emailconfirmed, Administrators
129,644
edits
Talk:The Dalek Dictionary (feature): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:The Dalek Dictionary (feature) (edit)
Revision as of 02:25, 10 December 2019
, 10 December 2019→"Characters" section?
No edit summary |
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::::: 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) | :::::: 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) | ||
Since there is "no narrative" and it "isn't a story", then there aren't any characters, references, or story notes. This seems more like a reference work and should be covered the way reference works are. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:25, December 10, 2019 (UTC) | |||
