User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130410124759

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130410124759 Anoted wrote: If there are a half dozen links in every sentence, then I never know when something important is linked. "Important" is a subjective term, which is why policy doesn't use such language. The threshold for inclusion is simply that the noun be shown or referenced in a valid DWU narrative. I guess I also see a difference between an article not about something directly related to the whoniverse and an article that doesn't provide any insight into the whoniverse. All in-universe articles are bound by T:VS. The only valid sources for writing in-universe articles are DWU narratives. I'm not sure what you mean by the allegation that our articles don't "provide any insight into the Whoniverse". If you see an article without narrative sourcing, then it should be amended or deleted.

Sure, maybe the article isn't directly about something whoniverse centric but it can still be of use. I really don't understand what you mean by "isn't directly about something whoniverse centric". As far as I know, the wiki doesn't have non-whoniverse-centric articles, except those that are clearly labelled with the tophat. "important" … interesting … "important" Again, we can't run a wiki on subjectivity. You might not think that maples are particularly important to the DWU, but Canadians and New Englanders might like to know where their beloved flora appears in DWU narratives. I personally find it interesting to catalog the number of nations and regions that have appeared in DWU narratives, even though Hawaii and New South Wales haven't seen too many TARDIS landings. Conversely, there are things that are unique to the DWU, but which appear only once. I assume you'd have no truck with articles about any one of thousands of one-off characters, even though they actually appear less than something as "minor" as maple trees.