///In-universe but non-narrative sources
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-33695797-20200828040941 A while ago, I opened an inclusion debate for TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual. It is presented as an in-universe documentation of the history and functions of the Doctor's TARDIS. The rule of T:VS in contention here would be Rule 1 — only stories count. I do think it tells the story of the TARDIS, but I worry the sections solely detailing functionality may make it a stretch. However, I am proposing we accept in-universe information as valid sources, even if they are not stories themselves. I understand this is a rather large modification to Rule 1, but I think a) there is good reason to do so and b) I really don't see a reason that says otherwise.
First off, let me clarify what I am proposing: resources presented as in-universe information sources should be valid sources citable on in-universe pages, even if they are not narrative. I am not saying other things that Rule 1 excludes should be included. The most important distinction is real-world books or merchandise about Doctor Who that try to provide in-universe information, like encyclopedias.
For example, Monsters and Villains says Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17's birth name is Brian Edward Cobbs. That's neat and all, but this is a book about the Doctor Who TV show. It may have some new information about the DWU, but it's non-fiction. Just take a look at what Template:Non-fiction says: "Unlike other fictional universes, the Doctor Who universe is created solely by fiction."
Well, in-universe information presented in this way is fiction, completely and entirely. Inside a Skaro Saucer acts as a book that, if I were an individual living in the DWU, I could read. Setting aside that I think there's an argument to be made for a narrative, TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual acts completely like a book from the Time Lords' Panopticon Archive everywhere except the copyright page.
Rule 1 of the "four little rules" exists to invalidate information from real world sources. (At least, that's what the page conveyed to me.) Merchandise, BTS info from a writer, games that conceivably could give information— those are all fictional information from a non-fictional source. The only example given for in-universe info is "Sometimes you'll find a piece in a magazine written as if it's "real life" journalism about events in the DWU... None of this counts." I don't think that’s a great example, because it could tell a story and we would count it anyway.
Then there's the relevant section of the examples table (text bolded by me):
| Class of story | Explanation | Examples | Rule offended |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fictional information presented non-narratively | Sometimes, publications like Doctor Who annuals, Dalek annuals and Doctor Who: Battles in Time — or even some reference works — will present "biographical" or "historical" information about characters and situations in the DWU in a non-narrative style. Maybe this will be information on the back of playing card or an article that's a kind of "pseudo-history". None of this is allowed. | Most of the Dalek history in Battles in Time Games and puzzles in annuals that involve DWU characters. |
1 |
At least, I think that's talking about what I'm talking about. It’s kind of confusing.
Most of these examples are all sources "set" in the real-world that try to provide a bit more information to make things interesting. It's describing what is acknowledged to be a fictional character. (Thus, these fail rule 4 anyway.)
But nowhere can I find a reason for excluding completely fictional information. Perhaps there is an old forum thread I don't know about. If so, I would like to see it, and it probably should be provided as a rationale on T:VS. It seems to me like Rule 1 was created to discount the aforementioned "real world" info, and in-universe info got caught up in it. (But again, I could be wrong.) Anyway, my point is, to exclude resources like these, whose sole purpose is to simply provide completely fictional information (which itself would be useful for our own encyclopedia of a fictional universe), seems rather pointless and even detrimental. There is quite a bit of useful new information in these types of sources, but I won't go too much into that.
There already is a bit of inconsistency on this anyway. Apparently mini-sections from The Doctor: His Lives and Times of in-universe documents such as Report on Term's Work (short story) are valid, despite not really being stories at all— this just describes the Doctor's performance in the Time Lord Academy, there's no narrative to it. Then there are some other in-universe documents in the same book that are indeed narratives, but they're not covered. So these should be consistent on whatever is decided, and I guess pages for the narrative ones can already be created.
As a final note, I do not support the inclusion of in-universe websites, for the many reasons pointed out at Thread:121084.
