Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Tardis:Stub: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Species stub: eh, a bit of a rewrite
(→Species stub: first attempt; not entirely happy with it) |
(→Species stub: eh, a bit of a rewrite) |
||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
===Species stub=== | ===Species stub=== | ||
Species in the ''Doctor Who'' universe are described by writers to highly differing standards. Sometimes we know a lot about a species' culture, physiognomy and technology; sometimes we only know a bit about what they look like and when they interacted with the Doctor. Trying to define when a species article is a stub is therefore somewhat tricky. | |||
A good place to start is the preloaded topic outline provided when starting a new article. It includes an infobox, and suggests a few main categories that a species artilce should have: biology, life cycle, technology, and history. All of these are good things to try to include in species articles. However, there are many well-written species articles which do not include information about all these topics. Indeed, many species articles do not closely conform to this topic outline. Sometimes, the known details about a species do not readily fit into this pre-loaded structure. It's rarely important to a ''Doctor Who'' story, for instance, what the life cycle of an alien is. Nor does every species have readily-identifiable technology. It is only when there actually is information about these topics, and the article fails to include it, that a species article might be considered a stub. | |||
Each case is quite different. For instance, if the article on [[Cybermen]] had ''absolutely no'' information about [[Cybermat]]s of the basic nature of [[cyber-conversion]], then it could well be considered a stub, as both were major pieces of Cyber-technology. Likewise, if it failed to mention any societal structure, such the fucntional role of [[Cyber-Controller]]s and [[Cyber-Leader]]s, then it could well be considered a stub. Meanwhile the [[Optera]] don't have a lot in the way of technology, but we ''are'' able to say rather a lot about their culture. Failing to at least mention their linguistic system could potentially make the article a stub. | |||
Generally, a species article should be considered a stub if it fails to even ''mention'' information from each major appearance in the medium in which the species originated. For instance, if you were writing an article about the [[Robot Yeti]], the article would definitely be a stub if it gave details from ''[[The Abominable Snowmen]]'' but not ''[[The Web of Fear]]''. The article would be incomplete, but not a stub, if it ignored the minor appearance in ''[[The Five Doctors]]''. Nor would it be classed a stub simply because it failed to give details of the appearance in [[MA]]: ''[[Downtime]]''. | Generally, too, a species article should be considered a stub if it fails to even ''mention'' information from each major appearance in the medium in which the species originated. For instance, if you were writing an article about the [[Robot Yeti]], the article would definitely be a stub if it gave details from ''[[The Abominable Snowmen]]'' but not ''[[The Web of Fear]]''. The article would be incomplete, but not a stub, if it ignored the minor appearance in ''[[The Five Doctors]]''. Nor would it be classed a stub simply because it failed to give details of the appearance in [[MA]]: ''[[Downtime]]''. | ||
A species article should also strive to do more than just report the encounters that species had with the Doctor, Sarah Jane, K9 or Torchwood. It should attempt to provide physical and cultural details about the race. The fact that an article is devoid of these elements, however, should not be taken as an automatic sign it is a stub. Just as there are many astronomical objects which are only incidentally mentioned, there are many species who are given short shrift by writers. | A species article should also strive to do more than just report the encounters that species had with the Doctor, Sarah Jane, K9 or Torchwood. It should attempt to provide physical and cultural details about the race. The fact that an article is devoid of these elements, however, should not be taken as an automatic sign it is a stub. Just as there are many astronomical objects which are only incidentally mentioned, there are many species who are given short shrift by writers. | ||
Nevertheless, there are some things which ''every'' species articles — except those about very incidental species — should include to avoid being classed a stub: | |||
* An instance of [[:template:Infobox Species]] filled out as completely as possible, preferably with an in-universe picture st 250px. | |||
* Some sort of physical description, including any known facts about the biology of the species | |||
* A description of the known history of the species in the Whoniverse. Ideally, this would include at least a sentence about ''every'' appearance, but to avoid stubbiness, it should at least include every appearance in the medium of origin. | |||
Even if all three of these things are well-included in a species article, though, it still might be classed as a stub, if the gap between what is known from stories and what is written in the article is deemed too large. | |||
===Stub=== | ===Stub=== | ||
