More actions
Just a question
Since Navboxes allow speculation? Is there precedent for this? Najawin ☎ 00:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I'm not entirely sure I follow. Would you mind rephrasing your point? 00:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I, like Epsilon, am completely lost? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- So we can't identify Ceol and Kelsey, they don't qualify for the homeworld treatment, and this means that we also can't give Kelsey the relevant categories. Everything goes in BTS sections. But we don't have official Navbox policy written down (and I can't find any discussion about it, and I have asked, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson), and what I've gathered is that speculation is allowed as to how we categorize things in them. So then the Navbox could perhaps include Kelsey in it as well as Ceol? Najawin ☎ 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose so. We could have her entry be [[Ceol]]/[[Kelsey Hooper]], which is within precedent, but I'm not sure it's entirely worth it? But I wouldn't be opposed to it, by any stretch of the imagination. 01:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm totally against that.
- The whole reason the Kelsey/Ceol pages were split was because the appearances made by Ceol never had a license to use that character. To include her on a template which relates to unlicensed material for that specific character makes that decision redundant. We shouldn't be trying to find ways to bypass licensing, surely? Why is speculation allowed in navboxes anyway? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The whole, and very fair, reason that conjecture is allowed in infoboxes is navigation. They aren't in-universe, not remotely, but serve as basically "see alsos" for related topics; they serve to guide user to pages that are connected, even if only through out of universe means, as it is in a reader's interest. Most readers don't concern themselves with whether or not something is "valid" or "is only implied but not explicit for licensing reasons". Navboxes are closer to the behind the scenes sections that in-universe sections (both literally and metaphorically) in content.
01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can I have an example of speculation in a navbox? That just doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me that this site would be taking a stance of encouraging copyright infringement if it continued to push Kelsey/Ceol as being related characters any further than a BTS section explaining the situation. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- As a hypothetical example, let's suggest that Doctor Strange had been mentioned in a story, but not been connected to the Marvel multiverse in-universe. You are a reader, a Not We, on the Wiki, and you decide to explore the connections Marvel has to Doctor Who: so you find yourself going through pages, and you notice a template - a template that contains a handy list of Marvel Comics characters - but Doctor Strange isn't on there. What would be your first thought? A. Doctor Strange, if he is not in this list of characters, must have not appeared in the DWU, or b. has appeared in the DWU but the Wiki has decide to prioritise pedantry over common sense and has separated relevant information based solely on the conscious decision to forgoe the real world context the original writer of the story assumed their readers would possess. Of bloody course it would be the former. 01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the homeworld treatment is a little more complicated than simple licensing, it's more like a continuous chain of overlapping licensed concepts. But as Epsilon said, the decision to split the pages relates to in universe statements and how we deal with validity, we still note the connection in the BTS sections. This isn't necessarily different in kind. And since we don't have any concrete policies for Navboxes (oh, crap, I should put that on the list, brb) there's nothing forbidding us from doing this. As far as copyright infringement goes, I direct you to Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1. Najawin ☎ 01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)