765,429
edits
User talk:Tangerineduel/Archive - Wiki formatting: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
User talk:Tangerineduel/Archive - Wiki formatting (edit)
Revision as of 16:52, 22 March 2012
, 22 March 2012Robot: Automated text replacement (-Out of Time +Out of Time (TV story))
m (Bot: Adding {{Please see|Can we disable visual editor please?}} <br> {{SUBST:user:CzechOut/autosig}} <span style="{{SUBST:user:CzechOut/Time}}">{{SUBST:#time:H:i: D}} {{SUBST:#time:d M Y}} </span>) |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-Out of Time +Out of Time (TV story))) |
||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Hey, just read your note at [[Talk:The Simpsons]], and I wanted to comment on something you said that's only tangential to ''The Simpsons'' discussion. | Hey, just read your note at [[Talk:The Simpsons]], and I wanted to comment on something you said that's only tangential to ''The Simpsons'' discussion. | ||
The thing about subjects like [[The Lion Sleeps Tonight]], poetry spouted in ''[[The Shakespeare Code]]'' and ''[[The Lazarus Experiment]]'', songs playing on radios in various ''Torchwood'' episodes, [[Tony Bennett]], and really dozens of other articles broadly under [[:Category:Cultural references from the real world|Cultural references from the real world]] is precisely that they are ''just'' '''references'''. They don't rise to the level of specific citation. I don't think we can start to collapse all these into an article about a topic that ''is'' specifically named by the episode. In the first place, we don't always have a neat little thing like [[The Lion King]] to help us. More's the point, [[The Lion Sleeps Tonight]] is something associated in the real world with ''The Lion King'', but not within the DWU. To move it under [[The Lion King]] would actually be to introduce a non-canonical "fact" about the song. But in the second, '''we don't have to have something named for us to write an article about it'''. Some things are so recognizable they don't need to be named. However, articles should note the fact that the person, place or thing isn't actually named, and give a rationale for why that topic has been identified by that particular name. [[Paperback Writer]] is a great example of this type of article. It wasn't named in ''[[Evil of the Daleks]]'', nor does it exist in any version of the story that still exists today. But it was definitely there on original transmission, and its subsequent disappearance is interesting and noteworthy. (Heh, I'm prolly going to put it in the DYK for this week, as a matter of fact.) If we limit ourselves to only things that are specifically named, we deny our ability to fully cover the Whoniverse. Nobody sings "[[The Good Life]]" like [[Tony Bennett]], for instance. It is just not credible to deny that both exist in the Whoniverse, even though neither were specifically named in [[TW]]: ''[[Out of Time]]''. | The thing about subjects like [[The Lion Sleeps Tonight]], poetry spouted in ''[[The Shakespeare Code]]'' and ''[[The Lazarus Experiment]]'', songs playing on radios in various ''Torchwood'' episodes, [[Tony Bennett]], and really dozens of other articles broadly under [[:Category:Cultural references from the real world|Cultural references from the real world]] is precisely that they are ''just'' '''references'''. They don't rise to the level of specific citation. I don't think we can start to collapse all these into an article about a topic that ''is'' specifically named by the episode. In the first place, we don't always have a neat little thing like [[The Lion King]] to help us. More's the point, [[The Lion Sleeps Tonight]] is something associated in the real world with ''The Lion King'', but not within the DWU. To move it under [[The Lion King]] would actually be to introduce a non-canonical "fact" about the song. But in the second, '''we don't have to have something named for us to write an article about it'''. Some things are so recognizable they don't need to be named. However, articles should note the fact that the person, place or thing isn't actually named, and give a rationale for why that topic has been identified by that particular name. [[Paperback Writer]] is a great example of this type of article. It wasn't named in ''[[Evil of the Daleks]]'', nor does it exist in any version of the story that still exists today. But it was definitely there on original transmission, and its subsequent disappearance is interesting and noteworthy. (Heh, I'm prolly going to put it in the DYK for this week, as a matter of fact.) If we limit ourselves to only things that are specifically named, we deny our ability to fully cover the Whoniverse. Nobody sings "[[The Good Life]]" like [[Tony Bennett]], for instance. It is just not credible to deny that both exist in the Whoniverse, even though neither were specifically named in [[TW]]: ''[[Out of Time (TV story)|Out of Time]]''. | ||
Additionally there is the thornier problem of the reverse. Things are sometimes named in the Whoniverse, but their real world significance isn't specifically given. For instance [[Tom Hanks]] is named but the fact of his being an actor isn't. Yet, the clear implication of ''[[Silver Scream]]'' is that he must be an actor, else the Doctor wouldn't be using that alias at an actor's party. | Additionally there is the thornier problem of the reverse. Things are sometimes named in the Whoniverse, but their real world significance isn't specifically given. For instance [[Tom Hanks]] is named but the fact of his being an actor isn't. Yet, the clear implication of ''[[Silver Scream]]'' is that he must be an actor, else the Doctor wouldn't be using that alias at an actor's party. | ||
