Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,357
edits
Talk:The Dalek Dictionary (feature): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
Borisashton (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::: But ''The Dalek Dictionary'' isn't a story and it isn't dabbed or categorised as such .I maintain that even if it were they're just mentioned so the "Characters" section would be empty. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:50, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | ::: But ''The Dalek Dictionary'' isn't a story and it isn't dabbed or categorised as such .I maintain that even if it were they're just mentioned so the "Characters" section would be empty. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:50, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::: Again, whether it's a story or not, I maintain that it's ''useful'' to have a section that just succinctly lists the characters, separate from wider bodies of text that mention them. | :::: Again, whether it's a story or not, I maintain that it's ''useful'' to have a section that just succinctly lists the characters, separate from wider bodies of text that mention them. | ||
:::: And I dispute the statement that they're "just mentioned". ''The Dalek Dictionary'' isn't a story as such — but the entires on Yarveling, Zolfian and Drenz are short bios of the characters, not offhand mentions within the dialogue of others. They're as "featured" as a character can be a non-narrative medium. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:57, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | :::: And I dispute the statement that they're "just mentioned". ''The Dalek Dictionary'' isn't a story as such — but the entires on Yarveling, Zolfian and Drenz are short bios of the characters, not offhand mentions within the dialogue of others. They're as "featured" as a character can be a non-narrative medium. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:57, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | ||
::::: I just think a section on characters is a bit redundant as Zolfian, Yarveling and Drenz are mentioned in the lead, covered with what the ''Dictionary'' said about them in the "References" section and have a far more detailed coverage of their future appearances in the "Story notes" section. | ::::: I just think a section on characters is a bit redundant as Zolfian, Yarveling and Drenz are mentioned in the lead, covered with what the ''Dictionary'' said about them in the "References" section and have a far more detailed coverage of their future appearances in the "Story notes" section. | ||
::::: If anything were to change, I have thought about swapping the "Impact on ''Doctor Who''" section with the "References" section with some editing so the former has more prominence on the page since these early mentions of DWU concepts are likely what readers are looking for rather than the never-mentioned-again [[baz]] and also that as we don't cover this article as a story we aren't bound by that structure. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:14, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | ::::: If anything were to change, I have thought about swapping the "Impact on ''Doctor Who''" section with the "References" section with some editing so the former has more prominence on the page since these early mentions of DWU concepts are likely what readers are looking for rather than the never-mentioned-again [[baz]] and also that as we don't cover this article as a story we aren't bound by that structure. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:14, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::::: Ack, you may be right. ''The Dalek Dictionary'' is a pretty singular beast. Still, I believe that in the general case, common policy is to write covered-invalid pages in the same style as valid pages, minus the "Continuity" section, which seems about right to me — if nothing else, it makes it easier if/when a given covered-invalid story is ruled valid by a change in policy or an inclusion debate. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:59, December 9, 2019 (UTC) | |||
