Forum:Pointless/redundant wikiing
I've noticed a bit of a trend for useless wikiing in a few articles - for example, the article on Gallifreyans has redlinks to articles on bows and arrows and spears. This doesn't seem to me to be specifically Dr Who-based content (nor particularly interesting to either read or write).
In a similar way, I mentioned the Bible and the Book of Revelation in an article a while back and both references were later wikified, despite the fact they have no specific Dr Who significance. I could understand linking them to Wikipedia, but not here.
Obviously where there is specific Who-based information which shouldn't go in a general-interest wiki (for example, the series' version of Shakespeare, or the British Prime Minister) we should have an article. I'm just wondering if there's an established policy on where to draw the line in this kind of situation? --Gai-jin 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is (but thank you! I thought I was the only one staring at some of the things and thinking 'huh'?). I guess it's more a judgement call than anything really concrete. There have been a few things in the forum here and there. In the Manual of Style there's a section on Links but that's about it. Maybe it could be changed to Links/Wikifying, just to clarify it up a bit and then add...well something about justifyable use of a link or...something like that. --Tangerineduel 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that you never know when references might pop up. For example, I wouldn't think that ABBA would have anything to do with Doctor Who, but there's a reference there already and I've found another one in Tragedy Day.
- Personally, I only make wiki-link when there's already links to it or if I plan to make that page later. Azes13 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- One rule of thumb might be, if all that could ever be said about a given subject with regards to Doctor Who is just one sentence, it probably isn't worth writing about. Granted, if all you know about a subject can be summed up in one sentence, but there's a good chance other people can add more, that's different. That's the difference between a stub article and one that's completely redundant. By the way, I do believe that in "Byzantium!" the Doctor does meet a group of Christians who are busy trying to collate and translate the various Scriptures, while in "The Plotters," he meets the persons working on the King James translation, so an article on the Bible would have some relevance. An article on guns might mention that despite the development of energy weapons, projectile firing guns such as pistols, rifles, and machine guns were still used well into the far future. Machine guns were used by the last humans at the end of the Universe, for example, and the Daleks resorted to using compressed air rifles when they were grounded on Exxilon. Spears, ... well, not sure about those. Just a few things to keep in mind. --OncomingStorm 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Archivist's notes[[edit source]]
This discussion never really came to a clear conclusion. The idea of there being an "article too small" for inclusion was roundly defeated, however, at Talk:Howling Halls/Archive 1. Current policy is that any word may be wikified, and any article may be created, so long as the word is mentioned somewhere in a source the wiki considers valid.
Therefore, this thread is best thought of as a failed proposal.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:11:08 Wed 01 Jun 2011
