Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
37,192
edits
mNo edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
(32 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]][[Category:Inclusion debates]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
==Opening post== | ==Opening post== | ||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
:So-called "fiction modules", however, I think should be invalid by default, but encouraged to have inclusion debates. | :So-called "fiction modules", however, I think should be invalid by default, but encouraged to have inclusion debates. | ||
:Finally, I think that, as you said OS25, if we decide to keep "fiction modules" invalid, we should still decide how to cover them (but perhaps in another thread?). [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | :Finally, I think that, as you said OS25, if we decide to keep "fiction modules" invalid, we should still decide how to cover them (but perhaps in another thread?). [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: I just want to comment quickly on the use of AI to create trees from a purely technical perspective. I am immensely doubtful that it would work. The {{tlx|tree}} syntax isn't like a regular, well-known programming language. There are no GitHub projects using it, no online tutorials, no StackOverflow examples. All there really is available is a few examples and the source wikitext of any pages using it (and I am highly doubtful that ChatGPT has this source wikitext in its training data). Add to this that the syntax used for trees actually varies between wikis with similar templates and the chance of success seems immensely small to me. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: Firstly I would like to say a huge thank you to OS25 for the extensive opening post and all the work that has gone into this proposal! This is something I've long awaited and OS25 has covered all bases better than I ever could. Thank you also to Poseidome for the branching segment trees, and to Bongo50 for the collapsible citations which should be very useful and I look forward to seeing wiki-wide. | |||
::: Over the last 20 years, we have seen huge advances in interactive fiction, whether that be games, VR experiences or immersive events. Directly as a result of our policy on branching narratives, we have ruled pretty much all of it invalid. The fact is that interactive fiction is built on branching narratives; that's what makes it interactive, and ruling all of it out - especially as we are seeing more and more interactive content - is actively harming the wiki as a whole. Furthermore, the ''Doctor Who'' franchise is built on branching narratives and alternate timelines. [[Ace]] is full of contradictions, "one source said" this and "another source stated" that. There are whole wikis dedicated to video games, so it really shouldn't be an issue and if there are any sticking points then we can perhaps look into the precedents of other wikis. Besides, branching narratives is one thing, but the rule has come to encompass everything from branching dialogue options to camera changes which really shouldn't be the case. | |||
::: It seems to me that, as Epsilon states above, most of these title have been invalidated simply because "it's too much work". That shouldn't be the case. Even if there's a lot of work involved, and even if this remains work in progress for some time, we should still validate. As OS25 states, "You" being the main character should no longer be an issue. We simply go by what is stated in narrative. If the source states that they are a human, that is exactly what we put. Nothing from outside of the narrative should come into this. I personally see [[Human (Attack of the Graske)]] and [[Companion (Worlds in Time)]] as identities rather than specific individuals. I'll now go through my thoughts on each title in the order raised by OS25: | |||
::: I see no issue with ''Attack of the Graske'' and using the terms good ending and bad ending in citations seems clear enough. ''Doctor Who: Infinity'' also seems an open and shut case. It should really already be valid and it's an example of how badly video games have been treated by this wiki. I also don't see any issue with ''The Saviour of Time''. Seems a case of branching dialogue options where we probably won't need to go into too much detail anyway. With ''Doctor Who and the Warlord'', I agree that the 100% route should be the version that happened for real. That shouldn't exclude information from alternate endings, but they should be treated more as alternate timelines. | |||
::: I never played ''Worlds in Time'', but I feel your pain in this wiki's refusal to cover it. I agree that it should be covered as valid. If there's specific species set by the developers in the character creation feature, we could perhaps say that "Accounts differed as to whether the companion was a human, Silurian, Catkind or Tree of Cheem". You say it was broken down into episodes or levels; could we perhaps cite by episode, level or mission in order for further clarity? As I say, I never played it, and it may be too much has been lost to even cover it in such a way. As a result of ''Worlds in Time'', I think that even if something fails to be validated by the end of this discussion, we should prominently allow the creation of invalid pages covering branching narratives and their components. | |||
::: ''The Runaway'' and ''The Edge of Time'' should be valid. ''The Edge of Reality'' should also be valid imo as it is basically just another interpretation of The Edge of Time, similar to how we consider novelisations valid. | |||
::: I also see no issue with ''The Lonely Assassins''. The branching is merely in the dialogue, not the narrative, and - as OS25 states - the secret ending does not contradict the main ending. Variations in dialogue are a feature used in many interactive forms of media. To invalidate variable dialogue and such-like just seems petty, as we rarely go into that much detail on the wiki anyway. Furthermore, the game plays out pretty much the same no matter which dialogue options you choose anyway. You may unlock an extra cutscene, but I wouldn't call it a branching narrative. | |||
::: Regarding the ''Find Your Fate'' and ''Decide Your Destiny'' books, I have no real experience of those. Never the less, I would like to see them validated, even if there will be a lot of work involved. To me, it's better to have them as a work in progress, than to leave them invalid. | |||
::: I don't really have any experience of fiction modules either so I'll leave those for others to discuss. Thanks again to OS25 and all who have contributed to this. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: As promised, I've added support to {{tlx|cite source}} to cite "paragraphs", "outcomes", "pages" and more generic "endings". I've also added a freeform option to produce citations like "([[GAME]]: {{cite source|Attack of the Graske (video game)|path="good" ending}})". [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
(As stated, said comment was a largely tongue in cheek joke. We'd have to give it our specific tree syntax and then tell it to use that to generate a specific tree that lines up with a specific image. This isn't in principle something a LLM can't do - I believe it's done ''somewhat'' similar where you insist that it approach problems from particular perspectives or incorporate specific words in its prompts. But the specific nuances of this related to something that would effectively not be in its training data at all, yeah, not sure how that would work. For instance, maybe RtD has data you've trained on, and maybe Star Wars has data you've trained on, but that doesn't mean that there's RtD writing Star Wars data that you've trained on. In this instance it's not immediately clear that it's even trained on the tree syntax. Depends a lot on the specific AI and the specific prompt how well it would react to the new information. Given that it was, again, a joke, and I'm not an AI evangelist, unlike some of my friends, and haven't even used any version of GPT, I couldn't tell you.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Okay, so I just Wikified (and sadly invalidated) ''[[Mix Her Own Adventure (short story)|Mix Her Own Adventure]]'' to get some experience on editing CYOA stories, and I have found another question. | |||
: Firstly, some CYOA stories have consistent backstories when others don't; so I am specifically referring to those ''with'' consistent backstories across branches. When we have a specific branch, we Wikify it as "according to one variation of a source" or similar, but do we necessarily have to do that for backstory that is intended to be consistent between branches? So for example, in one branch of ''MHOA'', the [[bartender (Mix Her Own Adventure)|bartender]] remembers that they never asked [[Anne Rutimeyer]] to a school dance. While the specific recollection of Anne is only in one branch of the story, I don't get the impression that the character ''exclusively only exists in that branch''. So we can Wikify characters like her in the same way we'd Wikify a character from any story, and then just for the specific bit of the article that has a connection to one branch, we say the whole "according to one variation of a source" phrasing? {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 17:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Well in my opinion, it should really be a case-by-case thing. In ''The Time Crocodile'', it's undeniable that most of the lore changes depending on how you experience the book. But most stories like this, from my experience, aim to have a more internally consistent universe, to the point that you're meant to explore the different endings to fully understand the lore of the story. | |||
:: So unless ''Mix Her Own Adventure'' has any purposefully inconsistent elements, I'd say you would cover Anne Rutimeyer as always being in the bartender's origin. Speaking of more obscure branching stories, I would love to know if anyone here has read ''[[You are the Absurd Hero (short story)|You are the Absurd Hero]]''. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Like many others above me, I'd like to commend OS25 on the lengthy post that I had the privilege of seeing earlier in the sandbox. This has been a topic VERY dear to me, as there are so many sources over my time as editor that I've found very unfairly stricken down for no real good reason, in my opinion, and back when I'd voice complaints about it, I was too inexperienced to really argue them well enough. OS25's post is the post I ''wish'' I could've written, because it summises everything so well. | |||
The wiki is so damn inconsistent, justifying [[You Are the Doctor (audio story)|branching narratives because it gives an in-universe reason]] but not the ones that don't because...? If we did it one way, we can another, no? With very little legwork? People talk about how complicated it'd be but I highly disagree. Or how about how [[Don't Blink (video game)|some games can be valid with "you" as the protagonist]] just by making a [[Human (Don't Blink)|human character]] but or [[Companion (The First Adventure)|companion character]] but can't other times because...? I will never understand how ''[[The Edge of Reality (video game)|The Edge of Reality]]'' isn't linear (and probably ''[[The Edge of Time (video game)|The Edge of Time]]'' but I haven't played it) and if "you" are the companion is the problem why not just make a [[Companion (The Edge of Time)]] page? | |||
I don't even want to talk about ''[[Infinity (video game)|Infinity]]'' because there's no way it should be invalidated at all. Not a single good reason besides the fact some people don't want to include video games, though some are fine. Like... those that enjoy these can edit the pages, it's cool. | |||
Board/physical games are... not my forte. So I don't feel comfortable commenting on them. That being said with all the video games and DYD type books, unwavering '''support''' for the validity of them and, assuming it goes through, I can't wait to experience them all for the purposes of wiki coverage! Thanks again OS! [[User:StevieGLiverpool|StevieGLiverpool]] [[User talk:StevieGLiverpool|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I mean, I read ''[[You are the Absurd Hero (short story)|You are the Absurd Hero]]''. I even tried to do a {{tlx|tree}} for it - and gave up, because it was awful and kept changing. Anything you're looking for in particular here OS25? First and foremost there's an in-universe justification for the entire thing so arguably it's valid already under the [[Flip-Flop (audio story)|Flip-Flop]] precedent. But I'm not entirely sure how helpful I can be as there's some inconsistencies in the story, and I'm not sure if this is just a flaw with my ebook copy or if this is an issue with the physical release as well, someone please inform me, two of the markers it refers to and tells you to go to (1ABBAA, 1ABBABAB) don't exist, and there are two sections that are unmarked but don't make sense as referents to these markers - they only make sense if they're unlabeled sections that you can't access by a normal transversal of the story. (EG, the previous section says "Oh well. Time to die." and tells you to go to a different section, but if you keep reading part of the text in the next section says "but you refuse to die. Is that all it takes? Sheer bloody-mindedness to keep going?") There's yet another section that you can't access by regular transversal that's a reference to the cracks in time from S5, acting as a crack in the story. | |||
:I ''suspect'' that all of these things are present in the physical copy as well and they were the author's intent, but someone would have to verify them. (Indeed, the only one I have any doubts on is 1ABBAA. I'm pretty sure from context that the rest are correct.) | |||
:It's a branching path story that intentionally disobeys the normal rules of branching path stories, but I'm not sure that it causes problems for anything floated here. Maybe the crack in the story means that your proposed approach to covering story summaries is slightly less viable, but I wasn't thrilled with it in the first place, and I don't think it will move the needle a ton for people on either side of the issue. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I've managed to confirm that the physical copy ''should'' actually have page numbers, instead of the 1ABBAA, 1ABBABAB stuff. Sounds like the eBook just had some kind of copy editing errors likely caused by the format. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 03:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::So that's another nuance to work out in how to write up summaries - the difference between markers for ebooks and physical releases (ignoring errors in copyediting). For context, [https://i.imgur.com/HgXKvZ1.png this] is the layout I found in the ebook. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: I've been able to figure out that the print version and thus the "final draft" doesn't have the two bad-links to non-existing markers. Apparently they were cut for the print release but an oversight saw them in the eBook still. Otherwise all the markers are the same. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 07:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Huh. That's a fun little nuance! Probably should be discussed at the talk page, unless we want to discuss the more general phenomena of when ebook CYA books and physical CYA books differ, but this is a mistake apparently, so not clearly applicable. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: The template is probably still too complciated to use but, for what it's worth, I've imported {{tlx|Familytree}} over from the [[w:c:Avatar|Avatar Wiki]]. Unlike what I had thought, it has a different syntax to {{tlx|tree}} but it does work on mobile and will be much easier to work with and expand in the future. There are a few styling changes to make, but it is pretty much functional. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Happy to see my graphs so well received! Yeah, I absolutely agree that the way the wiki covers games can be improved. | |||
I think the CYOA-books should be the easiest to cover on the wiki: The text is fixed, what's there is there, nothing to be debated about. Having constructed a couple of flowcharts now for the CYOA-books I feel the best way to do the actual coverage is to focus on the longest possible route first and make that description act as a sort of spine that the remaining summary can be built around. It makes sense with the more linear books from the 80s because that approach already covers 90% there is, from the beginning to the proper intended ending, but it also makes sense for the more modern books where one endings isn't necessarily better than another. Having looked through Terror Moon quite a lot now, many of the endings you can encounter at earlier points aren't necessarily "bad": the villain is always defeated, but they are deliberately anti-climaxes. One ending for example happens at the very start, a monster tries to take over the Doctor's mind and the Doctor simply overpowers it, the story is over before it even began. Another early ending is one where UNIT just shoots the monster. Tension falls very very suddenly, and you are robbed of the proper final confrontation that the story is clearly trying to lead up to. [https://i.imgur.com/0aW711J.png Here] is Terror Moon with one of the three longest routes marked in bold black (the route to the arguably intended final ending). Gray is everything that splits off from black but rejoins it later, and rainbow is everything that leads to different endings altogether. After one's done the longest possible route one could summarize the second longest route that lead to the same ending, then the third longest route leading to the same ending, until nothing's left, and then one can cover the alternate endings and the routes leading up to them. [https://i.imgur.com/aFCJUXy.png Here's] the graph from before, but the longest and second longest gray-routes quickly marked out. You can instantly see how this already covers most of what there is. And as OS25 has said, different routes can simply be differentiated via account language. This all isn't to say one route is better or more valid than another one, the order I'm suggesting here is purely for structural reasons. | |||
The You-Factor in these gamebooks really shouldn't be a problem. These are books written in 2nd person about an unnamed character, but that character is firmly part of the whoniverse, not literally you the reader. They're more akin to avatars or player characters. As OS25 has pointed out, in Search for the Doctor You are a part of this fictional society in the future, a descendant of people Sarah Jane was friends with. You have parents, a home, and dreams for the future. In Time Crocodile and War of the Robot You are just a normal person who saw the mysterious police box and walked in out of curiosity, not unlike certain classic-companions. In Claws of Macra You are a kid who's on a school trip to an oil factory where the Doctor happens to be at, etc. These are very different situations to the fourth-wall-breaking-stories we are usually sceptical about where the Doctor directly addresses the kids in front of the television. Big exception might be Race Against Time, which really ought to have a separate validity-debate (though I'd generally be in favour). | |||
Video Games are a little trickier, but nothing to be worried about. Mushy Middles really shouldn't be much of a problem in my opinion, every game works on mechanics and specific events causing progress. Taking City of the Daleks as an example (I know we already cover it as valid, which just proves my point): the Doctor and Amy arrive in a city controlled by the Daleks, a rebel attacks the Daleks and flees into the underground. The Doctor wants to follow, but Daleks are patroling. He gets through them via sneaking. The entrance to the underground is boarded off, so the Doctor drives a car through it. We can pinpoint exactly what must be done to progress the story and reach its proper conclusion, so we can exactly say what's at least the minimum of what must have happened, without having to worry about the possible playthroughs where the Doctor walks in circles for a few hours. From lock to key to lock to key. Designers of adventure games have taken to using [https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/puzzle-dependency-graph-primer Puzzle Dependency Charts] to visualize this process, but they can be used for pretty much any game that has any kind of progress or story-element to it. [https://i.imgur.com/xQnUVQi.png Here's] what a chart would look like for the first five minutes of City of the Daleks. If we again take the describe-the-route-with-the-most-story-content-first-approach then we'd describe the steps of clearing the game 100% first + doing all possible sidequests, and then we'd go "according to another telling the Doctor just did a fraction of that". Maybe even a "according to a series of other accounts, the Doctor did the same but in a different tempo/order" if we really want to be obtuse. | |||
What this approach doesn't include are customization options that don't have an immediate effect on story-progression, but I think you have already described a good way of covering that at your Worlds in Time section, OS25. | |||
Treating deaths as alternate endings is definitely.. let's say in the realm of possibility. I agree that this is something the wiki shouldn't have to do, especially when there is no further narrative derived from it, but if we want to it should be as simple as adding "For each of these deadly situations there is at least one telling where the Doctor succumbed and died" at the end of each description or something like that. I think it definitely makes sense to treat gameplay and story as separate to a certain degree. For example the adventure games include collectible info-cards all over the maps about the Doctor and characters he has met, I don't think we treat this or should treat this as valid, right? Incidently, I disagree with your assertion that the regenerations in Rebels Gamble are purely gameplay-mechanics. There are only a handful of very specific situations in which regeneration can take place, and in the text they're not really treated as any different to other decisions and in-universe-actions you can take. Here is one as an example: | |||
{{simplequote|I was alive. The awareness of that fact was long in coming, but consciousness of | |||
light and sound gradually returned. I saw Harry’s face above me... and Peri’s. Dr. | |||
Jenner was staring wide-eyed, not believing his senses as he watched a Time | |||
Lord’s regeneration close at hand. | |||
“I told you he was alive,” Peri was saying. | |||
“I never would have believed it,” Jenner said. | |||
“What happened to Marshall?” I asked, sitting up slowly. A little unsteadily, my | |||
hands explored my face. Yes ... same noble brow... same curly hair. The nose... yes, | |||
I was still me—the current me, I mean. I had managed to control my regeneration | |||
enough to retain my physiognomy. I had not changed. | |||
“What about Marshall?” I asked again. | |||
Peri looked uncertain. “We... we’re not sure. We carried you back here to the | |||
TARDIS after he shot you. The last we saw, he was still in that field looking for | |||
those orders.”|}} | |||
this is as narrative as it can get in my opinion, and the Doctor's short blackout even has consequences for the story. | |||
Tabletop RPGs sound tricky because of the freedom players have, but when actually looking at adventure modules one will see that they all of them are stories that are meant to lead to one relatively specific path and one specific conclusion, and includes various ways to nudge players onto that path. From the adventure modules I've read so far (Arrowdown, Einstein Engine, Doom of the Daleks and a few other) they present more the illusion of choice, let's put it like that. The modules often address the act of playing and tv-episodes by name, but we have to remember that we are covering games and not prose here, and during actual gameplay you are never supposed to actually read these. The Game Master is supposed to absorb the information and then relay it at appropriate moments via in-universe-devices during gameplay-session. Declaring modules invalid because of that is the equivalent of decompiling a video game, treating that code as prose and then pointing at the developer-notes that you are never actually meant to see during gameplay. There are a lot of instances where they suggest changing rules and information for personal use, but I don't think that needs to be regarded for the wiki. The games are carefully designed and balanced around what is actually printed here. You can add houserules to Monopoly, but that doesn't make the original rules to Monopoly disappear, know what I mean? Since its first edition DnD has always said disregard the rules if they get in the way, but the rules are still so precise and concise that players can even take part in official tournaments where their performance is objectively judged. | |||
The Sourcebooks full of in-univere-information are similar. the Paternoster sourcebook features a pre-made adventure (A Study in Flax), and separate from that a whole array of worldbuilding. Not only does the book describe London and the various locations you can visit, it includes a whole network of new and old character who all connect to each other in some way. There is a single Dalek who survived the events of Evil and has drifted off into organized crime, a single Silent living in a church and trying his best to fulfill his priest-duties, another victorian Clara-splinter who works for Torchwood and is their most ruthless agent, etc. A bit of this comes up in the adventure module, but not everything. The adventure is very much written with knowledge of this background-story, in the context of these characters relating to one another and existing side by side. However, this specific Sourcebook also offers suggestions for campaigns, which is separate from the lore they built up. For example, in a completely separate segment they SUGGEST on how to include Jackson Lake in this world, either by mudding up the dates unit-style (Next Doctors occurs 40 years before The Snowmen after all), making Lake instrumental in the creation of a paternoster-predecessor-group, or focusing on his son who would now be middle-aged and might act on his own. And as much as I like these suggestions I don't think these bits of information should be valid. Best approach would really be to do a separate discussion for RPGs and RPG-lore after we have gotten a proper conclusion here. | |||
Boardgames, or rather player-versus-player-games in general, are what I'm the least familiar with, and really might need a thread all on their own. There are so many of them, I don't want to judge just yet. They also seem to be the most diverse kind of games, with releases like The Time Wars, Time of the Daleks to even something like Cluedo Doctor Who edition. | |||
Anyway my concluding words: good thread, many good points, branching path should not have an influence on what the wiki consider valid because we already have a way of dealing with that via our account-language.[[User:Poseidome|Poseidome]] [[User talk:Poseidome|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I think that branching narratives in general should be valid unless there's some other reason for them to be invalid - this is a wiki centred around [[Doctor Who|a ''sci-fi series primarily focused on time travel'']]. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Cheers, Poseidome, for the charts and the response above! Your RPG "developer notes" comparison unclogged something that had been holding me back from weighing in on this proposal. I can now support the validity of all parts, including individual RPG adventure modules, which – if their validity is not to be resolved in this particular thread – should at minimum be covered as invalid short stories. The various releases discussed in this thread amount to a veritable wealth of fictional content, including original stories by [[Gary Russell]] and [[Scott Handcock]], which have gone totally neglected on this wiki. Whatever we decide, either way I absolutely insist that your charts be included in the Notes sections of the relevant books! | |||
:: My only comment is that I'm a bit concerned by the, ehrm, ''playability'' of [[Search for the Doctor (novel)]]. We have to walk the line between summarising content and actively duplicating it, and it seems to me that our plot summary there is verging on replacing the gamebook for the user. My modest suggestion is that, in cases where Y is the only next step from entry X, and no other entries link to Y – for example, ''Search for the Doctor'' entries 7/9 and 32/33 – we summarize those entries in a single section. For linking purposes, we could use {{tlx|anchor}} to make sure that links still connect to the right sections. This kind of situation occurs rarely in well-crafted CYOAs, but it would still go some way to ensuring that we're not totally duplicating the structure of the book. A bolder approach would have us also summarize one-entry "dead-ends" (specifically, those which are only reached from one other entry) as part of the entry which links to them. See [[User:NateBumber/Sandbox/2]] for a demonstration of how this might look, combining six "markers" of ''Search for the Doctor'' into two sections without (in my opinion) sacrificing any readability. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 22:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Very good analysis Poseidome, my only note is that while we could use "according to" language for stories like ''City of the Daleks'', it should really be a situation where less is more. I think even saying "According to some tellings, the Doctor could have died at many points of this adventure" for something like a video game using ''check points'' is just not needed. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I would like to note that I have just posted [[Forum:Cite source, a new citation template]]. If anyone is interested in this template's utility for citing multipath stories, please feel free to come and discuss it in this thread. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Okay, first off, wonderful OP, exactly the sort of thing that is very good at convincing me. Anyway, I think just about everything that's listed here should be valid. Though I would hold off on validating modules until a later discussion takes place. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] | |||
: the points made in the opening post represent how I feel. The only one I believe which should be invalid however is the FASA source books as they are out of universe. I think the experimental sourcing method will be the ideal way to source all these when it is rolled out your suggestion on a temporary fix is whilst not ideal the best option we have. And you know what I think I may try and find a copy of those old FASA single play adventures as they sound wild. One final not I think we should definitely expand our coverage of this old find your fate novels as they are definitely an important part of EU evolution being. Some of the earliest original Prose based narratives, as at the time most novels were adaptions of TV stroies. I think it is important to fully cover these for historical purposes as well as wiki purposes.[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
So as of me writing this, we are now about three days past the 30 day mark, which is where most forums would be wrapped up. Obviously we've agreed upon extra time here - but I'd like to question how much time. In the original OP, I recommended twice the regular time, but I'm starting to think that there's no need to go that extreme. I'm thinking six weeks in full would probably be fine at the end of the day. | |||
To those who disagree, I must honestly ask - what is left to discuss? What have we not gone over? What discussions would we have from the 15th to the 31st that we won't have had by the 15th? It's just very obvious to me that the forum has been dead for several weeks because we've all clearly said our pieces. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 13:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I've just bought a physical copy of ''[[The Edge of Reality (video game)|The Edge of Reality]]'', and as I'm nearing the end, it does really baffle me that the game is invalid. There are no branching elements, and the closest thing to that is that you can die, which is clearly a gameplay element. Perhaps one minute issue (and I do mean minute) is that in the Deluxe Edition, you can change the gloves and the sonic screwdriver that the companion uses. While there are no cutscenes in this game to make it clear what is gameplay and what isn't, I do feel like this bit of customisability is a gameplay feature as in-universe, you are only given Thirteen's sonic, and when you close down the game and reopen it from the home menu, whatever sonic you chose is reset to Thirteen's. | |||
: The very fact that a game like ''Edge of Reality'' is called a multi-path narrative when it is so linear, with little to no exploration and a convenient Artificial Intelligence to guide you if you get stuck even for a minute, is a fundamental misunderstanding of videos games. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 14:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Finished the game, and I've two things of note: first, the Nintendo Switch version appears to have different colour grading to the Xbox/PlayStation/Steam versions, which isn't really anything to do with validity TBH; secondly, at the end, you are given a "choice" (won't say what for spoiler reasons but you'll know if you've played it)... where you actually cannot choose, you can only do the one path. This is the point in other games where you likely could have multiple endings but this game is so linear you literally cannot choose to go down another path even when "presented" with the option. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: Just completed ''[[The Lonely Assassins (video game)|The Lonely Assassins]]'' and I feel that, while there is definitely more branching elements (mostly just differing dialogue options, although there is a bit where you can fail at a mission so Osgood helps you out as well as there being two endings, although this is more like an incomplete ending and full ending, depending if you complete a side-mission) none of these elements pose a problem under the outlines for coverage @[[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] proposed, so no thorns here! | |||
::: <s>As a side note [[Anthony Williams]] is pretty much 100% complete now which makes me happy.</s> {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Today is, I believe, the final day of the forum. I wanted to quickly thank everyone for an amazing debate and for humoring me so. I've missed discussions like these for the past few years. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for such a brilliant OP! There really is no reason why we shouldn't cover something like [[Night of the Kraken (novel)|Night of the Kraken]], and I'm glad that we can now (hopefully!) rectify this. :) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
=== Introduction === | |||
==== The elephant in the room ==== | |||
The sheer magnitude of this thread is hard to overstate, both in terms of scope ''and'' of sheer size. [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s opening post was one for the ages, making the very thought of writing a fitting closing post daunting even ''before'' the community rose to the challenge and discussed the proposal's ins and outs at great lengths. I'm sorry to begin this closing post with comments on form rather than content, but, if you'll forgive the expression, one must address ''the elephant in the room''. | |||
When an opening post rises to the level of intimidating the admins who are supposed to close it — and of clever hacks being necessary to allow editors to ''successfully load the page editor in their browser'' — one might worry that there is a problem. Certainly I wouldn't want to have to deal with too many threads like this in the future. But here is the thing: there ''was'' a big problem. The problem was that we, as a Wiki, systematically failed in our coverage of an area of licensed DWU fiction. ([[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1|Again.]]) | |||
==== Why we're validating this stuff ==== | |||
In a way, this proposal spent its entire sandbox-gestation, and lifetime within the actual Forum: namespace, becoming less of a radical policy proposal and more of a "so ''how'' do we do this, given that we clearly need to". The diktat against branching fiction and video games died not in one fell swoop but of a thousand papercuts: the long-overdue rethinking of Rule 1 and the dismissal of the idea that a second-person "POV character" is the same thing as fanfic or a fourth-wall-break, already dismissed two of the main arguments against sources of this type. Practicality remained, and while high-minded statements in recent closing posts of my own devising put paid to any notion that such culpable institutional ‘easy outs’ would ever be tolerated again, the honour of introducing a ''practical'' solution — {{tlx|Cite source}} — rests firmly with [[User:Bongolium500]]. | |||
So, then: I shan't bore you with extensive restatements of ''why'' we must do this. If you read through this whole thread and do not understand why we need to do this, you may be beyond help. Early on, [[User:Najawin]] quoted a claim from [[User:Shambala108|another admin]] that "Sometimes [admins] have to vote against something [being valid] because including it isn't worth the trouble it could/will cause", but, uhm… the fact that [[User_talk:NateBumber/Archive_3#Re:_10000|the context]] was a restatement of the invalidity of ''[[The Outer Universe Collection]]'' — one of the most shameful and infamous miscarriages of justice in the Wiki's recent policy-making history! — should be something of a deterrent, though of course I'm sure many other citations could be found. | |||
I have said it before and I will say it again with the full force of policy behind me, '''ruling something to be out of bounds because covering it ''sounds difficult'' should never ever ever fly again'''. It's irresponsible; I'd even say it's unethical. And perhaps it wasn't fifteen years ago, but we've grown, since then. We are more exhaustive and more respected than we were then. More serious, perhaps. And what that means is that '''there's nobody to pick up our slack, because we cover so many other things that we take up all the oxygen'''. If we then shrink from one particular task which by all rights ''should'' be within our remit, and then try and justify ourselves with "it's hard, and we're not getting paid for this, it's our site, leave us alone"… well, then we're a little like a volunteer fire-brigade who fulfill 99.5% of our expected duties, but have decided that ''one'' particular house can be left to burn for all we care. I do not think the inhabitants of that house would be very convinced by the "hey, we're only volunteers, and we've decided that we protect every other part of this city block, but not you; which is our right. Free country". | |||
Hyperbole? Well, perhaps a little bit, but not ''that'' much. Our recklessness in this matter seems to have led to ''actual information becoming irretrievably lost'' because we did not preserve it in time. Substitute the burning house for a burning library, and it's a difference of degree, but ''not'' of kind. | |||
Alright, so that's coverage. Why validity? Well, why ''not'' validity? Rule 4 has never been seriously doubted for most of these ''except'' in terms of variability. Practicality, as OttselSpy25 and Najawin's historical reviews largely corroborated, was the key sticking point; they were non-valid because we didn't, and ostensibly "couldn't", cover them properly. Now that we have found a way, we are free to examine them by the ''normal'' Four Little Rules, and inevitably find that the vast majority of them can and should be covered ''as valid''. | |||
=== Role-playing games and modules === | |||
The main area where, even with this thread's extended lifespan, some people felt that further discussion would be needed, was unsurprisingly with the more freeform games that are role-playing and/or table-top games. As per [[User:Bongolium500]] and several others' opinion, '''a broader thread on how to cover "non-narrative" RPGs should be held at a later date'''. In the meantime, we should boost {{tlx|invalid}} coverage of such material as the various generic ''Doctor Who'' Role-Playing Games — from FASA to NuWho — or ''[[Battle for the Universe (game)|Battle for the Universe]]'', but refrain from validation. | |||
I do not, however, accept the same as regards fiction modules, ''contra'' the wishes of a few participants in this discussion. True, something like ''[[The lytean Menace (game)|The lytean Menace]]'' is a very different animal from a CYOA game. What it is actually like is ''a video game''. The more I looked into them, the clearer it became that the FASA fiction modules are nothing more or less than "analog video games", relying on the GM and one's own visual imagination to act as a game engine and convert the plain-language "code", including the plot synopsis, into a fully-realised interactive gaming experience. Yes, the Plot Synopsis talks about how "this adventure" goes and who "the characters" are, but it's a mistake to try and treat it as ''a piece of prose'', because it's not — it's part of the make-up of a [[GAME]]. The OOU flourishes are of no more concern than a video game's opening tutorial explaing "your player character is the Sontaran warrior Thurg; his backstory is XYZ; you can control his actions by pressing such-and-such buttons…". | |||
(The resemblance to old-school, printed video-game manuals is also startling, and there is longstanding precedent relating, among others, to ''[[Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror (video game)|Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror]]'' for considering such things to be valid as extensions of the video game itself.) | |||
So yes, in a very real sense, [[User:OttselSpy25]] was on the right track in suggesting that… | |||
{{quote|(…) we are actually covering the fiction produced during gameplay rather than the module itself. It's simply convenient that the modules in these cases tend to give a very detailed description of the unified portions of every single campaign. So we'd be covering said campaigns under the "shared elements" logic used when creating [[Human (Attack of the Graske)]] and [[Companion (Worlds in Time)]] etc.|[[User:OttselSpy25]]}} | |||
I think the difference relative to off-hand quotes from screenwriters is very clear. Something like ''[[The Legions of Death (game)|The Legions of Death]]'' has a ''title'' and everything; it's a complete book, which allows you to experience a ''Doctor Who'' adventure (just by playing it instead of reading it — just as a video game requires you to play it instead of just watching it unfold!). It's trivially ''a work of fiction'' in a way that an off-hand quote simply isn't. Whether it's a ''complete work of fiction'' is a somewhat more subtle point, I will grant [[User:Najawin]] that much. But I do think an unplayed, raw module is ''as much'' a complete work of fiction as an unplayed, raw video game. Both are in a certain sense abstractions; you have to play them and add your own input to truly experience the adventure as intended. But if we can separate the story content from the infinitely-changeable gameplay in ''one'' case, we can do it in the other. The Plot Synopsis as written may not pass Rule 1 — but the ''overall book'' does. | |||
This, again, does not apply to the main ''[[The Doctor Who Role Playing Game]]'' book, nor the more recent efforts discussed by e.g. [[User:Poseidome]]. Lacking a single throughline or bespoke story-title, how to approach them is significantly harder to intuit, and we need to have a thread seriously examining their "whole work" credentials and forming a robust ''theory of coverage''. | |||
=== Practicalities === | |||
I keep trying to restate what I'm ruling in favour of, and finding myself just wanting to quote wholesale from [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s opening post, whether for justifications or statements of policy themselves. I don't know what this is a sign of, but it surely means ''something''. Either way, it was getting silly, so I won't bother. Please just reread the opening post in detail, and assume that '''its detailed theory of coverage is broadly endorsed unless I state otherwise below'''. One major point is of course that coverage of possible paths should now be done via {{tlx|cite source}}, since it [[Forum:Cite source, a new citation template|is now live in the main name-space]] — not through the various inferior solutions Ottsel suggested in the meantime, which have become moot. | |||
But perhaps, after all these mammoth discussions, a bullet-point summary of major points might be helpful. So, aiming more for skeleton than exhaustiveness, the changes to policy: | |||
* The Wiki should henceforth strive to cover licensed DWU video games, branching novels, role-playing games, and all other interactive or branching fiction of either of the types outlined by Ottsel ("interactive fiction" and "fiction modules"). | |||
** Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, absent other reasons for invalidity under [[T:VS]], these sources should be considered valid. | |||
* Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which ''may or may not play'' depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment. In a role-playing-game module, the character biographies or worldbuilding background is valid, and, if one is provided, the summary of the overall plot; but any details which a game-master might make up during a particular playthrough is obviously beyond our remit. | |||
* {{tlx|Cite source}} can be used to give precise citation for elements which might vary between playthroughs, or derive from ancillary material e.g. a game manual. In the case of CYOA books which do not give a specific name (e.g. "paragraphs") to their segments, but do not use page-numbers, we should default to the term "marker", e.g. "''Marker 1''". | |||
* Many games have unserious "game over" animations, like Amy regenerating, or other game mechanics dressed up as fictional content in an ostentatiously illogical way. These are not valid, any more than massive letters spelling "INTRODUCING JOHN HURT" appearing in [[the Doctor's time stream]] is a valid fact citable to ''[[The Name of the Doctor (TV story)|The Name of the Doctor]]''; for the same reason it does not impinge on whether the source otherwise constitutes a "complete work of DWU fiction" as per Rule 1 and Rule 4. | |||
* Distinct from the above, although ''Choose-Your-Own-Adventure''-type novels (for example) typically have a clear "intended path", they also have possible alternate endings which should also be covered as valid, in-universe events. However, these should be phrased in terms of "alternative possibilities" or the like (with specific wording liable to be tailored to the wording used in the source itself, e.g. "in a timeline which was then rewound…"). | |||
* Unnamed player-characters should be covered as [[Companion (Video Game Name)]] or other such neutral names. | |||
* CYOA novels and the like, being largely marketed as novel lines, should for the time being be kept as "(novel)"s. In contrast, being essentially "print video games", fiction-modules should use the dab term "(game)", as other printed games such as Annual games already do. | |||
I will additionally endorse [[User:Bongolium500]]'s note regarding future debates: | |||
{{quote|. While there is currently a decent backlog of these sources to get through, once this backlog is cleared, new multi-path/"multi-path" sources don't release that often so debating them when that happens should be fine. Specifically regarding any future sources that would warrant a discussion under this, I feel that the editor creating the page should use their best judgement to look at similar cases and decide whether the source should start out as valid or invalid. If people disagree on this judgement, only then should a debate be started.|User:Bongolium500}} | |||
As regards plot summaries, it seems a technical solution has been generally agreed upon. I think it may need iterating upon, but it is not clear that we can get anywhere in particular without knowing what sorts of issues actually crop up. [[User:NateBumber|n8]]'s concern about not being so granular that our summary becomes playable in itself is well-taken, and we should not necessarily strive to represent every minor choice and every strand of possibility, just the main possible plot developments. | |||
As regards trees/graphs, they're a very exciting possibility but the coding doesn't seem up to scratch yet. They shouldn't be implemented in the main namespace for now, but people are welcome to iron out the kinks and present a more worked-out practical proposal as its own thread later; I do not rule against the principle but against the state-of-the-art prototypes currently available. | |||
=== Other matters === | |||
In addition to the above points, ''[[LEGO Dimensions (video game)|LEGO Dimensions]]'' should not see its coverage altered as yet. Its structure brings up several problematic points in terms of Rule 1 and how ''much'' of it we ought to cover; and although the "interactive" aspect, which was the eventual grounds for invalidation under Rule 4, has become moot, there is worth in hashing it out once again given the new evidence, in both directions, which has arisen since those days with regards to the LEGO universes' diegetic status relative to the likes of the "real", live-action [[N-Space]]. | |||
=== Final thoughts === | |||
I'm honestly pretty drained now, so I'll be even briefer than I often am. But once again, thank you to everyone who participated. This closing post isn't exactly brief, and still I feel I am not doing all your efforts justice to the full extent I wish I could achieve. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 05:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> |