Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,357
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::I'm referring to a References section the way we do it for '''stories'''. Reference works are covered differently, I suggest you take a look at a few. Try [[Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia]] for a start. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:11, December 10, 2019 (UTC) | ::I'm referring to a References section the way we do it for '''stories'''. Reference works are covered differently, I suggest you take a look at a few. Try [[Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia]] for a start. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:11, December 10, 2019 (UTC) | ||
::: Thanks, | ::: Thanks! And I mean that completely unironically, to be clear; an example such as the one you linked is precisely what I was looking for. | ||
::: That being said, with the example in hand, there seems to be to be a key difference is: the ''Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia'' appears simply to give short summaries of info about the various aliens which, for the most part, was already present in the valid stories in which they debuted. | |||
::: ''The Dalek Dictionary'' is quite another beast, since it's almost wholly original content, albeit presented non-narratively. I feel like a list that just went: "''The Dalek Dictionary'' contains: 'bax', 'insli', 'bringdigulum'", without elaborating on any of them, would be of little interest to readers. | |||
::: I suppose it's ''possible'' to just list all of those and only give the information ''Dalek Dictionary'' gives about them on the pages linked, but that seems inelegant to me. What's ''wrong'' with having a more stories-style References section? --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:24, December 10, 2019 (UTC) |