Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS: Difference between revisions

Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS (view source)

Revision as of 14:24, 14 May 2023

5,480 bytes added , 14 May 2023

m

OncomingStorm12th moved page Forum:An update to T:VS to Forum:Temporary forums/An update to T:VS

OncomingStorm12th

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

81,877

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]][[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]][[Category:Temporary forums archives]]
+{{big toc}}
 == "Rule 4 by proxy": a necessary update to T:VS ==
@@ Line 74: / Line 75: @@
 ::I also want to applaud how smart it was to find a root commonality between a number of proposed threads and address the underlying issue rather than waiting for stories to be debated individually. This really saves time. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+::I wholeheartedly support this idea, and I'd like to congratulate Scrooge on coming up with one thread to validate a bunch of things, as well as making it future-proof [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I support this alteration, as it fixes a glaring issue in our rules that will only help the site function more realistically. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+:: I also support this idea. Most of what I'd say about it has already been said in "Comments and concerns" much more elegantly than I can, so I'm just gonna stick to saying that I support it. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 === Oppose ===
@@ Line 199: / Line 206: @@
 :: Absolutely — validation under any proposed form of Rule-4-by-proxy is not intended to close the door on further discussion of the actual facts at hand. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+I'm always a little put off by any discussions on here that use the phrase "''Doctor Who Universe''" or DWU, especially since I distinctly remember we agreed to abandon this practice in a conveniently unarchived forum from several years ago. As I said there, I can not justify how saying "Is this story set in THE Doctor Who universe?" is any different from saying "well, is this canon?"
+Personally, I don't really CARE if a story is set in ''THE'' Doctor Who universe. As long as it intends to be set in ''a'' Doctor Who Universe, I think it should be featured on the website. The distinction is beyond fuzzy since we now cover the ''Unbound'' series without question or hiccup, the same for ''The Infinity Doctors'' and ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. And we've always covered ''Spiral Scratch'' and ''Zagreus'', despite those stories making it quite blatant that there is no such thing as a single "Doctor Who Universe." And it looks rather silly in the modern era, where we have a valid page on [[She-Hulk]] but not [[Shalka]].
+So this is one reason I agree with this suggestion. It seems rather pedantic that we have to stand around and say "Well, this is a Doctor Who story, set in a Doctor Who universe. But -- is it THE Doctor Who universe? Is it set in the same universe as ''The Long Game'' and ''Boom Town''? If not, throw it in the fire. Because it's not can- errr. Not THE Doctor Who universe!" [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+It's been over a week now and it seems that a general consensus has formed in favour of this proposal. In fact, no-one is outright opposed. Therefore, in general, this proposal can be considered successful. However, there have been a few concerns that I will now address:
+Firstly, there is the issue of authorial intent as opposed to in-text information. In general, it is safe to assume that, if information presented within a source pulls another source into the DWU, that is sufficient for validity under rule 4 by proxy as presented by [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]]. While it is often possible to find quotes about the "DWU-ness" of a source as a whole, I feel that it is ''much'' less practical to expect to find quotes affirming the "DWU-ness" of separate stories that an author happened to reference. Such quotes would of course be ideal but it’s just not practical to make them an absolute requirement. However, when it exists, out-of-text information can still be used: in a case such as ''[[Storm in a Tikka (short story)|Storm in a Tikka]]'' where the proxy source is billed as a prequel/sequel to a currently invalid source outside of the actual source's text, that is sufficient for rule 4 by proxy to apply. On the other hand, if there are authorial quotes that clarify an in-text reference as not intending to pull a source into the DWU, rule 4 by proxy will fail. To put this into practise with the sources originally presented in the opening post, '''they are all now valid under this framework with the exception of ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'', ''[[Scream of the Shalka (novelisation)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' and ''[[The Feast of the Stone (short story)|The Feast of the Stone]]'''''. As much as having both [[Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)]] and [[Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)]] pains me, these sources will require further discussion in their own threads to be validated (either via this framework or another) due to the quotes found by [[User:Najawin|Najawin]].
+Secondly, as [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] brought up, any story validated now can have another debate later in order to change our wording and handling of these stories. That is completely fine.
+As a final note, I commend Scrooge for finding a shared root to these stories reasons for validity and utilising it in such a way to "clear out" a large number of the validity debates that have began to clog up the temporary forums' proposal list. These forums were designed to allow us to get through as many big and impactful threads as we can in as short a time as possible and this thread is a perfect example of that.
+I will make the necessary changes to [[T:VS]] but I'm going to leave the rewriting of articles that will follow from these validities to other editors. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
+</div>