Tardis talk:Valid sources

Possible mistake

In the following sentence, at the end of "Explaining the Rules" it currently says: "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 3." This sentence seems more like an example of Rule 4, and the paragraph is about Rule 4. Article is flagged against editing, so commenting here. Agonaga ^{talk to me} 14:40, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Only Stories Count

Sounds like a reasonable rule. I just wonder, how does that apply when it comes to the interpretation of stories? For exapmple, take The Doctors Wife. It was never made clear wether or not that particular control room still existed after it was deleted. The writer/director/whatever stated somewhere that it obviously still existed, and that anything else would be a missinterpretation. Does that mean the control room still exists, or that it's uncertain?Thomsons Gazelle ☎ 13:36, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Any information from outside of the narrative (the story) should go in the behind the scenes section of the article if it's in-universe or in the story notes section on the story article's page.

I'm a little unsure what you mean by "interpretation" however. Idris/the TARDIS said she saved it and then it's deleted by House. The information seems pretty straight forward. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:51, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is rather decadent. Yes, I read what it said below that, but I take Doctor Who: Monsters and Villains and similar books to be TIE-IN WORKS, not "works of non-fiction". They may contain some behind-the-scenes info, sure, but they also contain some extra in-universe information that could be crucial to understanding the characters described (like what was music probably like in 5 billion or how exactly were the Forest of Cheem created?). On Wookieepedia (yes, I also know that we're not Wookieepedia, but I'm still not trying to make us Wookieepedia-- I only want us to be more in favor of some fans like me), reference works are treated as valid sources depending on their content--in-universe or behind-the-scenes. The aforementioned books contain both, but it shouldn't take a well trained person to distinguish the two where they're together. Imagine if a new guide like Monsters and Villains was printed that contained never-before-seen illustrations of Fitz Kreiner AND Nobody No-One? How would you deal with that, CzechOut?

I also take the tie-in websites to contain canon information (Whoisdoctorwho.co.uk implies where and when the Ninth Doctor traveled before he met Rose), even if they might also contain behind-the-scenes data. I think we should create a new category of publication, Template:Tie-in work, which could say something like "This is a licenced tie-in work. This source can be used for both in-universe and behind-the-scenes sections". And I'm not sure about using "licenced" before "tie-in work", because the BBC doesn't hold all the copyrights. K-9, anyone? -- Vultraz Nuva ☎ 19:56, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your alternative would be. You'd actually require the admin staff of this wiki to look at every single book ever made and decide on a case-by-case basis? That's completely unreasonable, I think you'd agree. After discussing the matter since 2005, it became abundantly clear that we need a rule that was simple to administer — and that didn't require our administrative staff to outlay huge amounts of cash.

And that's really why your comparisons to Wookieepedia aren't particularly relevant. See, the BBC has no Leland Chee. It would be great if there were such a person, and I'm certainly jealous of Wookieepedia. They've got the great benefit of a Lucasfilm employee telling them what the scope of the SWG is. He has access to everything and can sit there and make a case-by-case review of everything. Not only can he; he has to. It's his job. And he doesn't have to pay for access to the complete library of Star Wars branded stuff.

By contrast we're not getting paid to do this, so we all have to work within our own personal budgets. And if we can't get a copy of a particular book, we can't get a copy of that book. So our rule that "only stories count" is immensely practical. It's something we can enforce without having to buy and sit in judgement upon every single release.

And, honestly, I don't think you realise just how much utter crap there is out there under the guise of a "reference work". Pick up The Doctor Who Technical Manual. Give that one a whirl for accuracy. Check out most any annual and tell us how we're supposed to integrate material from games pages that are introduced by characters. Are we to believe the Doctor actually told us about lunar missions or astronomy? Did the Third Doctor write a treatise on the production of Doctor Who for The Making of Doctor Who? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

But I can't think of anything less fun in the whole world than looking at every single scrap of "non-narrative-but-in-character" writing and judging the validity of each one, individually. So we're not doing that. Nor are we inventing some kinda halfway house of "tie-in material" — whatever that's supposed to mean. It's either valid or it's not. Period.

All rules of the wiki have to be clear and easy to administer.

I think one thing you're missing about this policy is that it does not stop people from adding information from such works. It merely forces editors to place such information under a "behind the scenes" heading, so that readers know they're not reading info that comes from an ordinary story. There are many articles, for instance, which contain a "Brilliant Book" section, wherein information from The Brilliant Book 2011 or its sequel can be placed.

So we won't be changing from our policy of accepting only stories for the in-universe part of our articles. But if you find an interesting tidbit in a non-narrative source, slip it into a "behind the scenes" section. We're not trying to lose information; we're just trying to draw a clear line between information from stories and information that's not from stories.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:11: Fri 27 Dec 2013

Thank you. You prove a point. But if somebody finds a picture of say, Nobody No-One, as I mentioned before, in a Brilliant Book, do you think 'twould seem out-of-place at all in the "behind the scenes" section? I'm not sure myself. Vultraz Nuva ☎ 23:09, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Artefact of the prefix move

Naturally, there's no such thing as "an TV audiobook from AudioGO", so could that bit be amended to say "a Sarah Jane Adventures audiobook"? Also, could the bit involving prefixes next to the "Fictional information presented non-narratively" be fixed to get rid off all this COMIC and DAN stuff? -- Tybort (talk page) 12:22, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Done. Shambala108 ☎ 13:38, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Small typo

Rule Four should probably read "needed to make," the "to" is currently absent. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 17:02, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for catching that. Shambala108 ☎ 17:27, May 25, 2014 (UTC)