Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gonzerelli (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 30 March 2007 (→‎FAQs -- 'Season' or 'season'?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1, created 10 Oct 2006. Contains (among other discussions) a complete list of all characters in Railway Series, TV Series, and movies. Template:WPThomas Sidebar

Thomas Infobox

The infobox found at Template:Thomas has now been completed, and is in the process of being added to articles.

To add this infobox to an article, place {{Thomas}} below all article text (but above any categories).

Gonzerelli 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'M BACK!!!

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been active for the past couple of months as I have been busy in other areas of wikipedia, however I'm back and ready to contribute again!

With that said, there is some work that I want to take on. I want to create pages about the individual Railway Series books written by the two authors. If this is okay, please let me know here or on my talk page.

Also, there was some talk about uploading images from the books. We can do this, however, they will qualify as fair use, which means the images, although somewhat copyrighted, can be used here. Opinions on these two matters would be greatly appreciated. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back. We've calmed the storm somewhat recently, and things are chugging along quite nicely. Having said that, it's always nice to have a fresh perspective thrown in, to help us keep on top of things in the most efficient ways.
As for your idea to have separate articles for Rilway Series books, I feel it could have the potential to degenerate into a mess like the one we've just spent a lot of time cleaning up. However, List of Railway Series books allows for much expansion on the books, within the confines of their individual sections.
Also, we have discovered somewhat recently that the only images which qualify as "fair use" are the covers of the books. As annoying as this is in a way, we still have fourty images at our disposal. Most of the major characters feature on at least one book cover, and so can be ililustrated from a "Railway Series perspective" in this way.
Any further questions, please throw them up. It is helpful to discuss these things in detail! Gonzerelli 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Collection

Any good reason not to add the "Complete Collection" book to the list of railway series books page? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This requires further discussion.
Which books should be described on that page?
If you look at Christopher Awdry, you will see that I have added to his bibliography a group of children's books that he wrote which feature the main characters from the Railway Series in new stories. These were illustrated in a bold simplistic style by Ken Stott. I found another last night, same author and illustrator, but this time a very large 'learning to read' book. (Not yet added to that article.)
What about the four(?) combined volumes, which were simply six (or so) of the original books in original format, but bound into a single hard cover?
What about the Marks and Spencer publications? These use the original text and pictures, but arranged one above the other, in a new binding. (These are currently described on The Railway Stories page, but are awaiting the appropriate home to move to!)
Should the List of Railway Series books describe only those works which are regarded as Railway Series 'canon', or all those using original text and illustrations, or all books that are obviously not spin-offs from the TV Series?
Should there be a list of books featuring original Railway Series characters that is not considered canon? (And who decides which is which??)
Sorry for so many questions, but I think the Project is ready to move into new areas and needs guidance.
EdJogg 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm back again after broadband issues and would like to add my 2p worth
I would suggest that the list of Railway Stories books should contain just that really with perhaps mention to the major 'omnibus' complete collection books (and the four compliation style mentioned by EdJogg. {For an example of this style, see my work on Inspector Rebus, although this doesn't contain any book summaries). Any reprints, such as the M&S publications need not have seperate mention, maybe just a note saying reprinted by 'xyz'.
I think it should contain itself to the 'canon' - any that have been spun-out-of the TV series could be mentioned on the TV series side of the articles as they are not strictly 'Railway Series' books.
I am assuming that other books that are basically merchandising need not be included.
Mdcollins1984 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding. However, books on the Railway Series list page shold have books that are actually part of the railway series, or railway series-related. Thus said, the books written by the Awdrys should be on the page, as long as they have something to do with Thomas. --69.112.104.162 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my IP address. I forgot to log in. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Image vandalism"

I've just reverted a case of (what I will call) "image vandalism". A user attempted to place a different image (of Emily) onto an article (Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)) to the one which was already there. As discussed on this article's talk page, the image change was deemed to be less appropriate than the existing one.

After a few cases of edit warring without discussion, the user obviously decided to be a little sneaky and go behind our backs, and changed the file of the image (Image:EmilyTTTE.jpg) to the file they wanted to see in the article.

I have reverted this image to its original. The other image still exists on Wikipedia, at Image:EmilyTTTE2.jpg, however is unlikely to be used (for reasons outlined on the article mentioned above - namely, inappropriate angle and steam partly obscures the view of this character).

This is a new tactic to me, so I guess we should all be on the lookout for any sneaky actions, lest this user attempt the same tactic.

Gonzerelli 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best of luck. Following the recent spate of trivial/useless edits to the 'Thomas' pages by determined (unregistered) users, I have had to remove all the TV Series pages from my watchlist (which was being swamped). Unfortunately, this means I also lose sight of TV Series talk page changes (and hence I will not see when you might want my opinion!). I will continue to watch the books' pages for vandalism, however...
Frustrating, isn't it? -- EdJogg 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome Trucks comment

The following is with regards to the section Rolling stock (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)#Troublesome Trucks. This was placed on the talk page for that article, but has been copied here for the benefit of WP:THOMAS users.

Recently, I have been constantly reverting unregistered users' edits, which have been simply filling up a list of incidents.

Firstly, it is generally accepted that "the" Troublesome Trucks are only on the Standard Gauge lines, not on narrow gauge.

In addition, this list is starkly out of the series' context - quite intentionally, since this is a character page, and not an episode page (that's what pages like Thomas and Friends - Season 1, etc are for). So you can't expect the readers to know the happenings of every single episode, and therefore be able to clearly understand what is written. Keep this in mind.

Finally, all these additions have made the list incredibly long. We do not want long lists in articles - text is always better than lists. See WP:THOMAS for further information on this.

It would be preferable to edit this list so that it becomes a block of text rather than a list, however until then please do not add any further "incidents". If, however, you feel an incident is significant enough to warrant inclusion, feel free to note it below.

Gonzerelli 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Clearer standards for Railway Engines - TV Series

I wrote the following in Talk:Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends), and decided to copy it here for your reference. It clearly outlines what is expected within that specific article, and consolidates the disjointed discussion.

Standards for this article

As a part of the work done by WikiProject Thomas, some standards for this article have been established. These are to ensure that this article, WikiProject Thomas articles, and Wikipedia as a whole, are of high quality and maintain their integrity. The development of these standards can be viewed at both WikiProject Thomas Talk, and this page's Archive 1.

These standards include the following:

Character inclusion/exclusion

The basis for characters being included in this article, is dependent upon the following:

  • The character must be a railway engine from the TV Series Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (AKA Thomas and Friends). This clearly rules out any characters which have only appeared in The Railway Series or films.
  • The character must be able to be considered a part of the "regular fleet" of engines in the series. If not featured in recent seasons, the character must be able to feasibly return. If the character cannot be seen as a "regular" (eg. only had one appearance), then the correct article for the character is Minor characters from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends.
  • This page is to be the only reference page (from a TV Series perspective) for all engines, except the following major characters:

As such, separate articles should not be created for any engines other than those above.

Naming conventions

Some engines have, throughout history, have had "extended names", such as "Thomas the Tank Engine". There are only eight "extended names" which are considered appropriate, based on their consistent use throughout earlier seasons of the TV Series, as well as their origins in The Railway Series books. These are:

  • Thomas the Tank Engine
  • Edward the Blue Engine
  • Henry the Green Engine
  • Gordon the Big Engine
  • James the Red Engine
  • Percy the Small Engine
  • Toby the Tram Engine
  • Duck the Great Western Engine

Any other engines being given descriptive names (eg. "Murdoch the Mighty Engine") does not have any consistent, official basis. Please consider that using an adjective to describe an engine does not therefore make it an official naming convention.

Character list

The use of the character list at the head of this article bypasses the need for a Table Of Contents, and conveniently displays information, while anchor-linking within this article to each character's section. It is listed in order of first appearance within the series, which may not necessarily be the same order as they are listed within the article proper. This is intentional, as "Engines 1-11" can be placed in numerical order in the article, though Gordon (#4) appeared in the Series before Edward or Henry (#2 & #3).

Numbers

This has been the subject of some heated discussion in the past. Despite some engines (particularly diesel engines) carrying numbers (often similar as their prototypes upon which they were based), this often has no bearing on actual running of the railways in the Series. As such, it has been declared that ONLY the following engines' numbers will be specified in the Character List:

  • 1-11 Standard Gauge (Thomas, Edward, Henry, Gordon, James, Percy, Toby, Duck, Donald, Douglas, Oliver)
  • 1-7 Narrow Gauge (Skarloey, Rheneas, Sir Handel, Peter Sam, Rusty, Duncan, Fearless Freddie)
  • 27 (Harvey - "the number 27, including the Narrow Gauge engines and excluding Diesel, accurately reflects him being the 27th addition to the fleet of engines working on Sodor. [Quoted direct from article])

Images

By the very nature of this article, one picture per section depicting each character is acceptable, and indeed enhances this article greatly. However, as we may only use one image per character, the choice of image is incredibly important. The images should be clear, and where possible show as much of the engine as possible - ideally their face, funnel, wheels, body, and tender (if applicable). As these images have been carefully selected over time, it is considered harmful to change these images without discussion, or without the "new" image being obviously more appropriate.

Miscellaneous

  • Use of terminology:- "Engine" or "engines" is the correct terminology to use for this artcle, rather than "locomotive" or "train".
  • As this TV Series is a British series, British spelling and grammar should be used, rather than American spelling or grammar.
  • The section titles should not be changed, as changing them would mess with anchored links from dozens of other articles.
  • As with all other articles, superfluous comments which add nothing to the article are inappropriate, and should be removed.

Please, feel free to discuss

While the above standards may seem restrictive and stifling, it has been necessary to reach a set of common standards after over a year of editing this page (to my knowledge). However, if you disagree with any of these standards, or wish to discuss them, then please feel free to do so. We always welcome valuable input from other users.

On behalf of WikiProject Thomas,

Gonzerelli 17:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUGS and Theodore Tugboat

Someone has recently added Theodore Tugboat to {{Template:Thomas}}. As TUGS is already present, there is a certain logic to this addition, since both came from the same (television) stable as 'Thomas'. The same user has, quite correctly, now added the Thomas Template to the Theodore page.

However, isn't the link to 'Thomas' becoming rather tenuous? Should either of these series really be included in the Thomas Template and, by implication, appear to be part of the 'Thomas' canon?

EdJogg 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUGS has a verifiable link with Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. Theodore Tugboat does not. Will remove the latter now. Gonzerelli 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and the Pack

This one is a bit of an issue, pretty much since the On Site With Thomas release was made, and introduced new characters.

I am considering the idea of moving all Pack characters away from Non-rail vehicles (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends), and combining them with the contents of On Site with Thomas, to create a new page Jack and the Pack. This article would discuss all aspects, including the difference between characters appearing within the series proper, and those only seen in spin-off releases.

This would require time and effort to get done, but before anything is done, I would like it to be discussed here, and any other ideas on this put forward.

Gonzerelli 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unalive Vehicles (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)

I am seriously considering nominating this article for deletion. We need to maintain our focus on actual characters, not little models that made a background appearance once or twice.

If no objections are put forward by December 31st, I will nominate the article for deletion.

Gonzerelli 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or prune heavily - it's only a small step from starting to list buildings and trees! However, one or two of the vehicles (canal boat, balloon, mail van (?)) appear to have played a 'significant' role in at least one story/episode and therefore might be appropriate to keep, somewhere.
EdJogg 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the creator of the page, I am dissapointed to see it being deleted. This is an encyclopedia, so I presumed it features EVERYTHING in the 'Sodor' Universe. Besides, the 'little models' were popular enough to be made into merchandise, why not have a page devoted to them? I reckon it was best untouched. Thomasfan

It's nothing against you by any means TF, although your input in this discussion may have been valuable earlier.
As you say, this is an encyclopedia. We have to look at things from the grounds of notability. At the end of the day, what more is there to say about the vehicles in this article except "they appeared in this episode, and a toy was made of them"? As it is, I've had to heavily prune (as EJ so eloquently put it) the article Rolling stock (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends), as bits of it were going down the same path of taking up a lot of space to say very little.
Also, with this being an encyclopedia, how likely is it really that someone will come onto Wikipedia looking for information on obscure background characters? Anyone who's genuinely interested in that stuff would look for it on a fan site.
At the end of the day, let's play comparisons... Should the Sodor Mail Van have just as detailed a listing as Oliver, or Diesel? I can't help but feel it's pretty clear.
Gonzerelli 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I understand now. Ah well, as least I tried. Anyway, you're right about 'notability'. Sorry for making it in the first place. Thomasfan 7 January 2007

Don't be sorry mate! It's great that you've taken the initiative that you have to create it in the first place. That's the kind of proactive stuff we need plenty of. It's not that your contribution wasn't valued at all, which you understand now.
Don't be discouraged by this, there are plenty of other ways for you to make some more positive additions. :) Gonzerelli 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Membership - Include redirected characters?

Recently I scanned through Category:The Railway Series characters and thought how it might be useful to include all the major characters there, by adding their redirect page to the category ('main' redirect only, some characters have several!).

I tried this with Oliver the Western Engine, partly as this seemed an obvious choice, and partly to see how it looked.

Certain 'minor' characters should be included too, for example 'Bear', 'Toad', 'Pip&Emma' and the 'non-rail' and 'human' characters. Obviously common sense must prevail, for example the 'Unfeatured' characters should not be included, nor most of the visiting engines (which are counted as minor characters).

I tried to find some WP guidance on this, and it is suggested that redirect pages should not normally be added to categories. However, this is to avoid having multiple links to the same page within the category, and I think that in the case of WP:THOMAS, the redirect pages to individual characters within mutiple-character pages would be a valid exception to the rule. (And you ARE allowed to break the rules where appropriate!)

I don't think that it would be undermining the rationalisation that WP:THOMAS is trying to achieve, since it merely provides an alternative navigation route to the character pages. (Consider this: from the character category page, how would a non-fan locate Oliver's entry? Is he a major, minor or unfeatured character?)

This approach would also work well with the locations.

Thoughts?

EdJogg 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandising

Removed from main project page.

Go ahead with grouping the vast array of TV Series merchandising, in whatever manner seems most appropriate. But may I suggest a separate page might be needed for that related to the original books? To give an idea for the scope of the article, there's a good external link from The Railway Stories. The link shows the many different items that were released long before a TV spin-off was attempted. (Incidentally, I trust that The Railway Stories itself can remain separate from this grouping process - it's taken me a long time (and more than a few quid on eBay!) to gather all the information for the article!!)
EdJogg 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise

The page Merchandising (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) was recently created by User:Soopahoops77, and is almost a duplication of the list of models available. I moved the page to the above title, in better keeping with naming conventions - as the created page looked like it should be to do with Merchandising in general! I don't particularly like the page, but there is plenty of work to be done. Just thought I'd put the page in the right place first!! Mdcollins1984 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible move! (in both sense of the phrase :o) ). Also allows for future creation of a Railway Series equivalent page (see link on The Railway Stories, mentioned above, for scope of content). -- EdJogg 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A poor move you have ruined and duplicated an article from a true thomas fan, i bet you are a 40 year old loner, i'm 15 i grew up on thomas soopahoops77
Actually, I'm not 40 nor a loner (and what would it matter if I was?)! I too grew up on The Railway Series and the TV series, and, like many others, am working hard to obtain a high standard of all related articles on Wikipedia. If you notice, I haven't actually duplicated the article, just changed the name to reflect Wikipedia policy, leaving a redirect in place from the page you created.
As for ruining an article, having not changed any of the text, I couldn't possibly begin to understand what you mean. Sorry if I have caused you any trouble; if you need any help, a number of experienced users are available if you ask them.
Good luck with the article,
Mdcollins1984 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you would be, I don't know a lot about Thomas merchandising as a brand, I just know what stuff they make —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soopahoops77 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Project Page - Overhaul needed??

Just bumped into Wikipedia:WikiProject Dad's Army and thought how well laid-out it was, especially when compared with the WP:THOMAS project page: clear and concise, with the minimum information essential for article improvement (etc), and associated details (such as participants) gathered on sub-pages. It's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but I think it highlights some problems with WP:THOMAS' page.

Gonzerelli has started creating sub-pages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Thomas/FAQ, but I think there is much more that can be done. We need to gather together the common practices described on the Project page, and its talk page/archive, into a form that's readily identifiable by others. It's a bit messy at present (and I'm just as guilty as others for contributing to this mess!)

Thoughts?

EdJogg 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a bad idea - the participants page could be split (with active/inactive participants!).
The main problem I have noticed is the fact that the project page looks like a talk page (and at times has acted as one!). The box down the outside of Dads Army looked good also. The aims and pages covered/scope of the project should be better laid out as well. For example the list of character pages could be moved to a subpage so it doesn't take up so much space.
Mdcollins1984 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar

I've started making a sidebar similar to that on the Dad's Army page. Please feel free to assist with it or any subpages. For now it is at: User:Mdcollins1984/WPThomas Sidebar. Mdcollins1984 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have also collated a few subpages in the project namespace, links from the above sidebar link for now. This can be added to all the WikiProject pages when complete to allow linking back/forth. Mdcollins1984 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side bar looks promising. Regarding the subpages, what's 'TTFE'? (you've included it in several page titles)... EdJogg 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TTFE...hmm... don't know! Guess I was trying to remember an abbreviation for the TV series while too tired. Any suggestions? TV might do? They can all be moved anyway! Muppet me! Mdcollins1984 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter.
As far as I can tell the sidebar is at a suitable stage for inclusion on all project pages/subpages unless anyone has any objections. It should probably be moved to Template:WPTHOMAS sidebar or something. Then some of the content on the main page can be tidied/removed.
Admittedly a lot of the links are the same as the template (bear in mind a few have been condensed into project subpages but it isn't obvious which), but I guess this doesn't matter as it is just a compilation of all the article links. Does this make the sidebar too long? To do section could be created too/or removed.
Mdcollins1984 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see I've had a little play. Feel free to keep or revert any of the ideas!
Couple of errors to report on the TV characters page: 'Emily' is missing from the list of individual characters; grouped page links use the old title syntax.
Not sure if the sidebar needs every individual character page linked (and, regardless, Emily is missing!) as they are all present on the new 'RS' and 'TV' character project pages. Removing them would reduce the length of the sidebar...
However, I have been trying to work out how we would actually USE the links, and failed to come up with an answer. Usually I just head for my own 'links' page, or else call-up the nearest page with a {{Thomas}} navi box. Maybe I'll have some more ideas later. For now I've got my 4-year old itching to use the computer, so I'll have to go...
EdJogg 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I was thinking about removing all the links to one subpage for links to all articles under the project umbrella (I know the category exists but I don't like it!

  • Yep, forgot to put Emily back.
  • Had marked the RS/TV character pages for deletion as they were mostly the same and a bit pointless. Think I'll make mkII without so many links and see how it looks. i'll create a page based on yours containing all of the links.

Mdcollins1984 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdcollins1984/WPThomas SidebarMkII is an alternative as proposed above. Mdcollins1984 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly compact now. I suspect that once the 'ToDo' list gets going, it will lengthen (you should see my 'ToDo' list!!!), so having the basic list compact is probably a good move. (Were you thinking of listing 'ToDo's in the sidebar, or as a separate page, or both?)
Having a single 'links' page is better, if only to avoid all that duplication. There is an awful lot of overlap (of course) between that page and the Thomas navi-box. So I started to think why we would use the sidebar... The obvious reason, I decided, was to AVOID placing the Thomas navi-box on the Project pages. Hence your sidebar becomes the navibox for the Project pages, and can be allowed to include more pages (for whatever reason) than would be appropriate for the offical navi-box. (Hope that makes sense!)
I think you need feedback from some other Project members to find out their views. But if you also create a ToDo page (what form do they take? How are they used?) so that can be linked, I think the sidebar could go 'live'.
EdJogg 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't know how to go about the ToDo page (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Blackadder for a successful side bar with ToDo list. Was hoping someone could help with that. I agree with leaving the navibox out in favour of the side bar. In any case, I have had a small blitz on re-organising the project page a little but would appreciate you taking a look (esp the mini-projects bit). I too anticipate that the side bar will lengthen with links as people see fit. Mdcollins1984 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been busy! (Sorry, wasn't looking at my watchlist - busy elsewhere!!) Will try to have a look tomorrow...
BTW - inclined to agree about the FAQ signatures
EdJogg 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you guys have been busy! Nice work...
My thought on this is that, like it or not, we're treading over the same ground as Template:Thomas already covers. But I'm sure you realise this, and I know that what you're aiming for is something more eaily accessible within the project page than something that's tapped on the bottom of articles.
The MkII is a much better version, and project-specific.
Once I've sorted out a few pressing personal issues, I should really go back through my own to-do list, which involves things brought to the table, such as exploring the Bot-generated lists, etc... That should help make this a little smoother once I can sort that stuff lol
Gonzerelli 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Dad's Army/Black Adder with the Thomas project page, the obvious difference is the quantity of text present – we must move what we can to the FAQs, I think. Also, the other two pages look to have MANY standard headings, so there may be a 'preferred form' for a project page...? Haven't thought about the ToDo yet, but did notice that your sidebar omits links to the categories: these can be listed on the main project page, as there are only a handful at present (I intend to create a couple more to manage images). Also, it might be appropriate for the templates (etc) to remain on the main page, rather than move to a separate one (again, for consistency with the other projects). More later... EdJogg 11:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having kept the templates etc on the main page, I have marked the subpage for deletion, and changed the sidebar link to an anchor on the main page (there is no reason why the sidebar cannot link to the main page esp if it is viewed from a subpage).
A lot of WikiProjects have standard headings, but a lot are blank or pointless. I have no problem with adding other sections, but not just for the sake of it!.
Do you have a list of categories? They can be added/linked to in the same way as the templates (see above).
Mdcollins1984 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to list them later... EdJogg 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Listed - and sidebar updated too. EdJogg 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar now moved into template namespace at Template:WPThomas Sidebar for addition with curly brackets!.
Mdcollins1984 13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For FAQs or Guidance?

Just re-spotted section above: "Clearer standards for Railway Engines - TV Series". This should be copied to a 'guidelines' page, or re-edited into FAQs on FAQ page...

EdJogg 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section copied to FAQs page and adjusted slightly to suit its new home. Will need much more work, but at least provides the information where it is required.
(And how am I supposed to respond to your irrelevant comment if you delete it between me refreshing my page and pressing 'Edit'. I'm easily confused, you know... :o) )
EdJogg 14:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Island of Sodor – Its People, History and Railways"

Just FYI...

A (signed) copy of this book was tonight sold on eBay.UK for £103.53 !!

I think I'll treat my copy a little more carefully in future! (My copy was bought at Covent Garden and is not only signed, by both Wilbert and George, but it also has the small strip of printed paper that was tucked into the D.J. to indicate this fact!)

EdJogg 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skarloey Engines - Move to Skarloey Railway Page?

Just bumped into the page Rusty the Diesel. Does Rusty count as a character significant enough to warrant his own page??

And while we're at it, wasn't there a plan to move Skarloey, Rheneas, Peter Sam, and Sir Handel to a 'grouped' page?? (My preference being Skarloey Railway for consistency with the other narrow gauge lines, and to allow all major/minor Skarloey engines to be covered on the same page).

EdJogg 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, EdJogg, your table of characters/links thinks that Rusty the Diesel is a redirect page - it isn't! Mdcollins1984 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, true, but it should be! If you compared the history of that table with the history of some of the other redirected characters (I don't suggest you do, it would take hours!) you will see how many current redirects were redirected as a result of constructing that table. The long-running issues of what to do about the Skarloey characters made me hold off moving Rusty and his redirects until someone had made a decision – and that was about 6 months ago!!! Just me trying to avoid moving pages twice... EdJogg 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the ideal scenario would be for none of the engines mentioned to have their own pages, as their TV series aspects haven't had the hugest development (and can easily be covered in Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)).
From the Railway Series perspective, I feel that the engines (1-6) could be noted on Major characters in The Railway Series (I think Book 40's cover would be good for this!), but gone into detail on Skarloey Railway. This would, of course, then mean that Skarloey Railway is to come completely from a Railway Series viewpoint (perhaps with a section noting the TV Series adaptation, and any significant differences).
That's my thoughts on this, for you to use and/or abuse as you wish. :)
Gonzerelli 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that input, which is pretty much exactly what I hoped you were going to say!! This approach will mean that the Skarloey Railway is handled in exactly the same way as the others, ie that ALL engines/rolling stock are described on the page of the railway in question. Regardless, I was thinking of moving the main coverage of Duke to the MSR page for the same reason.
This move will not happen 'overnight' (by me, at least) as I have far too many other things 'on the boil' - see my contributions list!!! But will certainly tackle it in due course. There's a good deal of prototype information to add, and it will be good to get a degree of separation between TV and book coverage.
An aside: I've watched some of the Season 10 episodes and I find it hard to swallow some of any of the story lines. But what particularly makes my blood boil is that Skarloey/Rheneas, both engines more than 140 years old, should be 'frightened' of anything!! I know the problem though. The TV Series now allow the engines to have independent thought and movement, only being constrained by the rails (but, strangely, not the points!!), whereas the books require the engine characters to have drivers and firemen and to (generally) follow proper railway rules and working practices – the Rev. Awdry taught me a lot about railways and the workings of steam engines through these books! So you see why I generally try to avoid editing the TV series pages! </rant off> EdJogg 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the Skarloey engines should be the last significant structural change we need to make, on the Railway Series side, at least.
...and the idea of using Book 40 cover – inspired thinking! It's perfect!
EdJogg 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hinted at this when re-organising the MiniProjects. If either of you has time can you check/rewrite the character (re)rationalisation bit as I'm not clear on what the plans are. Mdcollins1984 13:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ALL articles needed

A major omission from the project is a list of every single related article, including all the redirect pages. This could then be used as the source for a link to 'Related Changes' in the sidebar. (Try clicking 'Related Changes' on the left and see the results!)

My list of articles could be used as raw material, since it lists all the redirects for Railway Stories characters that I have found. (Will need boiling down to a simple list of pages though, grouped into appropriate headings!) It is only a starting point though, as I have not listed (nor attempted to find) the huge array of redirects associated with the TV Series pages.

For completeness, should also include categories, templates and images?

EdJogg 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - MiniProject?? Would this interfere with/replace the general page in use on the sidebar/main page? Obviously a full list is too much for the project mainpage, but selected links could be used (as it is in a way at the moment). I guess it should replace the basic one I created quickly the other day, but in some ways a simple list is easier to find the main articles and not redirects. I don't know or mind really, just waffling on a little! Mdcollins1984 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar would have two links: (i) a 'Related changes' link using the links page as raw material (see our two example projects for mechanism) (ii) a link to the links page itself, to allow maintenance. I would not anticipate that project members would use the links page themselves for normal navigation, only to add new (or remove deleted) links. Hence it would not replace any existing list of links.

As hinted, it should list ALL articles and redirects, so would likely run to a couple of hundred links! Might need to be a mini-project...

EdJogg 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a Maxi Project!! Would this therefore replace the sidebar section Project Article Links - thus shortening the bar a bit further? (Yes, I suppose). I agree that it would not be used as a navigation page. Note-to-self: Remember that this is for project members, and not really for normal users. Mdcollins1984 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it would NOT replace the sidebar section Project Article Links – that section is there so we don't need the Thomas template on the Project pages.

I am thinking more along the lines of this link: Recent changes. This search uses the project articles category as raw material, which assumes that all articles/redirects to be monitored have the project banner on their talk pages. Bearing in mind that Skarloey, Rheneas, Peter Sam and Sir Handel did not have the project banner until yesterday...

Ahem.

A full list of links ought to be a direct copy of the category list, but either way we've got some work to do!

EdJogg 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started! - its such a trawl but needs doing. In-complete list can be found from Sidebar link and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thomas/Article List. Progress sections details what has been done. It is in a very raw format but its a start. Suggest we created full list, then split/copy them into the three lists mentions below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdcollins1984 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
N.B. This is not helped by spending half an hour reverting more edits by User:Hammersfan... Mdcollins1984 10:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now look at the list, it's massive. Think I've finished searching the existing categories. Could do with some sorting splitting as below, but still - what a task! I'm feeling good, but tired and square-eyed. There is a notes section of things I noticed could be done, and now don't care about!
Mdcollins1984 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I'm glad I didn't follow my links page to its logical conclusion, I'd have been here 'til Christmas!! (Not sure what I'll do with that page now, the links monitoring is redundant, but the copyable links are sooooooooooo useful!)

I've modified the sidebar so that the 'Recent Changes' link now uses the new list. You will see that I have allowed for 'sublists', but these will (unfortunately) have to use new sub-pages, assuming the search tool is not clever enough to be programmable. Keeping all the pages up-to-date should not be quite so bad, though, as you'll only need to look at the main pages and see where the Article List sits in 'What Links Here' – any pages after that point will have been created since you made the list. We could do with a bot to automate this...

The notes at the bottom of the page should be moved to an appropriate mini-project (when we get that up-and-runnning – I keep getting distracted by more interesting things!)

I suggest you go and pour yourself a beer, have a lie down, and avoid WP:THOMAS editing for a few days!

EdJogg 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple Lists required

Having just been testing the 'Recent Changes' function I added to the sidebar, I realised that we actually need THREE such links: one for ALL pages, one for just Railway Series pages, and one for just TV series changes. The latter two will have a considerable overlap – all the grouped pages, main characters, categories, etc – but will allow project members to focus on one or other aspect if wished.

The current facility just makes use of the existing list page. The new functions will require their own pages for each search, which is a minor nuisance, but probably worth it to get the functionality.

Incidentally, this functionality was copied from the DadsArmy project sidebar (see 'change' link at top of bar), which I discovered had been copied from the Black Adder project sidebar – because they had forgotten to update the link! (I corrected it for them!)

EdJogg 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TtTE&F Merchandising Pages - Proposed Merges

I have created a new category: Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise for the 16+ merchandising pages, which should make the task a little easier. Having now looked at all the pages, there is a certain amount of information that ought to be retained – manufacturers, form, construction, dates, etc – but the long lists are not very helpful.

I also discovered the page Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends models which is a good (if brief) summary page, although duplicated by the new Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise page. I have added merge banners to request that these two pages be merged together, but some of the others would be appropriate to merge 'soon'.

EdJogg 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More books/merchandising

(copied from Talk:List of Railway Series Books as may influence work on merchandising]])

I've just remembered (and seen on Amazon) the Ladybird books that were published as a spin-off from the TV series. I 'believe' these are the original books, albeit containing stills from the TV series, and rebranded (book one is Edward, Gordon and Henry [1].

There seem to be many other books etc available: should they be placed in merchandising articles? Mdcollins1984 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the fairly simple basis that books relating to the TV Series count as merchandising. The Ladybird books are fairly clear-cut in this instance, as the illustrations are straight from TV. Other books with drawings rather than photos are more of a grey area, and are a further step removed from the TV series. We SHOULD include these books – I would suggest creating a 'grouped' page for book merchandising, from where we can take a view of how much detail is required for each series produced, and whether any warrant separate pages. However, the Ladybird books were (probably) the first and (possibly) the most extensive, at least until the current range of books, so they might merit special treatment.
As an aside, the same sort of approach could be taken for The Railway Series – books relating to the R S which are not considered canon could be covered by a merchandising page. Thankfully, for our sanity, the level of merchandise is much smaller!
EdJogg 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie-only characters overlap

Hi,

I've found while compiling the list of articles that Thomas the Tank Engine film characters contains much the same information as Thomas and the Magic Railroad as regards characters in the films. It contains the same characters but differing descriptions. I would ask anyone who is interested to check these articles.

As the Thomas infobox (at the bottom) clearly links Thomas the Tank Engine film characters as Movie only that this should be made clear, and only one set of descriptions should remain here. It is a bit unclear whether all the film characters are linked here, or just new ones not seen in Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends.

A link such as For the characters that appeared in Thomas and the Magic Railroad see Thomas the Tank Engine film characters might do.

Any other suggestions? Lets try to avoid the duplication of material!

Mdcollins1984 23:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Scots

I've been following the near- edit war regarding Emily and Donald&Douglas. These two pages SHOULD be in Category:Fictional Scottish people. I know it doesn't make much sense including engines in a category of 'people', but the category also includes Shrek, a vast number of McDucks (from Disney) and The Family Ness – none of whom are people either. It is not the fault of Emily/Donald/Douglas if the category name has changed!

Their category was "Fictional Scots", and was intended to cover all Fictional Characters of Scottish origin. However, some bright spark has ignored the near hundred equivalent sub-categories of Category:Fictional characters by origin that do NOT include the word 'people', and put it forward for renaming. The decision for changing the name was disputed by a number of people who obviously DID know what they were talking about, but supported by slightly more who had not researched their arguments. Check the Discussion archive here if you don't believe me!

I was going to request a further rename to 'Fictional Scottish characters', and I also thought about creating an additional category of that name, but I realised that the problem was much, much greater, so I opted to open a discussion here instead. Maybe one of our project members would like to escalate the problem to WP:CFD?

There was never a problem with Emily/Donald/Douglas being 'Fictional Scots', so I have re-applied the (renamed) category pending Wikipedia sorting out the mess of category names...

EdJogg 20:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair enough. I'll let the cat's stay for now, but this issue will sit in the back of my mind.
My view is/was obviously quite simple - that so long as the category specifies "people", then steam locomotives (even anthropomorphised) don't fit into the category. This view also, obviously, applies to the other fictional non-humans you've mentioned which are beyond the scope of this project.
I would fully support the category being re-named Fictional Scottish characters, for the reasons you've outlined above if not just for the sake of putting correct information into the correct places.
Gonzerelli 08:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Series 'Minor' Characters

For the TV Series characters, is there really a need for a 'minor characters' page that covers engines, rolling stock, people and non-rail vehicles? Reason I ask is that the separate pages describing rolling stock, people and non-rail vehicles all contain minor characters too... Neglecting the effort required to change links, would it be appropriate to leave the 'Minor' page listing with just the railway engines, and move the other characters to their respective pages? That way, someone looking for a Non-Rail character (for example) would only need to go to the Non-Rail page, and not have to guess whether a character was 'minor' or not.

I appreciate that this is treading on dangerous ground, as we have already been most of the way through the character rationalisation process, and any changes like this might suggest similar changes to the book pages, but it did seem to me that there were anomalies in the existing split...

EdJogg 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. First and foremost, though, Railway Engines is already considered "possibly too large", adding more minor characters to this page would be way too much. As it is, Fergus and Murdoch are up for re-assessment if (and when) there is another season, and if they don't re-appear then these characters *may* be shunted over to Minor Characters.
As for others... Non-rail characters could feasibly *all* be on Non-rail vehicles, subject to the Pack (and contents of On Site with Thomas) being moved to Jack and the Pack. Rolling stock, could fit on its own page. People & Animals, that page is fairly messy still, but I think the people from Minor Characters have been moved there anyway...
At the end of the day though, Railway engines is too full to accommodate ALL the engines, including the minor ones. So there will still have to be *some* kind of "minor characters" page.
Gonzerelli 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my wording was a little careless. I was trying to imply that the 'Minor' page would remain, but only containing Railway Engines.

Not sure how we might split the 'Major characters' page though. Incidentally, that page is still labelled as "Major Characters" on the Thomas navibox.

EdJogg 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross link TV series episodes with the RS book - proposed mini project?

Hi. When collating the large page of WPTHOMAS links, I found some redirects of book/episode titles that pointed to the collated TV season page. This was from a merge-redirect move to collate all the material of every episode onto a 1-season per page setup. This is fine, although I decided to point most of these redirects to the Railway Series book titles instead, as these did come first. [I think they were only created for TV seasons 1 and 2 anyway].

Anyway, getting to the point, shall we cross-link the TV series episodes with the Railway Series books in order to standardise the 'This episode is based on the Railway Series book xyz ' type sentences? This could then be a little mini project for anyone who wants to do it!

Mdcollins1984 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do the job properly then, yes, this sounds like the right thing to do, although links should be provided in both directions (for example, This story was the basis for Season 5 episode "Thomas breaks all HMRI regulations for 'stopping within section'"). The latter will be a bit more tricky to format neatly, as the book stories currently only exist as titles rather than summaries (another mini-project? there's only 161 to do :o) ).
At least the mini-project can be broken up into 4 manageable chunks (in one direction) and 40 bite-size pieces (in the other). Not sure that I know enough about the TV Series episodes to undertake it though...
EdJogg 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both directions is good. I think for the first few series it is easy and either of us can do it (the episode descriptions on the TV seasons pages are good enough for us to recognise), and in any case the original titles are almost invariably the same!

Mdcollins1984 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern about this, is that it could become repetitive and somewhat superfluous to list the book titles alongside every episode.
One way around this could be to utilise the "Notes" section, to link as follows: "This season uses stories from the following Railway Series books: Three Railway Engines, Thomas the Tank Engine, Troublesome Engines etc etc I'm sure my point's clear by now.
Again, to make it more concise from the RWS approach, the notes in each book could indicate as follows: "the stories in this book (except Mrs Kyndley's Christmas) were used in the first season of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends".
As for the sections of List of Railway Series Books being the book titles, and no "lower level" links... Let's keep it that way. The contents box is huge enough as it is.
Gonzerelli 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, was Mrs Kyndley's Christmas not the basis for Thomas' Christmas Party? That's what it seems, looking at the descriptions! If not, the note under Thomas' Christmas Party should be reinstated (I removed it a few days ago)...Mdcollins1984 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas' Christmas Party was in fact based on a seperate story. The episode references the events of Mrs Kyndley's Christmas, but beyond that fifteen-second mention the original Railway Series story is not televised. Gonzerelli 03:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there'd be enough Wikipedians interested in Thomas the Tank Engine to create a WikiProject about it...

...but no, I'm astounded by the depth of the information on articles about the TtTE series.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought when I saw the edit summary with the title of this section that an insult was coming our way, but it looks like a compliment to me :)
As for the reason this project was created... The whole reason it came about was that we just plain got sick to death of seeing mis-information, badly organised information, and just general crap relating to articles in the scope. Looking at the main articles related to the project now, it seems a little incredible that they could have been filled with *so* much crap only a little over a year ago.
So I'll take this chance to take my hat off to everyone who's contributed to WP:THOMAS' success :)
Gonzerelli 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project ToDo list

I've been keeping my eye out for how these are managed elsewhere.

Best one I've found is at WikiProject Trains. This utilises a custom variant of the {{todo}} box, called {{todo, trains}}. To see it in action, check out Talk:British Rail.

This box resides at top of a talk page, under the project banner, rather than in a side-bar. This has the benefit that longer sentences may be used!

EdJogg 15:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with any format you can come up with. If I can see a way in which it can be improved, I'll be sure to say something :)
As for the contents of the "To Do list", I'll put below what's floating around in my mind as mental notes... (It's like a world full of Too Many Post-Its in there...)
General tasks
(Can be completed by any members of WP:THOMAS)
Higher tasks
(Can be completed by any member of WP:THOMAS who has a sound working knowledge of Wikipedia)
  • Creation of article Jack and the Pack, merging in all information from On Site with Thomas, which is to be then redirected, and links changed to reflect this
  • Fixing redirects - Check the "what links here" for articles (particularly major ones), and see if any pages link to the article via a redirect. If this is the case, open these articles and change the links so they link to the correct article.
  • Skarloey engines, Railway Series perspective. Complete edits as per project talk page.
Admin duties
(Can be completed by senior members of WP:THOMAS, who have both an excellent working knowledge of Wikipedia, and who have a strong record in useful edits, particularly large-scale)
  • Creation of a full list of articles - Bot generated?
  • Continued maintenance of Project page and its sub-pages
  • Exploring the "ratings system", in an attempt to get as many articles within WP:THOMAS' scope as possible to GA (Good Article) status, ideally one or two FAs (Featured Articles).
  • Re-assessment of major articles, for Wikipedia 1.0 (I haven't re-visited this since it was raised back in Archive 1!)
At this stage, I would reccommend only EdJogg, Mdcollins1984 and the Project Founders attempt admin duties, as these users have proven they have what is required for these tasks. I imagine *most* active members could attempt Higher Tasks. However, if you feel you could satisfactorily complete a task, regardless of its "level", then please feel free.
That's my 3½ cents anyway :)
Gonzerelli 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character 'songs'

An anon editor has added references to 'songs' for each of the main characters. This information does not extend beyond a title, so has no context. Anyone know any more about them, or are they just fancruft?

EdJogg 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they refer to music played during the TV series, but they could be made up. In any case - why are they here? They just seem to lower the standard of the articles. Was going to revert but assumed somebody else would be on top of it! Mdcollins1984 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we were both waiting for Gonzerelli to delete them?
:o) -- EdJogg 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the songs have been popping up again and again over the past few days... I just wasn't online yesterday to catch them... But I think I got them all now!
For trivia's sake, they refer to the songs which are releassed in conjunction with the TV Series, often used as "fillers" for videos, or for the longer versions of the series (eg. half-hour versions... I know nothing of these, except that they exist). Full information and listing for songs is already available on List of Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Songs. It hasn't been added to the Template yet (and I'm not sure if/when it will).
But you're quite right - to add them to character pages is as superfluous as the other recent fads... "Episodes featuring ___", and "Places ___ hasn't been"...
Gonzerelli 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the latest seems to be Last appearance of x (to date). I notice many have now been changed to Last appearance until 2008. Grr, its to late to revert User:CourtneyBonnick, I thought after this discussion I'd cleared that up. MDCollins (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated for deletion.

These two articles have been nominated for deletion. What do we think? Mdcollins1984 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a rename to Thomas Story Library or My Thomas Story Library, which is the correct title for the series and generates >9000 Google hits!
I think it is the publisher's intention that this should become a 'new' Railway Series, and it certainly requires coverage here as the stories ARE based on Awdry originals (in some cases) (see quote extracted from Egmont website).
EdJogg 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice from the links above that the keep and rename result of the AfD was successful. It would be useful to get a definitive list of these books, and info regarding which were the source stories, etc. You can help!
--EdJogg 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested Merge to Thomas & Friends (computer games)
Mdcollins1984 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed EdJogg 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page content has now been merged to the 'merchandise' page. Would have redirected it too, but didn't think that was 'right'! EdJogg 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have supported the "rename" vote for Story Library. Day at the races, I don't care what happens to it, so long as I don't have to look at it as it exists again! Gonzerelli 02:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD now closed. Content was merged by EdJogg (see above), and page has now been officially redirected to Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise#Computer games.
EdJogg 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk merchandise page deletion requested

By chance I found that 'all' of the merchandise pages have been slated for deletion
(see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tomy Wind Ups).

The request covers the following pages:

Thomas Tomy Wind Ups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Thomas Character Builder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Bachmann Thomas and Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends ERTL Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Lego Duplo Thomas & Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Thomas Tomica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
My First Thomas & Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Thomas and Friends Wooden Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   MERGED
Hornby Thomas And Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   –   REQUESTED KEEP

I have added my response, requesting that they involve WP:THOMAS members!

My current view is that Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise page should cover the encylopedic aspects of the merchandising, but the list pages should be moved over (if they are happy to have them) to Train Spotting World, which is a Wiki created from WP but designed to be less strict in terms of article coverage.

EdJogg 13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Slambo, who is very active over at TSW as well as here, and his view is that the offending pages may well 'fit' over there. If we can move them then that'll be one less heap of vandalism to worry about!
EdJogg 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As co-founder of TSW I can confirm that we have a place for all such articles. Our community is not an encyclopaedia, but a place for like minded rail fans of all types (from models and toys to full blown foamers) to gather and create the community they wish for and need. I have placed my acceptance on the AfD page as well, and just need a list of what is to be transferred to be given to me there before the AfD closes (we need to extract from live pages, not deleted pages). We'd like a member or two of this wikiproject to "accompany" the pages and perform any necessary tidying, naturally. We port category names but not the categories themselves. Templates also often need editing on arrival.
I'm sure the community will create some form of self governing bureaucracy, and our objective is to leave it very much to the community to create itself. We care as founders about copyright and standards of behaviour, and limit ourselves to those areas. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is good news indeed. It requires a little more thinking about than I have time for tonight, so will try to tackle the 'rescue' tomorrow lunchtime. I will certainly 'accompany' them, at least to settle them into their new home, but I won't reckon on 'maintaining' them as such.
Incidentally, by going down this route we are almost reversing our current position with regard to the AfD. There is no real need for two copies of this information on the web, and leaving the lists available within WP will not encourage their maintenance at TSW. Nevertheless, I think it is the right thing to do.
EdJogg 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this goes ahead, I think we should support the Afd. Also there may be a few more as listed here on the complete article list. Mdcollins1984 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, you have the precise meaning of "Accompany". It's really like children flying alone. They get cared for, but only just so much :) Initial tidying and housekeeping will be all that is needed. After that it would probably make sense to encourage the younger members and others with a particular interest in the articles who are (or not) part of this wikiproject to be the active maintainers and antivandal patrollers on TSW. The great thing is that the criteria for encyclopaedic acceptance do not exist with us. Thus a WP article that is "dull but worthy" could link happily to a freer TSW article. Obviously WP:RS would have to apply. There may be scope, though it is early days, to consider a true interwiki link. However I am sure there is attendant "stuff" if one goes that route, and it's an area where I feel I should not make other than a neutral comment because I am an interested party. Fiddle Faddle 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy for TSW to take over the content of these pages, so that the info on Wikipedia (under the umbrella of WP:THOMAS) can remain relevant and notable. :) Gonzerelli 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've (started) being bold and commenced merging the Merchandise pages. I hadn't realised quite how little substance was there! Only the Hornby page has any detail to it, and you would have to question whether the level of detail is appropriate here. In accordance with AfD guidelines, I have not modified the pages themselves, merely copied the little encyclopaedic text and tweaked it to suit its new home.
Progress is indicated above. EdJogg 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All identified pages now merged, except for 'Hornby'.
I have added a 'Merge' or 'Delete' comment to the AfD discussion for all pages except 'Hornby', which I have requested as 'Keep'.
Once the AfD is completed, we can tackle the remaming articles.
EdJogg 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued articles

We were asked to rescue Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise. Those articles, in need of tidying and housekeeping with sundry template to be fettled and others to be removed are at TSW Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the ironic similarity to a plot in one of the books? Naughty children tried to close the railway down, but..... Now, just who is the Fat Controller? Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent talk pages changes

I've created a link on the sidebar for recent changes to talk pages. These do not get picked up on the standard recent changes tool. This link checks the talk pages that are in Category:WikiProject Thomas articles (that have been added by using the project notice. We can now patrol these talk pages for any queries that arise. MDCollins (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. W. Awdry

I know the convention for articles is to avoid the use of titles in article names, but does anyone else find it annoying that the article is at W.V. Awdry, but we always link to the Rev. W. Awdry?! MDCollins (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will know, more than most, how widespread this is. However, I don't think we'll get policy changed. (Look at the history for the article itself, and you'll see that the title 'Reverend' was removed from the lede paragraph too. I sorted that one, pretty smartish.) But I think you're onto a loser here! EdJogg 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TUGS project

Hello, I have started a new project specifically for TUGS, Salty's Lighthouse and Theodore Tugboat. So far there are 5 users in it. Anyone interested may join the Wikipedia:WikiProject TUGS. Driveus 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this intended to take over from WP:THOMAS, and therefore this project should relinquish all pages to WP:TUGS?MDCollins (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, yes. I'm not involved in WP:TUGS, but TUGS-related pages have never been the direct domain of WP:THOMAS. Having taken a brief look over there, WP:TUGS is needed rather desperately, as the articles under its scope are filled to the brim with POV statements and superfluous comments.
WP:TUGS has the support of WP:THOMAS in principle (the improvement of articles on Wikipedia), and possibly dual members, and will allow WP:TUGS to use WP:THOMAS as a model from which to build their own ideas. Beyond this, our best wishes are all we can offer. :)
Gonzerelli 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's TV Project

Zesty Prospect and I are trying to start a WikiProject incorperating Childrens Television in the UK as a whole. It would be appriciated if you could help us get it off the ground and co-operate with us on Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV articles. We'd like to become sister projects once we have got 5 members. Anyone who wants to sign up go to the proposals page and it's project with the longest title. Go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page and click on Children's television programmes of the united kingdom and northern ireland. Thanks, Soopa hoops77 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]

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.
  • 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.
  • Examine other places (such as W.V. Awdry?) 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. (For example, The Railway Stories mentions 'all 40 books' (from memory) so will need a little tweaking, although there will be no need to mention the new book specifically.)
  • 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 avoid some edits.
  • Watch Victoria and Victoria (people disambiguation) for adverse edits (I've already added these to my watchlist)
  • Add new section to WP:THOMAS/FAQ !! We all keep referring to it in our edit summaries...
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Excellent you two! I'll won't revert it next time! –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation/Thomas_%26_Friends_task_force&oldid=119036139"