User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130410184628

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-7302713-20130409112511/@comment-188432-20130410184628 I think, Anoted, that you have a dangerous misconception of what this wiki is. This is not a wiki about those things which only appear in the DWU. How could it be? That would exclude the writing of articles like Marco Polo, Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, "Ticket to Ride", John F. Kennedy—or any one of hundreds of subjects that have appeared in the DWU which also are a part of the real world.

This franchise isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. This is the very domesticated Doctor Who, which is often about how the Doctor impacted some bit of actual Earth history, or just the modern day.

Your idea of subjects being "Whoniverse centric" really has no validity in writing about this franchise.

I would suggest that your feelings of being "overwhelmed" by the number of links, or this idea you're pushing that articles are "littered with redlinks"—well, those are very much your problems.

Stick with us for a while. You'll get used to it.

Therefore, to answer your most recent question, if you encounter an article with a lot of redlinks, yeah, you just leave it. Unless of course the redlinks blatantly violate a rule, or the redlinks are pointed towards an insensible target page. Most of the time, though, you either leave it alone or see what you can do about creating the articles.

Now you've mentioned "overwhelming" redlinks in some areas, but you've not given any specific links. Obviously, this isn't a science. There aren't absolute, firm rules on any of this. So it's a bit hard to talk about it in general terms. If it would be useful to you, link to a page or two you find objectionable and we'll be able to talk about this in more concrete terms.