Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration (edit)

Revision as of 21:11, 27 November 2023

13,047 bytes added , 27 November 2023

→‎Merge

Najawin

Trusted

8,495

edits

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 ::Okay, look, this has become about a larger issue, is everyone fine with a forum thread addressing it? There's some old discussions that never went anywhere, ([[Forum:Battle of the Ood Sphere]]) so it makes sense to have a forum thread on ''events'' generally, as opposed to battles ([[Forum:Skirmish at TARDIS Wiki]]). [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+<div class="tech">
+::: No, everyone is not. I mean, you can put forward a proposal to discuss it, of course, but speaking with an administrative vantage point if not quite the full weight of an assertion of policy, '''I generally think event-pages ''qua'' event-pages are by now understood to be a beneficial and necessary part of the Wiki's ecosystem.''' A crucial factor which wasn't present at the time of those old <nowiki>[[Forum:]]</nowiki> discussions is the existence/documentation of many valid sources that give us actual, non-conjectural names for those events.
-::: No, everyone is not. I mean, you can put forward a proposal to discuss it, of course, but speaking with an administrative vantage point if not quite the full weight of an assertion of policy, '''I generally think event-pages ''qua'' event-pages are by now understood to be a beneficial and necessary part of the Wiki's ecosystem.''' A crucial factor which wasn't present at the time of those old Forum: discussion is the existence/documentation of many valid sources that give us actual, non-conjectural names for those events.
+::: But even setting that aside, these pages also fulfill a need. At the very least, ''contra'' [[User:JDPManjoume]]'s message above, '''summaries on story pages can't fulfill the same need'''; not only because it's ''wholly'' improper to link to them within in-universe text, but because story summaries may withhold information that is only revealed late in a story, or otherwise follow their source material's non-linear format, instead of presenting the unfolding event in its in-universe chronological/causal order.
-::: But even setting that aside, these pages also fulfill a need. At the very least, ''contra'' [[User:JDPManjoume]]'s message above, '''summaries on story pages can't fulfill the same need need'''; not only because it's ''wholly'' improper to link to them within in-universe text, but because story summaries may withhold information that is only revealed late in a story, or otherwise follow their source material's non-linear format, instead of presenting the unfolding event in its in-universe chronological/causal order.
 ::: So: the worry is not duplicating plot summaries, but needlessly duplicating information that is documented on ''other'' in-universe pages already. While it is sometimes necessary, such a situation is generally to be avoided, as it risks the introduction of unwarranted discrepancies if editors guilelessly edit ''one'' page but not its twin. Two event pages about aspects of the same event are particularly suspect in that paradigm. Not, I will stress, ''necessarily'' suspect. [[The Cataclysm]] is distinct from [[War in Heaven]], [[Destruction of Skaro]] is distinct from [[Shoreditch Incident]], and that is as it should be. But we do have to think about whether we need to split off that information to its own page to best cover it to its fullest length.
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ::: None of this has any direct bearing on the creation of further pages along the lines of the wonderful [[Romana I's regeneration]], unless ''those'' events also find themselves at the heart of events which also have their own pages elsewhere. To clarify a counterexample: both of the [[Tenth Doctor's regeneration]]s result from events with their own pages — the [[Planetary Relocation Incident]] and the [[Ultimate Sanction]] respectively. But Ten's regeneration was not the ''main object'' of either event. Even if we end up with a full flush of pages for the televised Doctors' regenerations, I don't think "Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration" will come across as a keenly-felt absence: after all, its relevance to the Doctor's regenerative history ''qua'' regenerative history can be documented at [[Thirteenth Doctor's regeneration]] itself (which, after all, it preceded by a few hours at most, and fairly directly caused), {{tlx|main}}-ing to [[The Master's Dalek Plan]] for the nit-and-gritty. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+</div>
+This really takes the cake. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 11:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+::To elaborate briefly: in light of the [[:Category:The Doctor's regenerations|mature ecosystem]] of regeneration pages, I'm tempted to recreate [[Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration]] per [[T:WIKIFY]] alone. But I won't, because it goes deeper than that. To answer one closing statement with [[Talk:The Master/Archive 8#Towards a compromise|another]],
+<div class="tech">
+::: There is significant sentiment that the "Dhawan Doctor"'s history, appearance and significance should be discussed on their own page, separately from our coverage of the [[Spy Master]] and the [[Thirteenth Doctor]]. However, there is also significant sentiment that it would be wrong to characterise him as a ''person'' separate from the Spy Master, or as ''precisely'' "an incarnation of [[the Doctor]]". I am not here to litigate which sentiment is correct on the latter front: I don't think we all will ''ever'' reach a consensus on that without further evidence. We could be here all week arguing about whether the Doctor-Master is more like [[the DoctorDonna]] or more like the [[Tenth Doctor (Journey's End)|Metacrisis Doctor]] and we would, in all likelihood, still get nowhere.
+::: Instead, I propose that, in line with something like [[Bad Wolf (entity)]] or pages about aliases like [[Harold Saxon]], we create '''a page describing the nature and short existence of the Dhawan-Doctor-Master entity, structured as a page about a phenomenon more than a page about a character. It should not use {{tlx|Infobox Individual}}, and will be placed in neither [[:Category:Incarnations of the Doctor]] ''nor'' an eventual [[:Category:Incarnations of the Master]], but it ''will'' be placed in [[:Category:The Doctor]] and [[:Category:The Master]]. Both [[Thirteenth Doctor]] and [[Spy Master]] should summarise the events surrounding the Dhawan-Doctor-Master in similar, sparse details, and use a {{tlx|main}} template to the page about the incident, similar to links to [[Exile on Earth]] or [[The Master's early life]].''' […] I no longer believe that covering it at [[The Master's Dalek Plan]] is the right move; the plan has too many moving parts not really directly relevant to the entity itself. I am tempted by the name [[Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration]], which could describe both the incident ''and'' the "individual" depending on how you look at it. <span style="color: #baa3d6;font-family:Comic Sans;">[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']]</span> <span style="color: #baa3d6;">[[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]]</span> 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
+</div>
+::The bolded assessment, posed as "[not] ''quite'' a Proper Admin Conclusion", was subsequently ratified by community consensus. However, Scrooge's new decision here indicates that [[Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration]] wasn't a workable match for the plan laid out in October. It's now been merged into [[The Master's Dalek Plan]], which sits in neither [[:Category:The Doctor]] nor [[:Category:The Master]]. In other words, no page currently meets the conditions required by community consensus in the earlier discussion. Therefore [[T:BOUND]] mandates that a new page be created to meet those conditions. Thankfully, the script release has given us a much clearer page name: [[The Master-Doctor]], a new identity/entity page akin to [[Harold Saxon]], [[Bad Wolf (entity)]], and [[The DoctorDonna]]. I'm tempted to create this page myself per the age-old wiki mandate to {{w|WP:JUSTDOIT|"Be bold"}}, but for the sake of my ongoing [[Tardis:User rights nominations|admin nomination]] and potential adminship, I'll merely leave this comment as an invitation for someone else to pick up the torch. May [[The Master-Doctor]]'s days be long and untroubled! – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+I think this is probably [[T:BOUND]]-kosher, though I remain of two minds about the proposal on the merits, so yes, let's discuss it.
+Aah, the forced-regeneration scheme; will we ever see the end of it… We considering covering the Master-Doctor as an incarnation of the Doctor — but that made no sense. We considered covering him as an incarnation of the Master — but that falls afoul of the "we don't have two Jodie Whittaker Doctor pages" of it all, and the Crispy reversions. We considered covering him as an event — but the event is coterminous with [[the Master's Dalek Plan]] as a whole.
+If he's neither individual nor event, does covering him as an ''alias'' finally square the circle? That is the question we face today. To which I say: hmm. Hmmmm. Well, ''maybe''. The issue is that the "alias" isn't [[The Master-Doctor]]; it's "The Doctor". Script names ''are'' okay, but we must be careful about not assuming too much about the in-universe grounding of names thusly derived. [[The Master-Doctor]] threatened Yaz" is fine; but "'''the Master-Doctor''' was the alias adopted by the Spy Master when he…" isn't quite right, and even "As '''the Master-Doctor''', the Spy Master…" is misleading. One really wishes [[The Doctor (The Power of the Doctor)]] were less of a non-starter. How ''do'' we write this blighter's ''lede''?
+(My entirely unjustifiable gut instinct is to wait until an in-universe source (probably one of those reference book thingummies…) directly uses "the Master-Doctor" in-text in a citable way.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+:We'll certainly have to use {{tlx|conjecture}}. How about "Following the [[Thirteenth Doctor]]'s [[forced regeneration]], '''the [[Spy Master]], as "the Doctor"''', did XYZ…" or even just "the [[Spy Master]], calling himself '''"the Doctor"'''"? – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+:: Haven't read all of the discussion but I must object to the usage of "the Master-Doctor" based on script alone; the officially released script for ''Power'' contains a number of discrepancies with the final product, with versions of Cybermen and the fates of characters being changed around. In my eyes, this script is wholly unreliable and should not be used — even conjecturally in the Wiki sense of the term — to name anything. If we decide to have a page on the entity, and another source, even if it just marketing, uses the name, sure, it has merit in being used. But based upon that script? I don't believe it's reliable enough. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 21:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+::: I would imagine that the discrepancies between the script and the finished product are more to do with choices on the day than inaccuracy. I find it wholly more likely that differences between script and finished product happened during filming than that the script is inaccurate, although that is certainly another possibility. But surely it must be fairly common to decide to change things last moment in television production. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Signature}} 21:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+::::No, frankly, I don't see anything new here. Everything in Nate's comment seems to be simply a rehashing of previous discussion. At best there seems to be the charge that community consensus upheld the previous closing post and not this new one. But I'm not convinced this is the case. In that prior discussion 9 individuals chimed in after Scrooge. 3 of us asked for it to be relitigated after the Master split but said it was fine until then (myself, Memes, and 66 Seconds). Nate, Liria, Bongo, and Sherlock supported the compromise without that caveat (though perhaps with other comments). An IP user suggested an entirely different approach and Corrie/DiS just talked about how unfair the entire thing was. I just don't see how there's consensus for keeping this approach without the relitigation above. And given the relitigation above Scrooge came to a new conclusion. Not one I'm 100% keen on, mind you. But c'est la vie. I just don't see it, sorry. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+: The new thing is proposing to have a Master-Doctor ''alias page'', which is an entirely different proposal on how to approach the situation relative to the prior proposals of a character page or an event page. It would imply a significantly different page structure, and is worth arguing about on its own terms. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+::But this ''was'' actually brought up prior. It just got no traction. If anything ''it's'' the thing that's [[T:BOUND]] out by [[Talk:The Master/Archive 8]]. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
+::: Huh? ctr+f-ing “alias” on [[Talk:The Master/Archive 8]] yields only my own mention of "alias pages like [[Harold Saxon]]" — and that was a different thing entirely (I was mentioning alias pages right alongside [[Bad Wolf (entity)]] as examples of a broader class of pages whose precedent the custom [[thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration]] event-page could be seen as setting itself). What are you talking about? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
+::::The IP user's comment. It's brought up and gets no traction whatsoever. People just ignore it. Technically there are only two responses after, but it's explicitly brought up as an alternative+additional angle and wasn't brought up, like, weeks later. Discussion just petered out because ''nobody agreed with the suggestion and we already were okay with the compromise for the time being.'' [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
+::::: Najawin, you're reading your own opinions into the text of the conversation! With sample size of n=1, discussion on that page stopped because I didn't think the IP user had brought up anything new – Scrooge's proposal, which as you describe was ratified by community consensus, ''already'' explicitly recommended "something like […] pages about aliases like [[Harold Saxon]]"; further citation of [[Razor (World Enough and Time)|Razor]] and [[Emil Keller]] added nothing. (In this light I think your tallying of that IP user's vote should be reconsidered.) So it goes way too far to conclude that "nobody agreed with the suggestion" on this basis. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
+I don't think this is quite right, Scrooge uses the term "alias", whereas the IP user talks about how these are "personas", and how he embodies "characters".
+:there's loads more articles making a precedent for deep dives into specific personas (ex: [[Razor (World Enough and Time)]], [[Emil Keller]]). Sacha talks about his Doctor as being a discrete "character" masking the Master character, which is true in the episode due to the Master acting and dressing different during the time he's '''the''' 14th DR. ∴ Master!Doctor could be covered as a regeneration in respect to Jodie and a disguise in respect to Sacha.
+If anything it seems to be a suggestion that we should reinterpret our approach to how we treat aliases of the Master, because the suggestion is that they're often not simple aliases. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
+::"Persona" vs "alias" strikes me as a distinction without a difference. The second sentence of [[Harold Saxon]] describes the page's topic as a "constructed persona [used] as an alias". And your ''in media res'' quote of the IP user carefully omits how they introduced their comment as an elaboration on how "The earlier compromise message mentioned Harold Saxon for a second". – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
+:::Because there are two readings of that? One to either use the page as it exists as a contrast, or one to use it specifically to riff off of. It's irrelevant unless you already buy the other reading. Also, even your quote suggests that there ''is'' a distinction between personas and aliases. "constructed persona [used] as an alias" suggests that aliases do not always have associated personas. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
+::::Right, sorry: a distinction without a difference in regard to our coverage, not in regard to the definitions of the words "alias" and "persona". – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
+[[Death's Champion]] seems to be a counter example, no? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)