Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0

Introduction

A few weeks ago, we finished our discussion of subpage policy. In that thread I suggested a wide array of potential subpage types, but the only ones which were ultimately approved were [[/Appearances]] and [[/Covers]]. These have both seen broad acceptance across the wiki: all lists of appearances have been moved to their new homes (hello Ninth Doctor/Appearances!), as have all cover pages (eg Faction Paradox (series)/Covers).

However, in the weeks since then, some of our threads have gone back and approved other subpage types from my original proposal! Our big Spoiler Policy thread allowed [[/Spoiler]] subpages (David Tennant/Spoilers!), and our Image Policy thread allowed [[/Gallery]] pages. This demonstrates that it would be good to revisit the rest of the proposals from the original thread, separate from the larger question of whether a T:SUBPAGE would be a good idea.

Since this thread addresses all of the original proposed subpage types, I'm adopting an unorthodox format with separate discussion sections for each part of the proposal. Don't be afraid of hitting "edit", though: you'll see that I used transclusions to make it easier to add comments without having to navigate between big blocks of text. And if you want to leave a comment about all of the proposal parts at once, you can do so in the "General discussion" section at the bottom! – n8 (☎) 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: /Plot

Discussion: /Plot

Please put comments regarding the [[/Plot]] proposal here.

I'm not really a fan of putting them on subpages, perhaps partly out of pride because I've written about 450 of them. We could put short summaries from memory on the pages, sure, but to be replaced by fuller ones at a later date. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You know, this is one that I don't feel either way about. I think moving exceptionally long descriptions might be a good idea, but I do think an issue we're going to keep running into with this forum is that once you move a section to a sub-page, people are going to treat it as secondary content, so some editors won't like that. OS25🤙☎️ 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Not really got any more to add. Danniesen ☎ 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I also support this proposal. Fractal Doctor ☎ 23:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with this one. It seems like a mistake to me to have two different levels of plot summaries, as it becomes an excuse to not have one or the other. I could see moving the plot summaries to a subpage and leaving the section blank, with just a link to the subpage. That would greatly shorten the page. With that said, since this is a large change to how our pages are set up I would encourage us to try to get feedback from non-editors and less enfranchised fans. But that's just me. Najawin ☎ 23:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my personal favourite proposal of this bunch. One of the main things I read the wiki for is to refresh my memory on what happened in the previous part of a serialised story or the previous installment of a continuous series if it has been a while since I experienced it. For this purpose (recapping a story you've already experienced), the summaries on this wiki are generally too long to be properly helpful. The length of summary we have is extremely important to have and should absolutely be kept around as they are very valuable resources for people who wish to check more minor plot beats or who want to experience a story that they don't otherwise have access to/the desire to experience fully. They are essential for creating and maintaing a full archive of Doctor Who and its related media. However, shorter summaries also have a lot of merrit for people who just need a rough refresher on the general plot beats and this, to me, seems like the most ideal way to integrate both of length. Bongo50 ☎ 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of hiding the plot in a subpage in the last discussion, and haven't changed. I don't support this proposal.

I sympathise with the issue of our lack of plot descriptions. Hiding them away on a subpage will I think just compound the problem to an 'out of sight out of mind' situation. It might make the main pages look more finished, but it's going to harm explorability of the wiki for people, it'll add an extra link to click for people to explore the in-universe elements.

I agree with OS25, I do think people will treat it as secondary content. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really get the impression that it's hiding away plot descriptions. Its simply presenting a shorter, more summarised, summary by default with a longer one (the type we currently have) available on a subpage. I really do feel that having different lengths of summary for different purposes is increadibly useful and this feels like the way to achieve it. Bongo50 ☎ 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. I would rather there just be one detailed summary and have done with it. Schreibenheimer ☎ 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: /Other realities

Discussion: /Other realities

Please put comments regarding the [[/Other realities]] proposal here.

I think this is a fine suggestion. I do think there will be cases where we obviously need more than one page for the various cross-reality versions of people. For instance, I rather think that /Pete's World is a little bit better than (Pete's World). But for instances where cross-reality differences are minimal, or are too sparse to obtain a full article (see the implied multiverse of the Continuity Cap) I think /Other realities is a grand idea. OS25🤙☎️ 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I stronglt support "/Other realities", insofar as it replaces our current "#Other realities" (and "#Alternate timelines" as many pages still call it), but want to make it clear that I do not support merging pages like Twelfth Doctor (Four Doctors) into Twelfth Doctor/Other realities (although I do think it should be mentioned with a "

Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]" thing), or at least that this warrants a separate discussion. That being said, I definitely support moving out current other realities subsection to a new subpage. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Not really got any more to add. Danniesen ☎ 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As do I. also not much to say here. Time God Eon ☎ 22:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. I like a degree of separation between alternate world characters and their Doctor's world counterparts; these characters lead different lives, have different families etc. In the words of the Tenth Doctor, "Rose, she's not your mother". Purely in terms of editing, what would be the best way to link to these individuals once/if the subpage is created. If I'm editing Shadow World, for example, and want to link to the Shadow World version of Moira, would I type [[Moira (The Pilot)/Other realities#Shadow World|Moira]], or is there a shorter way of doing this? 66 Seconds ☎ 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We could just turn Moira (Shadow World) and Moira (Extremis) into redirects to Moira (The Pilot)/Other realities#Shadow World. {{anchor}} can be handy as well, since it lets us link to a specific paragraph of a page – say, Sixth Doctor/Other realities#The Quantum Archangel – without requiring us to have an actual section on the page called "The Quantum Archangel". – n8 (☎) 23:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is, in general, a good idea. But there's some discussion to be had. I know some of the motivation for this was that Extremis had events that didn't make sense when viewed separate from the rest of S10. But there are stories and alternate universes where this isn't the case. We might want to restrict the subpage to be specifically the accounts of a character that are to be understood in a broader context with the (N-Space, whatever) version. Not sure we do, but this is an option we should discuss. Najawin ☎ 23:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks n8, that would make more sense. Regarding what Najawin has said above, I kind of agree. Some characters are "what-if" scenarios, e.g. Amy Pond (The Girl Who Waited) or Wilfred Mott (Donna's World) - they are physically/mentally the same individuals as their "main universe" counterparts, but have followed an alternate course of events. I see no issue with this sort of character going on a subpage belonging to their "main universe" counterpart. Some characters are physically different individuals to their "main universe" counterparts e.g. Jackie Tyler (Pete's World) or Elizabeth Shaw (Inferno Earth) - they were born in a separate universe/timeline. I remember at the end of Survivors of the Flux, there was some debate about whether the whole series would move into Universe Two, essentially wiping the continuity slate clean for future series. If this were to happen, the "main universe" would switch, and we might end up with pages for (as an example) Jackie Tyler (Universe One) and Jackie Tyler (Universe Two). On whose subpage would we place Jackie Tyler (Pete's World) and Jackie Tyler (Sea Devil Earth)? 66 Seconds ☎ 10:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to say without full context of such a hypothetical reboot, and would probably have a lot of effects on the wiki at a whole, but I'd think at that point an overall Jackie Tyler page might be more suitable to cover all versions of the character, though it would also depend on if she's related at all. If Universe Two Jackie Tyler shares nothing but a name, then the alternate versions are really all variants of the Universe One version and can stay with her.

Otherwise, I think this proposal is just like moving the already existent "Other realities" or whatever they're called section to its own page for neatness, as well as allowing for slightly more detail. Any version who has enough detail to be considered "a separate character" should still be mentioned there, but have their own page per T:MERGE. I also agree that variants without their own pages should have {{anchor}}s, which would allow for redirects for the purposes of linking and even categorization. (These redirects even show up in italics in categories to conveniently distinguish them.) Chubby Potato ☎ 10:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this proposal as long as alternate versions that still have enough detail to warrant their own page recieve one with a {{main}} link. Chubby's suggestion of using {{anchor}} seems like a great idea as well. Bongo50 ☎ 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In response to Chubby Potato, you are completely correct in that such a hypothetical scenario currently has little relevance on this proposal; hence, it doesn't change my support for this. However, currently the wiki is geared towards one main universe, with secondary parallel universes. Redesigning the wiki to suit the concept of a multiverse, where all universes are equally important, is perhaps something to genuinely consider as we move forwards. 66 Seconds ☎ 00:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I also support this as long as significant alternate versions still get their own pages, as others have said. Yes, we may debate over a few, but I don't think it will be a major sticking point. Schreibenheimer ☎ 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: /Non-valid sources

Discussion: /Non-valid sources

Please put comments regarding the [[/Non-valid sources]] proposal here.

This is probably the submission I support the most. Obviously this has been an issue for us for a very long time. The coverage of invalid stories in their own pages has historically been far more important than we give credit for. Especially for stories like Scream of the Shalka, Death Comes to Time, and Big Finish's Unbound; which were once invalid but now are allowed for coverage.

But, I do think some of the implementation is a little awkward, as these stories aren't really "behind the scenes". And in some cases, having separate pages for every invalid appearance of a character feels silly. Take Tom Baker (Who on Earth is Tom Baker), Tom Baker (Introduction), Tom Baker (Doctor Who?), etc.

So having Tom Baker (in-universe) and then Tom Baker (in-universe)/Non-valid sources would be a great idea. OS25🤙☎️ 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely support this idea fully! It's been very frustrating, for a long time, that Nonvalid stuff is in the BTS section, despite being in-universe. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 22:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Not really got any more to add. Danniesen ☎ 22:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I absolute support this. Time God Eon ☎ 22:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, with caveats about implementation. Information from valid sources is generally tried to be welded together into a "biography", of sorts. I think it's going to be impossible to do that with invalid sources, because the invalid sources often aren't trying to "talk" to each other, even if they might or might not be trying to "talk" to the mainline DWU (some are, some aren't). So we need to be careful how we implement this. Najawin ☎ 23:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand your concern, Najawin. If details echo each other, they will be welded in a similar way to valid pages. If they don't, those sources likely won't get mentioned, just like on valid pages. We don't need to speculate about whether or not the author intended for said reference to be there, and we especially do not need to presume that non-valid sources do not have continuity with valid sources (as seen by the fact that the proposal to add a continuity section to non-valid pages had 7 supporters, and was added quite recently if I recall correctly). Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, why would sources not get mentioned if they don't fit in with some proposed melding? But this isn't my concern. Suppose we have two separate invalid versions of a character that have no overlap in narrative. How would we arrange this? Do we try to force a biography format on it, a chronological ordering? This is what we do normally, even if we don't know what order things happen in. (The most recent discussion I recall was back before the forums went down, it was related to the discussion that preceded the Master split discussion way back then, iirc. Something to do with Missy's stories having variable ordering? idk. See Talk:Eighth Doctor/Archive 1 for an early example.) I think it would be a mistake to try to do this for invalid sources. Najawin ☎ 06:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Najawin, maybe it would help me understand your concern better if you could accompany it with a concrete example. Can you think of any examples of a character with two incompatible but fully licensed appearances in non-valid stories? I'm scrolling through my list but coming up empty-handed. – n8 (☎) 13:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Pick any of those that also appear in Doctor Who? - for instance? Or any two characters that appear in both Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension? Maybe we can impose some sort of order to these events, but they're clearly not trying to be in communication with each other. Najawin ☎ 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to first state that I support the proposal for subpages for Non-valid sources. But in response to Najawin bringing up Doctor Who? and The Daft Dimension, there is in fact a proposal for them to be reclassified as valid but set in their own parallel universes, which was always authorial intent. The comic strip is called The Daft Dimension because it's set in a universe called the Daft Dimension where things are absurd. That's the point of the strip! Pluto2☎ 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the proposal! I look forward to being convinced. But as it currently stands these things are invalid and meet the criteria I'm discussing. So it's still an issue until then. Najawin ☎ 21:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Najawin, currently most "#Non-valid sources" sections are written from an in-universe perspective but use bullet points for each source. I think that's a decent way to present the information without imposing an artificial ordering. – n8 (☎) 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable! I'm just skeptical of a chronological ordering in this instance. Najawin ☎ 15:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. "Undated events" sections already exist in valid biographies so I feel that issues of ordering are very much possible to overcome. Bongo50 ☎ 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this proposal. SherlockTheII ☎ 11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: /Physical appearance

Discussion: /Physical appearance

Please put comments regarding the [[/Physical appearance]] proposal here.

I suppose this is a fine suggestion, I'm certainly not against it. And I could see it leading to better pages. OS25🤙☎️ 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I don't see the overwhelming need for these pages, I do find it strange we currently have the section so close to the bottom of the entire article, so this would certainly make it more accessible. Additionally, as OS25 pointed out, it may encourage better coverage of physical appearances (and yes, I agree with that title). Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Not really got any more to add. Danniesen ☎ 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

What perspective is this being written from? IU or OU? I'm most interested in an OU version of this page, as there's quite a lot of interesting details about how costumes for characters developed that simply aren't detailed on the wiki. Najawin ☎ 23:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be IU, but I agree that the OU "Behind the scenes" section on this page would be my main interest. – n8 (☎) 23:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't considered adding a BTS section to this subpage, but I wholeheartedly support it. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 06:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this primarily for the possibility of giving it its own behind the scenes section to discuss costume design and changes from a production perspective. Bongo50 ☎ 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the appeal of the increased level of detail that could come from making this a subpage, but I'm wary of going too hard too fast on these subpages. I oppose this for now, but I won't pretend it's a strongly felt opposition. Schreibenheimer ☎ 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: /Biography

This is the big one. This is the main reason why I proposed Tardis:Subpage policy in the first place. According to Fandom's Editor Experience team,

"While there is both clear and unclear research on the topic, an informational article 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."Articles on Fandom

Currently, we fall utterly, hilariously short of this standard. Our pages Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor are both over 60,000 words long, requiring (according to WordCounter.net) over 3 hours of reading time each. A version of Fandom's "don't make pages too long" guideline was established as a local rule years ago in Thread:264489#9, and {{cleanup}} templates have been gathering dust at the top of every Doctor incarnation page ever since, but no one has actually acted on this because there's no clear path forward. I believe subpages are that path.

In cases where an article egregiously exceeds Fandom's length guidelines, we can move a lengthy Biography section to [[/Biography]] subpage and replace it on the main page with a shorter summary. On Tenth Doctor/Biography, we can go into as much detail as we like, with up to dozens of sentences dedicated to each appearance. At Tenth Doctor#Biography, we present a {{main}} link to the subpage alongside a shorter summary of the content on Tenth Doctor/Biography, just as every article's lead section already presents a short summary of its contents. Here's how all this would look on Tardis:Subpage policy:

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 {{Main|/Subpage}} + Summary method in this way:

"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 {{Main|/Subpage}})."Categories and navigation on Fandom

In other words, replace the copied text with a shorter summary of the new subpage's contents and a {{main}} link. In exactly the same way that a lead section 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. Like a lead paragraph, a well-written summary should "lead" its readers to want to learn more by clicking through to the subpage.

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 during an encounter with an old enemy, without explicitly spelling out that enemy's identity or the specific details of Bill's fate. A well-written summary should "lead" its readers to want to learn more – including actually experiencing the stories in question!

[[/Biography]] was the proposal which received the most pushback in the previous subpage thread. There were two main concerns:

• Firstly, that edit wars might break out if editors disagree on what material belongs in the main page's summary section. I don't think this concern is warranted, since we don't often see edit wars over article leads across the wiki, even on highly-viewed and important pages like Tenth Doctor.

• Secondly, that judging some stories to be more or less relevant to our users violates the "neutral point of view" policy. I don't think this is an accurate reading of the policy, given that we already make this judgment in every lead section, not to mention infobox variables like "main actor" which privilege some sources over others as a matter of course. As a corollary to this part of the proposal, language should be added to T:NPOV to clarify this concern.

• Thirdly, that biography summaries for main pages might be written with a bias against non-TV material. To help ameliorate this concern, I'll commit to writing the new biography summaries for the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors if this part of the proposal passes, setting a precedent for a design inclusive of non-TV material: on Tenth Doctor#Biography, there will be one section each for series 2, 3, 4, his gap year, and his regeneration, each including paragraphs surveying tie-in material set in those periods of his life; and on Eighth Doctor#Biography, there will be one section each for comics, prose, audios, and Time War stuff, as well as a paragraph briefly discussing how those chunks and continuities do or do not intersect and overlap. Whether language should be added to the text of T:SUBPAGE to make this kind of inclusion explicit is something we can discuss below.

I hope that by spelling out these concerns and implications explicitly from the start, we can address them head-on and come to some sort of resolution in the "Discussion: [[/Biography]]" section below. – n8 (☎) 21:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: [[/Biography]]

Please put comments regarding the [[/Biography]] proposal here.

This is likely to be the most contentious out of the suggestions.

First of all, let me say that splitting some biography / history sections into subpages would really be a helpful idea. For instance, having a page called Dalek/Origin would be an awesome way to move all the various Dalek origin stories into one page. Same for Cybermen/Origin.

But I do think that once we start moving all Biography sections to a sub-page, as I said above, it's going to lead to these pages being treated as secondary on the website. We'll absolutely see an immediate drop-off of contributors adding info from new stories if we move the bulk of the info on Tenth Doctor to Tenth Doctor/Biography.

I also honestly didn't know article length was an issue we were facing, but I do understand the idea of wanting to make our pages more approachable. But I do worry that when we've attempting to only describe "important stories," that has just been code for "TV stories." For instance, ages ago I added to the intro of Fourth Doctor mention of Sharon Davies. This was swiftly reverted. The Tenth Doctor's intro does not mention Heather McCrimmon, Gabby Gonzalez, or Cindy Wu (a sneaky reference to Rose-the-cat does remain, however). Since we're apparently using these intros as a template for what would remain on the main page, I think it does imply that doing this will naturally create a setting where TV stories treated as primary.

In the end, I don't think I am against the proposal, and if everyone else agrees with it just ignore me. But as it stands, I think this could massively disrupt the hierarchy of the coverage on our website. OS25🤙☎️ 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I generally like this proposal. I also think another good example of NPOV-compliance in it is the Eleventh Doctor - coverage of Alice Obiefune should be equal to Series 5. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 22:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Not really got any more to add. Danniesen ☎ 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Similar to Danniesen, I support this. Fractal Doctor ☎ 23:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's take it from the top.

I don't think this concern is warranted, since we don't often see edit wars over article leads across the wiki

I made two separate responses to this claim in the prior thread.

1. "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.
2. The lede is usually populated by information about their character arc and personality. [Giving examples of two specific ledes being different lengths after the first season of their characters due to differing focus on characterization.]

The second comment never received a response. The first comment was responded to with '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'. It's important to note that while this is true for search engines, the best practices guide does not say this for readers. It merely says "A community can choose to split sections off as subpages or not, though some think erroneously that subpages are bad." Nowhere does it establish that readers understand that information on subpages is of equal priority as information not on a subpage.

Moreover, the best practices guide doesn't even think this. What they recommend is supposed to "preserv[e] the completeness of the original article, with deeper insights available to the reader with a desire to know more" - meaning that even when you remove the content that's relegated to the subpage the main article is still complete! It's explicitly second class status for certain sources.

But it's even worse than that, because in the prior thread we gave specific examples of how editors might disagree on what stories would make the cut on a potential biography. There was reasonable (not massive, but reasonable) disagreement within that thread as to what stories would be included in the summary.

[Violating T:NPOV] I don't think this is an accurate reading of the policy, given that we already make this judgment in every lead section, not to mention infobox variables like "main actor" which privilege some sources over others as a matter of course.

Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of how we write ledes. Consider The Eighth Doctor. Heavy attention is paid to his emotional journey, and we don't even mention The Night of the Doctor (TV story). It just so happens that for other characters we tend to base their ledes on their "native medium" because that's where their main character beats take place. Expanded media is something that fills in the cracks, for good or for ill.

To help ameliorate this concern, I'll commit to writing the new biography summaries for the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors if this part of the proposal passes

I actually think something like this is a good idea, but before the proposal passes. We want to see if people disagree on these issues, right? I think it's a decent idea to choose a character that's got a reasonably long biography that we all have a semi decent understanding (so probably 9,10,11,12,or 13 - we choose the same one), and try to write a summary for it. See how much agreement or disagreement there is. (Obviously don't look at anyone else's before you write up your own.) Obviously it'll be a very rough job, that probably will just be c/p from the page that exists and then trimming down sources. But it will give us an idea of if this is feasible.

If we're going to do this, I think we should adopt the idea put forward in the last thread of simply not having a summary on the main page, forcing people to move to the subpage. Having two separate biographies will be a nightmare to maintain, and absolutely will lead to second class status for stories, in a blatant violation of the second sentence of T:NPOV. But I'd still suggest asking others, as it's a massive change to our design. Najawin ☎ 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping to address this in another thread I proposed, as were you I think, but it's necessary here so maybe we can achieve both because these topics go hand in hand. The topic in question is, I don't think what you describe is quite the intent of that part of T:NPOV. "Giving all media equal weight" means considering all sources as equally valid viewpoints on describing the DWU (literally, having a neutral point of view). It does not mean that they are equally notable when describing a certain topic. Giving every source an "equal weight" in coverage would be a false balance and have the opposite effect, giving the idea that some stories are more important than they really are. This is what Wikipedia calls giving undue weight; see also WP:NPPOV on the particular meaning of the word "neutral". Now Wikipedia's specifics are of course different because they cover real-world info and we cover fiction (T:EVIL TWIN etc). This means they have to use "reliable sources", while any "valid source" is to us equally, inherently true, even if they might conflict. However, the point remains that certain "viewpoints" (i.e., descriptions of DWU events) are more prominent than others because they appear in more sources.

Excluding a source from a summary doesn't mean it "didn't happen" or that it's "second-class", it just means it wasn't notable enough as part of everything a character ever did to make the summary of their biography, because by definition a summary can't include everything. In general, our goal is to cover everything we can about a topic, which should indeed be done on the full biographies. But for summaries, we should provide readers with the key details of what's important, in this case to a character's life. Deciding what is most important to include should not be "taking a viewpoint" because the summary should be based on what the viewpoints (sources) themselves say is important.

As an example, User:Cousin Ettolrhc says about the Eleventh Doctor's page: "coverage of Alice Obiefune should be equal to Series 5." These aren't really comparable, so I assume what she means is "coverage of the Doctor's adventures with Alice should be equal to coverage his adventures seen in Series 5." Well as I said, I don't think coverage should necessarily be equal but consideration of sources should. In terms of "what happened in the Eleventh Doctor's life", his regeneration, meeting with Amy Pond, investigating cracks in time, etc. are significant to what he did. This is even backed up by EU sources referencing these events as part of his life, because they are by nature based on the TV show. This makes something like The Eleventh Hour more important (specifically to the Eleventh Doctor's life) than any random adventures he had with Alice, or indeed with Amy or anyone else, but not any more valid. However, the overall fact that Eleven did travel with Alice does appear in a significant amount of stories, indicating it is a decently significant part of his life, and should itself be noted in the summary in my opinion. For myself, the only content with Alice Obiefune I've read was specifically year 2 of the Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor comic series, for which I would say this arc is not quite notable for Eleven's biography as it's basically a single minor conflict for him, but would be for Alice herself, as well as characters like the Master or Abslom Daak due to featuring large portions of and/or pivotal events in their histories. That could be a good place to start on what to include in such summaries.

Meanwhile, for a character like Ace, her history (...or maybe histories in this case) set outside the TV show is larger and would likely merit much more mention than merely that seen on TV. The Eighth Doctor's biographical summary should almost entirely be made of non-TV material. And again, this does not mean we are saying these stories "happened more", it means we are saying they are more relevant to the topic at hand, a summary of a character's history.

... all that said, I'd personally even rather move everything on the Biography section of large pages to a subpage with only a {{main}} pointing there than keep it as is. It would keep things neater since either way, I think we agree the "full" biographies should cover everything. This would also finally get rid of those pesky "2-3 sentences" banners at the top of all the Doctor pages and allow histories to be covered with as much detail as we please, where everything is notable. Chubby Potato ☎ 09:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Luckily for everyone involved, I've been doing a deep dives on our forum archives to try and find the origins/dissenting voices of our policies! So I can offer the precise wording that inspired T:NPOV. In Forum:Archives of the original Panopticon User:Mantrid (I believe at the time an admin, but everyone was at the time, so w/e) stated the following, when the subject of canon came up:

The general feeling seems to be that this Wiki should be fairly relaxed about what can be included and I completely agree with this. I was quite disappointed by Memory Alpha's strict policy on not including entries from the Star Trek books etc as I don't see what the benefit is of such a ruling. As has already been said, canon in the Doctor Who world is a much looser thing and is open to personal interpretation. So, I would advocate that just about anything (be it audio, TV, novel or bubblegum card) be allowed and displayed in the same format but with the proviso that all sources of information are clearly sited. For example, an entry for Omega should say what information comes from "The Three Doctors", what comes from "Arc of Infinity" and what comes from the audio drama "Omega". With this information people can make their minds up themselves what they accept. Having said this, maybe a line does need to be drawn somewhere otherwise you could end up having masses of entries for someone's fan fiction stories featuring the Eleventh Doctor which only two people and a dog have actually read! So, might I suggest that the rule is anything that has been professionally produced or published qualifies for entry. [Emphasis mine]

User:Freethinker1of1, the site founder, responded with the following:

Mantrid, glad to see you're still with us. Your contributions and input are greatly appreciated. I think you summed up what our canon policy should be rather nicely, - perfectly, in fact.

Later, in Forum:Let's Get Organised, which Czech would go on to call the origin of T:NPOV in his archivist note, User:Mantrid said the following:

We need to finally establish a way of dealing with canonicity and contradictory information. Personally, I don't think the use of a separate 'Expanded Universe' section (eg see The Master) has worked particularly well - especially as some pages will contain information that is entirely based on Expanded Universe material. I'd like to propose the rather radical approach that we treat all information exactly the same, regardless of source, as long as it is a professional and/or BBC licenced product (ie not from fan-fiction). [Emphasis, again, my own]

Now not to get all originalist on you, but I think your reading of this policy isn't in line with its origins. It's also not in line with Czech's reading of it, circa 2011 in his archivist note:

the idea of treating all media as equal in terms of importance (something apparently I railed against in 2008). [Emphasis yet again my own]

That's all I've been able to find up to 2007 though. So the first 3 years of the wiki. I'm sure there's more stuff later. But this is the origin of T:NPOV, and it very much goes against your reading. (I glanced at what caused the page to be created in 2012, Czech did a general rewrite of POV pages, IU/OU for other reasons, and Tangerine asked him to add one for NPOV because the only place it was mentioned was a minor reference at a help page prior to that. So really we have to default back to the really old discussions here to figure out the intent, afaik, because Czech wrote it on his own based on those old discussions.)

As for the idea that there's a false balance effect, I'm not sure how this is applicable to what we're discussing. Nobody is suggesting that we change, say, wording like "according to one account so and so was the most important person in the 11th Doctor's life, but most accounts held it was such and such" to "accounts differed on whether so and so or such and such was the most important person in the 11th Doctor's life".

Excluding a source from a summary doesn't mean it "didn't happen" or that it's "second-class", it just means it wasn't notable enough as part of everything a character ever did to make the summary of their biography, because by definition a summary can't include everything.

Well I wouldn't say the first, but it's hard to deny that it's the latter. Readers who don't click on the subpage will know about one but not the other, there's excess space dedicated to one outside of the biography section, it's clearly preferential treatment. I honestly can't understand how this is something people can deny. Again, the best practices guide doesn't even attempt to.

These aren't really comparable, so I assume what she means is "coverage of the Doctor's adventures with Alice should be equal to coverage his adventures seen in Series 5."

I can't speak for her, but it's important to note that Amy appeared in more than S5, so much of your further line of reasoning here, which relies on the premise that Amy traveling with the Doctor is an important fact in expanded media, seems to evaporate. As that might or might not take place within S5. (Depends on specifics, again, can't speak for her.)

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your concerns, but just not what T:NPOV was intended to mean. Najawin ☎ 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of biography subpages. Over on Stranger Things Wiki, we decided to remove all Character History subpages, because:

1. They weren't being viewed much.
2. They were being edited less, and as a result, the overall writing quality decreased.
3. Some users started to haphazardly insert history section 'substitutes', essentially, into other parts of the article, especially in 'Relationship' sections.

That being said, Tardis Wiki is a whole other kettle of fish; the average edit quality is much, much higher (almost certainly due to an older overall user base), and in general, there's just way more activity, to the point that they can't really be compared. Even so: the benefits of keeping info consolidated should not be overlooked. If you make this shift, it's also your responsibility to communicate this to the average wiki reader, who'll otherwise be confused, or feel short-changed when viewing the main article. TheGreatGabester ☎ 01:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have gone back and forth a bit with this type of suggestion since the last thread. I still feel that having both a shorter and longer biography would be ideal but I'm not entirely sure on the best way of deciding what goes on the shorter one. Bongo50 ☎ 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I do think there is value in spinning off some of the history pages for species into subpages. Certainly the Dalek one is one I was going to suggest. Arguably we've sort of done this before with Gallifreyan history covering all the gritty details of Time Lord history whilst the history section of Time Lord takes a more overview style (I know it's not a subpage but its the same principle of spinning off the detailed history). But one thing I do want to emphasise is when I did edited said history section, I did take pains to include the expanded material as well as TV. Hence in that overview there's as much coverage of the classic serials as the novel/audios around Romana's presidency. Equally the biography section on the Doctor main page does show how you can summarise individual incarnations' lives in a way that acknowledges both TV and expanded. So I think summary biographies could be done along those lines, with subpages covering all the nitty gritty. But my concern about doing this for prominent individuals like the Doctors is debates about the balance between TV/expanded will become a regular issue and I'm just not sure how we prevent that.

I do take issue with the "spoiler-free" angle there, as frankly with so much Who material online I don't see the point of us constraining coverage like that. Even the summary on the official DoctorWho.TV site goes into more detail of the Twelfth Doctor's fate than the example offered in the proposed policy: https://www.doctorwho.tv/characters/twelfth-doctor Certainly when I read this wiki as a newer fan (many years ago!) it was never the spoilers that troubled me, but I could be the execption here. SherlockTheII ☎ 11:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

Please put comments regarding the proposal as a whole here.

I support this. Not really got any more to add. I’m sorry it’s not a lot, but I already supported all of this completely on the first thread that was finished weeks ago (of which only a few points were approved out of many). Danniesen ☎ 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding more Subpages is a brilliant idea. I think many of these pages are excellent ideas, and others are concepts that I fear would not be for the best. But I support the general precedent suggested here. OS25🤙☎️ 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I also support this. Fractal Doctor ☎ 23:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. I think that the wider use of subpages will also help some of our more bloated location pages such as London or Earth, where there's so much information already on the page that any new information can often fall by the wayside. We could perhaps also have subpages for [[London/19th century]], [[London/20th century]] and [[London/21st century]]. This could describe the history of these eras, and have geography sections on how the the location appears during these centuries, as the geography of a location obviously changes over time. 66 Seconds ☎ 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)