Forum:A change to templates used on invalid pages

Opening Post
I think we should start using instead of  on in-universe style pages for subjects that only appear in invalid sources, but not on pages for invalid works themselves. So for instance, Doctor Who (Doctor Who and Crayola) would have the NCMaterial template, but Doctor Who and Crayola (TV story) would still use. Cgl1999 ☎  23:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I like the idea of a larger banner being bold and up front for people starting to read an in-universe-style article so they properly know this is from not valid sources. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * NC Material is a bit... Imposing. And let us not forget that valid or invalid is an entirely arbitrary differentiation that we have invented. This is going to be entirely unhelpful to the ordinary reader, especially because most of these sources are just common sense. If something says "Doctor What was a fish lord from the planet Atlantis" people are going to go "hmm, this probably isn't canon", that being how most people think, but if it says "The Doctor was a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey", then they'll think "Yes, this is canon". There's really no need to clutter up our pages with such things. Aquanafrahudy  📢  07:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I could go either way in terms of visual style, but I do think we should resolve the weird dual system currently in vogue with non-valid pages. "/Non-valid sources" subpages get which allows for citations of invalid sources and of certain non-covered sources (as established in the subpages thread), while purely-invalid pages get  which only allows for the citation of covered-invalid sources. This is confusing and arbitrary. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. To new users, it will be simply inexplicable why we have two different "Spaces" which both, functionally, are "the place where we cover non-valid sources." OS25🤙☎️ 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm... Unconvinced... that what we say is valid or invalid is going to be clearly understood through intuition on the part of the average reader without us making a comment. Given, in part, that valid/invalid are categories for our convenience rather than theirs. We can't expect the average reader to intuit our specific categories. (Indeed, your reasoning here specifically switches back to "canon", and those are decidedly not the same.)


 * I don't think that there's inherently a problem with having two distinct "spaces" to cover invalid work, it's just that the current setup isn't correct. I don't believe the OP suggests replacing on the article pages for invalid works. And I think  is completely inappropriate for that job. As to which one we pick for the IU coverage of works, I have no real concerns, but I do think it should be uniform. Najawin  ☎  19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Personally I just think that half of the non-valid spaces being branded with the NOTCOVERED banner kind of carries this implication that this is the more important and thus louder feature. As if the invalid space which doesn't allow NOTCOVERED material is less important. I understand some might think that, say, a charity novel is more "important" than a DWM parody strip... I just think this mentality ultimately isn't what I signed up for when I supported the non-valid sources subpages. OS25🤙☎️ 19:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Though my concern is ultimately much simpler — if there's relevant NOTCOVERED info about a character whose main page is already, the current setup confusingly suggests that we should created, like, The Licensor/Non-valid sources, just so we can talk about the already-invalid guy's licensed appearances in charity works, or something. Very untidy. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, precisely. It's a distinction which serves no purpose. OS25🤙☎️ 23:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Bumping and extending this. We need more discussion and a workable prototype for the new template, soon as possible. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)