Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,198
edits
Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration (edit)
Revision as of 20:45, 21 March 2023
, 21 March 2023no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::: No, everyone is not. I mean, you can put forward a proposal to discuss it, of course, but speaking with an administrative vantage point if not quite the full weight of an assertion of policy, '''I generally think event-pages ''qua'' event-pages are by now understood to be a beneficial and necessary part of the Wiki's ecosystem.''' A crucial factor which wasn't present at the time of those old <nowiki>[[Forum:]]</nowiki> discussions is the existence/documentation of many valid sources that give us actual, non-conjectural names for those events. | ::: No, everyone is not. I mean, you can put forward a proposal to discuss it, of course, but speaking with an administrative vantage point if not quite the full weight of an assertion of policy, '''I generally think event-pages ''qua'' event-pages are by now understood to be a beneficial and necessary part of the Wiki's ecosystem.''' A crucial factor which wasn't present at the time of those old <nowiki>[[Forum:]]</nowiki> discussions is the existence/documentation of many valid sources that give us actual, non-conjectural names for those events. | ||
::: But even setting that aside, these pages also fulfill a need. At the very least, ''contra'' [[User:JDPManjoume]]'s message above, '''summaries on story pages can't fulfill the same | ::: But even setting that aside, these pages also fulfill a need. At the very least, ''contra'' [[User:JDPManjoume]]'s message above, '''summaries on story pages can't fulfill the same need'''; not only because it's ''wholly'' improper to link to them within in-universe text, but because story summaries may withhold information that is only revealed late in a story, or otherwise follow their source material's non-linear format, instead of presenting the unfolding event in its in-universe chronological/causal order. | ||
::: So: the worry is not duplicating plot summaries, but needlessly duplicating information that is documented on ''other'' in-universe pages already. While it is sometimes necessary, such a situation is generally to be avoided, as it risks the introduction of unwarranted discrepancies if editors guilelessly edit ''one'' page but not its twin. Two event pages about aspects of the same event are particularly suspect in that paradigm. Not, I will stress, ''necessarily'' suspect. [[The Cataclysm]] is distinct from [[War in Heaven]], [[Destruction of Skaro]] is distinct from [[Shoreditch Incident]], and that is as it should be. But we do have to think about whether we need to split off that information to its own page to best cover it to its fullest length. | ::: So: the worry is not duplicating plot summaries, but needlessly duplicating information that is documented on ''other'' in-universe pages already. While it is sometimes necessary, such a situation is generally to be avoided, as it risks the introduction of unwarranted discrepancies if editors guilelessly edit ''one'' page but not its twin. Two event pages about aspects of the same event are particularly suspect in that paradigm. Not, I will stress, ''necessarily'' suspect. [[The Cataclysm]] is distinct from [[War in Heaven]], [[Destruction of Skaro]] is distinct from [[Shoreditch Incident]], and that is as it should be. But we do have to think about whether we need to split off that information to its own page to best cover it to its fullest length. | ||
