Template talk:Faction Paradox members

Just a question

Since Navboxes allow speculation? Is there precedent for this? Najawin ☎ 00:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm not entirely sure I follow. Would you mind rephrasing your point?

Epsilon📯 📂

00:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I, like Epsilon, am completely lost? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So we can't identify Ceol and Kelsey, they don't qualify for the homeworld treatment, and this means that we also can't give Kelsey the relevant categories. Everything goes in BTS sections. But we don't have official Navbox policy written down (and I can't find any discussion about it, and I have asked, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson), and what I've gathered is that speculation is allowed as to how we categorize things in them. So then the Navbox could perhaps include Kelsey in it as well as Ceol? Najawin ☎ 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose so. We could have her entry be [[Ceol]]/[[Kelsey Hooper]], which is within precedent, but I'm not sure it's entirely worth it? But I wouldn't be opposed to it, by any stretch of the imagination.

Epsilon📯 📂

01:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm totally against that.

The whole reason the Kelsey/Ceol pages were split was because the appearances made by Ceol never had a license to use that character. To include her on a template which relates to unlicensed material for that specific character makes that decision redundant. We shouldn't be trying to find ways to bypass licensing, surely? Why is speculation allowed in navboxes anyway? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole, and very fair, reason that conjecture is allowed in infoboxes is navigation. They aren't in-universe, not remotely, but serve as basically "see alsos" for related topics; they serve to guide user to pages that are connected, even if only through out of universe means, as it is in a reader's interest. Most readers don't concern themselves with whether or not something is "valid" or "is only implied but not explicit for licensing reasons". Navboxes are closer to the behind the scenes sections that in-universe sections (both literally and metaphorically) in content.

Epsilon📯 📂

01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I have an example of speculation in a navbox? That just doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me that this site would be taking a stance of encouraging copyright infringement if it continued to push Kelsey/Ceol as being related characters any further than a BTS section explaining the situation. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As a hypothetical example, let's suggest that Doctor Strange had been mentioned in a story, but not been connected to the Marvel multiverse in-universe. You are a reader, a Not We, on the Wiki, and you decide to explore the connections Marvel has to Doctor Who: so you find yourself going through pages, and you notice a template - a template that contains a handy list of Marvel Comics characters - but Doctor Strange isn't on there. What would be your first thought? A. Doctor Strange, if he is not in this list of characters, must have not appeared in the DWU, or b. has appeared in the DWU but the Wiki has decide to prioritise pedantry over common sense and has separated relevant information based solely on the conscious decision to forgoe the real world context the original writer of the story assumed their readers would possess. Of bloody course it would be the former. Thus, conjectural inclusivity is imperative in my eyes.

Epsilon📯 📂

01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the homeworld treatment is a little more complicated than simple licensing, it's more like a continuous chain of overlapping licensed concepts. But as Epsilon said, the decision to split the pages relates to in universe statements and how we deal with validity, we still note the connection in the BTS sections. This isn't necessarily different in kind. And since we don't have any concrete policies for Navboxes (oh, crap, I should put that on the list, brb) there's nothing forbidding us from doing this. As far as copyright infringement goes, I direct you to Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1. Najawin ☎ 01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Uh, Epsilon that example doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. There are in-universe navboxes (all the series navboxes, etc) and out-of-universe navboxes. This one is an in-universe navbox and so Kelsey should be excluded. Also, I find your tone to be completely inappropriate, Epsilon. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Even in universe Navboxes have speculation. See the Marvel navbox as an example. Endgame (film) and Captain Marvel are not explicitly stated in universe to be related to Marvel Comics Group. Najawin ☎ 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@DrWHOCorrieFan, infoboxes, regardless of content, are universally out-of-universe. They are not written from an in-universe perspective, they make no attempt of the sort. Organisation of in-universe topics does not equal being an in-universe page in of itself. They are literally a bunch of links, pertaining to a topic, in a template. Also, I feel my tone is perfectly calm, thank you very much.

Epsilon📯 📂

02:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

All of these examples are being lined up in the templates with the correct licensing. Where is there an example similar to Kelsey's? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In the case of real world link organisation, licensing is an arbitrary goalpost that would render the point of navigation templates useless. My general point is, if there is a real world connection, and this can merely be the documentation of in-universe suggestion, then the template should include the link to the given page as it is something that readers searching for information on a given topic would look for.

Epsilon📯 📂

02:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You want us to put Kelsey on a template which states that she was a member of Faction Paradox. No story that Kelsey has ever appeared in has connected her to Faction Paradox whatsoever. Someone who had no rights to her character and couldn't even state it outright included a character intended to be her as a member of Faction Paradox. It makes no sense to include Kelsey in this category and that would confuse the average reader far more than not including her. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 02:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were asking for

Can I have an example of speculation in a navbox?

Asked and answered. Speculation as to whether or not these entities IU are related to another corporation IU, but still in the relevant navbox. If you want to move on to the issue of licensing, I again direct you to Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1 as to why this isn't a concern for the wiki. We care about licensing when it comes to in universe issues because that's what matters for our validity rules. But we're not discussing adding anything to an in-universe section. As for your complaint just now, I mean, the argument applies equally well to the IU version of Captain Marvel. Sort of an overly broad complaint. Najawin ☎ 02:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@DrWHOCorrieFan, if you're a Faction Paradox fan, and you're looking for a list of Faction members, including Kelsey on the list as a lot of stories that feature a character who is ostensibly and heavily implied to be Kelsey is something that would be useful. It's not like she'd be getting her own section, she'd be put right next to Ceol. Either Ceol/Kelsey Hooper or Ceol (Kelsey Hooper) would work and be within the precedent of organisation. I also agree with what @Najawin said above.

Epsilon📯 📂

02:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone else can step in and explain my point better than I can because I'm just flabbergasted with this... madness. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 02:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)