Talk has come up about the existence of "battle" articles on this Wiki by CzechOut. Some of the articles are about minor battles that people have created, like the Skirmish at Hooverville which has been deleted, but the articles proposed for deletion also include The Year That Never Was which is a signficant part of the Whoniverse. Furthermore, the main reason behind the proposed deletions is that they are not proper titles. This really doesn't matter. The name and the content of the article are still part of Doctor Who. This apparently started because of Skirmish at Tranquil Repose, created by Skittles the hog. The other articles are mostly all about battles, including Battle for the Movellan ship(which I improved to make it look like a decient article), Battle of Bellatrix and the War in the Medusa Cascade. These articles can and should stay despite whatever the outcome of the votes are(when do they stop so they can be counted?) All articles proposed for deletion are available in the Proposed deletions category. -- Steed 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Would all persons involved please respond.
- As i have said before these articles contain relevant information for the wiki and surprisingly almost every major / minor battle fought in the Whouniverse hasn't been given a name because like all battle a name is given after the battle has occurred and the original series never really mentioned battles from previous serials.
- This does not mean the information on these battles shouldn't be included and if there is enough new information in there own article. Otherwise whats the point of having a doctor who wiki, articles are written about in universe events, in universe characters, in universe technology so why not battles ?
- I propose that we do what other wikis do when they have "canon" (i say it in quotations because of the books, comics ect issue with cannon) information but no title available from an official source. and that is use a conjectural Tempalte which goes something like this:
The title of this article is conjectural. Although this article is based on canonical information, the actual name of this subject is pure conjecture.
- Meaning we can still have the information (which i would like to think no one is disputing that validity of) whilst letting readers know that no this title isn't a canon title but there isn't one given at the present time Dark Lord Xander 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea of the the 'conjecture' template, but not sure if it would be saying the right thing at the top of an article, perhaps chuck it at the bottom of the article though at the top I suppose makes it clear.
- As for how the votes stop / are counted up, it will probably be an admin who rules on it.
- On Skirmish at Hooverville it can be undeleted, but as there was a discussion and a talk page and there were no votes against it and two pages linking to it it was deleted. --Tangerineduel 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok i will create the template so we can still have the info but let readers know that it isn't an official title however this shouldn't be away to save useless pages so the voting can continue Dark Lord Xander 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just had a look at the template...I think it might need deleting and going back to the drawing board. As it's neither small or subtle. It shouldn't really impede reading of the article, it should be a note like a piece of italicised text rather than a rather bold orange banner. --Tangerineduel 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Check the behind the scenes section, the revision history and discussion page for additional comments on this article's title.
- This (above) I believe is a much more subtle template (it has PAGENAME tags in it to insert the page name into the template when used which). Additionally a large template such as Template:Conjectural would also take up a degree of room at the bottom or top of the article. --Tangerineduel 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Tangerineduel. Though the Template:Conjectural is a good idea, it could use a slight redesign. But, even though there should be something telling people the title is conjectural, what is everyone's feelings about whether the proposed deletion pages should be deleted or not? -- Steed 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Personlly i see no problem with the template (i guess because i made it :) ) originally i thought of something which would stand out / have a relevance to the wiki whilst informing the community of the problem with the title as for the amount of room it takes up really it doesn't take up any more than the spoliers or proposed deletion templates so i don't see the problem granted the wording can be improved (as everything always can but i see no problem with the design. Dark Lord Xander 05:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The spoiler tags are temporary as are the prop delete (which generally are dealt wit
- As for Steed's second question. The articles with prop deletes I'm making a ruling as they all have had time for the talk pages to fill up an be argued.
Well i see no problem with having a tag that people will notice and has images relevant to the doctor who wiki but really i guess its up to the consensus of the users on the wiki i will make a smaller version but the rest will basically stay the same apart from a few additions to the wording Dark Lord Xander 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok i have created a smaller version and included things like {{pagename}} and links to talk page and Tardis canon. Dark Lord Xander 08:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still against it. It shouldn't be intrusive, it should be just a small side note. Not a banner. A banner well interefer with either the infobox, or the stub (if it's there) or one of the many season, alien or whatever banners that are sometimes at the bottom of the articles. --Tangerineduel 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- intrude how ? the original size (i am not sure about the current one as i haven't checked) when placed at the to only moves the rest of the page down not disjointing anything which is the idea of having the message. but due to constraints on my life i don't have the time to play around with it any longer so if one or two more users agree with you about the new smaller version i am happy to use your idea instead. Dark Lord Xander 07:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- When you get to the page, the point should be reading the page about the subject rather than the big banner telling you this isn't what the page is called.
- I was going to post today overruling all this, and going with my lower key version. But if you really want another vote, I will leave it for a few days before doing anything. --Tangerineduel 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey your the admin do what you want i really don't have the time at the moment to bother about something like this Dark Lord Xander 08:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Decision on articles currently for Prop delete[[edit source]]
- Skirmish at Tranquil Repose, (the one that started it all). With four votes for delete it gets a deletion. Information currently in the article will be merged into the Davros and Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War articles.
- Battle for the Movellan ship will have the prop delete removed, with four votes against it will stay, however will (cleanup tag added) require some improvement.
- Battle of Bellatrix with two votes for deletion and one source of information, any information it has will be merged into the Bellatrix article.
- Battle of GeoComTex, Gets a cleanup tag and a continuing discussion on its talk page regarding the name of the article.
- Battle of the Game Station, two votes against, one for delete. Prop delete removed, cleanup tag added.
- Battle on the Dalek Saucer, Four deletes for deletion. Delete will go ahead pending merger information merger into 22nd century Dalek invasion.
- Sontaran invasion of Earth two votes against, prop delete removed.
- War in the Medusa Cascade, four signed votes against , prop delete removed.
- Toclafane invasion two votes for, one against. It needs a bit of a rewrite and gets a cleanup tag.
- Unmodified-Humanised Dalek Civil War keeps its proposed deletion tag pending further discussion.
Discussion as to the validity of all the above article can continue on the talk pages of the respective pages. --Tangerineduel 15:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Archivist's notes[[edit source]]
It's somewhat unusual on this wiki for vote counting to be used as a way to close debates, but there are times, as when we're struggling with essentially arbitrary, yes/no, keep/delete questions, where it can work well enough. Since this process involved a good deal of actual discussion on the talk pages, it wasn't a simple vote, anyway. Editors should not take from this thread any notion that up/down voting alone is the way to settle debates. This wiki does adhere to — and indeed this very thread is testament to — the Wikipedia philosophy that a wiki is not a democracy, and that voting should in no way replace discussion.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:34:00 Sun 05 Jun 2011