Dollhouse Wiki

Welcome to the creation of our Manual of Style! Please feel free to voice your opinion about the issues listed below, or to add your own issue. Remember to sign your contribution! --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I help create the Manual of Style?[]

Please share your opinions below. When it seems like we've reached a consensus on a particular issue, I will ask if we're in agreement. I'll wait a few days to post if they agree or disagree. If nobody disagrees, I will update the main article the official ruling. If you are the lone voice in a crowd of people who want it a different way, I will feel your pain, but I will follow the crowd. I will then mark the heading for that issue "CLOSED" on the talk page. Do not edit a section marked "CLOSED!"

The beauty of a wiki is that it is always evolving. If you think we should change a policy that's already made it to the main page, please comment under the heading Policy changes. Then we repeat what we did before: we discuss, we reach a consensus, I update the main page. I will also move the discussion to the appropriate section so we keep Policy changes clear for current discussion only.

The main page will not be locked, but I am respectfully requesting that you make minor edits only to the main page. I may be an English teacher (maybe I'm even YOUR English teacher!), but I make mistakes, too; please go ahead and fix them when you find them! However, please leave the policy updates to me.

To sum up:

1. Share your ideas on any issue marked "OPEN."

2. Add new issues. Mark them "OPEN."

3. Do not edit issues marked "CLOSED."

4. If you think we should change a closed issue, edit the Policy changes section.

5. Only make minor edits to the main article.

Thanks in advance for all your input! --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy changes[]

Cast and Crew: CLOSED[]

I'd also like to suggest small changes to the passage about "Cast and Crew" articles (originally discussed here):


  • 1 General Description
  • 2 Previous Work
  • 3 Dollhouse
  • 4 After Dollhouse

The "Previous Work" section should be a short description of the career of the cast/crew-member, but already written from a Dollhouse-point of view, mentioning collaborations with Dollhouse-cast/crew-members. For an example, see Tim Minear or Jane Espenson.

The Dollhouse section contains a general description of how the person got into the show, what they did on the show, and interesting trivia such as how roles were changed to suit actors. If the person in question is attached to specific episodes (as for instance writers, directors or guest stars often are), a complete list these episodes (organized by seasons) should be included here too.

The fourth section (After Dollhouse) only comes into play, if the person has already left the show (such as Jane Espenson or Steven DeKnight).


Would that be okay? --— Wiesengrund (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we could probably work something out towards this, we definitely don't want to be a Wikipedia part II or anything, but the previous work section should probably cover an overall idea of their career (not just previous collaborations, but a focus/special mention of such). I was pretty much starting something like this on my ongoing edits (with plans to continue, but I have a long list of things I need to do for this wiki!) in the Summer Glau and Amy Acker articles.

Okay, I'm making this one CLOSED. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:38, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Trivia on Episode pages CLOSED[]

I noticed that most of the articles on episodes have a Trivia section, and since we wrote the Manual on the Standard Format for episode articles before that fact, it's not reflected in there where the Trivia-section should be in the article. The current consistent place across the episodes seems to be between Cast and Quotes/Music, which is fine by mine. I therefore suggest that the new structure of episode articles should be:

  • General Description (Name, episode number, writer, director, airdate)
  • 1 Production info (if available)
  • 2 Synopsis (starting out with the press release descriptions for unaired episodes and expanding it on already aired episodes)
  • 3 Reception
    • 3.1 Cast & Crew
    • 3.2 Critics
    • 3.3 Ratings
  • 4 Cast
    • 4.1 Main Cast
    • 4.2 Recurring Roles
    • 4.3 Guest Stars
  • 5 Trivia
  • 7 Music
  • 8 Promotional Photos (the gallery taken from the Photos page)
  • 9 Notes & References
  • 10 External links (at least links to the official Wiki, imdb and

What do you think? --— Wiesengrund (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably fine, although production should perhaps be further down and be grouped with the other important stuff (the reception, trivia, etc...). I often use Memory Alpha as a reference for something like this, because I feel they do pretty good with such things, but I also look around on the Battlestar Wiki and the Terminator Wiki because they have layouts that are little bit more towards what you seem to be trying to accomplish. I'm not certain if much should be changed on it in terms of what is a section and a subsuection, but perhaps it should be Premise (the press release), Summery/Synopsis (the expanded version), then the rest (production or cast and crew, etc...). --Terran Officer 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I had production-synposis-reception in that order to kind of resemble the episode's timeline (from writing to filming to airing the content to getting reviews), but it's probably a bit far-fetched. :) Your's an interesting option too! You mean like:

  • General Description (Name, episode number, writer, director, airdate)
  • 1 Premise (Press release summary of the episode)
  • 2 Plot (Extended description)
  • 3 Reception
    • 3.1 Cast & Crew
    • 3.2 Critics
    • 3.3 Ratings
  • 4 Cast
    • 4.1 Main Cast
    • 4.2 Recurring Roles
    • 4.3 Guest Stars
  • 5 Production
  • 6 Trivia
  • 8 Music
  • 9 Promotional Photos (the gallery taken from the Photos page)
  • 10 Notes & References
  • 11 External Links (at least links to the official Wiki, imdb and

Should we consider an engagements-template for the episode articles that replaces the current table? Because if we know it's gonna come, we could say that it get it's own section between Plot and Reception for instance... --— Wiesengrund (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, That's closer to what I meant I need to look around and study for ideas but it's on the track to what I had meant. I have plans to work out an engagements template/table at least as far as episodes go (for actives, that will require some tweaking, as a listing of their engagements history could get lengthy, but that's a different topic). Make a section for engagements with plans for a table (or something) to simply list/describe/however you want to say it the engagements seen within that episode. One more suggestion for the moment (and I might make a few if that's alright), is to switch places between reception and cast. In some websites I have seen, some of these things (Reception, Production, Trivia, Etc...) go under the area called "Background Infomration" or something else to that effect, with the area you currently have numbered ten being intended for links and references and such (that isn't in the main article, but relates to the artcile itself). Does that make sense?

I'm not sure what you want to say about "10 Notes & References", but the general notion up to now was that 10 "Notes & References" is used for footnotes (i.e. mostly only contains the line <small>{{reflist|2}}</small>) and that 11 "External Links" links to info on that episode on other major site linke imdb and, as well as the official Dollhouse Wiki.

If we put all the other stuff in a "Background Information" section I would suggest to but the Reception under the Production, like this:


  • General Description (Name, episode number, writer, director, airdate)
  • 1 Premise (Press release summary of the episode)
  • 2 Plot (Extended description)
  • 3 Engagements
  • 4 Cast
    • 4.1 Main Cast
    • 4.2 Recurring Roles
    • 4.3 Guest Stars
  • 5 Background Information
    • 5.1 Production
    • 5.2 Reception
      • 5.2.1 Cast & Crew
      • 5.2.2 Critics
      • 5.2.3 Ratings
    • 5.3 Trivia
    • 5.5 Music
    • 5.6 Promotional Photos (the gallery taken from the Photos page)
  • 6 Notes & References (should at least contain "<small>{{reflist|2}}</small>" if the article has footnotes)
  • 7 External Links (at least links to the official Wiki, imdb and


I'm not sure whether Promotional Photos are a "Background Information". What do you think? --— Wiesengrund (talk) 10:17, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks without disagreement, I'm gonna make this last one the official new episode page style. Topic closed. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 09:47, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Page Titles (Characters Mostly) CLOSED[]

I couldn't figure out a better title for this section (ironic, huh?), but I wanted to discuss page titles, in particular for character(s) in Dollhouse. I feel that pages on characters should not have titles, but instead simply their names (as discussed per Claire Saunders), for a multitude of reasons. Mostly, it creates a uniformity in naming (as some wouldn't have titles for instance, or do at some points but not at others), plus it makes the titles short and to the point (shorter and simpler titles are better then longer ones). Any thoughts? (Note: An example of this discussion: Claire Saunders not Dr. Claire Saunders.--Terran Officer 19:05, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

I've left this open for nearly a month, and no one else has given any objections or suggestions, it is therefor passed. --Terran Officer 21:14, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Verb tense: CLOSED[]

What tense(s) should we use in our articles? --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The 24 wiki uses a policy that all in-universe articles should be written in the past tense, and all out-of-universe articles written in present. Maybe we could adopt something like that, as well? --Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to jump in as a literary snob and disagree about in-universe articles. Literary critics write about texts in the present tense, and I think that television shows are a type of text. An article like imprint would be kind of silly in the past tense. Out-of-universe articles, though, I'll agree with you on. So I'd say present tense all around (other than real life, like "America won the Revolutionary War"). --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with present tense all around. (We should keep an eye open for future tense-bits that were written before the show started airing.) --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

13 days with a standing majority for "present tense." This topic is closed! --Phantomrhiannon 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Speculation: OPEN[]

Should we allow speculation in articles? --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Given that the show is so young, I'd be in favor of allowing speculation, as long as it's stated as speculation and not fact. But I think it's worth opening up the topic if anybody disagrees. --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a tricky topic. Every summary is basically highlighting (and possibly speculating on) the importance of some depicted events (while ignoring others). For instance, an article like Adelle DeWitt is inherently biased by the highlighting of certain aspects of her character, and also by retelling certain plot-events in a manner that was actually never said on screen. That being said, I would allow speculation in articles, if there's a clear section designated to it. It would maybe be best not to let it bleed into the general descriptions and synopses and such. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a speculation section would be great - it would especially help clean up Alpha.--Phantomrhiannon 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The Heroes Wiki uses a system for speculation I think would work - a heading that links to a seperate discussion-style tab called Fan Theories where people can speculate at will. It's seperate from the main article, so it won't be read as factual, but still easily found. Ponk 03:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Lostpedia does something similar which works fairly well. People seem to get delete-happy on the theories tabs, which causes a lot of dissent, but I think it's better to keep vandalism and anger away from the main articles if possible (plus for theories tab). On the other hand, do we have an admin willing to go through and add a theories tab to all the appropriate articles (plus for speculation section in main article)? --Phantomrhiannon 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think theory tabs need to be added manually; Lostpedia apparently uses a MediaWiki extension to do it automatically: w:c:Lostpedia:Lostpedia_talk:Theory_policy/Archived_Talk#Theory_Tab_ExtensionX1011 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, speculation: speculation section in the main article, or as a theory tab? (I'm neutral myself) --Phantomrhiannon 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Theory tab; given the current length of Alpha, a theory section would make the article very long; the theory section might even be longer than the rest of the article. —X1011 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Theory tab; People interpret everything differently so unless we can prove or agree on said speculation, it shouldn't be in the main article. --Occam's Razor 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen several wiki's either not allow this, or allow it in extreme limited form, and usually built on hints given from the episodes not just what people may think (For instance, Saunders being an active came to my mind way before hints were even given, but I had no real evidence to support it). In short, I suppose if this is going to be allowed ('im not even sure what you mean by tabs, you mean like the tabs on top of the page, or a section?), I guess I mean that any sort of speculation should perhaps be kept brief, sound somewhat neutral and have evidence to support it.

I would be in favor of a theory tab. It would basically be a third tab on top of the page. Every page would then have "Article", "Discussion" and "Theory". It's a nice system, basically, but I'm not tech-savvy enought to know how to implement it. Anybody up to the task? --— Wiesengrund (talk) 10:17, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Personal pronouns: CLOSED[]

When, if ever, should we allow first person pronouns? --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm really, really, really violently and vehemently opposed to the use of I/me/myself in wiki articles. Wikis are built by a community, and individual editors have no ownership over any wiki articles. I can buy using first person plurals, as in "In 'Gray Hour,' we learn that Alpha is alive." However, I think it's better to go all or nothing on first person pronouns, and like I said, I'm very anti-I, so my vote is no first person pronouns. --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Totally agreed. No I/we in articles, since even every "we learn" can be rephrased to something neutral like "it is revealed". The Is and Wes should be, however, encouraged in Discussion pages, I guess. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No dissent - CLOSED!

Opinions/analysis: OPEN[]

  • To tie in with personal pronouns and speculation, I'd like to say no to opinions and yes to analysis. "I think Alpha is an evil man because he is a murderer" = no. "Alpha's murderous background makes him a sinister presence in Echo's life" = yes. --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I was saying above about speculation: Summing up certain plot points will always have a touch of analysis, and that's okay. Starting to judge certain plot points by personal ethical or moral values is opinion, and should be limited to Discussion pages, if it needs to be discussed at all. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes: OPEN[]

How/when is quoting the show appropriate?--Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Generally, I think the way that the articles we've got do a good job using characters' quotes to describe each other or pieces of the Dollhouse world. However, random quotes are starting to appear as large chunks of text (see: Alpha). I'm always hesitant to delete somebody's contribution, but I think we may want to define how to go about adding quotes just for the sake of having quotes. I'd advocate for allowing an "Important Quotes" section to character/episode articles. --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Introducing an "Important Quotes" section in articles like Alpha would be great, kind of like an addendum. Since most of the stuff that is quoted there was already summarized in the article, nothing gets lost. Episodes could have an own "Quotes" section too (like "Ghost"), and I think a nice, catchy quote is sometimes a good way to kick off an in-universe-article (like the quote on top of the Alpha-article). --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of keeping a short quote that summarises or at least describes the character well as the first thing in a character article, like in Alpha's page. What do you guys think? Ponk 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a fan. --Phantomrhiannon 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying not to use any quotes at all in the articles I've written/edited, You can pretty much rephrase or paraphrase a quote and still get the point across and I think that should be across the board. Obviously you couldn't do that if you were writing about the "Did I fall asleep" script or "three flowers in a vase". But just to have a "killer dialogue" section seems like a waste. Personally I think anything that Adelle says should be on that list... but that's just my opinion and that's all the section or page would be is personal opinions. -- Arick86 02:58, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Standard article formats: OPEN[]

General: OPEN[]

Characters: OPEN[]

Character format: OPEN[]

I think each character page should have a general introduction that doesn't go much beyond the first character descriptions that were released by the producers. Kind of like a "non-spoiler zone" for the uninitiated. A "Character development"-section detailing the known/depicted events that have happened to/with the character would probably be a good idea. Within that, I'm always a fan of a "Relationship"-section, detailing the interactions the character has had with various other characters. Character pages for Actives should have an "Engagements"-section too, summing up their imprints and mission (if we decide to keep that a little bit unhandy table around... a template for that would be great). --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your "Character Development," "Relationships," and "Engagements" and raise you a "Background" for any pre-show timeline events (ex, Boyd's career as a cop). Maybe that'd be a "Character Development" subheading, maybe a heading on its own? Also, within "Character Development," some articles seem relatively fluid and some have an episode-by-episode analysis. I'm thinking episode subheadings in "Character Development" should be discouraged, or a character article has suddenly become a laundry list of episode events.--Phantomrhiannon 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Background, if available, should have an (sub)section. Though I am not sure how to organize them. How about:
  • General introduction
  • Character Development
    • Background
    • Relationships
  • Engagements
--— Wiesengrund (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think something like "Personality" should be added under "Character Development" so that all the, well, personality description doesn't go into the section un-sorted. --Phantomrhiannon 16:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be good to have this on the Dolls' pages, but perhaps as Inactive-State Personality Quirks, or something similar but better phrased. We could list developing facets of individuality in their Doll states - Echo's 'shoulder to the grindstone' moment, her friendship with Sierra, and Victor's... Reactions to Sierra. If they list any lead-up signs for Alpha's - Composite event is what they call it, right? - he could have those listed too. Sort of a chronology of their personalities emerging. Ponk 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to throw this up as another discussion topic below. --Phantomrhiannon 23:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Personality"-section... do you imagine it as description of the current state the character is in? Because then I would organize the article differently:
  • General introduction
  • Personality (short summary of the current situation and general noticeable personality traits)
  • Character Development
    • Background (basically anything from flashbacks... Boyd's arrival at the Dollhouse, Caroline, Alpha's incident, etc.)
    • Dollhouse (anything that happened on the show, in present time; written form, grounded by episodes)
  • Relationships
  • Engagements
Now, the question is, do we put the Doll-state quirks into the Dollhouse-subsection as part of their "normal" character development or do we create an own subsection for that? I tend to think it should be doable to include it in the normal progression of the character through the show. Basically, if we mix it, it will end up as paragraphs describing the event from one episode (including both the engagements, and the Inactive-state stuff). I would prefer it that way, since one of the points of the show is to juxtapose these two layers, so it would make sense to include it here as well.
I'm also not sure, if "Relationships" should be a section, or a subsection of "Character Development". I tend to see it it as a section, since it is describing a general current state (very much like "Personality", while "Character Development" is should be a very chronological description, showing how everything led up to the relationships that are now observable. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what I'm seeing as "Personality" is ... who is this person? what is he/she like? with the added bonus: what's going on in his/her life? Basically, I think what I'm going for is what we're looking for in a "Dollhouse" subsection of "Character Development." Otherwise you'd be pretty much repeating the general description and the "Dollhouse" subsection in "Personality." So I see the most recently proposed format.--Phantomrhiannon 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is... How much "Background" information should be on an active's page and how much should be on their former identity page. Should we have this same information repeated on multiple pages or should we link pages. I understand on Actives like Victor, we'd need his flashback info on his active page since we don't yet know his former identity. But people with established former identities, how should we go about it? Arick86 21:58, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working on a few ideas for a character format page in an attempt to try and somewhat stick with a non spoiler approach to the initial parts of the page. I need to continue to work on it before I can make any real sort of, but I do want to mention that we shouldn't try to avoid spoilers on the pages anywhere except for the main page. There is a notice on the main page that this wiki can, and will contain spoilers, so browsers should do so at their own risk. In response to Arick86, it is of my personal opinion (and why further development on formats and sidebar templates are needed) that information relating to a persons identity goes onto the proper page, whether it be an Active, an Engagement or an Actual. Once again, this is why we have spoiler warnings posted throughout the site and in particular on the main page. There should perhaps I guess, be some snippets of related info on the pages (thereby potentially "copying" some lines), but while the physical body is the same (in most cases...), the mental/personality is not the same, thereby making it the other person. I guess what I mean is, through this useless rant that hasn't yet said anything (I tend to do that, sorry), but people with known former/actual identities should have their information placed on those specific pages, if the information in question relates to said identity (For instance, it was Priya Tsetsang, not Sierra we saw for most of "Belonging"). Does this help at all? --Terran Officer 22:35, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
Still on that note... Do former identities need the same format or a different format... I've been doing it this way but I'm sure it can be improved.
  • Character Name with brief summary
  • Before the Dollhouse (which is basically the backstory)
  • In the Dollhouse (which is usually "For information as and Active, see "link". Or if a person's real identity surfaces temporarily -- Like Priya did)
  • After the Dollhouse (good for people like Madeline who've left the dollhouse but are still on the show)
  • After the Dollhouse...Things to come (for all the Epitaph One stuff)
Arick86 08:46, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Characters should all have the same general format, with allowances for the type of the character, and their involvement with the Dollhouse. Your suggestion is off to a good start, I'm going to make a new subpage (which means eventually I need to do a page clean up) in regards to potential character formatting and how things should go. My main motivation behind this is the fact that many pages (such as [{Claire Saunders]]) have in universe and real world/background information mixed in together and that's just confusing and messy. I believe overall, a good, in depth character page for a main character and one that appears quite often (or in several episodes at least) would have the general introduction, a biography of the character, where it will then move on (order to be debated!) personal relationships, traits/Whatever terms (for the actives), and other things that may be needed with the page wrapping up with the background information. As for your thoughts on how to deal with the former identities (IE, actuals) and the active, the page on the former/actual identity can probably briefly mention the fact they went into the Dollhouse, and the name of the active they came to be/are. --Terran Officer 18:20, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Development v. Characterization: OPEN[]

"Character Development" v. "Characterization" - I like consistency, I think we should pick one and stick with it. Personally, I prefer "Character Development."--Phantomrhiannon 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed, I'm for "Character Development". --— Wiesengrund (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doll-State Quirks: OPEN[]

Ponk suggested above that Doll character pages could have a "list of developing facets of individuality." Yes/no? What do we name it? Should this be a list (standard format chart) or paragraph description? --Phantomrhiannon 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with yes, we should include these, but a formal list would limit how we describe the Dolls' emerging personalities. No idea what to call it if we're looking for anything more specific here than "personality." --Phantomrhiannon 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say in written form as opposed to dot points, but have them grouped by episode: In the episode Episode Link, Echo was on an engagement where blah blah stuff happened. After her wipe she was shown blah blah stuff happened again. Something like that? Ponk 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Written form, grounded by episode sounds good to me. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If we're questioning above if this belongs under "Dollhouse" of "Character Development," then this is really something that's going to get blended into just that..."Dollhouse" of "Character Development," AND if we're saying that this should be in written form grounded by episodes...what I think we're basically saying is "remember to include any doll-state quirks in 'Dollhouse.'" I think that's how we should be doing it...but it completely undermines the original point of specifically keeping track of the quirks. So if that's what we want to do, I'd say to "remember to include it in 'Dollhouse'" but also keep a very simple chart that serves the point.--Phantomrhiannon 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on a few ideas for a massive overhaul and update to the format for the character pages, but I would agree that an area to discuss 'traits', or however it is one wants to term it regarding the actives. Mostly, because it is an important aspect to the character and the show. --Terran Officer 18:10, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Character-Is-An-Active Reveals: OPEN[]

I'm suggesting that there should be separate pages for Lubov and Mellie that don't mention that they're Actives except in the spoiler section. Nexuapex (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The spoiler policy is being discussed over here: Dollhouse Wiki talk:Community Portal if you'd like to join in. The character-is-an-active reveal is currently under a spoiler warning in Mellie, but yeah, the whole Victor/Lubov title in the drop-down menu is a bit of a giveaway. --Phantomrhiannon 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the dropdown menu and removed Lubov. I agree that the general description for these long-term imprints should not reveal the fact that the person is an Active. Mellie and Lubov should have a general description on top that doesn't reveal they're Actives, and since the Character Development section starts with a spoiler warning it's okay to introduce that information there. Mellie is fine in that regard, but Lubov needs some cleaning up. Should this be policy regarding that special type of character articles? The "Long term Active"-articles?--— Wiesengrund (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up Lobov and put the reveal behind a spoiler warning. I think we all agree on what the policy should be for this particular kind of reveal - but I think we really need to define what actually counts as a spoiler before we can figure out how it should impact the way we write articles. --Phantomrhiannon 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And what about November's page? Caring so much about the spoilers doesn't make us go slower and uncomplete?(excuse my english, it's not my first language) Leo154 17:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing (yet) that we shouldn't include the information, just that we keep it behind a spoiler warning. --Phantomrhiannon 22:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on this, is that what goes on character pages should be except from the spoiler warnings, I can appreciate not wanting to ruin things for people, by suggesting a particular format, but the main page to this wiki has a posted warning that there will be spoilers posted throughout the wiki. I believe, that if the person is revealed to be an active (such as this case, or even this one, then it is an important part of the character and even the show's storyline and should therefor be mentioned. I can however relent and say that perhaps not in the intro description, but again, it is apart of who the character is/was. --Terran Officer 17:52, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Alive/Deceased characters: OPEN[]

After viewing "Briar Rose", I had the thought: how should address characters who have died (ex. Stephen Kepler)? Should it be "is", for consistency other in-universe articles, or "was", to indicate they're dead? --Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 05:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say was, their dead and it's going to all be in past tense but this is why I agree with places like Memory Alpha, where all of the pages are written in past tense, irregardless. I suppose that little tidbit belongs more into the general discussion about tense, but yeah, for dead people write the article in past tense. --Terran Officer 17:58, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Episodes: CLOSED[]

I'd say the way they're organized right now is okay. To summarize it:

  • General Description (Name, episode number, writer, director airdate)
    • (Infobox on the right side)
  • 1 Production info (if available)
  • 2 Synopsis (starting out with the press release description for unaired episodes and expanding it on already aired episodes)
  • 3 Reception (divided in Cast & Crew, Critics and Ratings)
  • 4 Cast (divides in Main Cast, Recurring and guest stars)
  • 6 Music
  • 7 Promotional Photos (the gallery taken from the Photos page)
  • 8 Notes & References
  • 9 External links (at least links to the official Wiki, imdb and

--— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the one of the longest-standing conventions around on this wiki. Shall we go ahead and make this one official? --Phantomrhiannon 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, long-standing format that the articles already obey...up here with one week of no contention, I'm declaring this case CLOSED!

Actors: CLOSED[]

I think Actors should have at least two sections: Previous work and Dollhouse. I tried to summarize each actor's previous work form a Dollhouse-point of view (mentioning for instance if they have worked with other people from the Dollhouse crew earlier in their career). The Dollhouse-section should contain quotes and general information about how, when and why the role was casted that way, and (if available) a Reception-subsection detailing critical mentions of said actor's work on Dollhouse. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a Dollhouse section, a "things they've done with Dollhouse people" section - maybe rolled in as a final paragraph of the Dollhouse section - and a short filmography/list of prior roles. Dollhouse area would be good for tidbits like how Claire Saunders was initially intended to be older but was rewritten especially for Amy Acker. Ponk 03:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we're talking about the same thing, Ponk. I suggest two main sections for each cast/crew-member:
  • Previous Work
  • Dollhouse
I suggest the "Previous Work" section to be a short description of the career of the cast/crew-member, but already written from a Dollhouse-point of view, mentioning collaborations with Dollhouse-cast/crew-members. I've tried to implement that approach in articles like Tim Minear and Jane Espenson. The Dollhouse-section contains a general description of how the person got into the show, what they did on the show, and interesting tidbits like that Clair Saunders-info. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there's agreement here - CLOSED!

Capitalization: OPEN[]

In headings: CLOSED[]

Do we capitalize the first word in headings only, or do we treat headings like titles? --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it started out as "first word only", but I think I'm starting to like the "like titles"-style better. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

10 days out and there's no dissent. All agreed: capitalize headings as you would titles? --Phantomrhiannon 22:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Going once, going twice, sold!

Show vocabulary: CLOSED[]

Do we capitalize "doll," "active," "engagement," and/or "imprint" or not?--Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't have a preference, but whatever we do for "doll," we should do for "active." --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
"Doll" and "Active" capitalized is okay, as is "Dollhouse". However, "engagement", "imprint" and "wipe" should probably stay uncapitalized. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --Phantomrhiannon 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm un-agreeing now - with myself even. The official bios for the characters on the Fox website capitalize "Active" and don't capitalize "doll." I say we should do what they do. Everything else seems to agree, though (Dollhouse, imprint). --Phantomrhiannon 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's do it that way: Active, Dollhouse, doll, imprint, wipe. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

American English vs. British English vs. Indian English, etc.: CLOSED[]

Which do we use? --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Just to make everything all official-like so nobody gets into an editing war over ." vs. ". or o vs. ou, I'd like come out and say "American show, American English." --Phantomrhiannon 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --— Wiesengrund (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not American myself but yeah, the logic holds. Ponk 03:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This one's fairly cut and dry. All agreed? --Phantomrhiannon 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut and dry issue up one week with no contention, I'm closing this one up! --Phantomrhiannon 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Addressing characters in articles: OPEN[]

Do we want to make a policy about how to address them consistently throughout the Wiki? The main question is: Topher, Topber Brink, or Brink? Since the show is not really delving into very personal relationships right now, I think it would be okay, if the first mentioning of a character in an article should be his/her full name ("Laurence Dominic") and repeated mentions should then be done by last name ("Dominic"). That's fine for consistency, but the show is obviously not helping us here: While "Mr. Dominic" and "Mr. Langton" is heard quite often (and probably is also the main name people will associate with these characters), "Brink" almost never gets a mention. Topher is called Topher on the show, and I don't know how awkward it would be to call him Brink throughout the Wiki. Adelle DeWitt is also funny, since she is very friendly and on first-name basis with clients, while the staff of the Dollhouse obviously calls her "Ms. DeWitt".

Thank god the Actives only have one name... ;)

What's the opinion on this? Shall we try to implement a policy here? --— Wiesengrund (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all about consistency. The problem here, though, is that which name you choose to use actually both characterizes the person you're talking about AND influences the tone of the article. It's awkward to refer to Topher as Brink, but it would be awkward and informal to refer to Dominic as Laurence. I trip over Topher and Adelle DeWitt every time I edit articles that mention them. I think the best way to make a consistent policy without being awkward is to say "first use in an article = first last, subsequent use = whatever is most commonly used on the show." That way, Topher can be Topher and Dominic can be Dominic and the rule is still consistent. The problem would then lie with Adelle DeWitt, since she's about 50/50. I'd say, as upper management, she'd be DeWitt. --Phantomrhiannon 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've mostly used First and Last name at first mention (and usually a link to their page) and then subsequently I tend to use first names (Adelle, Boyd, Topher, Paul... ) I think as long as the full name is established first, whatever is used subsequently isn't as important--the reader will still be able to follow along. The important thing is that each page is consistent with itself and Adelle is always Adelle or DeWitt is always Dewitt. Arick86 03:11, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Consistency is good, and I try to be so when I work on/edit articles, but in all honesty I find that how I refer to someone when writing/editing an article, all depends on the section/particular line in question. There's cases where it seems more appropriate to say "Topher", while other times saying his full name or simply just his last name works for the best. I realize this doesn't sound particularly pleasant or constant, but it has always been my experience that how to refer to someone, often relies on the matter/subject at hand. I think it's more about instinct and what sounds right rather then some sort of a formal policy or anything else, but I wont fight it, if someone wishes to pursue this mater further and develop one. --Terran Officer 04:00, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Citation: OPEN[]

What exactly needs to be cited, and how do we cite it? --Phantomrhiannon 00:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would uses quotes where there are available. If a point about the show has been made in public by Joss Whedon, I will of course use his words to illustrate this point on the wiki, not mine. On the question of "how": I prefer the Template:Cite web together with a Template:Reflist at the end of the article. For larger quotes I suggest Template:Quote box, and for smaller, but stand-alone quotes (like the ones used in the "Reception>Critics"-subsection in the episode pages Template:Quote. I'll try to look up a manual for "Cite web" and "quote box". --— Wiesengrund (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections for open, closed[]

  • There's no meta talk page, so i'll post this here. I think instead of putting OPEN/CLOSED after every topic, there should be 'Open' and 'Closed' sections, with the topics as subheadings. Or, perhaps even better, move all closed topics to an archive page, as presumably we will need to archive them eventually as this discussion page gets long. The current system is messy. —X1011 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that as time goes by this page gets messier and more difficult to see through. I'll try to organize it tomorrow into three big sections (Policy changes, Open Discussions and Closed discussions). --— Wiesengrund (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)