View source for Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy

{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
== Proposal ==
{{big toc}}
For a long time, the [[User:NateBumber#Policy|"Policy"]] section on my user page has listed a broad array of my concerns and suggestions. Over the months and years, I've come to realize that many of these could be addressed by a singular proposal: the establishment of '''a proper use of subpages on this wiki.'''

Below is my proposal for what [[Tardis:Subpage policy]] could look like. How closely this resembles the final text is up to our admins, but this draft expresses the core ideas which I think such a policy should encapsulate.

<div class="tech">{{summ|When a page grows too big, consider splitting it into one or more pages or subpages.}}
{{sc|T:SUBPAGE|T:SPLIT}}

=== What is a subpage? ===
[[Doctor Who Magazine/1985]] is an example: because of the slash in the page name, it's a subpage of [[Doctor Who Magazine]], so there's a link to that page right at the top, just below the title. This is great for navigation! Fandom's Editor Experience team explains,
{{simplequote|Google understands that subpages have a distinct parent relationship with the base page. […] These subpages have a natural method to get back to the base article: they're linked from the top of the page!|[[w:c:community:User blog:FishTank/Short and long pages on Fandom|Short and long pages on Fandom]]}}
Additionally, a subpage can also be linked to from its parent page with only a partial title: if you're on [[Twelfth Doctor]], the link <code><nowiki>[[/List of appearances]]</nowiki></code> will take you to [[Twelfth Doctor/List of appearances]]. It's even more powerful than the pipe trick!

If subpages are so useful, why aren't they used on wikis more widely? In 2001, a lengthy debate on Wikipedia resulted in a new rule: {{w|Wikipedia:Do not use subpages|do not use subpages.}} This was to avoid fights like whether to create [[History/Algeria]] or [[Algeria/History]]. Because subpages had provided a home for material about fictional universes – for instance, [[Sonic screwdriver|Doctor Who/Sonic screwdriver]] – this presaged a slow exodus of that {{w|Wikipedia:Fancruft|"fancruft"}} content away from Wikipedia.

Tardis Data Core was born from that exodus, and ever since we've said [[Tardis:we're Wikipedia's evil twin|we're Wikipedia's evil twin]]. This means we're free to reconsider Wikipedia's decisions with fresh eyes, including the rule about subpages. The conclusion is that our finite set of standardised section names means we can avoid the confusion that caused Wikipedia's ban in the first place!

=== How big is too big? ===
According to the Editor Experience team,
{{simplequote|There's no one ideal length of an article; it should cover all the important and noteworthy points without being so lengthy that readers lose attention. While there is both [https://buffer.com/resources/the-ideal-length-of-everything-online-according-to-science clear] and [https://www.clickseed.com/ideal-article-length/ unclear] research on the topic, an informational article [https://torquemag.io/2018/04/optimal-content-length/ should likely take about 7 minutes to read], and be somewhere between 1000 and 2500 words (not bytes). There are legitimate reasons for individual articles with 4000–5000 words of prose if they engage the reader and stay on-topic; beyond 5000 words, contributors should review a body of text for opportunities to summarize and break out potentially independent text into new articles.|[[w:c:community:User blog:FishTank/Articles on Fandom|Articles on Fandom]]}}

A softer version of this guideline was established as a local rule in [[Thread:264489#9]]. When an article egregiously exceeds these length standards, rather than flat-out deleting the extra material, split the page into subpages or separate pages instead. While Fandom's above guidelines describe the best standards for every article on wikis, length is less of a concern on subpages; we can assume that a reader who clicks through to [[Tenth Doctor/Biography]] is ready for a much deeper level of detail than the summary in [[Tenth Doctor#Biography]].

=== When to use a subpage ===
Subpages are usually only meant to be linked to from their root page and navigation templates. To use the example mentioned above, [[Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances]] is [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances|only linked to]] from [[Twelfth Doctor]] and {{tlx|Doctor appearances}}, making it an obvious candidate for a subpage.

Subpages should be named after section headers, usually those with headings formatted with <nowiki>==</nowiki>, such as "Biography" or "Plot". Subpages should never have in-universe titles: for instance, if the subsection [[Twelfth Doctor#Continued adventures with Clara]] were deemed too big, we would move it to a section on [[Twelfth Doctor/Biography]], ''not'' [[Twelfth Doctor/Continued adventures with Clara]].

Here's a sample of other potential subpage names:
* [[BBC New Series Adventures/Covers]]
* [[The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story)/Plot]]
* [[Twelfth Doctor/Appearances]]
* [[The Doctor's TARDIS/Gallery]]
* [[Sixth Doctor/Other realities]]
* [[Ace/Non-valid sources]]
* [[David Tennant/Spoilers]] (if we ever change [[T:SPOIL]]!)

To prevent the unsustainable proliferation of subpage types that Wikipedia faced, a wholly new type of subpage should be discussed on the talk page beforehand. For instance, if you want to create [[Series 9 (Doctor Who)/Promotion]] for information about trailers and interviews promoting that series, first you should compare your idea against existing precedent. If [[/Promotion]] subpages already exist in other places, you can go ahead and create your page! Otherwise, you should propose it on [[Talk:Series 9 (Doctor Who)]], link to that proposal on [[Tardis talk:Subpage policy]], and allow [[Tardis:Administrators|an administrator]] to conclude the discussion before your split.

=== When not to use a subpage ===
Alternately, if you think some material represents a self-contained idea that other articles might want to reference as well, consider splitting it without using a subpage. For instance, when conflicting accounts of the Doctor's origins on [[First Doctor#Life on Gallifrey]] became too unwieldy, I created [[The Doctor's early life]]. Other examples include pages for specific arcs, like [[Exile on Earth]], or pages for specific events, like [[Operation Mannequin]]. This is an art, not a science, and experienced users should use their best judgment to decide how to group content into logical topics.

Here are some examples of when ''not'' to use a subpage:
* [[Third Doctor/Exile on Earth]] – instead create [[Third Doctor/Biography]] or [[Exile on Earth]]
* [[The Doctor/Sonic screwdriver]] – instead create [[The Doctor's sonic screwdriver]]
* [[Aliases of the Doctor/Theta Sigma]] – instead create [[Theta Sigma]]
* [[Last Great Time War/Origins]] – instead create [[Origins of the Last Great Time War]]
* [[The Master/Missy]] – instead create [[Missy]]!

=== Moving material ===
Once you've identified a lengthy section and the new page or subpage that will hold it, cut the section's contents and paste it to the new location. Include any subheadings, images, galleries, footnotes, and infoboxes that are inside that section. Subheadings should be adjusted upwards: for instance, each <nowiki>===</nowiki> subheading should become a <nowiki>==</nowiki>.

Look through [[Special:WhatLinksHere]] to update any redirects to the sections you've moved. Similarly, look through the original page's templates and "Behind the scenes" bullet points for any which are more relevant to the new page. One of the biggest advantages of subpages is that they provide more room for not just ordinary coverage but also specific templates and sections. Subpages like [[Tenth Doctor/Appearance]] could have their own "Behind the scenes" sections discussing real-world information related to the topic.

Most importantly, [[Tardis:Plagiarism]] requires that you credit the content's original authors per [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC BY-SA 3.0]. When you're moving material to a subpage, it's usually obvious where it came from, but you should still link to the original page in your edit summary so later readers know where to look for the edit history.

=== Writing a summary ===
After moving material to a new page or subpage, you have to fill the gap on the root page. The Editor Experience team explains the <code><nowiki>{{Main|/Subpage}}</nowiki> + Summary</code> method in this way:
{{simplequote|When a basic article becomes long enough, it could have long chunks that could reasonably be split into their own independent articles. […] The base article could then replace a long section with a spoiler-free summary with the most important points, linked by a context-link hatnote above it (such as <code><nowiki>{{Main|/Subpage}}</nowiki></code>).|[[w:c:community:User blog:FishTank/Categories and Navigation on Fandom#To be clear|Categories and navigation on Fandom]]}}

In other words, replace the copied text with a shorter summary of the new subpage's contents and a {{tlx|main}} link. In exactly the same way that a lead paragraph summarises the contents of its page, this summary should give a broad-strokes overview of the subpage's contents, with a particular emphasis on the details most relevant to readers. <div style="border-radius: 3px; background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 2.5px white; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">Start of Contested Section!</div> A general rule of thumb is to mention all ''major'' information as well as any ''notable minor'' details. The line between "major" and "minor" is up to editors' discretion.<br><br>

For instance, take [[Tenth Doctor#Biography]]. If it were moved to a subpage, the summary left behind might cite all of the Tenth Doctor and [[Martha Jones]]' major adventures, such as their televised ones, but not ''all'' of their minor adventures, such as [[PROSE]]: ''[[Wetworld (novel)|Wetworld]]'' or [[COMIC]]: ''[[The Skrawn Inheritance (comic story)|The Skrawn Inheritance]]''. Similarly, it would mention the Tenth Doctor's companions [[Gabby Gonzalez]] and [[Cindy Wu]] from the multi-year [[COMIC]]: ''[[Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor]]'' arc, but maybe not minor companions such as [[Emily Parr]] or [[Rok Ma]].

[[File:Doctor Who The End of Time - Christmas Special Preview HD - Children in Need 2009 - BBC|right|thumb|The [[Tenth Doctor]]'s [[lei]] outfit. ([[TV]]: ''[[The End of Time (TV story)|The End of Time]]'')]]
[[Tenth Doctor#Appearance]] is another lengthy section. It details each of the Tenth Doctor's various clothing and hairstyle changes. If this information were moved to a subpage, the summary would describe his ''major'' outfits (for instance, those worn for a whole television episode or an entire comics run or Big Finish boxset) and any particularly ''notable minor'' outfits (such as his lei from [[TV]]: ''[[The End of Time (TV story)|The End of Time]]'') while reserving a more detailed breakdown and minor single-appearance costumes for the subpage. <div style="border-radius: 3px; background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 2.5px white; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">End of Contested Section</div><br><br>

Note the Editor Experience team's emphasis on a summary being "spoiler-free". While this may not be possible in some circumstances, ideally a new fan should be able to read the summary of a character's biography without having the experience of the stories being totally spoiled for them. For example, a summary of [[Twelfth Doctor/Biography]] might mention that his travels with Bill, Nardole, and Missy concluded in [[TV]]: ''[[The Doctor Falls (TV story)|The Doctor Falls]]'' during an encounter with {{Simm|n=an old enemy}}, without explicitly spelling out that enemy's identity or the specific details of Bill's fate. Like a lead paragraph, a well-written summary should "lead" its readers to want to learn more, whether that means clicking through to the subpage or actually experiencing the stories in question.</div>

=== Applications ===
There are many problems that this proposal will solve. Below I discuss those problems and the motivations for this proposal.

==== Subpage-like pages ====
Many articles on this wiki are already written like subpages. Our [[:Category:Lists of appearances|1000+ lists of appearances]] are perfect examples of subpages in both purpose and execution:
# when a page section (the infobox list of appearances) grows too large and unwieldy, it's moved to a separate page;
# the new page is titled in reference to the core page ([[Character name - list of appearances]]); and
# the core page retains a summary of the most important information (first mention, first appearance).
The only problem is that … well, they're not actually subpages! We've been using a dash instead of a slash for ''no reason''. [[Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances]], to name of one of many, should be moved to [[Twelfth Doctor/List of appearances]].

These aren't our only subpage-like pages. We also have [[:Category:Galleries|almost 100 "galleries"]] which function just like subpages; most of them are even already linked from story or series pages with {{tlx|main}}. Their form should follow their function: [[BBC New Series Adventures covers]] should be moved to [[BBC New Series Adventures/Covers]] without hesitation. Standardising gallery subpages and creating them for major characters and concepts will also rescue our thousands of orphaned images.

As another example, consider [[Aliases of the Doctor]]. The vast majority of links to this page come through redirects to specific sections, like [[Theta Sigma]], which is already a strong hint that the page should be chopped up! According to the principles in the policy proposal above, we should follow the {{tlx|main}} method to split the article into separate pages for major individual aliases, such as [[Time's Champion]] and [[Time Lord Victorious]], and then move the remaining overview page to a subpage like [[The Doctor/Name and aliases]]. This precedent will also unlock improvements for many pages which shoehorn all of their topics' once-used alternate names into their first sentences, like [[Chris Cwej's Superiors]]. Instead, the lead should only mention the two or three most prominent names, while the rest can go in a "Name and aliases" section.

These are just a few examples of low-hanging fruit unlocked by this subpage proposal. I'm willing to bet that there are many more out there!

==== Plots and summaries ====
Tardis Wiki is notorious for its lack of plot descriptions. A vast, vast majority of story pages have plot sections that say ''to be added''. This is understandable: few editors actively enjoy typing out these lengthy breakdowns, and those who ''do'' often hold themselves to [[Against Nature (novel)#Plot|extreme standards of detail]]. But these ''to be added'' tags, many of them 15 years old or older, are a problem: according to the Editor Experience team,
{{simplequote|Stubs do provide a bad experience because the readers and search engines that encounter them are left wanting more and an incomplete page (even if it is marked incomplete) has not been proven to "attract editors from the reader base to add to or expand the page" as was once assumed. Every day that a stub exists and remains incomplete is a day that bad experience persists.|[[w:c:community:User blog:FishTank/Short and long pages on Fandom|Short and long pages on Fandom]]}}

Subpages offer a way out! Rather than marking thousands of story pages as stubs just because they lack lengthy plot breakdowns, we should put these breakdowns (when we have them) on "Plot" subpages. This won't even require a change to our preload templates! It will look something like this:
<div class="tech">
<h2>Summary</h2>
A brief, non-spoilery teaser that someone could use to check if they're interested in a story. If a publisher's summary is provided, this is where it goes, in which case the section is called "Publisher's summary". In rare cases where publishers have given many different summaries, such as [[PROSE]]: ''[[Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks (novelisation)|Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks]]'', this section may have a <code><nowiki>{{Main|/Publisher's summary}}</nowiki></code> link.

<h2>Plot</h2>
{{main|<nowiki>/Plot</nowiki>}}
A short synopsis that someone could use to get a gist of a story or remind themselves of the plot. For an example, see [[Silver-Tongued Liars (short story)#Summary]].
</div>
Unlike full plot descriptions, which tend to provide enough detail that one could experience the story without actually experiencing it, these shorter plot synopses could be written from memory without any editors needing to pause or relisten to take notes on every aspect of a story. Not only will synopses make our pages less likely to appear unfinished, their length will also make it easier for readers to scroll and access other sections on the page. All the while, readers interested in the nitty gritty details can still easily access that information when available by clicking to the subpage via {{tlx|main}}.

==== Other realities ====
As [[Tardis:Merging policy]] describes, our longstanding precedent regarding alternate versions of characters – whether they're from alternate timelines, parallel universes, palimpests, simulations, or so on – is to split when possible. This has had two results:
# Many pages with [[T:DAB OTHER|strange dab terms]] and very little actual content, such as [[Waterton Street (Pete's World)]], [[Sash of Rassilon (Barusa's universe)]], and [[Moira (Shadow World)]]; and
# Many articles with {{tlx|counterparts}} below their infoboxes, increasing the glut of obscure material past which mobile readers must now scroll to find a page's actual contents.

Both of these are problems for usability, and [[T:MERGE]] itself contains the seeds of the solution by clarifying that not ''all'' alternate versions of characters deserve separate pages:
{{simplequote|As a rule of thumb, if there's no more to say on the separate page than what can already be stated on the prime version's "Alternate timelines" subsection, it's not worth creating a separate page for the alternate-timeline version.|[[Tardis:Merging policy]]}}

[[Tenth Doctor/Other realities]] – not <code><nowiki>[[/Alternate timelines]]</nowiki></code>, as the section is [[Tenth Doctor#Alternate timelines|currently called]], but a title also inclusive of parallels, palimpests, simulations, and so on – would provide the space for this coverage. It would have the room for discussing the alternate versions of the character, either in separate sections or in a single section with {{tlx|anchor}}s, and linking to separate pages with {{tlx|main}} when separate pages are justified. Such a subpage would also provide a more suitable home for specialized templates like {{tlx|Tenth Doctor counterparts}}.

This type of subpage won't remove the need for or existence of separate pages for many alternate versions of characters, but it will go a long way towards alleviating the pressure which has caused so much sprawl in the first place!

<div class="tech">
'''Corollary:''' Clarifying in [[T:MERGE]] that the alternate timelines "rule of thumb" extends to subpages. New precedent for "Other realities" section header where applicable, rather than "Alternate timelines" specifically.</div>

==== Other validities ====
[[NOTVALID]]: ''[[Death Comes to Time (webcast)|Death Comes to Time]]'' depicts an alternative fate of the [[Seventh Doctor]] and [[Ace]] following [[TV]]: ''[[Survival (TV story)|Survival]]''. We're meant to recognise these names: within this story, Ace is the same character whom we met in [[TV]]: ''[[Dragonfire (TV story)|Dragonfire]]'', and her actions are shaped by her experiences in [[TV]]: ''[[The Curse of Fenric (TV story)|The Curse of Fenric]]'' and other stories. This background is assumed as understood.

Now read our article for [[Ace (Death Comes to Time)]]. There's no mention of her shared roots with regular [[Ace]]; in fact, there's no citation of any story besides ''Death Comes to Time'' itself. If you read the page in a vacuum, you could come away thinking she was one of [[Dan Freeman]]'s original characters! To an extent, this is understandable: it would be very silly to duplicate half of [[Ace#Biography]] on two pages. But there's a better way.

Many pages for characters and concepts which appear very briefly in non-valid stories, like [[George W. Bush]], feature a "Behind the scenes" subsection called "Information from non-valid sources". This is better than the [[Ace (Death Comes to Time)]] approach, since it establishes a clear link between the valid and non-valid topics, but we understandably haven't taken this route when it comes to more major characters, since it would be cumbersome to cover that much material in a behind-the-scenes section.

You should know what's coming by now: in this case, [[Ace/Non-valid sources]], decorated by a helpful new template [[Template talk:NCmaterial|tentatively]] called {{tlx|NCmaterial}}.
{{NCmaterial|''[[Death Comes to Time (webcast)|Death Comes to Time]]''|link=Ace|sub=1}}

In [[Ace#Behind the scenes]], a subsection called "Information from non-valid sources" will briefly list or recap Ace's more prominent non-valid appearances, with a {{tlx|main}} link to the subpage covering Ace-related material in these non-valid sources in maximum detail.

{{tlx|NCmaterial}} also unlocks a new solution to another old problem: our coverage of concepts whose main licensed appearances are in non-valid stories. Right now we either shove most of these pages' material in their "Behind the scenes" sections, like on [[Canisian]], or we jam our fingers in our ears and pretend we don't understand the obvious connection, like on [[Man with a bent nose (The Tomorrow Windows)]]. Using the above template on pages like these – not on a subpage, but on the original thing – will enable much better coverage of not just Canisians but also licensed crossover concepts like the [[Vivaldi inheritance]] and [[Gwanzulum]].

<div class="tech">
'''Corollary:''' Editing [[T:VS]] and [[T:NOT]] to reflect that licensed appearances of valid concepts in non-valid sources can be covered on relevant pages and subpages when marked with {{tlx|NCmaterial}}.</div>

==== Biographies ====
In [[Thread:264489#9]], [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] ruled that the biography sections on pages of "highly-recurring characters" should only have 2-3 sentences per story. This ruling was widely ignored – it hasn't been enforced on any page anywhere – and I believe that many, myself included, did not understand it at the time. But I have come to see the wisdom in Shambala's approach.

In the proposal text above, I quoted the Editor Experience team's guideline that articles should be
{{simplequote|somewhere between 1000 and 2500 words (not bytes). There are legitimate reasons for individual articles with 4000–5000 words of prose if they engage the reader and stay on-topic; beyond 5000 words, contributors should review a body of text for opportunities to summarize and break out potentially independent text into new articles.|[[w:c:community:User blog:FishTank/Articles on Fandom|Articles on Fandom]]}}

Currently, we fall hilariously short of this standard. Our pages [[Tenth Doctor]] and [[Eleventh Doctor]] are both over ''60,000'' words long, requiring (according to [https://wordcounter.net/ WordCounter.net]) over 3 hours of reading time each – and it's hard to argue that their prose is ''especially'' engaging. No person is sitting down and reading either of these pages start to finish. And don't even mention [[The Master]]!

If Shambala's decision were implemented properly, we would see a dramatic reduction of these page lengths, but two problems would remain:
# the matter of what to do with all the material we'd be removing; and
# the fact that such a reduction would be nowhere near drastic enough to meet best practices!

Subpages will solve both problems. Biographies which are too long by Shambala's standard can be moved to subpages, rather than deleted outright; and the <code><nowiki>{{Main|/Subpage}}</nowiki> + Summary</code> method would unlock far larger potential reductions in page length.

As described in the proposal text above, the information in a summary should be chosen for its relevance to the [[not we]]. I've received some pushback for this part of the proposal, but in actuality, it satisfies both the spirit and the letter of [[Tardis:Neutral point of view]]. Our entire purpose as a wiki is to cover DWU-related stories and concepts in whatever way will best serve DWU fans, and the reason we have [[T:NPOV]] is to serve that purpose, not to promote "expanded universe" content. A neutral point of view does not prevent us from realistically assessing what information is most relevant to our readers: otherwise it would be against the rules to use the "Main actor" variable in infoboxes!

The guideline as written also has implications for lead paragraphs. [[Peter Capaldi]] himself had [[User:NateBumber/Capaldi interview|such a hard time]] finding relevant information in our article on [[The Beatles]] that he ultimately gave up! I've since [[Special:Diff/3099699|fixed the issue]] with that specific page by moving information about [[TV]]: ''[[The Chase (TV story)|The Chase]]'' from its 14th paragraph to its 2nd. Applying this approach more widely across the wiki will greatly improve general usability. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 15:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

== Discussion ==
In the spirit of [[Forum talk:Index#Moving forwrd|our "fresh start"]], I've taken the liberty of adapting the [[Tardis:user rights nominations|user rights nominations]] format to structure this thread somewhat. Hopefully this will keep discussion organised and constructive and give our admins an easier time of gauging support and opposition. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 15:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

=== Support ===
::'''Please outline the reasons you support this proposal below.'''
''In general'' I '''support''' this idea. I do have the following comments to make. I manifestly deny Nate's claim that
:[...] in actuality, it satisfies both the spirit and the letter of Tardis:Neutral point of view.
and consider his proposal on how to summarize the Tenth Doctor's biography to be a blatant violation of [[T:NPOV]]. However, I ''do not'' think that this is a core feature of his proposal, as we can write "main page" summaries that mention every story with a sentence or so and still dramatically trim down the size of many articles. I propose that we specifically put the discussion of the biography summaries on hold, as it concerns larger issues of how to interpret [[T:NPOV]] and return to that when and if the policy in general is passed. I think overall expansion of subpages is compatible with multiple approaches to trimming down biographies, and it's a larger discussion on how precisely we wish to do that, we shouldn't let that discussion get in the way of this wonderful proposal. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
: I strongly support this proposal as it deals with various issues I’ve encountered on the wiki, and offers a solution that allows both the type of lengthy and hyper-detailed breakdowns we editors love so much, while also offering a muc better usability for the more casual readers.

: I note your mention of galleries as potential subpages, and I want to highlight how much of a good idea that is, as I’ve long felt that the lack of a good visual support for our articles was a problem on the wiki, but was not quite sure how exactly it could be improved as our policies stand. Subpages are an elegant idea, and they are also incredibly easy to use, and intuitive for the readers as well (After all, most other wikis I frequent use them!)

: I think subpages are a good practical way to solve multiple issues at once,   And while I personally have no issue with the way you’ve outlined your proposals for trimming down and adjusting biographies, I do agree with Najawin that the exact details of how this could be achieved and how it relates to [[T:NPOV]] might be best left to discuss at a later date, once we’ve got the ball rolling on subpages as a whole. I feel like with such proposals, the future of Tardis Wiki is rather bright! [[User:Liria10|Liria10]] [[User talk:Liria10|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I support this completely and to the fullest. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

: I support this proposal. It will both improve our ability to cover stories on the wiki and also the readability of articles. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]] ([[User talk:Pluto2|talk]]) 19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:: I also very much support this proposal. I've also been thinking about [[T:NPOV]] in general and have some ideas on that, so I added a thread to the proposals list so that we can discuss it later. In any case I think subpages will ''greatly'' improve the usability of the wiki for both editors and readers. [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

: I agree that subpages present an opportunity. Your suggestions for using them for invalid appearances and alt-realities seems particularly elegant. One potential beneficiary that comes to my mind is [[Last Great Time War]], which has become ''vast'' due to the sheer volume of Time War releases in last few years. I share concerns about biography summaries though as I worry drawing a distinction between "major" and "minor" adventures may inspire endless discussions on what makes the cut and what doesn't. But that's for another day; subpages in principle I support. [[User:SherlockTheII|SherlockTheII]] [[User talk:SherlockTheII|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:: I absolutely love this proposal. With regard to biographies and [[T:NPOV]], I'm not sure that it is an issue. The way I (and this is my personal reading, '''not''' an admin ruling) read the bit of [[T:NPOV]] that is relevant here is that it is talking about taking one source as more true than another, such as claiming that ''[[Genesis of Evil (comic story)|Genesis of Evil]]'' isn't true because ''[[Genesis of the Daleks (TV story)|Genesis of the Daleks]]'' is a TV source, which I don't feel is happening here. We always have to make some form of judgement on the relevence of different sources from different mediums because he have to decide where in an article to place the information. This is just taking that a little further to make using the wiki easier. All of the information will still be there and considered as true as it is now, but the most relevent information will be presented more prominently. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal, since I can see the merit in how using subpages could improve the user experience of the wiki. [[User:TheSpaghetOutcast|TheSpaghetOutcast]] [[User talk:TheSpaghetOutcast|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

=== Oppose ===
::'''Why do you oppose this proposal?'''

=== Neutral ===
::'''Feeling lukewarm about this proposal? Tell us why.'''
I'm somewhat hesitant here. I've visited a number of wikis which use subpages to an extent which I find unnecessarily excessive. However, I am pleased to see "When not to use a subpage" and I do recognise the benefits in lightening the load of parent pages whilst at the same time expanding coverage such as for character biographies. I would proceed slowly with caution on a case by case basis. [[User:MrThermomanPreacher|MrThermomanPreacher]] [[User talk:MrThermomanPreacher|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

: I agree. I can see why subpages might be a good idea, but if we do go ahead with them then I think they should be used as sparingly as possible. [[User:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon]] [[User talk:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

=== Comments and concerns ===
::'''Do you have specific concerns about this proposal that are getting in the way of you making up your mind? Leave them here for discussion.'''
I'm sorry if this is completely daft, but would it be at all possible to implement something like they have over at Wookieepedia for alternate universe versions of characters, etc.? E.g. the page for [[starwars:Wedge_Antilles|Wedge Antilles]] displays initially as being on the '''Canon''' tab; if you go over to the '''Legends''' one (for the old de-canonised Star Wars EU), that's a subpage, but formatted as sort of equal to the "main" one, which I like a lot. Furthermore, on a page like [[starwars:Leia_Skywalker_Organa_Solo|Princess Leia's]], they've somehow managed to link up what look to be two architecturally separate articles (slightly different character name, I have no idea why) using that same "tabbed" visual styling.

I think it would be wonderful if either or both of those arrangements could work here – not just for alternate universe versions but maybe even things or people that exist both in the DWU and the real world? Perhaps even (can you tell this is a bugbear of mine?) make sense of those blasted Zygon Lockdown Thingie versions of Doctor Who episodes that get to take up the main un-disambiguated namespace because of our terrifyingly complicated dab rules. [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:To clarify, they don't "take up" the un dabbed term, even without their existence the real world episodes would still be dabbed. They just happen to end up in it. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::Yes, but without their existence the undabbed titles would redirect to the place whoever typed them almost certainly wanted to go! I know that [[T:NOT WP|we are not Wikipedia]], but I think a lot of users might still intuitively expect that we'd have a similar policy of "if the name applies to several things, and one is clearly much more notable/important than the others, that's the undabbed one," because that policy makes a lot of ''intuitive'' sense. It would be nice if things like "the stub article on a fictional episode of ''Doctor Who'' which is titled identically to the real one" had something more obvious than a tiny "You may" box directing hapless browsers to what they wanted, and even nicer if those hapless browsers didn't so frequently ''land on the other'' in the first place! I know I've gotten off topic, feel free to upbraid me on my talk page, but I really cannot emphasise enough how ludicrously unfriendly the current situation is to casual fans, or literally ''anyone'' other than diehard '''editors''' of this wiki. Aren't we meant to be a resource for everyone? {{unsigned|Starkidsoph}}

::: To be fair I am (slowly) renaming the articles to have story dabs (see [[Erasing Sherlock (Contributors)]] and [[The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation)]]). Also, I don't think putting in-universe articles in subpages for out of universe ones is a particularily intuitive idea IMHO. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

::Starkidsoph, I share your frustration with page names like [[Doctor Who Series 9]]. You may be happy to know that "if the name applies to several things, and one is clearly much more notable/important than the others, that's the undabbed one" is already the policy when it comes to author pages (see [[Talk:Dave Stone (Many Happy Returns)]]), but unfortunately this precedent isn't applied universally or consistently. While this is definitely a problem which needs to be solved, and I do encourage you to propose a forum discussion about it, I'm not sure that subpages are the best way to fix it, so I'd prefer not to incorporate that specific application into this proposal. For what it's worth, the above paragraph "To prevent the unsustainable proliferation…" lays out a template for how new subpage types should be proposed and approved, so there will be a framework for ideas like yours. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I completely understand that. Sorry for derailing – I've ended up burying my own original query! Did anyone actually have any info or opinions re: Wookieepedia's tabbed layout & its applicability here? [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Re:Bongo's above comment, I believe this is Nate's interpretation of NPOV as well when him and I were discussing the proposal back in October. Suffice it to say that I do not agree, and I believe the very second sentence of [[T:NPOV]] contradicts this. But I don't think it's core to this proposal, so we can and should spin this discussion off. It's a clarification of a larger policy, and it's also compatible with this new proposal either way we fall on it. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:To address [[User:SherlockTheII|SherlockTheII]]'s concern, I don't think there will be much dispute over the major/minor factor, actually. Why doesn't the lede of [[Twelfth Doctor]] mention ''[[The Blood Cell (novel)|The Blood Cell]]'' or ''[[The Caretaker (TV story)|The Caretaker]]'', whereas it does mention ''[[Death in Heaven (TV story)|Death in Heaven]]'' and ''[[Twice Upon a Time (TV story)|Twice Upon a Time]]''? For common sense reasons: reasons so obvious that this exclusion hasn't sparked any arguments or edit conflicts; reasons which, I might add, do not violate [[T:NPOV]].

:Najawin, you're right that Bongo's interpretation matches my own. Regarding your proposed amendment, I think it would be obviously detrimental to usability if the Twelfth Doctor lede were forced to mention every single one of his appearances, and the same would be true for a main page summary of his biography subpage. (Of course I would expect that summary to be longer than the page's overall lede in its present form; but not ''that'' much longer.) If in an admin's eyes this concession is necessary to cobble together a majority vote for passage, so be it, but I hope that it won't be necessary and the proposal will pass as-is. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 16:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

::If the choices are between the proposal living and failing as it currently stands, I'm opposed to it, strongly so and I will argue vehemently against it. I'm supporting it currently because I don't think the biography [[T:NPOV]] issue is core to the proposal. I also strongly deny that common sense immediately solves the question of what minor adventures are. "Common sense" is applicable for ledes because everything is still grouped on one page. This approach you're suggesting immediately relegates some stories to second class status. Every editor will have their own pet stories that they will want to place on the main version of the page, regardless of the prominence of the character in the story. For example, 13's appearance in [[The Day of the Doctor (novelisation)]]. Relatively minor appearance within the context of the story. But it's a major story, and massively important for the Doctor in general! Could easily be argued to count. Do we mention every time 13 interacts with 10 because it's multi Doctor? That's a good deal of her EU media at this point. I'm unconvinced that common sense easily solves this problem, and when you add in the "notable minor" clause it gets even worse, because editors will disagree on what makes a story notable. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:::I don't mean to suggest that the choices are between the proposal living and failing as it currently stands! I'm just leaving it up to an admin.

:::To briefly respond to your argument, your supposition about "second class status" is just wrong. Fandom's best practices guide says that both readers and search engines understand that subpages aren't separate articles but ''extensions'' of a ''single'' article, in exactly the same way as separate sections are. Note that despite their extreme lengths, major character pages ''already'' omit many minor stories: for instance, only a single one of the 17 ''[[Doctor Who: Battles in Time (magazine)| Battles in Time]]'' comic stories in which [[Martha Jones]] appears is cited on her page – and even then, only parenthetically! The guidelines I proposed above are actually far more lenient than current ''de facto'' practice in this regard. In contrast, actively requiring each and every one of these stories, however minor, to be cited not just on [[Martha Jones/Biography]] but ''on [[Martha Jones]] itself'' would be a far more radical departure from how the wiki works.

:::… all that said, you and I have been debating this for months now, and I'm sure we could go back and forth ad nauseum. Hopefully by agreeing to disagree, we can open up the space for other people to express their thoughts, to make it easier for an admin to assess the vibes of the entire community on this topic when making their final decision. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

::::Oh, of course, I wasn't interpreting you to be suggesting that! But I think there's substantial concern, not just my own, for the biography issue. I was just emphasizing to whichever admin that will eventually close this thread that I'm strongly against the biography summaries as represented in the main post, so much so that I think it's worth getting rid of the entire proposal if this is how they're making their determination (which I hope they don't!). I'd hope we can simply discuss this issue elsewhere, as myself and others have suggested. I ''obviously'' have a response to your comment, and I ''obviously'' don't find your comment compelling (quelle surprise, we've been discussing this for months), but I would hope that we can discuss this issue on its own thread where we can give the issue the space and nuance it truly deserves, allowing this thread to be the place to flesh out details like "what characters should get subpages for their appearance" or what have you before enshrining these things into policy. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::For ease of use, I've added <div style="border-radius: 3px; background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 2.5px white; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">markers</div> for the start and end of the section you're contesting. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)<br><br>

::: If the sentiment is to hold off on a ruling on the "NPOV-skirting" aspect of this proposal, perhaps it would be helpful to outline some version of what the policy ''would'' say on the matter of biographies if we ''don't'' initially go with what [[User:NateBumber]] drafted here. At the moment, I'm not quite sure what implementing such a version would look like, short of simply not splitting off /Biography at all. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

:::: I share some of the feelings of [[User:Najawin|Najawin]], but only to the extent that I consider treating televised stories as inherently major is against [[T:NPOV]]. I can't think of any reason [[The Idiot's Lantern (TV story)|''The Idiot's Lantern'']] should be considered major, for example. My opinion is that however we decide what is major and minor should be entirely medium-neutral.

:::: I also wouldn't hate it if we didn't have short versions of biographies at all, dodging the whole issue. I'm not certain the short biographies or short summaries are really necessary once we establish that such things are always found on a subpage.

:::: My only other input is that I personally disagree with [[User:Epsilon the Eternal|Epsilon]] and consider in-universe subpages of out-of-universe articles ''far'' more intuitive than having separate pages. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"No comment" until we resolve the issue seems the correct strategy to me. It's disappointing, because it doesn't really shorten pages at all, but pretty much all the other benefits of the subpage policy seem to be preserved. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on that point. We could theoretically adopt the language as is with the understanding that it's not to be implemented without a very long discussion over it, but that idea I'm skeptical of, as it suggests that violations of [[T:NPOV]] are now the default if we don't find consensus in 3 weeks. I have proposed alternative wording for the section, but I don't want to use it until said thread is resolved because that feels unfair to Nate in the same way I'm uncomfortable with his language being the default. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

:: I'm intrigued, albeit not entirely won over, by [[User:Schreibenheimer]]'s suggestion that we could dispense with a ==Biography== section in the main page altogether. We do, after all, include the basic cliffnotes version of Doctors and companions' life stories in our leads. If we have that for casual skimmers ''and'' the full, unabridged biography (with no concerns of emphasis or "two sentences per story") as its own subpage… do we ''also'' need a ''second'',  longer-but-still-incomplete biographical summary on the main page? Do we? I am at the very least tempted to try this on for size as the "temporary" implementation waiting on the resolution of the separate NPOV debate. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

::: I feel like it could be increadibly confusing for readers if the biography section suddenly dissapears. We're already picking and choosing information to place in the lead so, as I've already said, I don't feel that there should be an issue to pick and choosee the most significant information to go in a summarised biography. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

[[Category:Temporary forums]]