User:Cousin Ettolrhc/OP
Opening Post
There are many categories hanging around the wiki, such as Category:Non-DWU Cybermen and Category:Non-DWU Doctors, which seem to be attempting to tell our readers that these concepts "didn't really happen in the DWU". The phrase "what really happened" is often used to define "canon", and so having numerous categories about saying "Non-DWU" is arguably in violation of Tardis:Canon policy, which says we do not define a canon.
Solution 1: NONVALID
The prefix NOTVALID is currently used for sources which fail T:VS but still warrant coverage, and I propose we do a similiar thing for these categories. However, I also think "notvalid" looks a bit ugly, and would prefer we did "nonvalid" (a la Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 6: Subpages 2.0's proposal to have "/non-valid sources" subpage). EDIT THIS IF THE THREAD HAS PASSED AND BEEN ARCHIVED, OR IF THAT PROPOSAL FAILED. This would make the new categories be something like Category:Nonvalid Doctors (or perhaps Category:Non-valid Doctors).
Solution 2: normal, but "from an invalid source" or "from a nonvalid source"
Another possibility is changing the category names to be more similiar to valid categories, Category:Incarnations of the Doctor from nonvalid sources, for example. This has the advantage of continuity across valid and nonvalid pages, but has the disadvantage that the title is longer, and it could be argued that the "nonvalid sources" being later in the category name makes it harder for readers to notice its contents failed T:VS.
Additionally
I think it would make sense to rename the NOTVALID prefix to NONVALID in this thread, as such a minor thing doesn't really deserve its own thread, but I doubt renaming a prefix could be done in a talk page, and this thread is related to that idea.
EDIT TO INCLUDE SIGNITURE WHEN THREAD IS OPENED
Opening Post
When looking at pages about concepts ruled invalid by this wiki, it is often confusing to know why precicely they are "invalid". All I am proposing is to change the link in {{invalid}} from T:VS to a subsection with "Behind the Scenes" called "reasons for invalidty", or, optionally, any link the user wants - for example to a thread recently closed which invalidated it. This has double advantages - if someone wants to validate a source, they can investigate the reasons it was deemed invalid and attempt to disprove them, and if someone wants to keep a source invalid in such a debate, they have those old reasons readily accesible so invaliditing evidence isn't accidently missed.
I think that all relevant threads should go into the "reasons for invalidty" subsection, as well.
Discussion
Opening Post
The page TARDIS control room has bugged me for a while, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of the article is written as if it is The Doctor's TARDIS control room, but then at the bottom it has other control rooms. Of course, technically, thats the apropiate way to structure such a page... but that, I feel, shows that the page shouldn't be of the type it is. I propose splitting the page into constituents, one for each "redesign" of the TARDIS interior. Some lines of these redesigns are difficult to define, but I've tried my best in my implimentation of this splitting - if anyone disagrees with how I've done this, this is the perfect place to say so! I do not think that the fact that some of these definitions may be contraverial warrants the split not occuring at all.
Additionally, if anyone else wants to make a network of sandboxes instead of mine, which you feel are better, go right ahead and propose them in this thread.
Final note - is it console room or control room? This wiki currently chooses "control", but I chose "console" out of pure bias. I think this is as good a place as any to quickly re-discuss this (as it was originally discussed in Thread:121948, a while ago)
Discussion
Moved to Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR, continued in Forum:Queen Victoria and other honourifics
This is for all of the opening posts I have ready for the forums.