Forum:Temporary forums/IU DAB Terms

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Temporary forums/IU DAB Terms

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Opening Post

A spectre is haunting this wiki - the spectre of Doctor Who (N-Space).

There was substantial discussion on how to handle the in-universe iteration of the Doctor Who franchise in the now hidden forums. At first the page was dabbed using The Thief of Sherwood, but the situation was always complicated, as Remembrance of the Daleks had an allusion to the show, and earlier works began to pop up as the thread went on. (In addition, it came to light that Thief was intended to be in a completely separate universe as well.) In the end, due to this nuance, (and, I believe, the fact that the earliest story known at the time to reference the in-universe franchise also had a dab term, making the thing clunky) it was decided that T:DAB OTHER would be applied to the situation, in a... creative interpretation of this policy. Since then, as {{Doctor Who}} shows, the situation has become more and more convoluted, we've (mainly Epsilon, but others as well) discovered a wealth of information relating to in-universe analogues of the real world franchise or people involved with it. I think it's time we reconsider.

Aside from Doctor Who (N-Space) these pages are dabbed through a hodgepodge of various rules, sometimes not having dab terms at all (Bbcdoctorwho), sometimes being dabbed through the story they first appear in (The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation)), and sometimes through other means entirely (Give-a-show Projector (device)).

Is it plausible to go backwards? Can we return to this patchwork system of dab rules for the franchise in its entirety, and call it Doctor Who (Story Name)? Well, the first instance I could find of the franchise appearing in the DWU, at least on this wiki, is TV Terrors (TVC 709 comic story). If we consider this a parody, the second is Lady Penelope Investigates the stars of the Sensational new film Dr. Who and the Daleks! (short story). And I believe the first unambiguous DWU reference (that is, you can't quibble that it's a parody, you can't argue that it's TV Century 21 which some (wrong) people might take umbrage to) to the franchise is A Letter from the Doctor (DWM 1 short story). Of these three options, two have dab terms themselves. So this won't work.

Alright. We can't go backwards. Does staying still cause problems? Yes. A patchwork, inconsistent system is inherently a problem. But even if we ignore that, see the discussions at Talk:Give-a-show Projector (device), and Talk:The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation), two criticisms have been leveled at our current situation, that the current dab term framework makes in-universe counterparts harder to find (and, yes, Epsilon's template has made this less of an issue, but ideally it would be nice to make them easily searchable as well as having a navbox), and that for some of our undabbed in-universe counterparts there's some inherent level of confusion between them and their real world counterparts. (Against Nature, TARDIS Wiki, BBC iPlayer, etc)

So. Backwards is out. Staying still has problems. How do we proceed? A single unified dab term. But there are at least two open questions.

1. What is this dab term? Currently we're using (N-Space) on the franchise page, and there's been some suggestion that it will be the single unified dab term. Since we're here to define an entirely new dabbing policy, I'm not wedded to this idea. I would accept (N-Space) if others were set on it, but I think the better option is just to move everything over to (In Universe), and this is what I support. I think this dab term is simpler for the average user to understand, and is easier to search. The only reason to use (N-Space) was to apply T:DAB OTHER, which isn't necessary if we're defining new policy, or for sentimental reasons, given that we've lived with it for almost 3 years.

2. What is the scope of the dab term? This may seem like a trivial question, but it's not. Are we concerned with things related to the in-universe counterpart of the DW franchise, in-universe counterparts of things related to the DW franchise, or the intersection of the two? I think the first is clearly out, if something is stated to be related to DW (IU) but has no real world counterpart, there's no clear reason to dab it. The second might be doable, but it seems... questionable. Notable problems with this line of thought are Niki (For the Girl Who Has Everything), Antonio Amaral (Omega), and Vitas Varnas (Omega), (yes, those last two are only very tangentially related to the real world DW franchise, being backers of Omega, but technically they would qualify). I think the third is the most viable, but it does run into some issues when we consider that the in universe versions of Faction Paradox, etc, haven't been explicitly stated to be related to the in universe version of DW, so we have to do a little bit of sleight of hand to make everything work.

I think pursuing this reform of our massively convoluted approach to the in-universe franchise, a T:DAB IU, if you will, will benefit both editors and readers, in providing a unified approach to the subject that has frustrated many of us for years, and removes confusion that the average reader might experience. Najawin ☎ 17:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Just for clarity, I think it must be stated by myself I obnoxiously went against dab terms for meta in-universe counterparts of Doctor Who related topics. Nowadays, I can see that what I did was in no way helpful. While I'd be fine with story dabs for all of these topics, using more descriptive dab terms would improve searchability, as @Najawin stated. If we are to use "in-universe", I'd prefer if we went one step further and did things like Tom Baker (in-universe actor), The Seeds of Death (in-universe serial), The Woman Who Lived (in-universe episode), in part to reflect instances where we do use dab terms like "actor" and "episode", and also in cases such as Fanboys where both the serial and novelisation of The Seeds of Doom are mentioned, thus making a single dab term, either story or descriptive, suboptimal. Thoughts? I do support this proposal, by the way, despite how much I used to fight against such an idea.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I probably won’t be participating in this particular discussion. I have no strong feelings for or against this topic. Danniesen ☎ 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean Planet of the Spiders (Fanboys)? Seeds of Doom doesn't seem to have a novelization and also has the wrong BTS info. With that said, I'd have to toy around with some search bar logic, maybe on another wiki, but I think that's probably a decent modification. Najawin ☎ 18:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I prefer (in universe) (with or without Epsilon's modification) over (N-Space), since Doctor Who (N-Space) seems to suggest that Doctor Who (E-Space) would be viable, and I'd much rather a single concentrated page, even with an "Other realities" section if need be, than a dozen Doctor Who (another universe) pages. I'm also interested in clarifying the question of when we will use whatever dab term or terms we choose. In the case of metafictional information, my inclination is to say always. To quote User:OttselSpy25:

On this wiki, we have a precedent for giving in-universe concepts higher-ranking in terms of page names. For instance, Meglos goes to the character and not the episode. However, I think we should begin to make a precedent of finding exceptions to this in cases which are particularly "meta". For instance, The Five Doctors should not link to a video game, as it only confuses the user and leads to bad links. For examples of this being done right, see: Tom Baker (TV Action!), John Lucarotti (The Meeting), Gareth Jenkins (A Fix with Sontarans), etc.OS25🤙☎️

This principle was already articulated and enforced by admins at Talk:The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation) and Talk:Dave Stone (Many Happy Returns). It's common sense: Doctor Who Series 9 and The Witch's Familiar referring to in-universe equivalents of Doctor Who stories, rather than the stories themselves, is user-unfriendly for readers and editors both. Whatever T:DAB IU results from this discussion will need to codify a solution to this concern as well. – n8 (☎) 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

One big issue is I've never quite understood why N-Space has been consistently considered the universal term for the Doctor's universe, when logically other universes exist with their own versions of N-Space and E-Space. Like, The Doctor's reality (The Eight Doctors), Virgin reality, and 2-D universe surely all have their own N-Spaces? Especially as Adric seems to exist in all three. Pete's World probably has an E-Space equivalent as well. The whole N-Space / E-Space thing with the realities having to do with positive and negative coordinates across a divide is just too different from the typical definition of a "multiverse." I'd prefer we not use it because of that.

Also, I agree with Nate's point about making a choice about exactly when this is done. One is example to me is that Stephen Fry exists as a character in a novel. Are we going to thus say that actor who appear in even the most obscure DWU productions always have the DAB page on the fictional equivalent? Clearly that's what we've officially been doing, but I don't think we've ever had a debate about this properly. OS25🤙☎️ 19:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding whether "N-Space" and "the main Doctor Who universe" are synonymous, that particular conundrum has been the subject of long, long discussion at Talk:N-Space, which has not been resolved yet. Feel free to chime in yet. For the purposes of the present discussion, let's take it as read that by the "(N-Space)" option, we mean using as a dab term whatever we may or may not end up renaming our page on the "main universe" to; not N-Space specifically.

(Though for the record, note also that the various "realities" you cited aren't necessarily "other universe than" the "main" universe, just different accounts of that universe, and/or, as per the palimpsest universe, different iterations of it as it endlessly reboots itself. So they wouldn't necessarily imply that there's ever more than one N-Space and E-Space at any given "time". Still, there are definitely unambiguously-coexisting parallel universes with their own Adrics, so it's an academic distinction to make.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. I was basing my analysis there on my understanding of the plot to Zagreus, which I'll admit isn't the strongest.

On the topic of setting a precedent for DAB terms when there's an in-universe copy of a fictional concept, I wanted to bring up another example where we currently have it backwards to the presumed precedent: Doctor Who Discovers, a book series name dropped in a Big Finish audio, has the mainpage. Doctor Who Discovers (series), the real-world novels (written as if they are the Doctor's diaries) has the DAB. Whereas in many of the cases listed above, the dab goes to the fictional reference to the real-world Doctor Who media. As I recall at the time, it was the opinion of the admins that this usage was correct by our rules, which is why The Five Doctors goes straight to a video game link.

A very complex example to use as a litmus test is The Seeds of Dea- I mean Doom.

• In one novel, Sarah Jane is said to have written a series of books based on her adventures, one of which is called The Seeds of Doom (book). So it's dabbed with "book" to denote it's in-universe.
• In short story (probably) set in the fictionalized "real world", we see the TV story this is based on also exists, so that's The Seeds of Doom (Fanboys) (using the story title).
• And then The Seeds of Doom (DABless) still redirects to the TV story.

This is a really strong example, as we have both a meta in-universe copy of a real thing and an in-universe concept that only shares a name. Sarah Jane's book is not a direct copy of the TV episode.

So in both cases do we want the TV story to maintain the mainspace redirect? I'd say yes, which shows that it's a little more complex than just "things from the real world that also exist in-universe." It's mainly about making a site that's easy to maneuver for our readers.

Although as a quick note, I suppose the added complexity is when a story is supposed to exist in-universe, such as with Who Killed Kennedy vs Who Killed Kennedy (novel) and basically any story that pretends it's a diary or journal (like Who Discovers). I guess my point is that it's a very complex subject and we have no official policy that I can find on when all this is supposed to happen. OS25🤙☎️ 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with Epsilon's proposal of disambiguating with (in-universe thing). But, there's also the issue of alternate realities. In-universe here means the fictional universe as a whole, which covers multiple "universes" as in realities. If you take a look at Tom Baker (disambiguation), you can see that there are quite a few instances of Tom Baker from both the Doctor's home universe and several others. However, per T:MERGE, these can easily be covered on an "Alternate realities" section of Tom Baker (in-universe actor). In fact, I think this makes things significantly easier to cover and to understand, because it covers all "in-universe" instances of the subject together, as they're all derived from the same thing in the real world. Arguably, this could be extended to something like The Seeds of Doom, where all in-universe references are covered together, but a book by Sarah Jane Smith is different from an in-universe version of the serial, so I think they should stay separate— and this is why I prefer Epsilon's more specific approach. In general, I think we should not shy away from more specific disambiguation terms, if they are more useful.

Additionally, I think a "dab"-less version of any real-world story, series, etc should almost always redirect to the real world page, and having an in-universe disambiguation term should be standard on such pages. Whether it's through searching or linking, 99% of the time the link is meant to go to the real-world page. Chubby Potato ☎ 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to treat stuff TV Action! (comic story) and The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who (comic story) as correlating, it does feel a little odd sometimes that Tom Baker (TV Action!) and Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) are treated as different people simply because we can't prove that the meta-reality of both comics is the same universe. It's a pretty big exception to T:DAB OTHER but in the end I think it would make the wiki a much easier place to comprehend.

And I do think the specificity in DABBING is the best route. The Seeds of Doom (in-universe novel) and The Seeds of Doom (in-universe serial) both sounds fine to me. But are we all also fine with Who Killed Kennedy (in-universe novel)? Or does the mere intention of the original media to also exist in-universe provide an exception here? OS25🤙☎️ 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd slightly prefer the dab "(in-universe)" to "(in-universe THING)", because it makes for less dab terms and, more importantly, avoids discussion of what a certain in-universe element is, and I just prefer it for reasons I cannot explain. But if people prefer "(in-universe THING)", I'm perfectly happy to go with that, much much more than our current policies. I think the most dangerous part of our current policies is that there are many in-universe versions of novels which are undabbed. I support' 217.163.63.65^{talk to me} 07:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about the fact that there's Planet of the Spiders as both an episode and book in-universe? Najawin ☎ 05:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am happy this is being addressed, and agree that the dabless version should be the real world page, as that is much friendlier to casual users. I don't have strong feelings beyond that. Schreibenheimer ☎ 11:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Najawin's most recent comment, that alone has moved me to side with "in-universe thing" over just "in-universe" (that IP user was me signed out btw. And no I haven't doxxed myself, I was out and about) Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 20:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "in-universe thing" is the best option, especially because it gets rid of the contentious term "N-Space". bwburke94 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would support Doctor Who (N-Space) or Doctor Who (the Doctor's universe) over any other option, since I don't think descriptive/contextual dab terms should break in-universe perspective. (I suppose in-universe is still better than outright saying "DWU", on that front.)

That said, I would prefer "in-universe [class of subject]" over "in-universe" any day. Regular dabbing rules would still apply, with in-universe just providing another level of disambiguation.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 13:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree with you SOTO, if the situation with N-Space wasn't so messy. (As discussed at Talk:N-Space.) It's contentious if "N-Space" refers to the universe we're talking about, and even if that were true, it's not something the median viewer would know, coming from the classic series. If we end up in a Star Trek situation where we consistently get references to the universe we are currently calling N-Space being referred to as something (say, "Universe 1", as that's what it was recently called) over a sustained period of time such that it becomes common parlance in the franchise and to the median viewer, I'd have no issue reopening discussion to change the dab term to "(Universe 1)". Najawin ☎ 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I also like in-universe because it means we can try to keep a policy of having "meta concepts" covered on one page, even if they don't certainly all exist in one singular DWU. My thought is that we only really need one page on "Tom Baker but he's a person who exists inside of a Doctor Who story", so there's no need for Tom Baker (TV Action!), Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), Tom Baker (Bafflement and Devotion), and Tom Baker (The Thief of Sherwood). If we settle on (The Doctor's Universe), then this doesn't really help us with any story not set in the Doctor's universe, but still set in the Doctor Who Omniverse. In fact, it now makes things more complex, as we have to stop and agree on separate terms for the TV Action! and GWLDW universes, since they aren't really the same.

(In the above example, we would keep all the Tom Bakers on one page, but sort them into at least three "universes," being the Doctor's universe, the GWLDW universe, and the TA! universe. So the stories would share a page, but we would still accurately cover the contents of the stories being set in separate worlds.)

Returning to the topic of when an in-universe concept should have the dab instead of the mainpage, I think when a story is named after an in-universe thing, the in-universe thing keeps the mainpage obviously. Meglos (TV story) is named after Meglos, the in-universe baddie.

And, in theory, Who Killed Kennedy (novel) is named after Who Killed Kennedy, the in-universe novel. The same might, confusingly, also be true of a lot of FEATURE stories which have just been declared valid...

So then, when an in-universe thing is named after a real-world thing, that's when we enact this policy. The Five Doctors should have a DAB ("(in-universe video game)") and the current link should redirect to The Five Doctors (TV story). I am also in support of the idea of using (in-universe noun), but I think we should try to keep it simple to avoid debates.

Tom Baker (in-universe actor) seems fine, but it's secretly horrible, because now there's a bunch of variables. What if Colin Baker shows up an in-universe story, but he never says he's an actor? What if a newscaster plays themself in a Doctor Who TV story? They're not really an actor... So do we need to stop and make a long list of accepted terminology for every job in the planet? Newscaster, reporter, etc?

My thought is let's just go with (in-universe individual), as wordy as it sounds, because it will keep the system simple. More complex dabs can be used if, let's say, there's an in-universe person named after Tom Baker who just shares his name. Maybe then, (in-universe actor) would make more sense. OS25🤙☎️ 19:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It may be easier just to use a blanket (in-universe) dab term unless multiple examples require us to differentiate them, such as the aforementioned Planet of the Spiders. Schreibenheimer ☎ 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Great idea, Schreibenheimed. (in-universe) by default, and (in-universe noun) to disambiguate further, if necessary. I fully support Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 06:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Taken me a while to come back to this. All of the various repeated phrases over and over started to run together and it just kept being incoherent to me. I think OS25 is correct on all accounts. (individual) is better than (actor), and if a story/feature is named after an IU concept, the IU concept remains undabbed. This seems to conform closest to existing precedent, insofar as Talk:Hugh Grant establishes it. Najawin ☎ 08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Schreibenheimer that we should only add extra nouns to the dab if there are multiple examples that need disambiguating. Tom Baker (in-universe individual) doesn't give the user any information that isn't already conveyed by Tom Baker (in-universe). This matches how we use dabs elsewhere on the wiki, where we only add descriptors like (ST short story) after a naming conflict arises, not preemptively. – n8 (☎) 23:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's reasonable. I agree with Schreibenheimer. Time God Eon ☎ 18:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Im going back on my previous opinion; I believe we should use "(in-universe noun)" and that "individual" should be used for all individuals, not "actor" or anything. However, I am willing to have "(in-universe)" unless further disambiguation is required, if that is what the majority prefer. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 19:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

We are now very close to the timelimit given for temporary forum threads and so I am going to close this. The issue of undabbed in-universe counterparts has caught me out a few times and I spend hours a day on this site. I can't imagine how confusing it might be for a more casual user who is less familiar with our way of doing things. Therefore, I'm pleased that there is a strong consensus towards utilising "(in-universe)" as a dab term for in-universe counterparts of out-of-universe things and hence it is now policy that I will be formalising at Tardis:Disambiguating in-universe counterparts. Now unto the specifics:

Firstly, I will discuss how specific these dabs should be. Near the end of the thread, User:Schreibenheimer proposed the idea that pages should be dabbed with "(in-universe)" unless further disambiguation is required, in which case additional descriptors can be used. This received support from almost everyone who discussed it and feels to me most consistent with the wiki's current dabbing practises. Therefore, this is what we will go with. As this only began to be discussed later in the thread, it may be discussed further at Tardis talk:Disambiguating in-universe counterparts if desired and this would not constitute a breach of T:BOUND or T:POINT.

Secondly, this means that the broad disambiguation term of "(in-universe individual)" won't be necassary. If the above decision to only be specific when necassary is overturned, however, this should be prefered over "(in-universe actor)" and the like.

Thirdly, there is the issue of when to use these dabs. To me, the best course of action, where consensus seems to be pointing towards and, therefore, what we will go with is to dab in-universe things that are named after, or in-universe equivelants of, some out-of-universe thing. When the out-of-universe thing is instead named after the in-universe things, the in-universe thing can remain undabbed. However, I'd like to stress the importance of common sense and the fact that, above all, we should be thinking about how best to server our readers. There may be unforseen scenarios in which this ruling creates more confusion or fail to eliminate the confusion and, in those situations, the correct course of action should be to start up a specific discussion on the talk page.

In summary:

• Dab in-universe things with "(in-universe)" unless further disambiguation is required.
• In general, only dab in-universe things when they are named after an out-of-universe thing. In cases where the out-of-universe thing is named after the in-universe thing, don't dab the in-universe thing.
• In scenarios where these rules would create more confusion or would fail to eliminate the confusion, start up a talk page discussion.

I have not yet created Tardis:Disambiguating in-universe counterparts but will be doing so as soon as I have time over the next few days. It will contain all of the rulings made here with no changes. Bongo50 ☎ 20:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating the policy page took less time than expected and has now been done. Bongo50 ☎ 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)