Talk:Games (poem)

Deletion

This page really isn't a part of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! series. For starters, it's a joke that RTD put on his instagram. Now, yes, it being on Instagram doesn't mean it's invalid inherently and it's a good one in my personal opinion, but the panel is also a part of the Now We Are Six Hundred poetry collection, also by Davies. It's not a new story; it's more like a meme, and if we included it, we'd have to include a lot of things that Who celebrities post on Instagram. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 11:44, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what it being a joke or posted on social media has to do with anything — Strax Saves the Day was posted on Twitter and is every bit as parodical, yet it clearly is part of Doctor Who: Lockdown!. Both are invalid, but that doesn't mean we don't cover them.

The real salient point is in this panel being repurposed from Now We Are Six Hundred, and thus not being an original work as I (not having read Now We Are Six Hundred) had mistakenly assume. However, separated from the text and given this new title/caption, I would argue that it becomes a new, though, yes, {{invalid}}, narrative; The Message of Mystery is a good precedent for material from an earlier story being given new text and context, and becoming a new story.

In any event, even if we do decide that Breaking Isolation doesn't deserve a page in its own right, it should be merged into the page for the story in Now We Are Six Hundred that the illustration is taken from — ''[[Games (short story)|Games]]''… a page which, as of yet, does not exist. So really, what we should do if we decide that this doesn't count as a separate release is rework it into a page about Games, and rename it "[[Games (short story)]]" — not delete it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:05, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt we should cover it on what you suggested or something like that. I just don't believe that it was intended for Doctor Who: Lockdown! in the first place. Strax Saves the Day was explicitly part of the event, made to coincide with the watchalong. This was just a random post RTD made on Instagram.(This isn't shade on him, btw, I love the guy) But I definitely agree that we should put it on the page you suggested. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 12:38, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be renamed and converted into [[Games (short story)]], assuming that images in prose stories are typically covered as part of the story. (which is the case, as far as I know) A mention in the notes or lead section of that article would be enough to cover its use in this context. Danochy ☎ 08:01, April 9, 2020 (UTC)

id like to reopen thisi as it seems to have been forgotten. but breaking isolation is the exact same situation as "saving harriet". during the watch along of the stolen earth RTD expanded on Harriet's escape from the novel Now We Are Six Hundred. the image he used alongside it was an expanded image from the book, just like here. i dont think either is enough to grant their own page - and they should jus tbe referenced on the book' page. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Each poem in Now We Are Six Hundred counts as a short story, so if anything we should cover this on the page about the poem. But I'd say the difference with Saving Harriet is that in that case, Davies was just elaborating on the same story. Here, the illustration is being repurposed to fit a different narrative of the Daleks breaking isolation during the COVID-19 lockdown, which is not at all what the image was depicting in its original setting. The Message of Mystery is a precedent for images from a precious story being reused to tell a different one, and the second story being accepted as its own thing. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:55, May 17, 2020 (UTC)

i do think it would be best to merge this into the page Games then. the new version of harriet's story sees her survival involving the trickster which is different from Harriet Jones, PM (short story). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

ive just tried to look on rtd's instagram but can only see the caption "breaking isolation" is that all that was posted? if so it defo isnt worh a page, hes also posted similar images with only the caption "cake" too. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

i am quite shocked that the other two problematic Doctor Who: Lockdown! releases have been invalidated before this one (The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) and How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)).

this "story" as far as i can tell was simply one picture from Now We Are Six Hundred with the caption "Breaking Isolation". how could this ever have been considered a release in itself? let alone part of the lockdown event. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 03:29, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

As has been plentifully covered above: because the image is given new context, like The Message of Mystery. And anyway, what we'd need to do is move this into a page about the poem, not "invalidate" it. In fact, this is already invalid on parody grounds. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:32, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

there is nothing to move into the new page, even if this deserves a reference on the other story's page (which i strongly disagree with) it would only be something like "RTD used a picture from this story once with a funny caption about lockdown...".

there was no new story and one caption is certainly not "a new context", and certainly not enough for the synopsis that you managed to create;

• "Three Dalek creatures have screwed off the top sections of their casings, thus breaking the traditional isolation of their people in the airtight minitanks that are the Dalek battle armour. Joyous, they are playing ball."

i mean where did you come up with that? who is to say that they screwed their tops off, who is to say they are breaking traditional isolation, who is to say that they are even joyous when Daleks cannot even feel joy. this is complete speculation, all of it. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 03:39, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

The title says they Broke Isolation, we know this was done by their screwing their tops off because their tops are there, unscrewed, and we know they are joyous because one of them is smiling. What's confusing about any of this? No, Daleks don't usually smile, but that's why this is a parody and rightfully invalid. (Also, while it rarely manifests as playing ball while grinning amiably, what's your source on Daleks not feeling joy? Daleks feel joy all the time, wicked joy in killing for the most part. See e.g. Asylum of the Daleks, and Resolution for a recent example of a Dalek laughing.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:44, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

their tops are off, nothing said that they screwed them off - perhaps an army of invading Sontarans did it? and that smile could just as easily be interpreted as a cough - or a burp! that is the trouble with these two word caption "stories"... you haven't a clue what is going on in the new "context". DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 03:48, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on, now that's just silly. The title says that the characters are supposedly 'breaking isolation', so obviously they did so themselves rather that being broken out against their will. And the idea that a smile is maybe not a smile for some reason just… borders on the ludicrous. You could just as well say, "well, maybe that wasn't the real Doctor in The Eleventh Hour, maybe he was just being impersonated throughout by a random Zygon". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:54, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

there's nothing "obvious" about a parody two word caption picture removed from its original source. what is obvious however, is that RTD's authorial intent here wasn't that he was creating a new story - or he would have staged it as such, rather than just using an image saved to his phone (as shown during the Stolen Earth / Journey's End watch-along) and tagging it with a timely caption. it should be immediately deleted and, if anyone cares to remember it, there could be a mention on the [[Games (short story)]] page (if really necessary). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 03:59, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion diverged a lot and then stalled. User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 has called vocally for a resolution in this matter, and it's indeed about time.

I don't believe any persuasive argument that Breaking Isolation as prevented on Instagram is any less of a story than similar wordless cartoons like They Shall Not Pass. Per the precedent of The Message of Mystery, it's also no objection that the image was repurposed from a preexisting story, given a new context.

However, this is immaterial. We shouldn't cover Breaking Isolation (albeit as an invalid source) for the simple reason that there is no evidence it was a licensed release. Per consensus earlier on what we should do if we stopped covering Breaking Isolation on its on terms, this page can be, should be, and has been, reconverted into being about Games, albeit with a sizable BTS explanation of Breaking Isolation.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:50, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Notes

In my opinion the "Notes" section is far too long, there's a lot of speculation as to RTD's intentions (which needs to be trimmed) and other unnecessary detail in there too. I think that this would suffice;

"On 2 April 2020, Russell T Davies posted an illustration from Games to Instagram. The caption "Breaking Isolation" seemingly referencing the COVID-19 pandemic". DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 22:49, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

I would direct DiSoRiEnTeD1's attention to the fact that my admin ruling just above included the fact that we would include a "sizable BTS explanation of Breaking Isolation" on the page going forward. The fact that Breaking Isolation functions as a comic story in the same way as many a Quinn & Howett strip is no longer up for debate unless new evidence surfaces. If there is other "speculation" about Russell T Davies' authorial intent, then we should of course rephrase the paragraphs somewhat; please elaborate about what you think is "speculative" and why. But the Story notes' basic meaning and format are sound. In general, it is nearly-always a good thing for Story notes be long and detailed, if there is enough to say. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:57, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

There isn't enough to say, that's the problem.

Nearly the entirety of the notes section is your personal interpretation.

Where's the evidence for this statement? "Davies implicitly casts judgement at those who would, in the real world, fail to self-isolate by depicting the breaking of isolation as something "creatures of pure evil" might do."

Another person could just as easily interpret this as RTD encouraging others to break isolation and have fun, like the Daleks seem to be doing in the picture. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:50, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Then you go on to say there is "little evidence that the satirical cartoon "Breaking Isolation" was approved by the BBC" when in fact there's no evidence. And state "Breaking Isolation itself is not considered a valid story on this Wiki despite its pedigree" - what pedigree? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:55, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your first message: hm. Fair enough. That paragraph can go, unless and until RTD expounds on his intent with this story.

Regarding your second message: to answer your criticism literally, one might plausibly take the fact that the BBC and/or Nation Estate have not sued Russell T Davies (that we know of) as evidence that it did not in fact breach copyright. It's incredibly weak evidence, and not enough for us to cover it. But it is, technically speaking, evidence. That's besides the point, though - it's really just a turn of phrase. Patrons of a Wiki about a primarily British franchise should be no strangers to the art of understatement. But I'm not married to the specific phrasing; if you think it should be changed to "no evidence", or "no significant evidence," then fine.

And to answer your question, the story's "pedigree" refers to it being written by a former Doctor Who showrunner, and having been created from repurposed bits of a licensed story. That's more of a "genetic tie" to licensed Doctor Who than most fancomics can boast, and readers not familiar without policies might imagine that a story written by Russell T Davies would be "official" by definition, hence the clarification that no, being written by RTD doesn't automatically validate it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:01, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Saying there is "no significant evidence" still implies that there is evidence in some form - you even said above in your ruling "there is no evidence it was a licensed release" so I am confused as to why you refuse to place that in the article. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:06, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

See my message above. In a Bayesian sense, the fact that 1) it was written by RTD (a known associate of the BBC) and 2) the BBC did not sue RTD can both be considered evidence that it was licensed. Insignificant evidence, but, by a technical definition, "evidence". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:15, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

None of that is evidence, insignificant or not. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:17, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

It is.

Evidence: That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

A copyright-owner failing to sue an alleged copyright-infringer is plausible ground for the belief that the alleged copyright-infringer did not actually infringe on the copyright-owner's copyright. Other priors lead us to the conclusion that it is not significant evidence — that our priors about this not being licensed should outweigh the weak evidence. But it is, technically, evidence. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:20, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

No it is not. There are multiple examples of copyright-owner failing to sue copyright-infringement. So the fact that the BBC didn't sue RTD is not evidence (not matter how "weak") that the story was licensed. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:25, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

We may be using different meanings of the word "evidence". Obviously it's not legal evidence. It wouldn't stand up in court. But it is (weak) epistemological evidence, in the sense that it is a datum which, in a vacuum, should slightly raise our priors about the probability that X is true.

Likewise, a ranting madman saying the world is flat is not legal or scientific evidence that the Earth is flat. It is, however, epistemologically speaking, very very weak evidence that the Earth is flat. It is marginally more likely that the Earth is flat if somebody else than you think so, than if it's a hypothesis you just came up with on your own. Nevertheless, it is very very weak evidence (probably moving the toggle from "0.1% certainty" to "0.15% certainty"), and is blown away by more reliable evidence (such as "I have looked at pictures of the Earth from space and it seemed round", which would push your belief in the Earth being round to, say, 90% certainty).

That is the meaning of "evidence" I have been using in this conversation. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:30, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you do not know that the BBC haven't sued RTD. Extremely unlikely, but still possible that this has happened away from the public eye. Regardless, even if this has not happened there are countless cases of rights-holders deciding not to sue copyright infringement. There is literally no evidence that this story was licensed, which you admitted above, and so your inclusion of the line "no significant evidence" suggests that there is at least some evidence (which there isn't) and could lead the reader to confusion.

This will be my last comment but I think the comment should be changed. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:35, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

...it's not like the BBC themselves have made stories without the proper licences before, is it? Oh wait, they have. I seriously doubt the BBC would care about RTD using his illustrations to create some sort of new story. The thing is, if we start removing stories on the suspicion they're unlicenced, well, time to get rid of a load of TV stories. The thing is, the Wiki needs to be mkre lenient with unlicenced stories, otherwise a gross double standard will be applied when non-TV stories will be removed while the TV series gets away scott free.

Personally, I think the Wiki needs to apply some good faith with stories, to believe they're licenced until proven otherwise.

Epsilon 📯 📂

00:41, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

@DiSoRiEnTeD1: If you feel that strongly about it, we can change the sentence to a more colloquial "no evidence". But as I explained above, the fact remains that on a purely epistemological level there is evidence, just extremely weak evidence. I suggest you read a philosophy textbook or two if you have any more questions.

@Epsilon, the deletion of Breaking Isolation has already been decided and would need new evidence, or new policy, to readjudicate. Please lay off that line of reasoning for the same reason DiSoRiEnTeD1 has been warned off continuing to question our coverage of Monk. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:46, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought is was being talked about by DiS. My mistake, I shan't bring it up regarding Breaking Isolation again. :)

Epsilon 📯 📂

00:48, November 4, 2020 (UTC)