More actions
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only. |
|---|
|
Archives: |
|---|
Star Trek
I don't think this is solely owned by CBS - what about the Paramount movies? --Silent Hunter UK ☎ 13:47, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
I think CBS created it, and then after the original series was over Paramount bought it and created the movies and later series. Also, why are non-narrative things not sources? Am I asking in the right place? CloneMarshalCommanderCody ☎ 20:11, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
- You are asking in the wrong place, but it's not your fault. A while back, when someone wanted to describe what the wiki means by "non-narrative", they would link to Tardis:Canon policy. I've tried to correct that when I can, but there are still a few links to that page. Nowadays, we link to Tardis:Valid sources, which offers a nice description of why we allow what we allow and why we don't allow what we don't allow. Hope this helps. Shambala108 ☎ 20:30, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
Because I'm feeling my A-type personality tonight, just to correct the above, Star Trek was created for Desilu Productions, which was bought by Paramount. It has always been a Paramount-owned property, but at some point CBS ended up being connected to Paramount, so as a result CBS now has a piece of the action which is why the new Discovery series will air on a CBS network. But Paramount has always owned the various TV series and the movies. There, I feel better now! 23skidoo ☎ 01:27, June 23, 2017 (UTC)
Boundaries of "non-narrative"
Hello! I'm rather new on this Wiki, but I have been perusing the various canon policies and related debate, and found in no uncertain terms that, say, a "press article" about the Doctor's exploits, written in an in-universe style, would not constitute a valid source even if published by the BBC. After lengthy research into the rather large archives of the forums, I was unable to locate any discussion to explain why this is so.
And it seems rather odd to me! For writing a facsimile of an in-universe document (be it a press article, an encyclopedia, or a fragment of a diary entry) is an established literary technique. Most Doctor Who literature is written in good old third-person omniscient, but if a Doctor Who novel about an adventure of the First Doctor were written in first-person and purported to be a lengthy extract of Ian Chesterton's personal diary, say, it would be as much a Doctor Who novel as any other.
Meanwhile, a short story is as valid as a novel, assuming all else (licensing, etc.) is equal. Thus, how is a "fictional press article" about the Doctor out-of-bounds, when it is, for most literary intents and purposes, nothing more than a short story, written in the "facsimile of an in-universe document" style? It's quite baffling to me.
I understand why information on the back of a trading card (another example given of "non-narrative" info that wouldn't be valid) might be disregarded, but what I'm arguing, at the end of the day, is that an in-universe newspaper clipping or encyclopedia is, in fact, a piece of narrative fiction, despite what the wording of the policy seems to imply.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:59, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that you also need to acquaint yourself with Tardis:You are bound by current policy, especially with the following part: you can't just ignore a rule because you didn't realise a discussion was ongoing or because you weren't even a member of our community when the rule was created. Neither can you ignore a rule simply because you've opened up a discussion that might lead to changing that rule. The fact that you do not like the way things are done on this wiki or do not understand them is a rather weak reason to overturn 14 years of precedent, don't you think. Especially, given that your interest seems to be purely academic.
- I commend your desire to study the policies but would strongly discourage you from trying to challenge well established policies until you gained sufficient editorial experience and broad knowledge of DWU.
- If you have questions how to implement current policies, Tardis:Administrators are at your service. However, I currently do not have time to defend our policies to every new user in a purely speculative exercise. There is way too much editing work for that.
- If you are interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, you would be better served by posting in Discussions. Amorkuz ☎ 22:38, July 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand why you direct me towards the "You are bound by current policy" page. As you will observe, I have not, in fact, attempted to act on my feeling that the current policy is odd. Just posted the message above. The point of this discussion, more than for me to change the Wiki's policy, is rather for the wiki to change my own mind; that is, I seek to understand this policy and the reasoning behind it (I'm the sort of chap who likes to understand "the spirit of the law"), as well as exactly what it entails — where the line would be drawn between one of those "supposedly in-universe articles" that are banned, and a legitimate short story that may be written in an in-universe style. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:45, July 11, 2018 (UTC)
"Secondary sources" still referenced
The "Non-fiction" template still links to "Tardis:Canon policy#Secondary sources", even though there is no longer a "secondary sources" section on this page. Are secondary sources even still a thing? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:30, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. It is corrected and the link is updated. It now points to the section with a table that states explicitly that "Fictional information presented non-narratively" is not considered valid. This is a direct consequence of the first of the "four little rules" used to determine validity on the wiki. Amorkuz ☎ 17:49, July 12, 2018 (UTC)