Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force/Archive 3

NB -- Ongoing discussions may be archived on a later page...
 * Archive of the WikiProject Thomas talk page: 25 March 2007 – (not full yet!)
 * For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

Railway Series rebirth
Yes, you read the heading right.

This is a day which has been looked forward to by many people for many years, and is exciting for anyone associated with WP:THOMAS. The Railway Series is being reprinted - yes, including the Christopher Awdry books. Not only this, but Christopher has written a Volume 41, which will be released in September of this year. Incredible stuff!

Information as announced on Sodor Island Forums (requires registration to access)

Now, what this means for us (apart from a reason to party!)

We had reached somewhat of a constant with Railway Series articles recently, with not very many edits happening one way or another. However, we can expect to have much heavier volume on these articles over the next 6 months, as the news of the release gets out and starts to spread, and as the release dates draw nearer.

I propose (at this stage) that the following stances be taken by WP:THOMAS


 * A section on this "rebirth" of the series be included in The Railway Series, and possibly List of Railway Series books


 * As such a section acknowledges that the series is expanding once more, there should be no need to include new books' details on either of the above pages, as such the books (while noted in such a section) will not be listed on articles until they have been officially released


 * New characters (ie. "Victoria") not be included in character listings until the books they appear in have been officially released

Discussion on this is openly invited.

Gonzerelli 05:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Guess which two of the three (remaining) regular project members were not aware of this...
 * Your proposals seem sensible, but I think we can and should go further – if only for damage limitation purposes.
 * Additional proposals:
 * Add paragraph to lede of Christopher Awdry mentioning that a new book has been announced. Also adding it to the bibliography as 'announced' or 'expected' will avoid a lot of reverting. &mdash; Await formal announcement?


 * Ensure that modifications to The Railway Series also include a new paragraph in the Lede – do not assume all editors are using the watchlist or the TOC. &mdash; DONE
 * Examine other places where there may be coverage of the fact that the series has stopped at 40 books. Some rewording may be necessary to indicate that the number may increase, although in many cases the new book need not be named.
 * W.V. Awdry – mentions 40 books &mdash; Await formal announcement?
 * The Railway Stories – mentions 40 books &mdash; Await formal announcement?
 * Expand the lede of List of Railway Series books, essentially with the information that follows New Little Engine . The present information is correct, but adding something appropriate at the top will somewhere, may avoid some edits. &mdash; DONE
 * Watch Victoria and Victoria (people disambiguation) for adverse edits (I've already added these to my watchlist) &mdash; Watching...
 * Add new section to WP:THOMAS/FAQ !! We all keep referring to it in our edit summaries... &mdash; DONE
 * New 'question' added, including the book title, to make it clear what we're talking about. &mdash; DONE


 * I see no harm in including the book in the appropriate lists IF it is an absolute definite (I'm still awaiting SIF account activation...). I suspect that the next Harry Potter book has plenty of coverage on WP, and I know there are pages covering the next 'n' Olympic Games and (football) World Cup competitions, stretching decades into the future, so describing future events/things is NOT itself a problem on WP provided we stick to the known, verifiable facts.  Indeed the more we can get away with putting in, within the WP rules of course, the less 'helpful edits' we will be contending with in the coming months. What we cannot tolerate is guesswork on what the book might contain, other future titles, and how many books the series might run to (although 50 is a nice round number, Christopher, if you're reading this :o) ).


 * EdJogg 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've hit the nail on the head mate. Damage limitation. Before writing up this section, I checked out the history of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Sure, I don't expect Thomas and Victoria to generate quite the same level of hype, but seeing the Harry Potter page's woes certainly put ours into perspective, and I saw the need to set some measures in place in advance.


 * Your suggestions are sound, I'll let you update the FAQ page (I'm sure it's your turn :-p ). It's probably better that you haven't seen the detail that I have, to keep the perspective on it all. :)


 * Gonzerelli 10:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent you two! I'll won't revert it next time! –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FAQs updated, seeing as how you twisted my arm :o)
 * Please check the wording of the 'Book 41' FAQ – it is intentionally cagey though!
 * I did some other copy-editing while I was there, I hope the order makes sense. The remaining 'guidelines' can be converted to FAQs in due course, in a similar way to the 'Images' Q which I did tonight. If the 'answers' are getting too wordy, we'll have to split them up more.


 * Please note that 'the other articles' (as mentioned above) still need to be modified for damage limitation purposes.
 * EdJogg 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work as always EJ. Was actually thinking of that very re-structure myself, but I'm glad you took the initiative.


 * The first instance of a user insisting that their edit be included has occurred on The Railway Series. I've added an invisible note to the top of the page to address this.


 * Gonzerelli 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that this: Minor characters in The Railway Series is contrary to our guidelines and should be removed? What about the numbering in the lead of The Railway Series - should a simple ''book 41 is expected to be published late in 2007 should suffice? –MDCollins (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, haven't implemented the guidelines I outlined above. Please feel free to follow them and apply them appropriately. Note that the reduced level of vandalism at present may be due to the fact that the #No41 reference text is already in place.
 * EdJogg 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated the status of the above tasks following your recent edits. All looks well. We'll have to see how much vandalism takes place.
 * What about the paragraph in List of Railway Series books following New Little Engine? Does this fit with our policy?
 * EdJogg 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good spot! I've moved the paragraph to a more prominent position (with the other info about CA's books) and rewritten it slightly - is this ok? –MDCollins (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good place for the text. 'Makes sense' there. I have 'tweaked' it rather more radically than you did. The re-write is accurate (I think!) but is a bit weasly. I hope it remains within WP guidelines!
 * EdJogg 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

'Officially' announced!!
What do we make of this folks: Amazon link to C. Awdry compilation publication –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and you know where those four 'specially commissioned new stories' come from, don't you...
 * "Thomas & Victoria" on Amazon!!!
 * In fact, they're 'all' there – well, I remember seeing Wilbert, James and the Diesel, Fat Controller's engines, etc (titles paraphrased); all available on pre-order and all expected late August and/or 3rd Sept.
 * The $64,000 question is, "Does Amazon count as a Reliable Source?"
 * I'll have to work out what else we do now - it's a bit late to be thinking about it just now!
 * Incidentally, I just thought I'd try another search for "Thomas and Victoria" using Google. You know what the FIRST page was? – WP:THOMAS/FAQ!!!!!
 * EdJogg 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally (2) -- I used Bookprice24 to do an ISBN search and found the books listed at WHS, Tesco and Blackwells too. Tesco had all 15 C Awdry books listed -- the existing ones being re-released on 6th Aug, the new titles on 3rd Sept. WHS search was less helpful, but did show some of the re-released original series. EdJogg 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had a look at WP:NOT, I think we can now start adding the book details in the appropriate places. They have ISBNs assigned, titles/artwork/price/summary information on at least 4 English websites (also listed on some foreign Amazon sites!) means that the information is about as 'verified' as we're going to get. Coverage of the book content (characters, etc), however, must be limited to the available information, ie the Amazon summaries for the two books (which, having seen them on multiple sites, presumably came from the publishers). Obviously we'll need to update the FAQ too. And there was me thinking I'd have a quiet weekend in the garden... EdJogg 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm wondering whether this will be a continuing collaboration, or just a one-off. Until I saw the compilation, I was thinking maybe there are more to come, but that would now seem unlikely if a complete 'new collection'–in the style of the WVA collection–including T&V is being published, as they'll have to do more than one if Christopher writes any more. Guess we'll have to see.–MDCollins (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we'll have to wait and see. There's a lot of 'marketing' involved in this. Many people will already have (some of) the smaller books and will want to complete their collections with 'Book 41' (and the others - I have all but #39!!).  Many more will NOT have the little books, and will not want to spend £5x15 to buy the complete set of Christopher's. Then you have all the people who bought the original 'Complete Collection' (which, btw, I think we should include on the list-of-books page, along with its new sibling) and are likely to want that set completed.


 * Until I looked a little more deeply I thought that the 'four new stories, specially commissioned [for the compilation]' were just that, until I found and examined Thomas & Victoria.


 * Christopher has been 'champing at the bit' for ten years, or so, so I suspect he has more than a few stories up his sleeve (he could even adapt some of his Eastbourne, etc plots?) And Egmont would not have started the ball rolling if they didn't think they'd make money out of it. If the re-launch is a success (and why wouldn't it be) then there may well be more. Hopefully they are taking the long-term view: these books are modern classics, and should remain in print as long as Beatrix Potter, Lewis Carroll, or Winnie-the-Pooh.


 * Besides, '41' is a very odd length for a book series.
 * What do you reckon for the next title in the series? "Thomas and the Babelfish"? "Thomas and Marvin"? "Space-age Engines"? :o)


 * EdJogg 09:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated Christopher Awdry, W.V. Awdry, The Railway Stories, and List of Railway Series Books to reflect the current situation. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention the scheduled publication dates when they're shown on every on-line bookstore. But I think we must continue to draw the line at the actual content of the new book until September, which means no character entry for Victoria, yet.


 * I'll go and have a look at the FAQs next... Is there anywhere else that needs tweaking to reflect the changes to the series?


 * EdJogg 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FAQs -- 'Season' or 'season'?
Thought it would be a good idea to proof-read what I wrote late last night...

It has just occurred to me that the correct English for the TV series season-naming convention should be Season 1, Season 2, etc – ie with a capital 'S'. The reason for my thinking is that we are referring to something specific (eg London Bridge, Eiffel Tower, The Railway Series, Christmas Day).

I checked with the Guardian 'Style Guide' and am none-the-wiser, although it 'looks right' to me having a capital 'S', and that is usually a reasonable rule-of-thumb.

Before I revise the FAQ again, anyone have any thoughts? Making it consistent will take a little while, admittedly, but the new FAQ wording can indicate that this minor inconsistency is being addressed...

EdJogg 09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My viewpoint is as follows:
 * Capitalisation when referring to a specific season, that is, it must include season number(s) - ie. Season 9, Seasons 1-4.
 * No capitalisation when referring to season(s) in more general terms - ie. "This season", "the ninth season", "the first four seasons".
 * Otherwise, standard grammatical rules apply.
 * Gonzerelli 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. FAQ updated to suit. -- EdJogg 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Character rationalisation
Back on the subject of re-re-rationalisation, I have removed the effectual duplicate descriptions of locos from The Other Railway as they are already on Minor characters page. I am prepared to in effect reverse this, and link from minor characters to the descriptions on the Other Railway to bring it in line with the other 'line' articles. What do you think?

We should finally agree on how to sort Skarloey Railway too!

–MDCollins (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) The Other Railway

 * At first I was in two minds about this, since the existing major/minor articles are reasonably comprehensive/coherent at present. But then I realised how short an article The Other Railway was...and how long the other two were! I also realised that I had never considered doing the full move like you suggest.


 * Yes, it would be consistent for the 'Other Railway' to provide the detailed coverage of the characters, with simple links provided from Major/Minor, as required. I suggest that the coverage must be limited to the books aspects though – the TV Series aspects are well-covered elsewhere.


 * In theory, this should mean that The Other Railway should then be added to Category:The Railway Series characters, but that would mean the other railways would need to be included too... Alternatively, and preferably in my view, the redirects for the specific characters could be added to the category, allowing readers the option of finding them through a category list. I know we've discussed this before, but it would seem a very valid thing to do.


 * Don't forget you'll need to tackle the many links. For these engines especially you will find most 'prototype' pages already include the appropriate links.


 * Hope that all makes sense...


 * EdJogg 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Material moved - now checking the links. As for the categories etc, a wider discussion is probably required. –MDCollins (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) Skarloey Railway

 * See project page for (first draft of) Mini Project task list....
 * (Suggestions welcome!)
 * EdJogg 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Advance Warning - Season 11 is on its way
Yup, there's more TV shows to come, with all the attendant 'fun' for WP:THOMAS members (hope Gonzerelli comes back from Wikibreak by then!). Saw this forum thread which notes that Michael Brandon's site says he is recording a fourth series of episodes (ie Series 11). (It's probably mentioned on SIF too, but this was where I spotted it just now.) (NB - The RWS trivia thread is here.)

EdJogg 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thomas and Friends - Season 11 is up-and-running and would appear to be in good hands. We have some citable references to use, which must be a first, so we're on much firmer ground with this one. EdJogg 11:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor or Major? (In the TV series)
I think we must come up with a rule when placing characters in either the minor or major sections. For example Daisy is in the major characters section but she has appeared the same amount of times as Bulgy who is in the minor characters section. So how many episodes make the a major character? I think 10 features (not cameos) is fair enough. Diesel 10 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please list the character movements that are likely to result from your proposals? Please include the number of appearances for each character on which you base your assessments. This will make it easier to determine the correct threshold. Bear in mind that each character may be the subject of several redirects or multiple links from other pages, so each moved character will require a number of edits elsewhere to restore connnections. (Also bear in mind that you're likely to be the only project member available to do all the work!)
 * EdJogg 13:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose for the TV series characters, we merge the Minor charcters into the other pages. I will do all the work if you like.Diesel 10 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with moving the vehicles, people, and rolling stock from the 'minor' page to the other relevant pages -- provided that all links from other pages are updated too (this is not a small job!).


 * The railway engines are another matter though. The Railway Series page is split Major/Minor, while the TV Series has a page devoted to Railway Engines and another to minor characters. As I hinted above, I suggest you list here what you think are the 'minor' (engine) characters, and why, and we can try to reach a collective agreement on what the best course of action might be. The present structure was established, by agreement, many months ago, and should not be changed without due consideration.


 * EdJogg 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have moved all of the Minor Non-rail Characters, Rolling Stock and People to the other pages and I have updated links. But the only links updated were from Seasons 6-10 this is because they have they have the new format. So there is no point updating links on pages when Rusty5 will change the whole page soon.

Now to the engines. If we were to move the engines from the Major to Minor page becuase they have had less than 10 features the engines affected would be Molly, Dennis, Daisy, Mighty Mac, Fearless Freddie, Neville and Rosie. How ever many of these characters are new so this may change in [subsequent] seasons. That is why I say move them to the Major page update the links and be done with it.

Diesel 10 09:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not proof-read your changes, but I have had a quick look at the pages and I must say that the character split is much better arranged now. Whether any of the pages require further sub-division (extra headings), or the characters arranged in a different order, remains to be considered.
 * Now, to the Railway Engines. The Thomas template currently shows 'Major Characters' and 'Minor Characters'. You are quite right to say that we cannot determine how 'minor' any of the characters are, as the Series is still growing. Now, if we move all of the engines across to the current 'Railway Engines' ('Major') page: (a) the 'Minor' page will become redundant (not in itself a problem), and (b) the Railway Engines page will get even bigger -- and it is already very large.
 * So, although I agree that replacing the Major/Minor split is a good idea, I think we still need to split the characters somehow. Various options are available: steam/diesel, ex-'Railway Series'/TV only, Steam Team/Visitors/Other, etc, but all of these give very skewed results. Hence, I think a sensible split would be 'Standard Gauge'/'Narrow Gauge': in other words, move the Skarloey locos and all the other Narrow Gauge locos from Railway Engines to 'Minor characters', and the 'minor' page could then be renamed (moved) to Narrow gauge engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends), which is unambiguous.
 * This is a rather more significant change than the others you have so far undertaken, so I would like to hear opinions from some of the other project members before you proceed (assuming you agree that is a sensible split!)
 * EdJogg 11:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems good EdJ - sounds like work for the RS pages as well. Again. Grr. Its certainly less ambiguous, and allows for new characters to be added without discussion. Clarity is good. Then non-rail/people/animals (sigh) can keep the separate page. –MDCollins (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be too hasty to find yourself more work MC! The Railway Series is a rather more finite beast, and it is hence much easier to establish which characters are 'minor'. This is, I believe, in keeping with other story series in WP, which also utilise a major/minor split. (At one stage there was a cat/list of 'Minor character' pages!). However, I agree that there is some merit in considering Standard vs Narrow for Railway Series too, although we had tried to move all of the NG characters to their own railway's pages... -- EdJogg 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I will start as soon as you give the word.Diesel 10 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal Patrol -- 'Change of Watch' needed
It seems like many months since User:Gonzerelli was performing the daily, thankless task of trying to keep the various 'Thomas' pages in some kind of shape, in the face of persistent poor-quality edits from anon users (and others). Noting his apparent absence, I have since been trying to uphold some kind of standard on these pages (except the 'Season' and 'film' -related pages which may be in poor shape now).

I have been finding that this vandal-patrolling is taking up far too much of my time, and is having a serious negative effect on my other WP work. Hence the time has come to 'call it a day'. I will continue to contribute to project activities, and I will continue to monitor pages related to The Railway Series, but others will have to take up the TV-series-related anti-vandal work now.

(BTW - I shall be on Wiki-break for the next 2-3 weeks)

EdJogg 10:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I'll be on the look out. Diesel 10 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the Season pages under my watchlist, and the Season 11 page is being vandalised day-in and day-out. --Rusty5 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your feelings completely - we've been there before, haven't we? Don't forget that you can always ask for semi-protection on the page, to prevent the anons from editing.
 * It is good to know that the Season pages are in safe hands. Even if I had the time to help you, I would be of little use as I know nothing of the later TV Seasons. (Sorry!)
 * EdJogg 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Places
Should we make a page for places on Sodor? I would start one now but I want to know what the rest of you think.Diesel 10 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Fictional locations in The Railway Series... or
 * or Fictional locations in Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends for a different perspective. Take the links from there (a couple have full pages). –MDCollins (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding redirected characters to cats
As of the beginning of August, Categorizing redirects became an official WP guideline.

'So what?', I hear you say...

Well, it now means that it is accepted practice to add (certain) redirected pages into a category. So, the RS/TtTE&F 'character' categories may now be used to provide an A-Z sorted list of all the major/minor characters, complementing the chronological/owning-railway -ordering of the character pages themselves.

This is not a small task (should list as a mini-project?), but is not difficult. Instructions are provided on the page noted above. Note that any characters so listed can probably be regarded as 'printworthy redirects' (ie they would gain an individual cross-referencing entry in a paper copy of the encyclopaedia). Note 2 - only one redirect should be categorised for each character, using the most appropriate name. If the 'most appropriate name' does not yet exist, a new redirect may be required. If the 'most appropriate name' is not obvious, please ask here before applying changes.

EdJogg 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Happy to assist, although a bit snowed under with a cricket infobox. I guess the place to start is here but maybe a discussion on the printworthy characters/format might best be served first rather than later. I presume splitting the cats by RS and TtTE&F is necessary too, therefore some will need two cats. For example, the first on the list: Alaric (Culdee Fell Railway) - is it a) printworthy, and/or is in the best format? Suggest if a)=true, (which it probably isn't) b)=false, best being Alaric (The Railway Series Character)/Alaric (character in The Railway Series) might be better.
 * Mdcollins1984 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the sage input... After many hours' thought, here is my response.

First, 'printworthyness'. This is actually quite simple, and should help the later stages. ALL character redirects included in the category must be considered printworthy. Or, looking from the opposite direction, ONLY printworthy redirects should be included in the cats.

But which are Printworthy? Those on the 'Major' character pages are a good start, but some from the other pages will also be relevant. So, how to decide? I think it is necessary to try and imagine you are the person searching for information. What information are you seeking, and why/how?

Taking the Mountain Railway as an example, the lesser engines (Alaric, Eric, Ernest and Wilfred) barely feature in the book and do not, AFAIK, appear as merchandise anywhere; and any mention of them in the Reference Works ("Island of Sodor, it's People, etc"), etc) is likely to be solely in the context of the Culdee Fell Railway. Hence it is unlikely that anyone will be searching for them using the Category page. However, Godred, Lord Harry, and Shane Dooiney may be included directly (as they already exist as unique names), and Culdee, Patrick, and Catherine may be included using the appropriate name redirects.

What names? At present, several are shown as Xxxxx (Culdee Fell Mountain Railway), but these may be moved to Xxxxx (Culdee Fell Railway), which is rather shorter. As a general principle, I would be happy to use the owning railway names instead: 'Arlesdale Railway', 'Mid-Sodor Railway', 'Skarloey Railway', etc, where possible, switching to '(The Railway Series)' only where necessary.

The Railway Series/TV Series split poses its own problems and I'll try to post my thoughts 'tomorrow'...

EdJogg 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My Thomas Story Library
Could we please do something about getting that page protected? It's being vandalised constantly. CBFan 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can request 'semi-protection' for a while, if the vandalism is persistent and obvious, and this can be extended as required. It is an all-too-common problem with some of the 'Thomas' pages.
 * The problem I have with this page (and remember, I was instrumental in helping it survive AfD!) is the complete lack of references -- even the publishers don't have a simple list of the books in the series, nor any indication of whether more books will follow... I don't even have a copy of one of the later books to ensure that they are listed in order. And as for the source story titles -- the heading does not explain what these are! A 'full' list of books is (was) available on Christopher Awdry's own shop site, but that is 'helpfully' listed alphabetically! Finding a reference that says which books were based on which originals could be quite a challenge!
 * EdJogg 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed vandalism on that page. It's obviously the work of mightymac10 or petersam29. It has a few things at the bottom saying future titles are: blah blah blah. We have to stop it! S.C.Ruffeyfan 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Woodland Animations
Why is the page devoted to Woodland Animations part of WikiProject Thomas? I've never seen any evidence to indicate that Woodland had any involvement in the making of the show - and didn't they specialise in BBC programmes anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.76.85 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I puzzled over this a few weeks ago. The ImDB page for the company lists TtTE&F as one of its productions; certain 'Thomas' DVD pages on Amazon mention the company, along with the BBC, Filmfair, Central and Gullane; there is an elusive page from TV.com which suggests the company produced the first Season; etc. In the face of this 'evidence', I decided to leave it alone. Nevertheless, it would be good to find concrete evidence of the link. Anyone got a Season 1 video to check??
 * EdJogg 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)