Tardis talk:Disambiguating story titles

Dabbing features

This is something that usually would go on the forums, because it's technically a change in policy. But in their indefinite absence, I'd like to bring it up here, because it's straightforward and is actually making it difficult, or at least confusing, for me to carry through with some edits. If an admin disagrees and thinks it should wait until then, they can shut it down.

Basically, my proposal is that this policy should apply to everything, not just stories. Non-narrative features and games, while currently invalid, are still important, and are confusing because they only have the dab term in cases of ambiguity. This is leading to more confusion instead of less! User:Scrooge MacDuck says it best at User:Najawin/Sandbox 5:

T:DAB STORY should apply to all fiction. The rule that {{invalid}} stories don't automatically get dab terms serves no practical purpose and just leads to inconsistent dabbing (since a number of invalid stories do need to be dabbed anyway to prevent ambiguity). This should also apply to non-narrative fiction: the dab term "(feature)" should be universalised.

So I'm proposing the introduction of (feature) and (game). There are wider changes I'd like to see about our disambiguation policies, but those are definitely better suited to a Panopticon thread, so for now, it's just this. Chubby Potato ☎ 05:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not all games are invalid (just one which break the fourth wall or have multiple-choice narratives). Valid ones, or ones where disambiguation is needed, are already dabbed as "(game)"s. But yes, I personally would agree with a change in policy dabbed towards dabbing games and features uniformly, though that would indeed take a thread. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Undabbed story titles?

Just mentioning this on the talk page, as this policy outlines that only literal story titles get dabs, and metaphorical titles do not; this hasn't been done for years. All valid stories get dabs nowadays. Can an admin correct this to be in line with modern policies please?

Epsilon📯 📂

09:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, if you read the full page you'll see that this is not the case. It is a bit meandering though. Danochy ☎ 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Invalid dabbing

This part doesn't seem appropriately worded:

The exception to this is invalid stories: it was decided that to highlight their special, "second-class citizen" status, stories which are covered as invalid sources do not get automatically dabbed. They only get a dab term only if there is a risk of confusing them with something else (whether it be another story or something in-universe).

I'm not sure if it's even true anymore, as all invalid stories seem to be dabbed nowadays, though I couldn't find the relevant discussion. Danochy ☎ 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)