Forum:Temporary forums/Lists of Appearances

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Temporary forums/Lists of Appearances

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Proposal

It's been a longstanding issue that, contrary to expectations, many lists of appearances fail to list some of the character's licensed appearances! Thank you @Epsilon the Eternal for inviting me to write the opening post for his proposed fix: include invalid sources on lists of appearances. For instance, add David Tennant's performance in Attack of the Graske to Tenth Doctor - list of appearances, where (quite frankly) it belongs.

Please see Martha Jones - list of appearances for 2 options regarding implementation:

1. Present valid and invalid appearances in the same way. For instance, Legacy, an invalid video game, is not presented any differently than Lost in Time, a valid video game.
2. Add a separate column which marks whether each appearance is valid or invalid. This makes it easy for users to sort and focus on one or the other.

Both options use a new tabular format for LoAs, as also demonstrated at Sabbath Dei - list of appearances, to provide more information to the reader while being more compact than the current system. While for now the tabular format will simply be an option which editors can choose to manually implement, one day it could be automated through @Bongolium500's infobox code tests. Additionally, in both cases, Rule 3 invalid sources – meaning those which we have pages for but are unreleased – can be listed in a separate section from the officially released appearances, as can mentions.

Regardless of which option we choose, it's a plain fact that LoAs aren't in-universe pages, so it makes no sense to omit invalid stories entirely. Hopefully we can prove the viability of these new temporary forums by coming to a quick consensus on this matter! – n8 (☎) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

Please outline the reasons you support this proposal below.

I completely support this proposal. As said above, we have a great many lists that needs to cover appearances that they at this point do not cover at all. And that’s not even talking about invalid sources. Not much to say, just I support. Danniesen ☎ 21:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think Option 2 is better (because readers SHOULD care if a source is valid or not - even if they don't use those words - otherwise T:VS is completely useless), and of course agree that invalid sourcss should be covered in lists of apprarances Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 21:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not much to add, frankly, but I very much support this. "Attack of the Graske" is a good example. David Tennant appears in character as The Doctor, it was made by the BBC, with the official production teams and was released in an official capacity. I'd like to draw comparison too - on the list of appearances for the Eleventh Doctor, the "Adventure Games" are listed. Whilst "Attack of the Graske" isn't an Adventure Game, it effectively plays as such, is interactive in the same way, is officially licensed, etc. and features live action Tenth Doctor (whereas the aforementioned games don't even have that, yet are still listed because they feature the character). In summary, I agree these lists should be more comprehensive with additions made. FractalDoctor ☎ 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cousin Ettolrhc, I just wanna point out that T:VS isn't supposed to be something readers necessarily care about:

"A valid source is one that we as a wiki believe satisfactorily and intentionally describes information and events in the Doctor Who universe. If a source is marked invalid, it is not because it is "worth less" or "didn't happen"; it simply means that due to some aspect(s) of the nature of the source, we don't consider it able to be used as a reliable and actual account of the DWU. Hence, two contradicting sources can be considered equally valid, while one that seems like it fits in may not be for the reasons below."T:VS

T:VS is merely a tool for the Wiki to use to fairly document stories, and is not a substitute for canon. And for readers, who want a list of which stories the Tenth Doctor appeared in, won't care if Attack of the Graske has multiple choice options, as to them, it's just a story that David Tennant was in.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

However, option #2 is still a good one, as it does help Wiki editors quickly see which sources are valid, and casual readers can just ignore it.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I enthusiastically support this proposal. I would personally prefer Option 1 because I doubt that the reader cares that much about whether a particular video game is considered a valid source for articles. But I don't feel very strongly about that aspect either way. Pluto2 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I did care which stories were valid when I used those lists to check my completion of experiencing every story featuring the Doctor. I only had interest in the valid ones.

I do support this proposal of including invalid stories, but I only support Option 2; I would be against Option 1. We have valid and invalid stories for a reason, and I'm against listing them with no differentiation on such crucial pages. Schreibenheimer ☎ 00:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I also support of this proposal. While my heart says Option 1, my head says Option 2. Most readers probably won't care about the distinction, but it may confuse new editors if they are all listed together. LauraBatham ☎ 04:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My view is, is that if a new editor needs to know the validity of something, they're best advised to go to the story's actual page, as there they can even be told why a story is invalid, not just that it is.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I support option 2. Will make things less confusing. WaltK ☎ 06:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I very much support this proposal. I have been thinking about how lists of appearances which are all very random in their formatting on the wiki as it stands, could be reworked in such a way that does not violate T:NPOV and truly, a table that each user can sort as they prefer is a great solution!

I am also for option 2 myself, as I feel like knowing if something is valid or not is the type of information someone could be interested in while skimming through this list. Though I’m not sure the currently implemented look would work well, as I personally find the checkmarks hard to see (this isn’t much of a concern, as after all a simple color change from black to say, green, would solve this issue easily)

If anything, I think implementing this idea will make working on lists of appearances (and hey… maybe even credits pages?) a lot easier. Liria10 ☎ 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal and I love how Option 1 looks, so much more like a proper list - full of useful info. Dmitriy Volfson ☎ 05:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm in support of invalid appearances being on these pages and I'm also in support of converting the lists to tables. The ability to sort by release date is something sorely lacking in the current set-up. My preference is for Option 1 as I don't believe the average reader should be bothered about the often arbitrary distinctions between valid and invalid which have arisen on the Wiki, with Legacy and Lost in Time being the prime examples on Martha's page. That said, I'd prefer either of the two options to what we currently have and I would not object if it is instead Option 2 which is eventually implemented. Borisashton ☎ 23:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also in support of this. I also prefer option 1 as a story's validity probably isn't all that important to more casual readers, I'd think. Time God Eon ☎ 19:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Why do you oppose this proposal?

Neutral

Feeling lukewarm about this proposal? Tell us why.

I have no strong opinions on moving invalid sources to LoAs in general. To me it seems like a minor change that doesn't impact the wiki that much, but I personally don't futz around with LoA pages much, so I fully admit my own bias in not working with the pages in question. With that said, I strongly dislike option 2 over option 1. The average user does not understand the distinction between validity and canon, having never read T:VALID and T:CANON. (Albeit, the average user isn't on LoA pages, but I think the user who views LoA pages without having read those policies is larger than vice versa.) In effect, if we have a column for "validity" in such a chart, to the average user we're conveying the idea that these things are canon or not. Lest you think I'm tilting at windmills, I've fielded multiple questions about the distinction between validity and canon in our Discussion board, which is part of this site! I'm unconvinced that making the lives of editors slightly easier is worth confusing our median reader in this way. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of using a table over a list. (And I note that {{too many lists}} in particular asks you to convert the lists into prose which this solution does not end up doing.) But a table with fewer columns is definitely workable, it might just be me being resistant to change. All in all, no strong feelings on the change, but if the change happens, that's how you should implement it. Najawin ☎ 05:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think {{too many lists}} is supposed to apply to real world lists. Kinda defeats the point. I do prefer option one, myself.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:46, 10 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.

Is it really necessary to have all those columns in the table? Over on mobile (whose users should make up a majority of readers here) the table is very cramped and it overflows the side of the screen, so not a great experience. Personally I'd think that only having the title, medium and release date is necessary, but then you might get the opposite problem on desktop with the table being somewhat sparse. Custom mobile CSS is supposed to be coming to the platform soon, and so it will become possible to selectively hide columns just on the mobile skin, but then I'm not sure if hiding content is something you want to be doing. guyus24 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it feels a bit much. Do we really need author, publisher, and release date? Also, the sample table combines stories that are frequently considered to be "two-part stories" by the fandom into single entries, but I thought previous discussions had come to the conclusion that there were too many debatable pairs (or trios) of stories like this, and that we would generally consider any stories with separate titles separate stories. Schreibenheimer ☎ 00:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Tables are the sitewide preference for displaying lists of stories, hence their use on all our series pages and the existence of {{too many lists}}. When I view Martha Jones - list of appearances on mobile, it's true that the table has enough columns to allow for horizontal scrolling, but no more so than series pages like Main Range – and the story titles are still viewable without scrolling, so it conveys the same information as the current norm. In fact, since the many headers have been eliminated, the one table is still shorter than Martha Jones - list of appearances in its current state. So I have a hard time regarding it as problematically cramped. Maybe we could omit some columns (I'd start with "Valid"), but at the very least, release date and series are absolutely necessary.

Regarding pairs and trios of stories, when I was building the Martha Jones - list of appearances example, I simply made it a 1:1 tabulation of our current Martha Jones - list of appearances page, including its combinations of some stories onto a single line. This proposal has no bearing on what current practice is in that regard. – n8 (☎) 03:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I also dislike the table as is. Author and publisher are not necessary for a simple list of character appearances, and I would probably scrap the validity and release date, too. Personally I prefer the list, as I can easily jump to the section I am interested in rather than having to sort by medium or series and have to scroll. Not so much a problem for smaller lists, but for Doctors and companions I can see it being annoying. LauraBatham ☎ 04:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think, out of everything, release dates should be kept. It is incredibly useful to sort by when stories first released, as it, well, tells you stuff like: what was their first appearance? First non-television appearance? Yadda yadda yadda. The current set up prioritises television, for some reason, and shunts everything off into sections pretty much randomly.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

13:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually reconsidering release dates on my drive to work this morning. I can see value in being able to take all of a character's appearances and being able to list them in release order. Schreibenheimer ☎ 14:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d propose we have colums for every title they appeared in, the release date of each title and then possibly whether they’re valid or invalid. —Danniesen ☎ 09:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But to be completely honest I think I prefer a bullet list for “List of appearances”. The argument “too many bullet lists” is utter bullshit. —Danniesen ☎ 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not the argument; that's just the precedent. The main motivating factor is that locking users into a single unchangeable sort order gets in the way of them finding interesting information like "the first story this character appeared in" – not to mention that it arguably violates T:NPOV. For your list of columns, at minimum, medium and series are required by virtue of the current layout. – n8 (☎) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I like Option 1 the best actually. I’m not so fond of Option 2. Danniesen ☎ 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the feedback here, I've slimmed down the sample options by removing the "Publisher" column: in the end, what matters regarding a comic is the magazine it's published in, not whether that magazine is owned by Panini UK or BBC Magazines. Where relevant, for instance in distinguishing between BBC and Big Finish Torchwood audios, I've simply mentioned the information into the "Series" column.

Regarding the remaining columns, I think the case for keeping "Release date" is obvious per the above, and "Medium" and "Series" are required simply to replicate the current list of appearances format. I also like "Author", which is useful in many cases – for instance, when a character or a specific character arc was sculpted by a specific author – but admittedly it's the next most marginal case … besides "Validity", that is, which like Najawin and Epsilon I continue to believe would be misleading to audiences regarding what "validity" means, just as Schreibenheimer demonstrated above. In short, I hope the removal of "Publisher" will be sufficient to address these concerns. – n8 (☎)

One other comment that I feel should be made is that I'm not a fan of combining these two proposals into one thread. Aside from both concerning the same pages, the question of whether we should include invalid stories on these pages has no policy relation to the question of whether these pages should be in list or table format. Schreibenheimer ☎ 18:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s quicker and it’s easier that way. Danniesen ☎ 21:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quicker, perhaps, but is it really easier to debate two separate issues at the same time? Schreibenheimer ☎ 17:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

This thread has now passed its 3 week deadline. However, it has not yet been closed. There does seem to be some consensus here, though, and I don't want this to get lost with this thread being closed as unresolved. Therefore, while I haven't had time to close this yesterday or this morning, I will write out a closing post later today. In the meantime, I'm going to lock this thread as it is effectively finished. Bongo50 ☎ 06:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Overall, the inclusion of invalid stories in lists of appearance is wildly supported by everyone who contributed to this thread. Therefore, invalid appearance are now allowed on lists of appearances. Moreover, as proposed in the opening post, rule 3-failing (e.g. unreleased/unproduced) stories may now be added to lists of appearences as a separate section below the main list. Now onto the propposed new table format. Overall, there was consensus to implement this format in some way or other. Therefore, the table-based format for lists of appearences may now be implemented on pages. When creating new lists of appearences, please create them with this new format. Moreover, lists currently presented as bulleted lists should be transfered to the new format. However, there were a few smaller issues of contention around this new format which I will now address:

• Firstly, whether or not to differentiate invalid appearances. A quick count of people's support for option 1 and 2 gave me 8 editors supportive of option 1 (not differentiating validity) compared to just 5 for option 2 (having a column to differentiate validity). Therefore, option 1 - the validity of stories not being indicated in appearance tables - should be used.
• Secondly, whether the current examples include too many columns. Personally, I find the idea that, even if the table does extend off the edge of the screen on mobile, as long as the information currently included in these lists is furthest left, mobile readers will still be able to obtain all of the same information they currently can, arguably with less scrolling, very convincing. For this purpose, the following columns should be used in the order presented:

Title	Medium	Series	Author	Release Date

• Just as in N8's amendment, the series column may contain the publisher where relevant (see his example for examples of this).

I think that's everything. Please remember to include all of the sortable functionality of these tables when implementing them on pages. If you're unsure how to do this, copy and paste the source wikitext of N8's example and then adapt it. Bongo50 ☎ 20:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)