User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26975268-20130309221950/@comment-188432-20130310063024

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26975268-20130309221950/@comment-188432-20130310063024 SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: But such the page is like a series page, and thus can go under the same category. The current T:SPOIL wasn't written with this new article in mind, anyway. Also, don't forget the new spoiler screen you created. Users have to specifically click to view the page. That's not the way rules work. You don't say that because T:SPOIL was written before the existence of Article X that the rule doesn't apply to Article X. T:COMMA applies to our first article just as much as our 45,034th one. Your proposed article is about several different events. People will click on it thinking that it means several different things. They won't know what is behind the spoiler screen as they would with a series page, which is about a discrete set of stories. They won't even necessarily think it's about stories at all. No way is this happening. The fact is that the anniversary definitively exists, is a huge event throughout the year, and is therefore highly notable. Yep, it's notable. That's why it's perfectly appropriate to note it in the lead paragraph of various articles, in the way I suggested upthread.

The problem you have, though, is that there is not such a thing as the anniversary. Again there are many different anniversaries. There are many different commemorative events. There are many different anniversary stories. That makes it impossible to have just one article.

Furthermore, the tenth anniversary didn't have as much going on and as much publicity, thus it does't merit a page. But this does. In fact, perhaps we can have a broad page, say Anniversaries of Doctor Who, that discusses all the anniversaries briefly, with the 50th, which is big enough for its own page, a link to the page. This would prevent people creating pages like Tenth anniversary of Doctor Who in the future. The main problem with your proposal is its ambiguity. A remedy cannot logically be to make an even more amorphous "super article".