Talk:The Dalek Dictionary (feature)

"Characters" section?
True, there's no narrative for these characters to participate in, but unlike User:Borisashton, I am of the opinion that it is helpful to readers for the ==Characters= section to be present, rather than burying the characters in the middle of the ==References== section.

In my opinion, it's major information about The Dalek Dictionary that it 'features' Zolfian, Yarvelling, Drenz and the Emperor, so a quick scan of the page should be able to make that clear to the reader even if they don't necessarily want to hear all about what the Dictionary has to say about Dalek greetings, never-otherwise-mentioned extinct birds, or bleedin' screws. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:45, December 8, 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this, I posted my more major edit which was mostly composed of a section called ===Impact on the Doctor Who canon=== . It goes way more in depth about Zolfian, Yarvelling and Drenz than was previously on the page as well as a bunch of other stuff. The note about the creation of the Daleks is also still present in the lead. In my opinion, I think this looks alright. --Borisashton ☎  15:55, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen it. And, I mean, it's great. But likewise, ordinary story pages usually mention all the characters in their ==Characters== sections in the "Summary" section, but that's no reason not to have the easy-to-browse standardized "Characters" section on all pages for consistency. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:31, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * But The Dalek Dictionary isn't a story and it isn't dabbed or categorised as such .I maintain that even if it were they're just mentioned so the "Characters" section would be empty. --Borisashton ☎  17:50, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, whether it's a story or not, I maintain that it's useful to have a section that just succinctly lists the characters, separate from wider bodies of text that mention them.
 * And I dispute the statement that they're "just mentioned". The Dalek Dictionary isn't a story as such — but the entires on Yarveling, Zolfian and Drenz are short bios of the characters, not offhand mentions within the dialogue of others. They're as "featured" as a character can be a non-narrative medium. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:57, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * I just think a section on characters is a bit redundant as Zolfian, Yarveling and Drenz are mentioned in the lead, covered with what the Dictionary said about them in the "References" section and have a far more detailed coverage of their future appearances in the "Story notes" section.
 * If anything were to change, I have thought about swapping the "Impact on Doctor Who" section with the "References" section with some editing so the former has more prominence on the page since these early mentions of DWU concepts are likely what readers are looking for rather than the never-mentioned-again baz and also that as we don't cover this article as a story we aren't bound by that structure. --Borisashton ☎  18:14, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * Ack, you may be right. The Dalek Dictionary is a pretty singular beast. Still, I believe that in the general case, common policy is to write covered-invalid pages in the same style as valid pages, minus the "Continuity" section, which seems about right to me — if nothing else, it makes it easier if/when a given covered-invalid story is ruled valid by a change in policy or an inclusion debate. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:59, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Since there is "no narrative" and it "isn't a story", then there aren't any characters, references, or story notes. This seems more like a reference work and should be covered the way reference works are. Shambala108 ☎  02:25, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay so hang on. In what way does a reference work not have references? It's… it's in the name!…


 * I'm officially Confused. Could you please point us to what page format would be the appropriate way to present this information, if this isn't it? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  06:38, December 10, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to a References section the way we do it for stories. Reference works are covered differently, I suggest you take a look at a few. Try Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia for a start. Shambala108 ☎  15:11, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I mean that completely unironically, to be clear; an example such as the one you linked is precisely what I was looking for.


 * That being said, with the example in hand, there seems to be to be a key difference is: the Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia appears simply to give short summaries of info about the various aliens which, for the most part, was already present in the valid stories in which they debuted.


 * The Dalek Dictionary is quite another beast, since it's almost wholly original content, albeit presented non-narratively. I feel like a list that just went: "The Dalek Dictionary contains: 'bax', 'insli', 'bringdigulum'", without elaborating on any of them, would be of little interest to readers.


 * I suppose it's possible to just list all of those and only give the information Dalek Dictionary gives about them on the pages linked, but that seems inelegant to me. What's wrong with having a more stories-style References section? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:24, December 10, 2019 (UTC)