User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5532276-20121230175132/@comment-88790-20130107140533

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5532276-20121230175132/@comment-88790-20130107140533 I can see your point of view, that this information is helping people reading understand the articles / the stories better. But it does seem like we are dumbing down the information somewhat. We can't provide clarification for every subject and every concept. Some things do exist in relation to the the other and yes we need to use that relational understanding to understand a text. But that's true when reading most media sources.

Why is the Wikipedia link not enough to assist with further reading?
 * This wiki is an encyclopedia of the known DWU, not the real world. - T:NO RW

By the template saying that Though it's possible that a real world location doesn't exist in the same geographic space in the Doctor Who universe, such cases are few and far between we are mixing the real world and the DWU. Can we definitively say which are the outliers? Which locations are in the "few and far between" category? No of course we can't, our database isn't that complete that we could make that pronouncement. The best we could say is 'at the moment, based on the information currently in our database we know of these locations X, Y, Z that do not exist in the same geographic space in the DWU"

probably a good indicator of the DWU location of, probably? Probably? I don't want to go all Sixth Doctor here, but probably?

Yes, the wording could be adjusted with wording similar to the conjecture template. Unless we've got an in-universe map that allows us to match the in-universe to the real world then it is kinda conjectural.

If we must include the "behind the scenes map" then it should clearly state that we're placing the map there based not on the real world guess, but that there is enough in-universe information that suggests to us that the London of the the DWU is similar enough in layout to the real world to include a map for clarity.

But for me, even writing it seems like it's dumbing down of the information a little bit and guessing while we're at it. I also just keep going back to the Wikipediainfo link.

Its purpose is "a way to give our readers an easy link to real world information about a topic within the DWU". That's also what the map template is doing isn't it? Yes, I acknowledge it does give "at a glance" info rather than a click away to a dedicated page of information. But I'm still not convinced that's worth compromising our in-universe article's integrity with what probably is the right map of an in-universe location.

Also on the Wikipediainfo template's page it also states that it should not be used on "real world pages", but the map template states very clearly that it is a "real world location", which suggests a real world-ness to the page.

Yes, I am being picky about this, but we have faced questions like this before in the past, so I feel the wording is something to focus on.

I would have less of a problem, yes, if it were in a section called "Behind the scenes" with a subheading "location information", because "Real World X" is precisely the wording we've been eliminating from articles. All the date articles for example now no longer say "Events" and "Real world" they say "Events" and "Behind the scenes". The use of "Real world location" suggests that the article is made up of sections called "Doctor Who universe" and "Real world", which was how many date articles were laid out.