Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy (view source)

Revision as of 05:02, 12 May 2023

30,261 bytes added , 12 May 2023

m

SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Subpage policy to Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy: Bot: Moved page

SV7

Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

228,839

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
 == Proposal ==
 {{big toc}}
@@ Line 176: / Line 177: @@
 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)
+I enthusiastically support this new policy. I feel it will streamline the Wiki in some areas (/Covers, /Appearances) and vastly improve it in others. /Non-valid sources would be a great resource for the invalid stuff and crossovers we cover while /Plot is a fantastic idea that makes the prospect of de-stubifying our thousands of stubby story pages much more feasible, improving reader experiences on all fronts. However, I'm afraid I do share concerns about the summaries left behind by /Biography, though not (I think) as much as some others. I don't have a problem with putting a greater emphasis on TV stuff for this and I enjoy the idea of doing them spoiler-free where possible, but I do take issue with ''all'' TV stories being notable and with the inclusion of "notable minor" details. For instance, I'm not sure I would keep 10's lei outfit on the main page. A variation of his regular costume which only appeared in one scene seems destined for a subpage.
+I think /Biography could work very well, but that the kinks which need to be worked out might be too big for that to happen within the timeframe of this thread. If that turns out to be true, I strongly advocate for T:SUBPAGE to be implemented but without the excerpts relating to biographies. I would see it as a great tragedy if /Covers, /Appearances, /Plot, /Non-valid sources and /Gallery subpages do not come into being just because of this one wrinkle. [[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
+I realize I never threw in my hat of support, so here it is! [[User:Editoronthewiki|Editoronthewiki]] [[User talk:Editoronthewiki|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 === Oppose ===
@@ Line 185: / Line 192: @@
 : 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)
+:::Neutral support. I support the increased use of subpages, I think I was one of the first to actually use subpages here mostly because any other naming convention would've ended up with messy pages names I seem to recall.
+:::The neutrality mostly comes from a concern that too much stuff will be 'shoved off' into a subpage that will stop someone reading through an article following the link. We need to ensure we're not losing too much of the 'Tardis Data Core detailed specificity' to be lost to a subppage if we're moving stuff around.
+:::The proposal does give me confidence that any policy will be written and explained fully. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 05:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 === Comments and concerns ===
@@ Line 233: / Line 244: @@
 ::: 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]]
+::::: I don't know — we would still have a ==Biography== ''heading'', I expect, <nowiki>{{main|}}</nowiki>ing to the subpage. It would just be comprised of general statements about the nature of the Doctor's biography instead of an attempt at a biography in itself (similar to the way that the "The [X]'s incarnations" section on Time Lord pages directs readers to their incarnations). I don't think that'd be overly confusing. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
+The lede is ''usually'' populated by information about their character arc and personality. Compare [[Special:PermanentLink/2608632|a revision]] of the 13th Doctor's page after her first season (including special) with [[Special:PermanentLink/1814124|one]] of the 12th Doctor's page. Ignoring the regeneration cycle stuff, the second is a good 70 words longer, devoted entirely to characterization. In large part, I contend, because characterization was the focus of S8 while it wasn't the focus of S11. (Lest you think I'm cherry picking, I assure you, the surrounding revisions are similar.) But it's not clear to me that we can apply this standard to a biography section easily. The two situations are disanalogous. But Bongo, let me ask you, I've raised specific examples where I think it's unclear how to apply the standards on a biography section. Schreibenheimer has done the same. If this is a non issue, surely you can suggest how you'd adjudicate these matters? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
+: Certainly. For ''[[The Day of the Doctor (novelisation)|The Day of the Doctor]]'' (novelisation), I would exclude it from the summary because, as you mention, it is a minor appearance for the [[Thirteenth Doctor]] and that is the incarnation who we're concerned about in this summary. For Thirteen/[[Tenth Doctor|Ten]] [[Multi-Doctor story|multi-Doctors]], I think this would be done more case by case. [[Titan Comics]]' Thirteen/Ten stories could probably be mentioned all in one short parahraph in the summary as they are multiple stories that form a key arc in Titan's Thirteen Doctor run, one of the main strands of her non-TV media. ''[[The Edge of Reality (video game)|The Edge of Reality]]'' would probably also recieve a brief mention as it is one of the bigger Thirteenth Doctor releases (evidenced somewhat by the fact it has recieved physical releases on all major platforms, something that not every ''Doctor Who'' video game recieves). I'm struggling to think, off the top of my head, of any more multi-Doctors between these 2, but it should really come down to whether the story is a significant part of Thirteen's in-universe life or of the real-world era. For something like ''[[The Idiot's Lantern (TV story)|The Idiot's Lantern]]'', I agree that its not particuarly notable either in Ten's life or the real world era. Therefore, I would be tempted to include it, alongside other more minor stories, in the summary somewhat like this: "The Doctor and [[Rose]] continued to travel with each other for a while. During these travels, among other things, they [...], defeated [[the Wire]] in [[1953]] [[London]], ([[TV]]: ''[[The Idiot's Lantern (TV story)|The Idiot's Lantern]]'') [...]." The reason for including it this much would be that the story had a very wide reach due to its television broadcast. I think that's all of the examples you 2 raised. Let me know if I missed any. In general, in my eyes, the summary should be, well, a summary, detailing the largest overall plot points, the broader arcs and the really, really signficant one-offs. Editors already have to make a lot of decisions regarding how content is presented on this wiki and so I trust that we will be able to handle a few more. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+::Alright, thank you for giving me a concrete proposal. Let me just point out that ''you already disagree with someone else who is suggesting that we can summarize biographies in this way.'' You've described ''Idiot's Lantern'' as a minor story, when Nate explicitly considers it a major story. (As he considers ''all'' tv stories major stories.) And let me go one further here. ''Idiot's Lantern'' isn't important for 10's character arc. But you know what's even less important? ''Blink.'' I assume we'd keep ''Blink'' on the hypothetical trimmed down version of 10's biography. But this is perhaps the most obviously egregious violation of [[T:NPOV]] I can think of, that we would prioritize ''Blink'' over other stories, simply because it was televised and thus super popular and we should mention it. (I'm also not sure why ''Edge of Reality'' should get a mention and ''Day of the Doctor'' doesn't, given how important the latter is for the character overall and how the former is a complete nothing, but that's your prerogative.) I'd just like to ask if the other people who think this proposal is workable as-is agree with this. Because ''if they don't,'' and I'm willing to bet that there are disagreements, and these disagreements will only get more severe as we include more and more stories that might be considered "notable minor stories" (eg, [[Canaries (short story)|Canaries]] for quite a few Doctors or [[The Paradox Moon (short story)|The Paradox Moon]] specifically for 13), that's a serious problem for the idea that this is something trivial that we can just come together on without it being an issue. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::Yeah, I was sitting here formulating a rebuttal to your opinion about [[Blink (TV story)|''Blink'']] before realizing that was exactly your point, and these discussions would be constant. I'm with [[User:Najawin|Najawin]]. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Hmm, I am starting to see your point here. I can very easily see how someone else, or even me on a different day in a different mood, could disagree with my decisions. I feel that the best course of action here may be to make a draft of some character's biography summary. Seeing it all put together and giving us something more solid to argue over could be helpful for deciding if this is at all workable. I don't have time to do this right now, but I will have a go at it over the next week or so (unless someone else wants to give it a shot first). [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+:Both [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] and [[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] have mentioned that I claimed every television story is inherently "major". To the extent that the proposed text suggests such a thing, it's a mistake: a relic from a prior draft. I intended the final proposal to decide whether a story is "major" or "minor" for a character in a medium-neutral way, albeit within the bounds of common sense. If a line here or there slipped through the cracks, that's ''mea culpa''. (As Boris notes, the entire Tenth Doctor lei example may be one of these leftovers!) Contra [[User:Najawin|Najawin]]'s accusation of contradiction, my assessment of notability in the case of [[Martha Jones]] agrees with [[User:Bongolium500|Bongolium500]]'s perfectly.
+:As it happens, today we have been handed an excellent case study for consideration. From the beginning, this proposal has been for [[T:SPLIT]] as well as [[T:SUBPAGE]], and its guidelines for how to summarise moved information should ideally apply whether the information is moving to a subpage or a regular page. And what better demonstration than the long-anticipated split of [[The Master]]! For instance, a large part of the Master's biography was moved to [[Missy]] and replaced with the following paragraph:
+<div class="tech">Having regenerated into a female body, the Master adopted the nickname of [[Missy]]. She arranged for the [[Eleventh Doctor]] to meet [[Clara Oswald]] ([[TV]]: ''[[The Bells of Saint John (TV story)|The Bells of Saint John]]'', ''[[Death in Heaven (TV story)|Death in Heaven]]'') and created the [[Nethersphere]]. The [[Twelfth Doctor]]'s discovery of this artificial afterlife was the first of many encounters between him and Missy, ([[TV]]: ''[[Dark Water (TV story)|Dark Water]]'', ''[[The Magician's Apprentice (TV story)|The Magician's Apprentice]]'', etc.) and they had even tried to renew their friendship, with Missy pledging to renounce her "evil" ways, by the time the two were killed on a [[Colony ship (World Enough and Time)|Mondasian colony ship]], with Missy being shot in the back by her own past self. ([[TV]]: ''[[The Doctor Falls (TV story)|The Doctor Falls]]'')</div>
+:While this summary will likely change over time, perhaps substantially – for instance, it may be shorter than it absolutely needs to be – I don't anticipate any edit wars over its contents, and in this light I continue to believe that fears of conflict are overblown. That said, I can't ignore the emerging consensus that this question is serious enough to jeopardise the /Biography subpage concept entirely. In light of this, I've added my vote to [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]]'s [[Tardis:Temporary forums|proposal]] for a dedicated thread to discuss [[T:NPA]]; and in the meantime, rather than sacrifice /Biography subpages entirely, I'll draft an answer to [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]]'s request for a compromise, which will do away with the problematic "major"/"minor" language. I'll aim to share this compromise here later this week, but if anyone wants to beat me to the punch, I'd more than welcome it. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
+::Upon further reflection, and emboldened somewhat by [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]]'s kind show of confidence, here's my suggestion for what we replace the contested section with: '''nothing.'''
+::We didn't have a special policy guiding how we wrote the summary after splitting [[The Doctor's early life]] from [[First Doctor]]. We didn't have a special policy guiding how we wrote the summary after splitting [[Missy]] from [[The Master]]. And we don't have a special policy guiding us when we write ledes of articles. Instead, we've simply followed existing policy – including [[T:NPOV]]! – and our general familiarity with the Tardis Wiki style: a style which includes our "Tardis Data Core detailed specificity". These things have sufficed before, and they will also suffice here.
+::Here's how the "Writing a summary" section would look under this proposal:
+<div class="tech">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.
+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>
+::This is my new proposal. Gone is any contestable division between "major" and "minor", and gone is any reference to medium as a determining factor. But even if the section is less detailed than it had been before, the editor isn't left entirely without guidance: rather, they're guided both by existing precedent and by all the other policies as always. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] and [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]], I'd be particularly interested in hearing your feedback. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 21:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::This is... better, and I'd be willing to accept it if an admin deems it necessary to do so. But I think the appropriate response until we resolve the [[T:NPOV]] issue is to simply ''not summarize biographies''. As written the policy, is, well, a non policy, which doesn't ''necessarily'' lead to endless debates like the original one does, but I think it has a very real possibility of doing so. idk, maybe I'm being too reticent here. We do have a finite number of regular editors, and most of us are a pretty reasonable bunch. But we still have wildly different views on the stories we'd want to place in this summary imo. Again, maybe I'm just worried for nothing. But I think this particular section of the proposal needs to be hammered out far more than it is, and until then we should just decline to summarize anything. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
+::: I still feel there's a fair bit of potential in the option of simply ''not'' having a summarised biography on the main page at ''all'', just general reflections about the ''nature'' of a character's biography and a {{tlx|main}} link to the subpage. Some might say that falls rather squarely within [[User:Tangerineduel]]'s concerns about rendering information less accessible, but I say the opposite: if there's a "perfectly good" limited summary on the main page, people are quite liable to never check out the full-length /Biography version. In contrast, if there's just ''no'' biography  on the main page as such, anyone with any sense will realise it's all going on in the subpage and head there. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::One of the ideas about the wiki was to get people to explore the wiki more, to see more of than the TV story pages or whatever people were coming to look for.
+::::So, I guess reading through I've kinda flipped a little on my perspective by [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]]'s recent comment. That if there's a summary, then that will stop people actively exploring more of the wiki, and that includes a sub-page.
+::::We also need to look to not creating more work for ourselves, we don't want to have to be writing a sub-page ''and'' a summary of that page. As has been noted there's some sections ''still'' not written on old pages. And needing to write a summary of a subpage is going to introduce inaccuracies, or at the very least a conflict as the two pages get edited / linked at different rates. —[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 01:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::: To be completely frank, the idea that “leading users to explore the wiki more deeply” is (1) a central premise of the Wiki and (2) that such a premise would outrank healthy UX practices as a matter of priority boggles the mind. The Wiki should be a resource of information —-it’s top priority should be giving readers relevant information in a deep yet succinct form, not to make users linger here longer. An approach that centers TARDIS Wiki as a creative writing project first and a resource for readers second is deeply problematic. I think that we as editors sometimes need to step back and think about what priorities the de facto Official Doctor Who Wiki should have. [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] [[User talk:NoNotTheMemes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+The more I think about it the more I like it. Tangerine's arguments in particular are quite convincing. Put me down for "don't implement summaries at all for the time being while still creating subpages, and if we figure out a way to do so in a way we can all agree upon at the resolution of the [[T:NPOV]] thread we can instate the summaries then." Sorry Nate, I'm sure this goes against your intent with the proposal here. But the issue of summary/subpage discrepancy is a really great argument Tangerine makes. It then comes down to whether we create the subpages for biographies or not. I'm still okay with not doing so at all, but encouraging users to get into the habit of exploring is ''exactly'' what I want to do. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+: Okay, I've thought about this a bit and don't have a definite "answer", but here's my thoughts:
+: Kind of addressing Tangerine's concerns, I thought that the summaries would/should give the bare minimum of the section to answer a question (more on that in a moment), but if the reader wants to know anything more than an overview, they should be incentivized to click the subpage. This might sound a bit silly, but I think for a character biography, the summary should be what they did ''with'' their life and the biography what they did ''in'' their life.
+: I know what you're probably thinking— the similarity between lead sections has been mentioned. I actually think a fair amount of character leads ''would'' do better to be shortened and adapted into biography summaries. Here comes the "question" I meant. I would say the lead should (concisely) answer "who is the character", and the biography summary should answer "what is the character's history". The former question certainly includes and necessitates some aspects of the latter, especially for major characters, but there qre some that I think focus too much on it. Examples of just a few major character pages that I personally think do a good job of this at a glance: [[Seventh Doctor]], [[Martha Jones]], [[Davros]] (though perhaps could be shortened) and in fact all the newly split Master pages. Some that I think are a bit ''too'' biographical (and long) to answer "who are they": [[Thirteenth Doctor]], [[Rose Tyler]], [[River Song]], and [[Bernice Summerfield]]. It's not just biographical/historical focus that can dominate; sometimes it's something better suited for another section like personality or even trivia. I've also noticed a great portion of a lead might be dedicated to listing every possible name for the subject, like at [[Time Lord]]. Don't be afraid to make a section for that either— I'm rather proud of what I did about it recently over at [[N-Space]].
+: Although as we well know, their pages are much different than ours in some respects, {{w|Wikipedia's guide on lead sections}} has a useful tip: " As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." This is aptly from the page's own lead, and the guide is extremely detailed. (Also, did you know we have the comparably pithy [[T:LEADS]]? I didn't until now. Maybe we can work on that as part of this.)
+: Unfortunately, I currently lack the energy to create a more in-depth proposal right now, and I also don't want to in case my idea is too different from others. But my suggestion is that because the idea of subpages affects the flow of a page, we should preserve this flow by looking at each section of a page as answering a question. The summary tells you a basic, general overview, but if you want details, you should be actually inclined to visit the subpage. Another suggestion I have is to potentially base biography section summaries off the section headers of the actual biography. What do you all think of this lump of ideas? [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]], you wrote, "if there's a 'perfectly good' limited summary on the main page, people are quite liable to never check out the full-length /Biography version." Indeed, both proposals for the "Writing a summary" section already say, "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." I don't see what else needs to be said; limiting our summaries beyond this line would begin to compromise our higher-order priorities as a wiki, as [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] insightfully pointed out above.
+::[[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]], I agree with everything you've said here, down to moving names from leads to a "Names" section – I suggested the same thing above, citing [[Aliases of the Doctor]], without any idea that such a thing already existed on [[N-Space#Names|N-Space]]. And I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that I'd forgotten [[T:LEADS]] existed! Your formulation of "a section as the answer to the question posed by its header" is elegantly phrased and, as a principle, describes our current practices very aptly – in fact, its explicit adoption would lead to so few implications outside of precedent (by my reckoning, none!) that I wouldn't be surprised if it could be officially adopted without a forum thread, similarly to the process which gave us [[T:MERGE]]. Codifying that would go a long way towards clearing up the dispute in this thread, and it's a compelling next step, even if surely it can't be accomplished within the 3 week allotment. Until we can sort it out, I can accept Scrooge's suggestion of "no bio summaries" in the meantime. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 23:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::Something I haven't seen mentioned, and I just thought about it, what does this proposal do for our SEO? I seem to recall Czech killing a few proposals because they would futz with our SEO. (In particular, moving everything to a biography page sans summary might do this.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::Take a look at the very beginning of Nate's proposal, it does address this. Subpages are ''encouraged'' by Fandom for this reason (and others). I know of some wikis which are, in my opinion, ''overly'' dependent on subpages (and sub-subpages, etc), and they come up fine on Google, and make it easier to find specific information. [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
+Ah, I did miss the quote. With that said, per the source Nate's grabbing from:
+:If a single section would make a good book chapter with an unambiguous title, it can usually safely be split off. There's no problem with leaving behind a "CliffsNotes" summary of the essentials, and going into deep detail on another page.
+This was my main concern SEO-wise, doing a biography subpage and leaving nothing behind. We could ask Spongebob? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+Phew, this is our first TemporaryThread that almost went over a deadline, given that some specific usages of the subpages were a bit more controversial than others. However, TempThreads have always been intended to "be '''actionable within the timelimit''' and "have a '''significant impact on the wiki and its readers'''.
+I think it's clear for every participant in here that the '''''concept''''' of subpages is beneficial, even if we may disagree/have to further discuss their ''usage'' in some instances. But that's the very reason I'd find it a shame for the whole thread to be simply marked as "unresolved". Instead, what I'm doing is closing it '''in favor of subpages being used''' throughout the wiki, with the compromise that '''not every instance mentioned on the OP is being adopted'''.
+I'm particularly talking about moving sections from, say, [[Twelfth Doctor#Biography]] to [[Twelfth Doctor/Biography]]. Even if we came close''r'' to consensus than we once were, I don't think we ''quite'' got to that place yet, so my proposition is thus: Add a new entry to [[Tardis:Temporary forums#Proposed_threads]], with something called "Further usages of subpages on the wiki". Matter of fact, I myself [[User:OncomingStorm12th/The_Visual_Dictionary|have been experimenting]] around [[User:OncomingStorm12th/The_Cabinet_of_Light_(novel)/Audiobook|some ideas]] that would be proposed on such a Thread, but that's a discussion for another day.
+For now, let's start by having subpages for:
+* Cover galleries on series that have too many to be placed on the main article (eg: [[BBC New Series Adventures/Covers]] over [[BBC New Series Adventures covers]]
+* Lists of appearances (eg: [[Twelfth Doctor/Appearances]] over [[Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances]])
+Some other propositions seem sensible (such as [[The Doctor's TARDIS/Gallery]] and [[David Tennant/Spoilers]]), but would require changes of current policy, such as "having galleries for in-universe topics" and [[T:SPOIL]]. These can, however, be greenlighted in future thread(s).
+For navigation/organisation, subpages should still be categorized; the approved classes of subpages should, for example, still be under [[:Category:Lists of appearances]] and [[:Category:Galleries]] (or a sub-category thereof). If you think your proposed new type of subpage won't [[Tardis:Rule of three|have enough candidates to warrant a category]], it ''might'' indicate your "subpage" might better be applied as a different page altogether.
+To reiterate: new types of subpages '''should be discussed in the forums before being launched in the main namespace'''. In general, we're looking at whether the proposed format is applicable to a wide range of pages (like [[Series 7 (Doctor Who)/Promotion]]), and whether this new subclass of pages would get better treatment as articles proper (like [[The Doctor's hats]] or [[Origins of the Last Great Time War]]), as detailed on Nate's [[#When not to use a subpage]].
+To conclude: I'm fully aware that these are baby steps in terms of subpage usage, but as I mentioned earlier, there still seems to be some animosity on ''usage'', so I eagerly await for a "part 2" of this discussion in which we propose (and, better yet, use Sandboxes to show) more ways where subpages can be used for Wikifying content! [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
+</div>