Forum:Validating non-fiction: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Validating non-fiction (edit)

Revision as of 00:57, 28 February 2024

5,404 bytes added , 28 February

no edit summary

Najawin

Trusted

8,473

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|The Panopticon}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Failed proposals]][[Category:Inclusion debates]]
 == Opening post ==
 Although this wiki's "in-universe" role-play gimmick is probably too entrenched ever to be removed, I'm glad that the community has finally made some strides towards ameliorating some of its more encyclopedically damaging effects, most notably the recent decisions to validate several types of material which the wiki previously labelled "non-canon".
@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 ::Then do it. [[User:The Librarian]] used to do nothing but merch. Since he left I don't think anyone else has taken up the torch? [[Forum:Should we still be trying to cover merchandise?]] explicitly affirms that we still will cover merch even though the collectors wiki does so too, and I just checked the archives, it wasn't overturned. Be the change you want to see on the wiki. Nothing is stopping these pages from being made.
 :::I also think we should discuss validating promotional photos
-::[[Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies|Could you please be up to date with recent threads before discussing an issue?]] Explicitly discussed in March.
+::[[Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies|Could you please be up to date with recent threads before discussing an issue?]] Explicitly discussed in March.
 ::Now, could you please address the fact that your proposed standard clearly lets in far more than you intended? As well as giving a rough definition of the DWU as you're using it? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
+I can see your reasoning for the examples you gave, but I very much disagree with your last paragraph.
+:''"When a rights-holder conveys a fact about the fictional world via some formal non-fiction publication, it should be treated with the same weight as any other official material."''
+"Word of God" validity is not something I agree with. Behind the scenes material is exactly what it says on the tin: ''behind'' the scenes. If a detail isn't in the story, it isn't part of the story. I get your naming conventions argument, but that is what the conjecture tag is for. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
+: Indeed, "word of god" is even harder to grasp when the franchise has lasted 60 years and has a hostile debate ongoing over which god is the most correct. If I start quoting JNT, suddenly "word of god" isn't so popular as an idea... [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 14:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
+:It's not often that I say this, but I do not support this proposal. While I do not disagree with the basic idea in principal, in fact I might advocate for something similar if this were a different wiki, but in the context of this wiki and how it operates, I do not think this idea works. I also agree with [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] that "Word of God" does not work in the context of the DWU. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+This 'proposal' basically crashed and burned on arrival. The discussion which ensued was not uninteresting, but it's been dead for over a month, and never really yielded a practical way forward in a way which might have allowed this thread to rise above a frankly unworkable opening post.
+There were several distinct issues here, and lumping them into a single debate was just not a good move.
+Much of the OP concerns itself with character names. But as was repeated several times throughout the debate, we already ''can'' use BTS sources for character names and the like. Episode credits, in particular, are held to be part of the text of a given TV story; a name given in credits is part of the Rule-1-passing source, and can be used freely. But even names from more distant sources like production material can be used in place of purely conjectural ones, so long as we use the {{tlx|conjecture}} template. I guess taking the name of that template too literally is what [[User:PintlessMan]] was referring to when he kept saying we "treated non-fiction information as ''speculation''", but that's just not what we mean by "conjecture" in Wikispeak. Perhaps there'd be value in a template that says "this name comes from a BTS source" in particular, as distinct from other types of conjectural names? I'm open to someone starting a thread about this.
+Either way, page names have always been a somewhat different issue from the actual substance of in-universe pages. If all you're faced with is the naming problem, proposing to solve it by validating ''all'' fictional information given in licensed non-fiction contexts is akin to trying to put out a house fire by dumping the entire Pacific Ocean onto it. The issue isn't that it's ''always'' undesirable — in ''principle'' it's true that there is "no meaningful difference between fictive information conveyed via a [pure] work of fiction and fictive information conveyed otherwise: it's equally fictive". But the main issue with validating primarily non-fiction sources is the lack of a clear theory-of-coverage for how to cite it, and ensure there's no bleedover of people citing "genuinely" BTS information from the same source on in-universe pages. And as some people touched upon, Rule 4 is also very hard to judge in cases like these. If an author says "in my headcanon, [X happened to Donna]", does that pass Rule 4, or doesn't it? Hard to say.
+Finally there was discussion of items of merchandise. But, quoting myself:
+{{quote|I would agree that the Personal Tardis Arm Worn Time Travel Device and its ilk aren't really accommodated by current policy, but they are by no means BTS/non-fiction texts. Surely the argument for validity is that the toy is essentially a non-narrative, but wholly in-universe, work of fiction in itself; the three-dimensional equivalent of a [[GRAPHIC]]… A proposed abrogation of Rule 1 doesn't really enter into it. But I would be interested in discussing more focused options for covering this sort of thing better, certainly; it's a genuine gap in our coverage. Though of course we still should have ''pages'' on these things as merchandise items under current policy; the page's non-existence is mere oversight.|[[User:Scrooge MacDuck]]}}
+We'll hopefully return to the issue in a thread of its own, but this proposal was, once again, a wholly inadequate solution for an admittedly real oversight.
+'''Rule 1 stands. This thread ''maybe'' shed light on a couple of issues, but achieved nothing in terms of resolving them and has no active impact on policy at this time.''' Nevertheless, my customary thanks to all who participated. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
+</div>
+[[Category:Panopticon archives]]