Trusted
24,523
edits
Forum:Subpage proposals: TV only & "Wikipedia style" subpages: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Subpage proposals: TV only & "Wikipedia style" subpages (edit)
Revision as of 03:46, 24 May 2024
, 24 May→BTS discussion
| (36 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
::::: Firm support for making a Behind the Scenes section a (loose) requirement for most pages (or at least for things that span multiple appearances). Then following the new subpages precedent it should only get split off when it is large enough to sustain its own page. Realistically these section will probably be quite small for a lot of pages so I'm not sure they'd work "standalone" per-se. To look at another wiki, such a section is [https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_nominations a requirement on Wookieepedia] for ''any'' reviewed article. I wrote one on [[Henry Gordon Jago]] a while ago mainly just to test the waters - I think it works quite well for spin-off characters where it can be hard to track their evolution from a real-world POV. [[User:Guyus24|Guyus24]] [[User talk:Guyus24|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | ::::: Firm support for making a Behind the Scenes section a (loose) requirement for most pages (or at least for things that span multiple appearances). Then following the new subpages precedent it should only get split off when it is large enough to sustain its own page. Realistically these section will probably be quite small for a lot of pages so I'm not sure they'd work "standalone" per-se. To look at another wiki, such a section is [https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Comprehensive_article_nominations a requirement on Wookieepedia] for ''any'' reviewed article. I wrote one on [[Henry Gordon Jago]] a while ago mainly just to test the waters - I think it works quite well for spin-off characters where it can be hard to track their evolution from a real-world POV. [[User:Guyus24|Guyus24]] [[User talk:Guyus24|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
What I mentioned in that thread are the reasons given for why the main POV used is the main POV used. Not reasons specifically against OOU pages per se, because, well, we have those. For actors and such. But reasons ''were'' given for the POV being primarily IU. | What I mentioned in that thread are the reasons given for why the main POV used is the main POV used. Not reasons specifically against OOU pages per se, because, well, we have those. For actors and such. But reasons ''were'' given for the POV being primarily IU. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I strongly support out of universe subpages. | |||
:A while back, I wanted to know how prominent {{w|Radagast|Radagast the Brown}} was in the original ''[[The Hobbit|Hobbit]]'' book; upon going to his page on the LotR Wiki, which is written from an in-universe perspective much like this Wiki, the question was not really answered at all. I then sent over to Wikipedia where this information was presented to me in the first sentence. | |||
:I have, for a while, wanted to introduce out of universe leads to articles — see [[User:Epsilon/OOU leads]] for my attempts at this — but a full out of universe article would give so much room for detail. You can sure bet I'd be creating out of universe subpages. | |||
:However, some things are worth considering, like how we would format these articles, if everything needs to be cited like it is on Wikipedia, and with templates such as {{tlx|Infobox Individual}} — this template should be updated with lots of new out of universe fields for creator(s), copyright holders, debut years, etc. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 23:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Okay. Here's the longer, more in depth approach. If we do this, my suggestion for the page name is that we go with something like Out-Of-Universe or Real-World-View than BTS or Wikipedia. I am '''strongly''' against making this a requirement for new pages that concern entities that appear multiple times, for a reason I'll explain in just a bit. But if we're to do this, I think two immediate questions come up, and they're questions that have been raised, perhaps inadvertently, in the two times I've found that people have hinted towards this idea before. | |||
::The first: what are the pages that merit these subpages? When [[Forum:Temporary forums/Relaxing the past-tense requirement|we discussed OOU ledes]] this is the immediate concern [[User:Tangerineduel]] had. I do not believe simply saying "any recurring entity" is sufficient to address this problem, for '''''at least''''' one obvious reason. There is no [[Earth/Appearances]]. And, indeed, [[Talk:Earth - List of appearances/Archive 1|there was a specific discussion]] to ''not make'' such a page. I simply don't believe it would be possible to write a /OOU page for Earth. Nor do I think it's at all feasible to suggest that every minor character that appears in two stories in a box set but doesn't appear outside that box set should have an /OOU section. | |||
::The second is the manner in which these subpages should be written. It's very easy to think of some articles for which there's no controversy, where we can easily write an OOU description of how they interact with the DWU without any large disagreements. But I can think of a few where there's very obviously going to be... Difficulties. Czech didn't quite seem to mean this at [[Talk:Eighth Doctor/Archive 1]], but this is the conclusion I've come to here. Czech seems to be arguing that the only way in which an Eighth Doctor article can ''avoid'' being biased is to be written from an OOU perspective, as opposed to an IU one, but I come to precisely the opposite conclusion. The Wilderness Years had ''so much'' production drama, that has been ''so well'' documented, that any OOU discussion of characters that were prominent during that time will need to be ''incredibly'' careful, it's like walking through a minefield of bias. (A similar issue emerges with the most recent era, but much of that is rumor, so is much harder to cite for a wiki. You could fairly easily write a hit piece using sources that are wiki-citable re: Wilderness Years stuff.) And this doesn't even ''get into'' the concerns we'd have about using real world information to describe the entities on their OOU subpages that either fails to be supported by or outright contradicts the DWU. (Dan the plasterer, anyone?) | |||
::If we're gonna do this, we need to be very, very careful, and have very clear guidelines. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: I think it would be very easy to have a real-world / BTS section (again note I'm only in favour of putting them on a subpage ''when they've outgrown the 'parent' page'') for Earth. It would not just be a Wikipedia-like entry but an overview of how Earth relates to the DWU - you could write about the early historicals, the Third Doctor's exile on Earth, how the remainder of classic Who spent very little time on Earth, and how the revived series has spent a ''lot'' of time there. Obviously then it's a matter of how much should NPOV play into this with the non-TV stuff. | |||
::: If you have a peek at Wook, quite a few of their BTS sections are like just a sentence long, "[character name] first appeared in [story] and was played/voiced by [actor]". [[w:c:starwars:Clem_Andor#Behind_the_scenes|This page]] has a good one, which is pretty much just that sentence and then pointing out a contradiction. Again, not something that would sustain its own page. | |||
::: For Epsilon's OOU lede for Muriel Frost, I think that would work pretty much 1:1 as a BTS section instead. I think having a different version of the bio rewritten OOU would have too much duplication, but that rewritten lede is a pretty comprehensive view of the character's evolution in a way that's probably more digestible. [[User:Guyus24|Guyus24]] [[User talk:Guyus24|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: Obviously then it's a matter of how much should NPOV play into this with the non-TV stuff. | |||
::::Well, yes, that ''would'' be the issue, wouldn't it. It's a rather large one. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::(Also, I simply don't see what purpose these paired down, minimal, OOU sections serve that infoboxes don't. Again, my objection is to the idea that ''every'' recurring entity needs an OOU section. I just don't think this is true. Some seem perfectly well served by the status quo, because while they're recurring they're still so minor that there's simply no point, or some seem so complicated that it would be effectively a new page that would be near impossible to write.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: (For the record, I think Najawin makes many good points.){{User:SOTO/sig}} 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There's just a lot of areas where I don't think this is thought out, and that lack of clear direction will cause issues. For instance, I think you'll get fans arguing over what sources are authoritative enough to be cited on certain pages, whether you're allowed to infer things at all from collections of sources, and what things follow from those inferences. (This ''already happens'' on pages for upcoming series when people argue over if you're allowed to make inferences about production blocs. I think the issue will be worse over controversial characters / plotlines. Things related to Thasmin come to mind. It's relatively easy enough to stop this from happening on IU pages because we have the Valid Sources rule, even if you occasionally get some weirdos trying to say the Cybermasters are the Hybrid, but on OOU versions of IU pages we're opening up ''many more'' types of sources that could be cited. Prominent pages could very easily become heavily contested and/or biased.) | |||
:::Wikipedia articles sometimes have "reception" sections for character pages. Do we.... Want to do that? [[Forum:Story pages should have reception sections]] is the closest prior discussion here, I guess. I actually think critical analysis of stories can probably come back, and have thought about doing a thread for it eventually. But reception of characters is... a bit more of an issue. Even if we restrict it to major characters, ones that have clear enough receptions to write about I think this is a big can of worms. Once again, Thirteen comes to mind, as does Rose Noble. (Or even Meep, given that they were commented on by Andrew Tate.) I'm not saying "no" here. Just "we should really think this through". | |||
:::And even if we solve the bias issue, I really want to reiterate that how much RWK we allow on the OOU descriptions of these things is a real problem. Obviously the NO RW thread hasn't resolved yet, but are we following NO RW in the same way on /OOU? If not, is that a license to just misrepresent how the entity is portrayed in the DWU? Because that can ''very easily'' happen. As a corollary, Big Finish promo pics. What would we do with them? I'd think that this subpage would be a natural place for them, but would we need to label them as simply being promo pics, and not appearing in a valid source? | |||
:::And one further delineation I think is really necessary is to figure out just ''how'' OOU we're being here. Are we just writing ''facts about the IU concept'' from an OOU perspective? Because this is still a can of worms and hits every problem I mentioned above, imo. Or are we also elaborating on ''creative intent'' behind these OOU facts when we know it (eg, "Moffat stated that his impetus for creating the Weeping Angels was a statue in a cemetery"). I really want to underline that certain articles are problems either way, but if we're doing the latter they become '''much''' worse, and I don't think anyone here is even ''qualified'' to write them. (Buddhism, physics, technology, military, etc) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Hang on, what BF promo pics? What do BF promo pics have to do with anything? The vast majority of them are quite valid now. I don't see how the small fraction for which we have no theory of coverage at present poses any kind of obvious crisis in relation to the idea of BTS subpages. Do you mean those pics of actors in recording booths and the like, which ''don't'' have any validity credentials? But those ''are'' so obviously BTS that I don't see what problem they would pose. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'm thinking of the distinction made at [[Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies]]. | |||
:::*The suggestion to start using promotional images of characters willy-nilly in e.g. infoboxes '''is, however, rejected'''. It is an essential part of this Wiki's ethos that '''every in-universe element must be cited to a [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid source]]''', and that goes for images as well. To use a promotional image on in-universe pages, it must ''either'' be "lumped in" with a particular valid source it illustrates (as described in the two bullet-points above), or constitute a valid "(illustration)" in its own right as per the parameters set by [[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1]] [Edited]. Which is the case of photographic promotional images ''sometimes'', just not all the time. But fear not, archivists, because… | |||
:::* …notwithstanding situations like that which arose at [[The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]] where the copyright-holders disapprove, '''we should still strive to keep a complete archive of official promotional images on the Wiki''', even if they're not used on in-universe pages. | |||
::But perhaps my concern here is rather pedantic? IDK. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Oh that. But that's really more about ''non''-BF promo pics, such as those associated with the TV series itself, hence my confusion… And more to the point, /Gallery pages are ''the'' obvious page for these archives to exist. It's what the #Promotional_material sections are for! Even if we ''did'' introduce BTS subpages we wouldn't put them ''there''. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::tbh, I'd think it's a natural place to put one? But it's very much so not the largest issue I mentioned here. So if nobody else has my intuition that's fine. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
This proposal sounds decent enough, but I have just one question; would this mean anything that already has pages for both in and out of universe perspective (e.i. a page for a real world actor and a page for their fictional, in-universe counterpart) would be effectively merged? [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I don't see why it would. [[William Hartnell (in-universe)/Behind the scenes]] (or some other subpage name) would be a discussion of the [[William Hartnell (in-universe)|in-universe counterpart of William Hartnell]] from an out of universe perspective and I do not feel that this is the same as a discussion of the real [[William Hartnell]]. | |||
: In general, I support this proposal and would have proposed it myself in the future at some point. I plan to produce a draft of how I would write one of these pages to serve as an example to discuss. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|☎]] 17:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Wow a lot of words in this discussion for a very common sense idea. My understanding is that the proposal is a Behind The Scenes subpage for pages with unwieldy Behind The Scenes sections. The same way we have an Appearances subpage for pages where that section gets unwieldy. If that understanding is correct then I do not understand any of the above controversy. This is obviously a good idea and I support it. [[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::This is very clearly not correct, because what's being suggested includes things that current BTS sections don't currently do. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes — to summarise the difference, the idea is for the BTS subpages to also give an overview of the character's role in their stories from a BTS point of view, similar to Wikipedia's character pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Oswald like this one]. The specifics are, of course, controversial, but that's the basic gist. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
I was thinking about how we could use this as an excuse to give more in-depth documentation to behind the scenes connections to pieces of popular culture that only have in-universe pages. Which then made me wonder how would pages in "Real World Series with DWU connections" factor into this? [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== TV only discussion === | === TV only discussion === | ||
| Line 79: | Line 135: | ||
:::'''''But''''', I understand the desire here, and I think it's somewhat reasonable. So here's what I suggest instead. [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon II]] has [[Thread:129501]]. Which comes up with an interesting idea. It references a GoT site that allows users to pick the books they've read and show spoilers / text based on that decision, suggesting that we do something similar on our site, allowing users to pick the media types they think are "canon" and hide statements that come from elsewhere. Now. This is implausible for us. Both because it would be very difficult to code and it would be impossible to write articles like that. (Especially if a sentence is sourced to two different mediums.) And so it was rejected out of hand. Quite rightly, at the time, I think. Czech details some of the reasons why this entire approach is so difficult in that thread. But I think a more limited approach here might be useful. I, for the life of me, can't remember who it was, or where it was, and so I apologize. I thought it was in [[F:FORK]], but I can't find it there with a quick search. But if we color code ''media dabs'', I think this will help solve the problem that people are concerned about, at least somewhat, without violating [[T:NPOV]]. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | :::'''''But''''', I understand the desire here, and I think it's somewhat reasonable. So here's what I suggest instead. [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon II]] has [[Thread:129501]]. Which comes up with an interesting idea. It references a GoT site that allows users to pick the books they've read and show spoilers / text based on that decision, suggesting that we do something similar on our site, allowing users to pick the media types they think are "canon" and hide statements that come from elsewhere. Now. This is implausible for us. Both because it would be very difficult to code and it would be impossible to write articles like that. (Especially if a sentence is sourced to two different mediums.) And so it was rejected out of hand. Quite rightly, at the time, I think. Czech details some of the reasons why this entire approach is so difficult in that thread. But I think a more limited approach here might be useful. I, for the life of me, can't remember who it was, or where it was, and so I apologize. I thought it was in [[F:FORK]], but I can't find it there with a quick search. But if we color code ''media dabs'', I think this will help solve the problem that people are concerned about, at least somewhat, without violating [[T:NPOV]]. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::: Regarding T:BOUND and T:POINT of it al: nah, sorry, not seeing it. "Some people, in their ignorance, would like it" would be a bad reason, but "We have forked and need to drive up traffic" is a perfectly sensible one. I don't think the OP is in violation of T:POINT at all, and a non-T:POINT-violating OP is perfectly capable of overturning "current policy" based on new concerns or perspectives, making T:BOUND irrelevant to this discussion. | |||
:::: I don't understand what "colour-coding media dabs" is supposed to mean — did you mean to say media ''prefixes''? But if so, I think that's… basically nothing? At best it would make it fractionally easier for some readers to spot which sentences are sourced to TV stories, but I think in terms of sating TV-focused readers' wishes it's in no meaningful way better than just the current prefix system. And it seems like a lot of coding bother in itself, when it comes to accounting for one more colour when devising colour schemes for a given theme-design. | |||
:::: I'm not ''particularly'' in favour of the TV subpages idea, insofar as I think the "Wikipedia-style" subpages, if done right, would be a much less confusing way of fulfilling the same goal. But your primary rationale against it, and your stated alternative, both seem quite weak. (The parenthetical at the end of your first paragraph seems like a very ''strong'' argument, though.) --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Yeah, prefixes. I changed that after copying it, but then there was an edit conflict, and forgot to change it again after pasting it. I don't think it would be a lot of coding at all. Seems a fairly easy change to the style sheet? "We have forked and need to drive up traffic and will do so by doing dumb things that are bad" is still, to me, a weak argument. Like, if we're to sacrifice the quality of our coverage and/or policies to drive up traffic there's all sorts of things we ''could'' do. That doesn't mean we ''should'' do them. They should be independently good or neutral. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:To give another data point for Scrooge's objection, since I'm going through the stuff I have on file, see [[Talk:Interplanetary Mining Corporation]]. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I didn't say it was a ''good'' argument. Just that it's a sufficiently novel one to put the thread clear of a T:POINT violation. An argument might be completely novel and still completely wrong! --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, I don't think it's a T:POINT ''violation''. But I think there's a massive amount of logical/rhetorical inertia it has against it that it just hasn't made up. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: Not a fan of this. In general I think such a site should exist but it should be its own thing and not bolted on here. I don't think tardis.wiki necessarily ''should'' be the one-stop resource for Doctor Who, it should focus on the one thing and doing that well - namely being the all-encompassing in-universe encyclopedia. I think by trying to do ''everything'' then it runs the risk of not doing ''anything'' well. If the hardware gets to the point where running a tv-only wiki on a subdomain is possible then perhaps that will work, and we just link off to this main wiki when anything gets messy. It's in the same way that I don't think this site really ''should'' be trying to compete with Wikipedia either on the front of entire real-world POV articles - the two sites serve different purposes and I think that's fine. [[User:Guyus24|Guyus24]] [[User talk:Guyus24|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: I totally agree with Guyus24. The time and effort put into TV-only subpages would be better spent working on what the wiki already does. The appeal of TV-focussed pages on Doctors and companions would be greater coherency and less speculation on Doctor pages, and I think that there are ways to achieve that in our own house style. BTS subpages sound good tho, and could definitely fill parts of the niche that in-universe can't. [[User:TheChampionOfTime|TheChampionOfTime]] [[User talk:TheChampionOfTime|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I completely oppose this. From an editing point of view we're doubling up editing and keeping and maintaining edits in sync is going to be a nightmare. Having two versions is also going to suggest that one medium is more "valid" than another. Better that attention just be put into one page. | |||
::::::I also think some people will just contribute to these TV pages, so if the argument is that these pages serve as a source for new fans, then they should be written, and '''locked'''. So they're guides, rather than actively edited pages. Note, this is not me approving this suggestion, just a suggestion of how it might work. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I am also very strongly against TV-only subpages, for the reasons outlined above.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 15:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
I agree with Guyus24. I'm primarily a TV-only fan, who sometimes dips into other media. As a reader, I enjoy how in-depth this Wiki goes (into all media). If for some reason I want TV-only information, I either skim-read here or (as I assume others may do) I visit other fanmade websites which have guides or different mediums broken into different sections of said websites. Doing that sort of thing here feels clumsy to me - for reasons outlined above - and I think it'd be hard to keep track of from an editing standpoint, and we'd be trying to spin too many plates. I know there are fans out there who joke about the Wiki being too in-depth, sometimes to the point of (in their view) insanity [I've heard people say things like "I checked the Wiki for something simple and ended up reading X Y Z and I either didn't care about it or I was utterly baffled"] but isn't that sort of what we do... we're an all-inclusive encyclopedia, covering as much as we physically can. Trying to then split such a Wiki so we have TV-only pages feels like more hassle than it's worth, especially with duplicated information, etc. | |||
Sometimes I wish I could filter out information here so I could immediately find what I'm looking for, but I'm used to this Wiki and how expansive it is. If I need something quick, I have about 4 other Dr Who websites I visit where I can find it with ease. I know I won't be the only one. And that isn't a detriment to here either. As said above, we shouldn't try to be everything to everyone. Let's stick to what we do best, and keep focused. — [[User:Fractal|Fractal]] [[User talk:Fractal|<span title="Talk">•</span>]] 20:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I also '''strongly oppose''' TV-only subpages. I find myself agreeing with Fractal, in that I am primarily a TV-only fan, mostly because getting into Big Finish is expensive and the Wilderness Years novels are difficult to source at any reasonable prices (I recently bought {{cs|Timewyrm: Genesys (novel)}} for £20, and that was a surprisingly ''cheap'' listing), so a lot of my knowledge (and enjoyment) of the wider sphere of content has come from reading this wiki. I enjoy that this place is comprehensive almost to a fault. There are stronger arguments outlined above that I won't rehash, but I also tend to agree with. - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] | 00:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: In theory, TV-only subpages might make the wiki more appealing to the general public. But in practice, they would be such a massive undertaking that I doubt they would be worth all the extra effort. [[User:BastianBalthazarBux|BastianBalthazarBux]] [[User talk:BastianBalthazarBux|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
I '''strongly favor''' the idea of creating TV only versions of pages for the wiki. With a couple asterisks I will elaborate at the end. | |||
Firstly some comments in support. Everyone take a look at Fandom’s Fourth Doctor page. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240324214821/https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Fourth_Doctor Here is an archived version so you don’t give them clicks.] What do you see. The Biography section is aggressively readable. All the infinite details are still there on a subpage. But it is very easy to get a sense for important information about the characters life such as the TV serials that started and ended his era. Compare ours at [[Fourth Doctor#Biography]]. Which will new fans pick? Or old fans who need a refresher? Fandom has the obvious obvious advantage over us in this so I do not understand why on earth we have not copied their approach here. | |||
Even set aside reading issues. We have to deal with realities of the new site and the fact is that performance issues are super bad. I have a iPhone 15. Not some antiquated model. Using Safari I clicked to open the auto-collapsed “Biography” section on [[Fourth Doctor]]. It took more than 9 seconds to load. There was no loading indicator so at first I thought my tap hadn’t gone through! Then I tried to scroll and the page crashed. Wow. This seems like a disaster since mobile traffic makes up a wide majority of all internet traffic these days. A much shorter TV only page would not cause this problem. | |||
Ok that was my support. Here are my asterisks. | |||
1 I am not sure “TV only” is the right metric. I say this despite agreeing that it is nonsense to treat all sources equally. Yes all of us here are neurodivergent and it may be comforting to pretend we are brains in vats agnostically accepting inputs as pure data. But we are not brains in vats and there is no point in tying one hand behind our backs and refusing to a knowledge that there is a difference between ''Rose'' and ''[[The Hungry Night (short story)|The Hungry Night]]''. Similarly it is also silly to pretend there is no difference between ''Under the Lake'' and ''Heaven Sent''. So while TV only may be a convenient default rule of thumb. Making it a firm line is less agreeable (to me). | |||
We already do this subpage and summarization approach for the physical appearance page section. We already do it for personality. In fact we already do it for biography through the overly long opening part of the page. Which is not what opening parts are for. Simply take that text and give it the proper source citations and make it biography section header. If it is TV only then it is TV only. If it is not then it is not. | |||
2 I am not convinced that putting the TV only summary on subpages is the proper solution. The Fandom wiki does the opposite and that seems much better. Or the Guides idea could work I guess although it does not fix the other big big issue. Either way the page should clearly be '''locked''' as a simple fix to all the overstated worries above about duplicating efforts. And clearly there is no need to give this splitting treatment to a short page like [[Fifteenth Doctor]] yet. Too soon to tell. | |||
I know there are plans to fix performance issues down the road if the technical admins find time and or money. And they have been very generous. But season 1 is HERE. Time has run out and we need to get real about the sites independent present. No offense but far too many of you have your heads stuck in the era of Fandom Buxx. Without a serious plan we will lose to Fandom so everything needs to be on the table. Simple as. Or this whole split was doomed from the start. [[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: This seems like a lot of words in defence of a completely ''different'' proposal. "Shortened biography on the main page, featuring only the 'highlights', which are not necessarily TV-only but often will be" is a perfectly sensible proposition, and one which has been the subject of prior controversy; but it's very different from the idea of making a TV-only version of the overall page (also including such elements as "Physical appearance" etc., and presumably ''not'' abridging any of the TV-based info it ''does'' include). For what it's worth, the reason the proposal had been dismissed in the past is that it was feared there would be irresolvable controversies regarding what "counts" as "important". But it's a question we've been wanting to revisit for the many reasons you cite. This thread, though, is a different proposal, and I think a redux of that discussion should be its own thread, not grafted onto the TV-only-subpage proposal. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Scrooge is correct. See [[Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0]]. What you're suggesting we do is in blatant violation of policy, and, yes, '''''the Fandom pages are in violation of policy as well''''', and come from ''one'' user deciding to violate policy regardless of what it actually is. Shambala said she wanted to get around to the issue at some point, but she's busy, don't know when she'll do it. As it stands, the biography sections on large character pages can, and should, be reduced, under current policy, '''''though every story must still be represented to some extent''''', it's just a headache to do. Nobody has any issue with writing a shorter version of the bios than what currently exist, because they've gotten a bit long. Trimming out certain stories, or placing the primacy on certain mediums, that's where we run into issues. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
