The Five Planets
3. The Gallifreyan Empire and beyond
Section 6 – Society
1. Law
2. Government
3. The Houses
4. The Shobogans
Section 7 – Technology
1. Everyday life
2. Regeneration and Biotech
3. Time Technology
4. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Section 8 – Guide to Sources
1. The TV Series
2. The Novelisations
3. TV Apocrypha
4. Books
5. Audio
6. Online
7. Annuals and Comics
8. Stage Plays
9. Short Stories
10. New Apocrypha
AD
Hi everybody. I'm laying down the law a bit here to be sure we are
all here for the same purpose. The basic rules are:
1) the aim is to publish, so people who want to join the group should
be prepared to take on the role of contributor (for a credit) or
editor (chosen on merit!), and should clearly identify what they want
to do when they apply for membership.
2) All members will need a Yahoo Profile or should provide some
details about themselves when they apply. Otherwise no entry.
3) All members will be expected to contribute or leave.
AD
Offline 
Send Email
