Forum talk:The Cloisters

Two Years

As of publishing, it will have been two years since the forums have been removed from this wiki. (Indeed, I think that happened a day or two ago and we just missed it, but w/e.) T:WRITE POLICY and T:CHANGE, as written, still require us to go to a section of this wiki that has not existed for two years. In that time discussions concerning multiple pages and validity debates have continued to pile up. Moreover, it's undeniable that in some ways this has impacted the wiki quite massively. To draw a few specific examples from the list linked above:

• The validity of Can I Help You? has simply never been addressed. The "story" was published under a week before the forums were removed, and I only was able to find the text for the story a month later. James Goss, who coordinated the entirety of Time Lord Victorious, told us in so many words that it was intended to be valid. (Obviously aside from the issue that wiki validity rules are not exactly the sort of things most writers care about - he made multiple statements emphasizing that he viewed this story as an important part of the overall narrative.) For almost two years this story has never had even the slightest discussion on validity, it's simply been assumed to be invalid because any discussion of it would require a discussion of our merchandising rules, and, as a result, could have massive ramifications for the wiki as a whole, which only further underlines the potential damage not addressing this issue does to the wiki.

• Most obviously egregious is the continued validity of all of the author biographies from The Book of the Enemy. There's a section of biographies of contributors to this book, some fictional characters, some real life people, and some real life people who are treated as fictional characters. When User:NateBumber was first covering the anthology he decided to treat the author biographies section as a subsection of another, accidentally causing them to be treated as valid, and using that on the page Wilhelm Liebknecht. Nate was quick to point out that this was a mistake when I stated on another talk page that this section was valid, saying that he never intended for his own biography to be a valid source. The two of us figured this out basically at exactly the same time the forums went down (almost to the day), and as a result there's simply never been a discussion of how to handle the three different types of contributors to the anthology, whether we want to cover part of these as valid or none, and as a result our treatment of TBotE is incomplete in regards to certain characters who are fleshed out much more in these biographies, since I decided to completely ignore this section based on this confusion.

• User:CzechOut stated, upon the resolution of the The Curse of Fatal Death inclusion thread that he wished to reopen discussion based on evidence that nobody had discussed. While to my knowledge the particular evidence he wished to consider hasn't been stated, in the following January, so, 21 months ago, I decided to go looking in the old Rec.arts.drwho forum based on a comment I remembered on TARDIS Eruditorum about the episode and Moffat's thoughts at the time. I discovered a wealth of new evidence relevant to the debate that was never addressed, suggesting that we were perhaps in error in validating the story. At the very least it was more than sufficient to open up a new discussion, and I think it might have changed a few minds, it certainly gave me pause. As a result, due to the lack of forums, for 21 months we've potentially had a fairly contentious story in the fanbase and on this wiki listed as valid when it might have properly been invalid this entire time.

Okay. So there's undeniably a problem. Is there a solution? Well there's a long term solution, the recovery of the old forums and then turning on DPL Forums. This is being worked on by CzechOut and others, and I understand that we're closer to this than we have been in a while. And I understand the delays to this solution so far. Far be it from me to complain about life being weird and throwing curveballs at you. I'm not here to complain about that.

But the issue is the problems we're experiencing don't go away in this time, and if anything they get worse. The List continues to grow. Frustrations continue to grow. And what's more, we have a short term solution. User talk:CzechOut#Temporary forums details a perfectly workable solution to the problem we have in the short term. The response, User talk:SOTO#Temporary forums, gives the rationale of not wanting an extra step in re-adding the forums, which, in all honesty, is a reasonable critique. But it's not one that should stand in the way of us taking steps to fix a problem that has no end in sight. Even if these steps are stopgap measures rather than the full implementation of the forums, it's better than nothing.

I leave you in the close with the following thought. T:WRITE POLICY contains the following line:

Except in cases where the community desires something that is technically impossible, the consensus of the community always has the power to veto or change any rule. [Emphasis present in the original]

What I, and others before me, am proposing, is not technically impossible. The very rule paralyzing this wiki seems to suggest that, if it's the will of the community, the solution that has been proposed must be implemented. Najawin ☎ 07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My view on this has changed quite a bit since I created the temporary forum system to which this talk page is attached. I am now of the view that we should go straight to re-enabling DPL Forums. I don't see any point to adding an intermediate step. We do not need archives to do this; they can simply be re-instated later, as and when we obtain them again. I have spent some considerable time looking into what is required to get DPL Forums working again and it is not hard, maybe an hours work max. If desired, I could easily provide a list of what needs doing for this. Bongo50 ☎ 12:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Najawin for writing this 2 year anniversary post (🎉), and for putting it more eloquently than I was planning to. As my user page has suggested, it's confusing that our admins haven't acted on this already – especially since, as Bongo has pointed out, it would require so little work to reopen permanent forums at Forum:Index!

Bongo, I encourage you to write up that list and split it into "steps which can be done by our admins" and "steps which must be done by Fandom". We can then ask our admins to enact the changes of the first category, or do them ourselves, if possible; I have already fixed {{Forumheader/Panopticon}} and {{Forumheader/Reference desk}}. And once no wiki-side blockers remain, any of us can then ask Spongebob456, who would surely be able to flip the DPL switch back on without difficulty or adding more to CzechOut's loaded plate. – n8 (☎) 14:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is that list:

• Doable by admins:
  • MediaWiki:Allpagesnext should be restored
  • MediaWiki:Allpagesprev should be restored
• Doable by Fandom staff and devs:
  • The Forum namespace is currently configured so that no-one can create pages. This needs to be fixed and I believe should be doable by changing a configuration variable in LocalSettings.php. This should be doable with just a simple request to staff via the contact form, or possible even directly to Spongebob456.
  • {{Forum search box}} is currently broken due to a bug related to Extension:Inputbox and Fandom's changes to Special:Search. I have already reported this bug so there is very little that can be done about this.

All in all, this is a lot less than I had thought. In terms of the different boards, fixing DPL Forums will work for most of them. The old DPL Forum's version of The Howling still works, so that can be used for spoilers. Discussions could be used for the reference desk.

It would be nice if an admin could take a look at this discussion and share their thoughts. Bongo50 ☎ 18:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussions we need to have are legion, far beyond the three examples listed. In addition to story-specific cases, there have been multiple stimulating proposals for site-wide changes, e.g. T:MERGE or the improved citation templates, as of late, and that certainly cannot be handled on a talk page. The decision does not rest with me alone, but if the rest of the community agree, and the relevant FANDOM authorities prove tractable, I am 'certainly in favour of reopening the DPL Forums even if we can't get the archives just yet.

It's honestly been so long that the then-ongoing threads are best treated as "closed as unresolved", and could, by now, be started afresh guilt-free (though the data present in the old posts would be nice to have). I recall User:CzechOut espousing such views in one of our private chats some months back, although I don't want to put words in his mouth, so apologies if I'm misremembering/misquoting. In any case it'd be a very sensible view, and it means that the scruples which prevented us from creating new archive-less Forums a year and a half ago are out of date. Bring it on, I say.

As the fellow said, nothing is forever, but it's time we buckled down and lived in the present! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the forums would be very useful, and I think that they should return. Such things as the Cushing films being invalid, and The LEGO Batman Movie being uncovered should really be fixed - something that can only be done if and when the forums come back. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We need forums back. Anything else is just mental. That’s a fact and it’s just as simple as that. —Danniesen ☎ 20:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely concur. [snip]

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I was directed here by Najawin from Talk:Dust Devil (audio story), another talk page so bloated with a topic larger than simply that of the actual page that it ought to become a forum thread too. I of course support reopening the forums as well. Would the plan be to simply re-enable the main DPL forums, or use this "temporary forum" situation? I think most of us would agree the former would be better. I don't think lacking old threads is a good enough reason to not use the main forums and relegate discussions to restricted, more technically complicated temporary forums. (It's looking increasingly likely they wouldn't be temporary anyway…) Chubby Potato ☎ 00:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, let's steer clear of criticizing other users and try to focus on productive ways to move forward. Things happen, as frustrating as that is. Najawin ☎ 01:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's also hold back from speculating too broadly about changes which might be enacted once Forum:Panopticon is reopened. The forums aren't the only thing holding back these proposals: there's also editor opinion, admin consent, and – yknow – the rules. But this isn't the place to litigate any of these particular topics. The point is that without forums, they can't be litigated at all.

I'm cheered to see admin support above from User:Scrooge MacDuck, and in light of this, I'm wondering what is the blocker on reaching out to User:Spongebob456. My understanding is that MediaWiki:Allpagesnext and MediaWiki:Allpagesprev cannot actually be restored by our admins, and {{Forum search box}} is a larger bug, but these things aren't absolutely essential for the operation of DPL forums. The single truly necessary change is the unlocking of the Forum namespace. Is there anything preventing an admin from bringing this to the attention of User:Spongebob456 today? – n8 (☎) 14:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

So I think we have consensus from a reasonable sample of the regular users of the website, though there's obviously some selection bias here. I think we can proceed in two ways. We can either try to expand our sample pool, by asking other users on their talk page to comment here, seeing if they also agree or they happen to disagree. Corrie, Thermoman, Walt, Laura, Jack, BCM, and DJAitch all haven't commented, for instance, though some of these weren't active users of the forums even when they existed iirc. Or we can simply go to the admins now and ask them to weigh in. Thoughts? Najawin ☎ 21:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel that we should contact some other editors to get their input. This is quite an important discussion happening on an obscure talk page. I don't think it would be right to proceed without giving the rest of the active editor-base a chance to voice their opinions. Bongo50 ☎ 05:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, it has been quite a while since I've been on the wiki, due to various factors, but one of the reason is that... i've been waiting for the forums to come back, as I understand that volunteer admins often are busy and that things take time. However, it's been years, and I must say this proposition for temporary forums sounds really nice! There's a few things I've been thinking about that could be nice additions to the wiki, but that would need proper discussions on some sort of forums. If we can do something to break this deadlock the wiki has found itself in, then I support that entirely. Liria10 ☎ 11:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with my above fellow editors and admin. For a community as big as Tardis, going two years without a proper means of discussion and policy-updating is nothing but self-harming for maintenance. This is by no means finger-pointing, nor do I condone such a thing, but it's a matter of fact that it is impacting our ability to move forward with dozens upon dozens of decisions we need making.

Further, another though I had that was just materialized by Liria: our lack of forums might be driving away users new and old. Not much reason to stick around a place whose rules you (slightly) disagree if you can't even have a shot at amending it, now is there?

With that said, all clear respect for my fellow admin CzechOut and his personal reasons for not updating our Lost Forum Archives (which, to reiterate, is not really our business to discuss and I'd appreciate it if it's not brought up again for the remainder of this discussion), but a place to host our new/needed discussion is more than needed at this point. Whenever he actually has the time to restore the old ones it'll be very much useful, but weighting the scale, that seems to me like a lesser priority at this moment. I'm in full support of us moving forward with the needed steps. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

So on the subject of asking for feedback, flicking through the last few months of Special:ListUsers, picking people who have a notable amount of edits (~ >1000), I think the list of people to ask for comment, sans admins, who I would suggest asking for comment at the end, is Walt, TimeLord11, Jack, Thermoman, Corrie, DanPP, Stevie, BCM, EditorOTW, DJA, Vincent, WarGrowlmon, GloverMist, Boris, Freddie, Noneofyourbusiness, Steed, 66 Sec, SJ Fan, Finl4yl1ck, Valeyard12.5, Nahald, Charles RB, Sclera1, Gusthegreat, ThalekPrime, LegoK9, ThetaSigma23, SherlockThell, AdricLovesNyssa, Snivy, Danochy, MarcusSLazarus, SleepyTechnoKid, Laura, BelcherMorganJames, Forgetful 10th doctor fan, Dmitriy Volfson, Gowlbag, Thefartydoctor, Rob T Firefly, Mr Cobblemouse, ToyStoryFan123, OS25, Eden, Doc77, CoT, JDPM, GusF, Lego Whovian, Tybort, Redranger, Gousha, Layton, HarveyWallbanger, Masterpwn, Coud'veBeenKing, & Americanwhofan.

I recognize most of these names. There are definitely a few I don't. It's possible that I'm missing some important users who should comment, but I went back like 3.5 months or so. I think these are the ones who are most likely to respond. I would suggest putting comments on their talk pages, say, Thursday, and then, once the centenary airs, we give it a week. Czech has always said that it's around episodes that the wiki is most active, so that gives us a good time frame, and we can re-evaluate if we want more discussion at that time, or if we want action then. Thoughts? Najawin ☎ 21:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me! Bongo50 ☎ 06:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think more discussion on whether this is what we should do is necessary, as this isn't exactly a contentious issue as much as a procedural one, but I think it's a good idea to let other editors know about the possible plan and weigh in on how they might like to see it done. The upcoming special is a perfect time. Chubby Potato ☎ 02:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But the people it's not contentious with are those who are most impacted by it, as they're the ones currently editing semi-regularly, enough to see this particular talk page. What if, for instance, Walt and JDPM both said that they thought it wasn't necessary? Then the consensus that we think exists is called into question. (I use these two because I know they don't think this, they've both added to the list of threads to be worked on.)

If we truly wish to show this is the will of the community, in the spirit of T:WRITE POLICY, I think we should try to make sure we avoid sampling bias. I don't expect it to be controversial, but the possibility exists, and everyone should have a chance to make their voice heard. Included in that is discussion of how, as well as a simple yes/no. Najawin ☎ 03:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What question would users be polled on? Whether or not the admins should open up a forum-style discussion space? That's literally mandated by FANDOM policy – even if everyone were to agree that users should not be allowed to make decisions or respond to new situations, it would still be the case that FANDOM WINS. We already have a broad user and admin consensus; broadening that consensus even further wouldn't change anything about the next steps, i.e. that our admins need to contact Spongebob456 and/or CzechOut. – n8 (☎) 03:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Najawin ☎ 04:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn’t really put the idea of consensus down to every single person on here needs to agree. Just because one person disagrees with a subject, in this case it would be two (as you mentioned), does not mean that there is not a general consensus for something, and it shouldn’t call into question any idea of consensus. It’s the exact same as if someone went to a restaurant and they served a dish that majority of their costumers didn’t like, except one person. They would discontinue it, despite that one costumer, because it didn’t sell well. The same goes with the Forums, a vast majority want the Forums back, and new people are turned away from wanting to edit because of a lack of Forums. That means you bring Forums back, despite what these two people might have to say. That’s also how democracy works. —Danniesen ☎ 07:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

So I'm about to nod off for the night, but for now I just want to note that I agree. Small amounts of disagreement isn't sufficient to call into question consensus. But I think a larger sample size is something we should want in this situation, since this is, after all, a fairly obscure talk page, and even users who contributed to the list of threads to work on haven't been involved in this discussion. Moreover, I think that having more users weighing in would only go to show that it actually is a vast majority, rather than selection bias. Najawin ☎ 07:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's inarguable that we need somewhere to discuss these all these issues. We effectively have a two-year backlog of discussions which can't be resolved without forums. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 12:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This conversation began on Tardis talk:Temporary forums, but since the consensus had already moved from the "temporary forums" proposal to something much more specific and permanent – specifically, the reopening of the Forum: namespace and DPL forums immediately, without waiting for the restoration of the archives – I've taken the liberty of selecting the relevant comments and copying them to here, with proper CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution, to make the topic clearer to newcomers. The prior edit history can be viewed at Tardis talk:Temporary forums. – n8 (☎) 15:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Per a request to voice my view, I am expressing my agreement that the proposed solution should be implemented. As stated, the wiki is struggling to function as discussions mount up without the proper place in Forum provided for them. As such, I support restoring it in alignment with the reasons given. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So it had seemed to me that consensus was against asking other users for input, hence why I didn't go posting the link to this on people's talk page. But User:StevieGLiverpool was asking in Discussions about the forums coming back, having not seen this. It might be worth calling it to the users listed above's attention even if we don't insist on waiting for them. Najawin ☎ 02:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. This discussion and everything coming from it is important and editors should be aware of it. Bongo50 ☎ 08:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I for one would like the forums to be back as soon as possible. Is there any reason not to? We can just get the archives later, right? MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 11:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, took me a while to get here. I think I've garnered an understanding about what this is about. The best case scenario I feel like would be just get regular forums open and bring in the archives later. The main reason I want forums is to open a discussion about video game validity - and seeing as there are plans for a Decide Your Destiny validity change I may need to piggyback off of that.

Regardless, if that's isn't quite feasible right now then yes we absolutely need some temporary forums to alleviate some of the stresses that having lacked forums for 2 years has brought us. The quicker we can get some discussions going and review in any policy or page politics the better for the overall health of the wiki I feel. Bring it on! StevieGLiverpool ☎ 13:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact we’ve gone without forums for two years now is baffling to me. It’s vital to the smooth operating of the wiki that we get them back as soon as is humanly possible, whether they be temporary or not. We need a space to be able to properly resolve the issues that many have illustrated above and more beyond that. If it’s doable to bring the forums back and just get the archives later, I’m in full support of that. If not, a temporary forum of some kind is still desperately needed. SarahJaneFan ☎ 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents to agree with this. The current paralysis from the lack of forums needs to end and if its feasible to open them up without the archives in place yet, then do that. If that's not feasible, then we desperately need some sort of temporary solution. Perfect should not be the enemy of good. SherlockTheII ☎ 09:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've actually been following this discussion since Bongo's short-lived creation of the temporary forums but, to put it bluntly, I gave up most of my hope for the return of the forums a long time ago and developments since then have done little to change my mind with how easy it apparently was this whole time. However, as my opinion on the most recent proposal has been requested on my talk page, I'll give it right here. To be concise: it's frankly ridiculous that a Wiki of this size hasn't had somewhere it can change policy in over two years and I would support almost any solution (including all those proposed here as well as several others) to rectify this, though I agree that immediate re-activation of the DPL Forums without archives would be best at this time. Borisashton ☎ 21:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I was brought here by my talk page, but i'm not sure i can say much else other than i support the idea of a temporary forums or forums without old archives because we can't wait anymore Editoronthewiki ☎ 23:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Same as Editoronthewiki. I support every initiative where editors can discuss properly, it's the spirit of a wiki.HarveyWallbanger ☎ 10:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)