More actions
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:219136
You should never assume that because you personally know, say, Albert Einstein's birthdate, or the year the film Breakfast at Tiffany's debuted, or the duration of the Second Afghan War, that these dates will be the same in the DWU.
T:NO RW is one of our most basic and integral rules used to write in-universe articles. The basic concept of the policy is that it can't be confirmed that the Doctor Who Universe and the real universe are exactly the same, and thus we have banned the use of real-world facts within these articles.
For instance, at one point the page Elizabeth I featured the dates of which she was born, and those for which she died. However, it was soon pointed out that no in-universe story featured these elements, thus they were removed from the article.
The issue comes about when people take this (rather integral rule) a little too far. This has been the case as of recent, when one of our admins has decided that this rule applies to things like photographs and archive recordings.
His logic, as explained on my talk page, is that if we don't have someone in the story saying “This is a photograph of ____,” or “this is an audio recording of a speech made by ____,” then we can not assume that this is the person that it is supposed to be. The suggestion was that these certain appearances should only be mentioned in behind-the-scenes examples, which only really helps the situation on short pages like Martin Luther King, and not on gigantic ones like The Beatles.
I would like to remind you of T:NO RW. In short, you cannot identify a person by the image based on your real-world knowledge. In order to put those images on pages, you need either to use the context (like in the case of Neil Armstrong, where the event is identified by the narrator and there is enough prior DWU information to understand who is in the spacesuit) or you need to compare the image with images of the same person that were featured in the DWU before.
You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the policy. "Did a DWU source tell you that this is a photo of MLK?" is the question that the policy demands you to answer.
...
You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion.
Amorkuz suggested that I move the discussion to a Pantopticon debate, and I have obliged. However, I am not, I might quickly add, arguing with policy. Policy is absolutely fine, and is written with fine intentions. I am disagreeing with this wholly unfounded interpretation of policy , and how little it accomplishes.
Who does this serve?[[edit] | [edit source]]
No one.
We create our rules to help our readers understand as much as possible about valid Doctor Who stories and the so-called Doctor Who Universe.
It is thus very helpful to separate in-universe depictions of events and those same events in the real-world. There is no need, for instance, for the page about Martin Luther King Jr to mention any of his accomplishments in the Civil Rights Movement, because no known DWU text ever references such things. All we know about this character is that he was assassinated in 1968, he was heard in TV: Remembrance of the Daleks (set in 1963), and an image of him was shown inside the Monks' Cathedral in TV: The Lie of the Land.
There is, however, no true use to deny instances of references towards MLK himself simply because characters don't suddenly stop acting like normal people and instead start talking like robots. Expecting MLK to be positively identified every time audio or video of him is used is quite the insane request.
A reader searching for info about 1966 will not need to know about how the info presented there contradicts real-world events. However, on the same level, there is no need to deny information presented. No reader will care about if a picture of MLK is identified as a picture of MLK, because that's just blatantly obvious.
Do the rules really say this?[[edit] | [edit source]]
No.
T:NO RW, in fact, in designed to stop people adding in references that are solely out-of-universe in nature. Adding in information which only exists in the real world.
Marco Polo's given DWU birthdate is different from the real world date. Modern day episodes of the show, like The War Machines, are based on qualities of British computer science that didn't exist in 1966. And episodes that were supposed to be set in the clear future, like The Tenth Planet, described events that obviously never came to pass.
Basically, T:NO RW is all about the fact that references to real world events can not be simply invented.
Amorkuz's interpretation, meanwhile, is that we should use T:NO RW to disallow in-universe information from being used on the pages that they pertain to. The simple problem is that T:NO RW makes no single reference to this particular application.
Our rules make quite the big deal to feature numerous examples of how certain policies should be used and applied. T:GTI features numerous examples of judgement on images, and even states some rules that otherwise aren't spelled out. And T:NO RW does not once, even in passing, mention this interpretation of policy.
Does this have precedent[[edit] | [edit source]]
No.
There are, in fact, so many examples of this not being the case that I'm going to allow other users to point those out for me. Please note that if you think that any of the following uses are incorrect, you should not “fix” them, as per T:POINT.
The page for The Beatles mentions their appearances in TV: The Evil of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks, and TV: Revelation of the Daleks.
Further in the future, the DJ on Necros had posters of several of the Beatles in his recording studio. (TV: Revelation of the Daleks)
"Paperback Writer" and "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" played in the background of cafés visited by the Doctor, (TV: The Evil of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks) as did The Beatles' recording of "A Taste of Honey". (TV: Remembrance of the Daleks)
The page The Entertainer discusses in pretty heavy detail an instrumental track whistled in one story and played on piano in another. The page, of course, uses the name linked and takes no qualm in referencing it as the song despite no one saying “HAHA I'M WHISTLING A SONG CALLED THE ENTERTAINER!”
Because our readers, in short, need to be able to find information that they want without dancing around if characters are written like people or robots.
In conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
I did some hunting, and I finally found an actual old-forums debate that cites clear precedent on this issue. It was, in all places, in a debate about how to cover the then-upcoming Star Trek crossover.
I hear ya, but IDW aren't going to spoonfeed aspects of the STU through dialogue. That would make for a very boring, very insulting read. After all, it's not like DW always names its objects. There are many, many episodes where the sonic screwdriver isn't named. We just know it is because we see it, we hear it, and, based on our prior knowledge, we can obviously put two and two together. After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like Volkswagen Beetle, HMS Teazer, London Borough of Barnet, real world people who appeared in archive footage, Doctor Who actors who played themselves — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of category:Songs from the real world. It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.
It's because of these reasons that I thoroughly dispute that T:NO RW, or indeed any of our policies, stop us from identifying a Volkswagen Beetle as a Volkswagen Beetle, or a Beatles song as a Beatles song, or a picture of Donald Trump as Donald Trump, or a recording of Martin Luther King Jr as a recording of Martin Luther King Jr. When writing about a primarily visual medium, and thus we should allow our pages to be written as such.
EDIT: There I changed two words.
- TheChampionOfTime
OttselSpy25 wrote: Who does this serve?
- No one.
I couldn't agree more.
- MystExplorer
I agree. I don't think it makes any sense to deny users the right to identify something that is blatantly obvious.
- NateBumber
Hear hear. While I don't think this is as much an issue in the specific case of Martin Luther King, where the mentions are still clearly visible despite being hidden in the BtS, I think this thread clarifies a valuable subtlety of the existing policy, a subtlety that affects multiple pages in meaningful ways despite not being well represented on the actual policy page (which should be edited to prevent further misunderstanding in this way).
- Amorkuz
OttselSpy25 wrote: We’re a primarily visual medium, and thus we should allow our pages to be written as such.
A warning to editors who may not be familiar with Tardis:Neutral point of view. This wiki does not treat DWU as arising from a "primarily visual medium", as erroneously claimed by OttselSpy25. It is a long-standing policy of this wiki to give all media equal weight. In other words, novels, short stories and audio stories carry as much weight as TV stories and comic stories.
Policies are not written to "primarily" accommodate the shortcomings of the "visual medium", and pages most definitely should not be written in a way that discriminates against the non-visual media in any way.
- OttselSpy25
I don't take that statement back. With comics being one of the most regularly published stories, and the TV show still being published every year, we still are a show primarily built upon visuals. My point was that, when discussing visuals or elements that involve appearances, it's important to be sensible.
Specifically I said that to separate the discussion from mediums like audio and prose, which you had noted in another thread tended to be more tricky. I've changed a few words to make this more clear, but over-all I question why that was that important to home in on.
- Amorkuz
Secondly, before getting to the heart of the question, unfortunately, I must restore the parts of our conversation that OttselSpy25 decided to omit creating a misrepresentation of the conversation---fill in the blanks, as it were. I apologise for thus taking the time of editors interested in the content of this discussion, but when information is not presented correctly and in full, it must first be corrected and completed. Here is the (shortened version of) the transcript of the conversation compiled from our talk pages, with important parts of the conversation highlighted:
You yourself created The Birth of Venus using real world information to name it.
for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. However, the real-world name on the page should still be confined to the BTS section, which is perfectly demonstrated by the page for the painting I created.
...
One final comment about this situation. It is important to know that this footage is a forgery intended to override human memory. Thus, there is an additional degree of indeterminacy involved: we do not assume that DWU is exactly the same as the real world in general. But here, the Monks could additionally modify the footage. The images should of course be still used. But the wording of what they are should be really cautious.
I think that the point is that you can assign names to these images, but it's best not to use those names on an in-universe basis if they've never been identified elsewhere.
Amorkuz, I've read through your posts, and I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of how we cover the appearances of real-world figures. As long as Martin Luther King (JR) has a page, we can of course discuss from an in-universe fashion his role in TV: The Lie of the Land and Remembrance of the Daleks.
...
Someone going to a page on MLK will want to know about where he is referenced or brought up. They aren't going to care if it's just an image, or just a clip of audio. Suggesting culling this information is unreasonable.
In principle, I do not understand how editors would be disadvantaged from reading about this photo in the BTS section rather than in an in-universe one.
...
Your own example of Remembrance of the Daleks perfectly encapsulates how this wiki treats such occasions. Martin Luther King is mentioned only in the "Story notes" and "Ucredited cast" (both RW parts) and at both places his name is not linked because there is no in-universe link to the name.
The point is that you are suggesting a different page for all three of the current references to Martin Luther King Jr -- one for a mention of him in an audio, one for the stock audio used of him in TV: Remembrance, and one for the stock photo used of him in the episode.
...
With such precedent as the pages for Struwwelpeter and Anthony Eden, it is obvious that at some points bends to T:NO RW can be made for the sake of our readers.
...
So no, I am not arguing against the policy. I am arguing with you about how the policy is to be handled, and I think that trying to lie to our editors about what images of who appeared where is out-right a mis-use of the idea.
...
And if Martin Luther King Jr is mentioned in three stories in different terms, all three references should be included on one page.
I really do not understand how putting things in BTS and "Story notes" qualifies as lying. I explicitly said: for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. How do you derive three different pages for MLK from this, I don't know. Of course, all this information should be on the same page.
Wholly irrelevant. I find no precedent for removing information on references to ideas on the basis that you are suggesting.
All your examples work against you: Struwwelpeter never mentions the name of the book in the in-universe part of the page. And "Paperback Writer" is not identified as a song by the Beatles on the in-universe part of the page either.
...
You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion. You have the right to your opinion. And I have an obligation to uphold the policies.
I must ask that you adhere to Tardis:No personal attacks. There is no need to resort to petty accusations, or to take the conversation personally. I am listening to what you have to say, and I am strongly disagreeing with you. If you don't want to have this conversation, that should have no bearing on our current policy. Your position as an administrator for this site does not make your say final, and thus I would ask that you stop stating your loose interpretations as absolute "in the eyes of the law." How you've decided to view T:No RW has had no legitimate use in the past, there is no precedent for your current instance of how our policies work. You have your right to an opinion, but your opinion is not "the policies".
- NateBumber
Amorkuz wrote: It is a long-standing policy of this wiki to give all media equal weight. In other words, novels, short stories and audio stories carry as much weight as TV stories and comic stories.
Policies are not written to "primarily" accommodate the shortcomings of the "visual medium", and pages most definitely should not be written in a way that discriminates against the non-visual media in any way.
I completely agree! As someone who's primarily a fan of the novels, it really peeves me when people pretend the TV show and/or Big Finish audios are "more official" or "more canon" than the book spinoffs.
That said, I don't think the OP - which is merely clarifying part of a policy that has been in effect for years - counts as anything close to "discriminatory" against non-visual media. The policy being discussed is just common sense. If a few episodes back we saw a key on the Doctor's desk, but it was never mentioned, would it be fit to mention it on Key? Absolutely! Because it's a common object, so we can identify it based on sight alone. I argue that the exact same thing can be said about Martin Luther King Jr. This isn't a statement about his birthdates, or his status in the civil rights movement, or anything about him besides his image; all that still absolutely falls under T:NO RW. But every man, woman, and child watching Lie of the Land recognized the image on the screen as Martin Luther King, and it's almost self-defeatist to neglect that fact.
Countless editors (and admins, per the above quotes) have understood this and kept this subtlety in mind when adding to the wiki in the past; I don't see why we can't do the same here.
- Amorkuz
For those who would prefer not to read through this discussion in full, the "not listening part" I was referring to is two-fold:
- OS25 accused me of wanting to create three different pages for MLK after I clearly said that the page title should be based on RW info;
- OS25 accused me of proposing to "cull information" from pages, "lie to editors" and "remove information" from pages after I repeatedly explained that the information should be present on pages but relegated to BTS and "Story notes" sections (if supporting DWU evidence is insufficient).
After several iterations, I simply ran out of ways to explain my position.
In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated:
It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.
That is exactly what I was trying to explain. And I still to this day do not understand where OS25 saw the contradiction between my explanations, the policy formulation, statements of CzechOut and actual pages given by OS25 as examples.
However, as I stated before, I do not want to spend even more time arguing what has been a policy for a long time and what the pages shown by OS25 as counterexamples comply with. Perhaps, other longer-serving admins would be able to explain this policy in better ways than me.
I'm sorry that OS25 disagrees with their understanding of what I was saying. It should be clear from the quotes I provided that they have been misunderstanding me all along. I believe NateBumber perfectly encapsulates the method that has been used all this time:
While I don't think this is as much an issue in the specific case of Martin Luther King, where the mentions are still clearly visible despite being hidden in the BtS
I might only add that the speech from The Remembrance of the Daleks that OS25 was advocating for being easily accessible to the editors was not originally on the Martin Luther King page, and I had to add it there Special:Diff/2348121.
- NateBumber
Amorkuz wrote:
In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated: ... That is exactly what I was trying to explain.
Am I misunderstanding the quote?
Give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.
A proper name in the STU ... and a "behind the scenes" note saying it wasn't named by the story. So if this reasoning were applied to Martin Luther King, the references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Lie of the Land would be included in the main body of the article, with a note in the Behind the Scenes saying
"Martin Luther King was not explicitly identified in Remembrance of the Daleks or The Lie of the Land. However, it is unmistakably his voice and image."
What am I missing here?
- OttselSpy25
The contradiction I saw is evident.
You moved Martin Luther King Jr to Martin Luther King due to an audio not mentioning the Jr, and then suggested that the picture of Martin Luther King Jr could be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr exclusively, without any reference within the article to who the person in the picture actually is.
For instance, Martin Luther King Jr page could say something like: "an image of a prominent figure from human history could be seen on screens inside the Cathedral."
Thus suggesting that we could not confirm via basic logic that the Martin Luther King mentioned in The Age of Revolution and the figure seen in The Life of the Land were the same person, and thus that they must have different pages. Since there's no way to say that the voice heard in Remembrance is the face seen in The Lie of the Land, your logic holds one solution -- three different pages for one predominant historical figure.
Let us note that there is a difference between saying "You aren't listening to me about this one small aspect," and you saying "You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion". One of those is a clarification, one of those is a generalization.
Speaking of restoring missing parts of the conversation, allow me to post the rest of NateBumer's quote.
I think this thread clarifies a valuable subtlety of the existing policy, a subtlety that affects multiple pages in meaningful ways despite not being well represented on the actual policy page (which should be edited to prevent further misunderstanding in this way).
The point is that as Martin Luther King is such a short page, all of the information presented is not hindered in visibility. Now see a page like The Beatles. How would it help our readers to put the appearances of Beatles media in the behind-the-scenes section, so far away and in such a crowded area that it will soon be forgotten? Simple answer: it won't.
Once again, as I have directly challenged that your interpretation of the policy is by any meany valid, I ask that you do not use language like "Perhaps, other longer-serving admins would be able to explain this policy in better ways than me," as if I'm a baby in the crib who doesn't comprehend English. I do understand the rules, I've studied the rules, there is no precedent or basis in taking the rules to such a degree.
- Amorkuz
OttselSpy25 wrote: The contradiction I saw is evident.
You moved Martin Luther King Jr to Martin Luther King due to an audio not mentioning the Jr, and then suggested that the picture of Martin Luther King Jr could be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr exclusively, without any reference within the article to who the person in the picture actually is.
Could you please provide a quote where I say that the picture should be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr separately from Martin Luther King? I certainly never intended this to happen. But I'm just curious: what gave you this impression?
- OttselSpy25
NateBumber wrote:
Amorkuz wrote:
In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated: ... That is exactly what I was trying to explain.
Am I misunderstanding the quote?
Give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.
A proper name in the STU ... and a "behind the scenes" note saying it wasn't named by the story. So if this reasoning were applied to Martin Luther King, the references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Lie of the Land would be included in the main body of the article, with a note in the Behind the Scenes saying
"Martin Luther King was not explicitly identified in Remembrance of the Daleks or The Lie of the Land. However, it is unmistakably his voice and image."
What am I missing here?
Precisely. The main suggestion and descision of that thread was that it was fine to use Star Trek terms, even if they weren't mentioned in the comic. I believe there's a sequence where we see a dozen-or-so species converted into Cybermen, and I'm not sure it's ever said "Oh, look, it's the GLGLGL from Season 4 episode 3." But we still use the correct species titles.
The idea is that even if a Phaser was never called a Phaser, we could still make a page called Phaser and call it a Phaser because it's a Phaser.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: Could you please provide a quote where I say that the picture should be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr separately from Martin Luther King? I certainly never intended this to happen. But I'm just curious: what gave you this impression?
Even if my end-of-the-universe hypothetical was never truly going to come to pass, there's still clearly an unruly double standard here that truly makes little sense.
You were suggesting that when information was supplied without a name, we could use the correct out-of-universe name only for the purposes of creating a page easily (which makes sense) but you also stated that the moment said idea is also referenced from an in-universe fusion by the name, previous un-named mentions are now invalid and must go in the behind-the-scenes section.
In other words, the real-world information is normally only allowed in BTS and, exceptionally to avoid stupid dab terms like "Female monk (The Lie of the Land)" for Mother Theresa, in the page title. However, the in-universe portion of the page should only rely on the in-universe sources. Chances are that eventually information will also be found in-universe. When that happens, then BTS content can be gradually moved into the main article.
The suggestion here is that Martin Luther King Jr would be used to avoid using an unruly dab, unless another source made reference towards MLK, in which case it would all be re-directed to the behind-the-scenes section. This is what has been done at Martin Luther King.
This would be the equivalent of if we moved all of the info at Anthony Eden to the bts section because an unrelated story mentioned his full name but didn't say "It's the same Eden the Twelfth Doctor mentioned once," or if you removed all of Struwwelpeter to the behind the scenes section because another story mentioned the book without quoting the passage read by the Twelfth Doctor.
Even if that did happen, we still need an in-universe page to link to for the book that the Twelfth Doctor reads in said story. We still need a page for the Prime Minister named Eden mentioned by the Twelfth Doctor.
What page do we link to from an in-universe basis for the voices heard from the start of Remembrance? The voices, btw, are JFK and MLK. But since we can't confirm that all three of these stories to reference MLK are talking about the same guy, there is no in-universe page for two out of three of the examples. I can't say "As the Dalek ship approached, it heard a man giving a speech about dreams," because there is now no in-universe page that supports that information. You've essentially deemed moments in valid DWU stories invalid.
Again, I see no practical use for this, and I find no precedent for such a thing. Nor is it truly present in our rules.
- Amorkuz
Ah, I think I'm starting to understand where this misunderstanding stems from. Suggesting to put the Monks' image on Martin Luther King Jr while keeping other appearances at Martin Luther King is indeed quite mad. If OS25 thought that I am advocating this, at least, I now understand why they were so unhappy.
The solution to this puzzle is, however, very simple: the post suggesting to discuss MLK on Martin Luther King Jr was made at 21:19, June 8, 2017, before the page was moved at 21:28, 8 June 2017. I of course meant the page for MLK, whatever it was called at the time. In fact the moving of the page was based on the information provided by OS25 in the discussion.
Ok, so at least now something starts to make sense, finally. The longest debates are often based on a misunderstanding.
- OttselSpy25
I apologize for the misunderstanding that caused this debate. However, I still strongly stand by every single other impractical element of this interpretation of T:NO RW.
Note that my very long first post made no mention of this discrepancy what-so-ever.
- NateBumber
Amorkuz wrote: Ok, so at least now something starts to make sense, finally.
Gee, thanks. I'm glad that misunderstanding has been dealt with, but could you please address my most recent post? I don't think it was total nonsense.
- Amorkuz
Now for the really subtle points raised by both OS25 and NateBumber, where we have both the full in-universe credentials and an unidentified cameo. If only we could write a general policy... Each case is different and usually there are at least some clues or connections that allow one to include such cameos into the main body of the article. I already used the example of Neil Armstrong in the same story. The amount of evidence needed strongly depends on the context. For instance, for the images present in this story:
- One was identified as Yuri Gagarin. I have perfect vision, but I cannot make out a face, not even a gender. It could as easily be the first woman in space (or any other cosmonaut, assuming that the make of the space-suit really pins it to Communist Russia, which I'm not sure about either).
- One was identified as Winston Churchill. But in DWU, Churchill looks differently: suspiciously like Ian McNeice, whose image was in fact considered by the production team. Does our DWU knowledge trumps RW?
- One was identified as Mother Theresa, who is already present in DWU as Mother Teresa without a shred of context in either case.
- Then there is a someone standing in front of a BBC microphone that I don't think anyone recognised so far. Is he a famous guy we missed? Or was he a fabrication by the Monks?
So in this very special case, I am not prepared to accept any images at their face value precisely because they are explicitly described as being forged in-universe. This whole discussion actually originated when this picture was used as in-universe image of Gagarin. See for yourself.
My personal behaviour in such cases is agonising over the details and trying to find some additional supporting connection somewhere in DWU. If I do, then I confidently put it in the article proper. If I don't, well, maybe I haven't looked carefully enough. In short, what I was trying to explain about Gagarin originally is that finding a small additional contextual or textual (or any really) connection, in addition to the visual/audio evidence of our senses, serves as a quality control, as a reminder of T:NO RW.
I wrote the very first message (not quoted upthread) initially having this specific forged image of Gagarin in mind. Perhaps, my mistake was that I allowed the discussion of one forgery to get general. The need to describe the method that would apply to such falsified in-universe images led to the most conservative formulation. I myself would not formulate a general rule in a more permissive way. A real-world bleed, once introduced, is very hard to detect and remove without reading someone's mind. So for me presenting information in BTS is the least of two evils by default. But I am happy to consider each case separately.
- OttselSpy25
Alright, so I'm playing into your game here... But Winston Churchill has looked like his real-world counterpart before in COMIC: Time Wake.
While you may question if Yuri Gagarin looks like the version depicted inside the Monk's propaganda, I think it serves very few people to outright deny that Gagarin did appear in the Cathedral's illusion-thing. I think it's fine for the page Donald Trump to mention his role in The Lie of the Land, even if we don't really like out-right saying that his appearance in that story is how he regularly appeared. But I certainly came to strongly disagree with the slippery slope which lead you to deny that MLK was featured in Remembrance of the Daleks.
Would it be too out-of-the ordinary to suggest that we forge a rule to discrepancies like this in the future? Perhaps the redirect would be T:DUH.
The basic outline of the rule would be that if a person is pictured in a story, or if a book is quoted in a story, or a tune whistled, that we can use the real world name of said thing.
I, for one, see no difference from naming a song and identifying the players as the Beatles and identifying Martin Luther King Jr as the speaker in the "I Have a Dream" speech. (It has a wikipedia page! It's basically just a spoken song haha)
- Amorkuz
Great that the Churchill dilemma is resolved.
Donald Trump has serious problems. There is an image of the current US president in Extremis that looks nothing like the image of Donald Trump in The Lie of the Land, and neither of them is "orange", which is a verbal description of the current US president by Bill from The Pyramid at the End of the World.
But if I equivocate about the other cases, Gagarin is where I draw the line. What is the identification of this astronaut as Gagarin based on? For me, this is not even RW, this is just a speculation. Please persuade me otherwise because I cannot read minds. I just don't see the resemblance.
As for the DUH rule, it would have to be much more detailed. In particular, we already can use the name of the speech, in the title of the page and in BTS. On the other hand, there was a recent case where editors were arguing about a particular tank model used in The Runaway Bride, moving pages and all but regurgitating the specs of several real-world tanks when all that needed to be said was that it was a tank. The level of specificity necessary in identifying real-world elements in cameo-like appearances is also dependent on the context. And this is in addition to the possible uncertainty of the identification: if a character starts whistling the beginning of another song by the Beatles, "All You Need Is Love", I would strongly caution everyone against claiming that this is "La Marseillaise", for instance.
- OttselSpy25
No one is suggesting that the image of Donald Trump in the episode proves that he's the president. All we really know is that he is visible, and it is obviously him. Since Gagarin is indeed hard to identify, I would be fine with not using that on an in-universe page.
The point is that pages like The Entertainer do not hurt the wiki, and in fact allowing real world titles for speeches, historical figures, and songs only helps our writers and readers. T:DUH would simply disallow someone to claim that an image of Trump isn't Trump, or that a song being sung by the Beatles isn't the Beatles, or that a recording of MLK isn't a recording of MLK.
- Bwburke94
We need to make a distinction between facts from the real world and depictions from the real world. I suppose we need to ask ourselves a question: why does T:NO RW exist?
- OttselSpy25
T:NO RW serves the purpose of people not adding facts from the real world that have never been represented in any DWU story. For instance, people used to be obsessed with putting birth and death dates on every historical figure, from Albert Einstein to Elizabeth I. T:NO RW stops people from doing that.
- Bwburke94
What harm, if any, would be caused if we were to allow depictions from the real world? By "depictions", I mean that if a real-world photo or recording of a recognisable person appears, and is not clearly meant to represent something or someone else, it is a depiction of that person.
(To avoid going too far with this policy, I would propose that if depictions are allowed, in-universe articles should not be created if the only in-universe basis for article creation is a depiction.)
- Josiah Rowe
That proposal seems reasonable to me.
As an aside, Martin Luther King and Donald Trump currently have a very awkwardly worded note accompanying the images from The Lie of the Land: "No connection has been made to him and his face, however." If we must split hairs about whether a real-world photo of MLK seen in the DWU is meant to depict MLK in the DWU, there's got to be a better way to word the accompanying note.
- Bwburke94
Informal revision to the policy:
- If a real-world photo, video, or audio recording of a recognisable person/thing from the real world appears, it is an admissible depiction on in-universe pages only if all of the following are true:
- The story in which the depiction appears is valid.
- The depiction exists in-universe. (Depictions presented only to the audience are not admissible, because they are irrelevant within the scope of this wiki.)
- The depiction is not meant to represent something or someone else.
Obviously, this is still in need of revision, if we even go down the road of "admissible depictions" in the first place.
- If a real-world photo, video, or audio recording of a recognisable person/thing from the real world appears, it is an admissible depiction on in-universe pages only if all of the following are true:
- Amorkuz
I think I found a good example illustrating my difficulties with formulating a policy. I honestly agreed with User:Bwburke94's description above. But, as he said, item 3 may need to be refined. And here is a a good example to direct such a revision:
I am talking about the portraits hanging in the corridor of St Luke's University. They are, undoubtedly, of John Snow and Daenerys Targaryen. The clothes and poses match. I think it is easy to find the RW original photos. But I hope you would agree this cannot be treated as a confirmation that the GoT universe is part of the DWU or, less drastically, that John and Danny are persons from the DWU.
Returning to my original objections (without actually reading them), what seems to be missing here is a context. Without such context, it's not clear what these depictions are meant to represent. But, on the other hand, it is hard to imagine that they are meant to represent something else.
- Amorkuz
On the other hand, stepping away from this discussion for a couple of month allowed me to process the arguments internally. And here is what I think about it now (I hope my position has moved towards the other participants). Due to the equality of media, there should not be a difference in identifying a RW object/person by name/image/sound. A book can be identified by a passage. A song can be identified by an audio snippet. A person can be identified by an image. (However, as the image above shows, one needs some minimal amount of context for the sake of sanity.)
I did at some point have problems with titles of songs, which may be hard to identify sometimes from audio only (I blame my musical upbringing). But in the presence of a shred of context the problem of identification should be resolvable. My second problem was that a title of a book or a title of a music piece can actually contain some information, unlike most proper names. The proper way of looking at it, I now believe, is to treat the page name as a variable name in a programming language. We give it a meaningful name for our convenience, but this should not give us license to extract information from the name. For instance, it would be improper to try connecting Marseillaise with the city of Marseille, unless its name is actually pronounced in-universe. As Josiah Rowe said, this is a bit of hair-splitting. But it was one of my worries, and one can find much more informative titles.
However, my main problem was the ability to connect different descriptions of the same object/person, to connect an image with the name, the text of a book with the title of the book, etc. I think BWBurke94 meant something similar when he talked about distinguishing between facts and depictions from the RW. For me the connection stating that, say, the man who gave the human rights speech has this particular face was more of a fact than a depiction. And this fact was, seemingly, inducted into the DWU based solely on the title of the page. That was and is my main struggle.
In other words, I agree with most of you if a RW object/person is always identified in the same way: always by image, or always by last name, or always by voice. The question is what to do when there are two unrelated and uncorrelated descriptions. I'm afraid I have to concede here that, though no universally optimal solution exists, there is little to be done other than put all these differently identified references to the same page. Again, the principle of equality of media was decisive in persuading me. (Needless to say, I would still be providing copious explanations in the BTS section regarding what is and is not known in-universe.)
We all agreed that having separate pages for MLK would have been madness. What I realised recently was that it is hard to provide a principled rule regarding which representations of MLK are to be primary and which are to be relegated to the BTS. After internal deliberations, I concede this point.
Having said that, my problems with the Monks and people they put into their propaganda are not resolved. For the simple reason that the context suggests those images to be doctored. However, my proposal to an admin who would want to close this debate some day is to remove the whole Monk situation from the general consideration. It is pretty unique, I believe, to deserve a separate, more pointed discussion what to do with in-universe sources that are known to be falsified.
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: Due to the equality of media, there should not be a difference in identifying a RW object/person by name/image/sound. A book can be identified by a passage. A song can be identified by an audio snippet. A person can be identified by an image. (However, as the image above shows, one needs some minimal amount of context for the sake of sanity.)
Prose stories are different because, in most cases, the only way objects/people can be identified is by name.
- Amorkuz
I'll throw in another example from my recent edits. In The Shining Man, Bill Potts remembered one of the most famous Humphrey Bogart's lines, "Play it again, Sam." (As most famous lines, it is typically misquoted, here and elsewhere.)
All the novel states is that it is a movie with Bogart. In effect, the movie here is "identified" (or not?) by a popular quote rather than by name. I was not ready to put this info anywhere outside the BTS section.
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: I'll throw in another example from my recent edits. In The Shining Man, Bill Potts remembered one of the most famous Humphrey Bogart's lines, "Play it again, Sam." (As most famous lines, it is typically misquoted, here and elsewhere.)
All the novel states is that it is a movie with Bogart. In effect, the movie here is "identified" (or not?) by a popular quote rather than by name. I was not ready to put this info anywhere outside the BTS section.
That would remain off limits in my current proposal, because it is a fact, not a depiction.
- Amorkuz
Finally, on a clear head, time to reply. I'm glad we agree on the outcome: this does not warrant identification of the movie. But this means that your proposal is more subtle than I thought.
Is "depiction" an exact copy then, like a clip from a film, a piece of melody performed, a book read out, a person shown? As opposed to Bill remembering a movie rather than seeing the movie. Is that what you meant?
- Bwburke94
I wouldn't say "exact copy", because of the Monks situation, but Bill remembering a movie wouldn't qualify as a depiction.
This is why prose stories are so hard to handle. We can't use equality of media as rationale to call it a depiction, because it would not qualify as a depiction if the story were in a performed format.
- Amorkuz
I would really leave Monks out of it. They're not a standard case.
I think I understand what you're saying about the prose. To depict on Video/audio/comics, one really has to show it. Want to depict a movie in a video? Show the screen. Want to depict a song on audio?Include it in the soundtrack (diegetically). Want to depict a person in comics? Include his/her face.
In the prose, on the other hand, everything is a description, which can be more or less precise. One can claim there is a movie playing without giving a clue which movie. One can mention a pop melody dropping tantalising but insufficient hints which one it is. I see the problem.
But I guess the same problem occurs if one tries to "depict" a face on audio.
Perhaps, the rule-of-thumb should be that it can only be a "depiction" if it matches the medium. Visual depictions require a visual medium, audio depictions require sound to be present. Then we still have equality of media. And even prose can have its depictions if they are of narrative kind. For instance, a poem can be depicted in a novel if somebody recites it.
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: Perhaps, the rule-of-thumb should be that it can only be a "depiction" if it matches the medium. Visual depictions require a visual medium, audio depictions require sound to be present. Then we still have equality of media. And even prose can have its depictions if they are of narrative kind. For instance, a poem can be depicted in a novel if somebody recites it.
Of course, the recitation of a poem would also be a depiction even in a televised story.
- Amorkuz
Absolutely. Text can be equally well represented on video, audio or in pure text. I did not mean the media to be separate. Clearly, audio media are contained in video ones (unless it's a silent movie but I don't think we have those), but not in comics ones. So a pop song can be depicted in a comic strip by its text, but an instrumental piece cannot be depicted and would have to be explicitly named. (I did try to figure out the music score from the cover of The Silver Turk. It was a nightmare and never led anywhere.)
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: I did try to figure out the music score from the cover of The Silver Turk. It was a nightmare and never led anywhere.
Of course, under my proposed rule, this would be irrelevant. The cover does not exist in-universe.
- OttselSpy25
I just wanted to pop-in and say that you two have taken this thread to really great places. This is the kind of discussion that makes this site worth being on.
- 171.33.193.136
I feel like here is a good place to mention my proposed renaming of the Stephen Hawking article to Steven Hawking, which was given in The Tomorrow Windows. What do you guys think of that? Is this a valid application of T:NO RW or now?
If he wants to open a new post, keeping the policy in mind, then go for it. It will then be discussed as it should be.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:220556
I am going to be making a radical suggestion that, at one point, I would have been heavily against. Furthermore, it certainly would have, at one stage, not made sense to do what I'm about to suggest. But no more.
Once upon a time, we as a wiki had two kinds of Cybermen that we were able to clearly identify: the Cybermen from Pete's World (who were the variant featured in nearly every single story being published with the Cybermen at that point) and the Cybermen of Mondas (who were seen as the "Classic Series Cybermen," and were rarely heard from at that time). Because of this, we had various precautions which we used to identify if a Cyberman was based in that of Pete's World or Mondas:
- Mondasian Cybermen usually have chest boxes, and look like the Cybermen of the classic series.
- Pete's World Cybermen look like the Cybermen seen in the new series, and feature a Cs on their chest, indicating the company Cybus Industries.
Thus we set-off on our journeys as a wiki, going as far as to create pages for any versions of the Cybermen that couldn't be solved by the above clues. For a time, a page was created entirely for the Cybermen featured in Blood of the Cybermen, and Category:Cybermen (unknown origin) continues to exist. Apparently, it is a big problem for us if a story doesn't outright list off whatever planet this sect of Cybermen came from.
The problem is that as these stories have continued to exist, both of the rules listed above have ceased to exist. TV: Nightmare in Silver was the first culprit of this discrepancy -- clearly showing a Pete's World Cyberman from the revived series. Despite this, the episode described the events of the Cyber Wars as fought by the Mondas variants of the classic series. Behind the scenes, Neil Gaiman speculated that the two once-distinct races of Cybermen had met each other and had totally assimilated into one race.
This is (obviously) totally behind-the-scenes info that does not belong on any in-universe pages, but the point is that because of this story it would no longer be seen as controversial to illustrate the two Cybermen as one-in-the-same, and the designs themselves would no longer be clearly seperated.
For instance, COMIC: Assimilation² featured the Cybermen working with the Borg. The Cybermen, based on our checklist above, are clearly based in Pete's World. However, in flashbacks they are revealed to certainly be Mondasian in nature, and thus they are featured on the page Cyberman (Mondas). Basically, at this point, all of our rules sort of no-longer exist, and all Cybermen stories are Mondasian by default.
COMIC: Supremacy of the Cybermen is even more of a conundrum, clearly showing several factions of Cybermen facing off against many different Doctors -- from one all the way to twelve. And despite the fact that these are all illustrated to be the same group of Cybermen (from Mondas), the Pete's World design is shown to be unambiguously a part of this new-age of Mondasian Cybermen.
Most damning however is the latest episode, TV: The Doctor Falls, which clearly shows that Cybermen from Mondas will naturally evolve into Cybermen who look identical to those seen in series 2.
Most writers have grown to see the continuity between what Cybermen came from where to be irrelevant and uninteresting. If they're going to write about Cybermen in any setting other than Mondas or Pete's World, they are frankly not even going to think about which version of the race they are writing about. They're just writing about the Cybermen, nothing more and nothing less. The separation between the two races just no longer exists, and trying to justify which Cybermen started where via placement of Cs and how big chest boxes are is frankly just fan-ridden speculation.
In the latest episode, the Twelfth Doctor goes as far as to discuss the history of the Cybermen and directly list events of the classic and revived series has happening to the same species.
Telos! Sealed you in your ice tombs! Voga! Canary Wharf! Planet 14! Every single time, you lose! Even on the Moon!
They always get started. They happen everywhere there's people. Mondas, Telos, Earth, Planet 14, Marinus...
Basically, the Doctor here is directly stating that the Cybermen seen in both series are all the same species, and that all one could say is that there are numerous instances of the Cybermen starting off in various different places, with many different origins. He even basically compares the difference between which universe the Cybermen came from to the discrepancies between stories like AUDIO: Spare Parts and COMIC: The World Shapers, also explaining why the Cybermen came to exist on a colony ship separated from Mondas.
Making a page called Cyberman (Pete's World) is akin to making a page called Cyberman (Mondasian Colony Ship), or Cyberman (Marinus), or Cyberman (the ones that missy made).
Frankly since we now have direct evidence that the entire species is no longer split in the continuity of the show, and that it's just different sects created in different locations, I don't understand why there is any longer a need to keep the pages Cyberman (Pete's World) and Cyberman (Mondas) separated.
- 2.30.191.42
i agree for several reasons 1st not being aboule to clealey define incarnation is why there are no pagers the masters incarnations the same shuod apllay to cybermen
They always get started. They happen everywhere there's people. Mondas, Telos, Earth, Planet 14, Marinus... Twelfth Doctor not to mention this quot resolves any disput in cyber origins by saying they evolved separate on multiple planets sugesting that the cybermen in say the invasion are a seperat grope that evolved on planet 14 and that the telos cyberemen are a completely separate race to the mondasian cybermen
- Amorkuz
Not disputing or agreeing with the suggestion above (need time to think), I want to point out a terminological subtlety. The Doctor explicitly uses the term parallel evolution. This is not an invented term, it exists in scientific practice. Here's a proof: Parallel evolution. And it means specifically that Cybermen evolving in different places are (at least originally) different species. How do we normally treat such things in everyday language? Well, I give you "crabs", or rather the process of crabification, officially known as Carcinisation. While we call them all "crabs" 'cos that's what we can see, under the hood they are different species and different families of species that are not that closely related to each other. Instead, they evolved independently in the same direction.
Thus, my understanding of the Doctor's words is that Cybermen are not a species. Instead, it is an evolutionary form that is "inevitable" when there are "people". At least for me, the analogy to crabs works very well because in both cases I very often cannot tell which particular crab or which particular Cyberman I see.
Again, this has little effect on how the Cybermen articles should be structured. I completely agree with OttselSpy25 that the theoretical basis of our current structure has more or less been shattered by the Doctor after being gradually eroded for years. In particular, all the "according to one account" prefaces are now unnecessary since we have explicit confirmation of them all in one sentence. They do not contradict each other anymore: they are parallel evolution.
All I'm saying is that the end terminology should not be one species "Cybermen" evolving in many places, but multiple Cyberman-like species evolving independently and then, possibly, forming hybrids.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I think that the various origins of Cybermen should be discussed in detail on Creation of the Cybermen, and some content from the Mondas and Cybus version pages specifically relating to the origin of various versions moved there, while otherwise, we should have one Cyberman article. Beyond their origin stories, it is no longer possible to determine (nor really relevant) which version comes from where originally.
I'd also avoid calling them a "species" (or "species" plural) altogether, since they are not a species biologically, just a type of cybernetic upgrade developed independently by various species.
- UncertainError
The Doctor can't be using "parallel evolution" in a biological sense (regardless of its use in the real world), because the development of Cyberman conversion is in no way like biological evolution. The Cybermen are more like different groups of people separately coming up with the same invention, which all count as "Cybermen" as is defined within the universe.
- OttselSpy25
Frankly to me that seems like speculation.
The point is that the Cybermen are confirmed in the episode to be a potential step in technological evolution for any species pushed to the brink.
- NateBumber
Good thread OS25.
Amorkuz, you raise a super interesting point about parallel evolution: it's correct to say that "Cybermen" are not one species. However, just like crabs (and crab-like creatures), they're undeniably one group. Especially since they so often appear as just generic Cybermen, with no origin specified, I think it's super helpful to keep Cyberman. (This is probably what you were saying all along, I'm just spelling out my pov.) It's a bit confusing that we use Template:Infobox Species on the Cyberman page, but I think it's a much better fit than Template:Infobox Organisation, so we should probably keep it that way, despite the technicality. (This sort of thing is one reason why one of my first changes on the Faction Paradox Wiki was to combine those two templates into a Group infobox, but it's understandably very late in the game to consider a change like that here on TW.)
JagoAndLitefoot, I really really really like that idea of moving all the information on the different origins to Creation of the Cybermen. Maybe we could add a section to Cyberman that discusses the overall differences between the multiple groups, and then cover the Cybermen as a whole, rather than separated by origin, as the page currently stands?
- Snivystorm
Yeah, it's become pretty clear they're all inevitable evolution: starting with the Patients in World Enough and Time and working their way up to the Cybermen from Nightmare In Silver. Grouping their creation under one page sounds like a good idea, with each subsequent model being the natural upgrade. Indeed, in the words of the Doctor, time for a change.
- Danniesen
Sounds logical to me. :)
- OttselSpy25
Snivystorm wrote: Yeah, it's become pretty clear they're all inevitable evolution: starting with the Patients in World Enough and Time and working their way up to the Cybermen from Nightmare In Silver. Grouping their creation under one page sounds like a good idea, with each subsequent model being the natural upgrade. Indeed, in the words of the Doctor, time for a change.
To avoid speculating about which model goes in what order, I still think it's best to sort all pages by year.
- Snivystorm
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Snivystorm wrote: Yeah, it's become pretty clear they're all inevitable evolution: starting with the Patients in World Enough and Time and working their way up to the Cybermen from Nightmare In Silver. Grouping their creation under one page sounds like a good idea, with each subsequent model being the natural upgrade. Indeed, in the words of the Doctor, time for a change.
To avoid speculating about which model goes in what order, I still think it's best to sort all pages by year.
Fair play, no harm in sorting it that way.
- OttselSpy25
I've gone ahead and done a test merge of all three Cyberman pages, which can be seen at my Sandbox.
This was done pretty quickly and without checking every bit, but it seems to all fit together.
There are a few changes that I haven't put into play yet that would still need to be affected.
A new ruling on the page would have to be that Mondasians no longer equal Cybermen. So not every detail about Mondas or the people who lived on the planet needs to be mentioned on the page for Cybermen.
The page Cybermen currently has sections describing each variant of Cybermen. As this doesn't really fit on the ideal merged version, I would suggest that all of this info be moved to Creation of the Cybermen.
- HarveyWallbanger
Excellent work, @Ottselspy25, thank you!
The section about their early history needs to be changed, but everything else sounds fine.
- NateBumber
That merged page looks great, OS, and it's certainly far more representative of Doctor Who's second most iconic monster than the fairly-short page we currently have.
- TheChampionOfTime
I also think that the merged page looks great, down to the detail that it includes the various origins of the Cybermen. Including a paragraph on each of the origins given for the Cybermen is important as many stories rely on where the Cybermen came from.
Where do the origin stories begin and end? The Cybermen is all about a Cyber-empire on prehistoric Mondas which is just a precursor to the group of Cybermen who developed on Mondas 2000 years later and actually managed to get off the planet. The Cybermen in World Enough and Time and The Doctor Falls are never shown to escape their ship and contribute to the history of the greater Cyber-race.
- OttselSpy25
Well they certainly don't end until 2006.
While the parallel evolution tidbit certainly helps us point out that many of these sources don't have to contradict, it doesn't stop thing like Planet 14, Marinus, and Mondas all being the same planet being contradictory. Trying to make a timeline of all the Cyber-origins is hard, because to do this we would also have to figure out where stories like The Keys to Marinus are set in this mess.
- Thefartydoctor
What I do like about this "parallel evolution" thing, as mentioned by the Doctor and further explained by Amorkuz, is that, as seen aboard the spaceship during World Enough and Time and The Doctor Falls, we no longer require an explanation as to why certain Cybermen, for example those in Closing Time or Blood of the Cybermen, highly resemble the Cybus Cybermen. As is shown in the recent finale, the Cybermen were always headed that way regardless, it's just that 21st century Pete's World got a technological head start, where 1960s Mondas didn't. This little gap in knowledge always threw me. Seeing the Cybus Cybermen without the 'C' always got to me. Parallel evolution simply makes it not a problem. I'm really liking the look of the proposed page and I'm very excited to see the end result.
- OttselSpy25
That's the weird thing, when I was moving all the info from the three Cyberman pages, it seemed that all three claimed things like the Cyber Legions. Somehow those are seen as Cybus, Mondasian, AND unknown Cyberman variants...
Just not worth figuring out where all these Cybermen come from! ;)
- Thefartydoctor
Exactly. I think The Doctor Falls renders it a bit of a pointless exercise. I, for one, love conversations where we get nitty gritty and say to ourselves "Well, those Cybermen in A Good Man Goes to War... where are they from?" But for the suggested article and for the sake a few months of our lives finding the answer and then one sentence on a Wiki, it's just not worth it haha. Moffat has finally provided us with possibly the most interesting addition to the Cyber-race.
- Bwburke94
I see no reason to keep the Cyberman pages separate. Their histories are tied together in a rather unique manner.
- OttselSpy25
Agreed.
- OttselSpy25
Would an admin mind moving my Sandbox to a public sandbox, so that other can edit it how they would like?
If I recall, that's what we did with my template for the original version of the Master's page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:220703
As of now, Matt Lucas is categorized as a "semi-regular". However, he was in every episode of Series 10, even if some of his appearances were limited to only one or two scenes. So should he be upgraded to regular status? I think this may require some discussion over how we define who is a "regular" and who isn't.
- OttselSpy25
I think Lucas is a regular easily.
- MystExplorer
I think so too. But if we make him a regular, we might have to do the same for Roger Delgado (who was in every story of Season 8) and Lynda Bellingham and Michael Jayston (who were in all of Season 23).
- OttselSpy25
Roger Delgado was absolutely a regular of season 8! Who would make an argument against that!
- MystExplorer
I don't know but he's categorized as "semi-regular".
- OttselSpy25
Someone who is "semi-regular" appeared in many episodes but not all. Like Jackie Tyler. But someone who appeared in every single story is regular.
- 2.30.191.42
Why would that be a problem as they where regulars in fact the master is already listed as a regular on the season 8 page on this wiki however things like who is and isn't is normally covered by the actors contracts and with how they are credited it's not unknown for characters to be in every episode of the season and still not being regarded as a series regular for example doctor Catharine palskey was credited as a gest star in season 2 of the next generation and Stargate universe season 2 had 2 recurring characters appear in all episodes while 4 recurring characters appear more often than a main character however Matt Lucas is credited in the opening titles which supports him being a regular
- Bwburke94
MystExplorer wrote: I think so too. But if we make him a regular, we might have to do the same for Roger Delgado (who was in every story of Season 8) and Lynda Bellingham and Michael Jayston (who were in all of Season 23).
Those three could be argued as guest cast, but it would be much harder to use the same arguments for Matt Lucas because he was credited as a regular.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:220978
A month ago, I created this thread: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:218056. CzechOut said we should wait to make any decisions until a month had passed. Well, it's been a month so I think we should revisit this issue. Should pseudo-historicals be broken down by medium or should the category be done away with altogether? And should the same be done for the pure historicals?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:221655
I couldn't help but notice a recent change to Tardis:Changing policy.
That said, consensus does not mean that the majority wins. If a majority says the moon is made of cheese — or that the conversation thus far has not taken into account various salient points — the closing administrator not only can disregard the majority, they should do so.
In my opinion, this change to the changing policy is a step too far. Surely if the majority can miss several salient points, so too can the closing admin. If an admin has a good point, what's the harm in allowing people to have a chance to counter it? I get it, the admin are doing this on a completely volunteer basis, but so are all the other editors. I do not believe an admin's time is any more important than the time of a regular editor.
Of course, a thread being closed based on factors not brought up before the final post in the thread is not something that has never happened here, but I don't think this should be kept in Tardis:Changing policy as a fall-back for future threads.
Also, I really don't think this falls under "Closing administrators are often participants", because if the admins were in the debate then they should have already brought up their "salient points".
- Shambala108
It's not a change, it's always been a possibility. It's just now being put on the policy page so users can be aware.
- NateBumber
I think if an admin has salient points, especially if they go against the current community consensus, they should be encouraged raise those points in the thread without closing it. Even if a thread seems to an administrator as clear-cut as the moon being made of cheese, saying "This is my opinion and you are all wrong, and also you're not allowed to discuss this anymore" (which is exactly what this policy change allows for) almost invites the possibility of an admin missing something and being wrong, a possibility which - given that the admins are in charge of deciding things here! - should be minimized as much as possible rather than given new ways to manifest.
- Shambala108
Again, this is not a change. There have been several discussion over the years where the final ruling went against the "majority" or "consensus".
- NateBumber
Shambala108 wrote: Again, this is not a change. There have been several discussion over the years where the final ruling went against the "majority" or "consensus".
Hey hey, I'm well aware of those threads. I just hasn't refreshed recently enough to see your first comment; didn't mean anything by not responding to it :(
- Amorkuz
I might add that this clarification just states the objective reality that sometimes it is necessary to close threads despite some or even most of the posts in it. This is not the preferred or even desired outcome. But sometimes it would have been a waste of everyone's time to try to solicit more opinions to sway consensus in another direction.
I'll give you a less cheesy example: Thread:145858. At the time I closed it, this thread contained 4 posts. And no one really disputed the opinion that it is unlikely to get more War Doctor stories beyond the 50th anniversary special. This stable state was achieved on 26 November 2013 and remained like that ever since.
Given that we did get more War Doctor stories (a lot in fact) and the template in question has long been recreated, there was absolutely no reason to reanimate this fossilised thread, to solicit sufficiently many voices from our editors and admins, whose time is indeed equally valuable, and to update the consensus to the reality of June 2017.
It is for such clear-cut, factually-based cases that the clause under discussion is primarily needed. Its other useful application is for cases when consensus requires something that is technically impossible.
In short, if continuing the discussion cannot possibly change its outcome, there is no reason to discuss for the sake of discussion.
- OttselSpy25
I think the problem isn't just about out-dated forums or those that have fallen into mis-use, but rather instances of admins closing threads that they disagree with while bringing up a point that hadn't been mentioned in the discussion. The problem with this is that it creates an environment where admins can invent precedent without proper support. Furthermore, these last-minute arguments are often easily disputed -- but they can't be disputed because of the nature of bringing up a new point while closing a thread.
Reaching outside the limits of consensus, surely we can all agree that putting forth a brand-new argument as you shut down the discussion is an inherently flawed approach to the system.
- OttselSpy25
The biggest issue with the above rules is that it encourages admins to do this. If anything, this should be a very rare occurrence. But honestly, I think it happens far too often.
- Amorkuz
Literally the preceding sentence in the policy is: It is incumbent on every administrator to close in favour of the actual consensus, rather than the outcome they would like to have happened. This is what admins are literally encouraged to do.
- TheChampionOfTime
Yes, but where's the line between an unfavourable outcome and a completely illogical outcome? Sorry to lump you people into one group, but it seems like the admin team as a whole has taken a turn for the non-inclusion of stories. Stuff like discouraging past admin for supporting inclusion debates or just flat out saying that you're tired of inclusion debates. Nobody is beyond bias and this section added to the policy gives an admin the ability to close a thread without allowing the rest of us to take into account their points first.
Thread:191574 was one inclusion thread recently closed based on points the majority had not taken into account. Unfortunately, the closer of the thread did not seem to acknowledge some of the points made in the first post of the thread, instead opting for third party sources on the story which had glossed over some of the story's connections to the DWU. The thread was shut down on some "salient points" which could quite easily have been countered had we the chance.
If these few sentences are kept in Tardis:Changing policy, I would
proposeask that there be a clause that if a discussion is large enough that it can have a majority of - I don't know - over three users, they should be given a chance to take salient points into account before the closure of the thread. - OttselSpy25
I can think of several recently closed forums where the final "conclusion" included an argument which could easily have been countered had the community had the chance to have their voice heard, instead of one person having the power to both close the forum and present their thoughts at the same time.
The problem with suddenly adding this to policy is that it justifies actions like these, even leaving it up to the individual admin as per what a "moon is made of cheese" argument even is. Apparently to many admins on this site, any argument towards something being valid and included is an argument that the moon is made out of cheese.
EDIT: Like this thread for instance. There's a lot that's claimed below this post, but since all of this was stated AS THE CONCLUSION TO THE DISCUSSION, there will apparently never be an open space to discuss if these points are agreed upon by the community.
The addition of a few sentences to T:CHANGE merely brought it in line with T:BOUND, which has long said that "there is no guarantee that every rule will be discussed by the community". I read that at T:BOUND the other day and thought that it was slightly in conflict with T:CHANGE. So I added a few sentences that gave enough definition at T:CHANGE to allow for T:BOUND.
It really wasn't a big deal or an attempt to "sneak something through".
As Amorkuz and Shambala108 have pointed it out, it has always been the de facto case here at Tardis -- and long before I became an admin -- that admin can close a thread contrary to what the majority appear to want. That's why I said back in a June 2011 forum closure that we generally "adhere to the Wikipedia philosophy that a wiki is not a democracy, and that voting should in no way replace discussion".
This is a basic wiki philosophy. It also happens with great regularity at similarly large, old wikis at FANDOM.
What it most decidedly is not is a change.
See, it is not possible to write rules for a wiki wherein you take into account every possible situation against which the rule might be challenged. Sometimes you find that one rule can be taken one way, and another seems to say something slightly different. Occasional clarification of one rule versus another, or one rule versus a situation not imagined at the time the rule was promulgated, is one of the core jobs that admin have. Many rules have been edited over time. This is just one of them. But it was edited merely for purposes of clarification of long-standing policy. It does not signal any sort of change in the way that admin actually deal with thread closure.
Our thread closure methodolgy is sound[[edit] | [edit source]]
Latter posts, above, seeking some kind of review of thread closure practice aren't really going to be considered here. This forum thread can't be used as a "backdoor" way to talk about matters that have been settled. That's a T:POINT violation which can't be indulged.
I will just recapitulate that we have a small admin staff and the hope is that an admin not involved in a particular thread will be the one to close it. That might superficially look like someone from the outside swooped in and hit the whole discussion for six, but that's not what's happening.
Admin do deliberately hang back from participating in a thread, but they're reading every post as it's made. And it's really the outcome itself is more likely to be your point of contention. If an admin who had not participated in a thread came into it and closed it as you had wished, you probably would be just fine with that. I'm unaware, for example, of any substantial pushback against the several Dr. Men (series) rulings.
It's like being an umpire at a baseball game. When you call someone safe, the offense loves you. When you call 'em out, the very same offensive side hates you. Even though you're the same person, using the same rules. You just happen to arrive at two different conclusions based on two different sets of facts. So it's not the method of closure that's the genuine issue. It's really just the fact that when your propositions fail, you don't like the ump anymore.
Well, all us umps were once users. We all have been on the losing side of arguments. In fact, the more you participate in the forums, the greater number of "forum fails" will you have. I can't tell you how many times Tangerineduel simply rejected something I'd proposed. It just happens.
What's the question, again?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Another thing that is important to point out is that not all people who start a thread -- and I'm not talking about anyone here in particular -- do so on the basis of any factual research. They just "feel" that something should be a certain way on the wiki, and maybe if they start the ball rolling with enough emotional "spin", they can get others to join them. Before you know it, there are five people who've joined the quest -- yet none of them have actually done any research on the core issue. That's why it's up to the admin to say, "Hold on, let's take a look at the facts." And that's why the notion of having a "majority of over three users .. be given a chance to take salient points into account before the closure of the thread" is a non-starter. Again, just because you have five people saying that they believe Doctor Who started in 1962 doesn't mean they're right. More to the point, many forum threads don't have as many as three people on the same side. So it's just not a practicable idea.
Saying things like "admins [close] threads they disagree with" is not just untrue, but it casts dangerous aspersions on the admin staff. It suggests a level of bias I have not noticed amongst any of our staff. We really try to close having made a finding of fact, and often we talk amongst ourselves about a closure to help us eliminate bias. This can mean that we spend a few hours on a simple Reference desk closure, genuinely trying to find an answer.
At the end of the day, the whole admin staff tries very hard to close in an intelligent, unbiased way. We've been using this same method for years, generally without incident. It's the best compromise we can devise, given our relatively small staff, the need to make some kind of progress on the wiki from the forum topics at hand, and our goal to try to have some sort of objectivity.
Timing is everything[[edit] | [edit source]]
Having threads languish for months (sometimes years!) is not ideal. The point of the forums is not just to talk about things, but to discuss things with ambition. The point is to come to a decision about whether to take the path envisioned by the thread. To suggest that we're just coming in and making snap judgments without trying to fairly adjudicate is kinda insulting.
Since it was already mentioned, I'll just use Thread:191574 as an example. I spent several hours with the closure of that thread. It took substantial research, not to mention listening to the entirety of the audioplay in question. Obviously, you can legitimately say you don't like the closure itself. But to say that it was hastily or irresponsibly closed is flatly wrong. I definitely considered the arguments that had been advanced, but thought them insufficient next to what was discovered through primary research. That's what you want in most thread closures. You want admin who are willing to do primary research on an issue so that it's closed on the basis of fact.
Now, because we've put in a lot of time on a thread -- and we're staring at a lot more, not to mention our other admin projects and the fact that we'd (yanno, one day, maybe) like to get back to editing simple pages about a franchise we love -- we do, I think, have the right to say that if we offer a substantial closing on Thread:Whatever. we're done with it. You might want more discussion, but it is both okay and necessary for the admin staff to call time. Maybe that'll be a month, maybe a year, maybe only a day. But it's important to realise that you probably don't understand how much is on any admin's plate. If you've attracted the attention of one of an admin, and the thread gets closed, please, as T:CHANGE has said even before Frozen: let it go. You might lose this one. You might win it. But either way, your viewpoint has been well-considered.
Finally, a closer doesn't have to -- no, strike that, simply cannot -- address every single point that's ever brought up in a thread. I mean this thread has only been up for a day, and it's already got too many points to address. I've been typing for three hours. Heck, I gave up my entire Christmas holiday to the Faction Paradox debate. So, no, I don't think that a user has the right to say that a closing argument is flawed just because an admin left out a response to the second sentence of the twenty-seventh post.
We give as fulsome a response as we can, given the time we have. And then we move on to the next thread. That's all you as user can reasonably expect. And you might not care about that next thread, but it's just as important to another user as yours was to you.
Seriously, look at any other wiki, then look at how Shambala and Amorkuz and PnP and SOTO and I close threads here. We give you a ton of our time as compared to the typical wiki at FANDOM.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:221865
We now know the identity of the Thirteenth Doctor. Would creating an article for the actor be a violation of the spoiler policy? The announcement was basically the same way Bill's was done, a short scene followed by Introducing (actor name).
- OttselSpy25
Even admitting that there will be a Thirteenth Doctor is a violation of our spoiler policy. This thread itself is breaking policy.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:222186
I would like to propose that the current spoiler policy is incompatible with events such as the recent BBC casting announcement. (We had a similar problem when Peter Capaldi was announced on prime-time TV.) As it stands we currently have a televised short, albeit in the form of a trailer, that was much publicised, available on the official site (later followed by the reveal itself with a big photo). This was on the BBC news (among many others) and national newspaper front pages. It was headline news internationally, and is being discussed across the internet, on fan sites, and others that may never have even mentioned Doctor Who before. I humbly submit, that with an announcement this big and wide-spread, the current policy simply cannot cope. At the very least it ironically makes this bastion of fandom knowledge one of the only places (apparently) ignoring this information. Indeed, some might read this failure to acknowledge the casting as an unspoken message about the site/staffs' attitude towards said actor. In short, whereas some casting announcements could genuinely be spoilers (eg, a hypothetical announcement of Georgia Moffat, or Julian Bleach) the casting of The Doctor tells us nothing more than that The Doctor will be in Doctor Who - a tautology as obvious as it is redundant - and I submit that The Doctor is an exception to the rule.
- OttselSpy25
Our spoiler policy has never been meant to be a realistic means to never finding out about any announced decisions. Most things which we avoid mentioning are impossible to avoid. It was, for instance, completely impossible to enjoy all of Series 10 without knowing that John Simm and the Cybermen from Mondas were going to be returning. However, the policy stands that it is best for us to avoid covering information on unreleased stories outside of such places of the spoiler-protected Series 10 or Series 11. We want to create a safe environment, and that means following through with policy to the letter every time.
Honestly I don't see what we're missing out on by simply not having a page on the trailer which just aired for a couple more months.
I again must point out that even stating what role was cast is a spoiler. It would be like if I had made a page called The companion after Bill Potts before The Doctor Falls had even aired. Posting that a cast member is going to be replaced or is going to leave is still a massive spoiler by our policies.
- OttselSpy25
I have to note that this has been explained to you on your talk page. For many reasons, some technical, we simply do not allow users to add information about stories which have yet to be released unless those stories are cancelled.
- Shambala108
User:OttselSpy25 is right, I did explain this on your talk page back when Peter Capaldi was announced. But just for the sake of new users reading this thread, I will explain here.
There are two basic reasons for our very strict spoiler policy:
- We want all users to be able to access this site without fear of spoilers. Sure, you might think that information is available everywhere, but believe it or not, we did have one user (an admin) remain successfully unspoiled about Peter Capaldi becoming the Doctor. If we try to allow spoilers in just specific circumstances, how do we define these circumstances and how do we enforce the policy? It's just easier to have a zero-tolerance policy.
- It has happened in the past that incorrect information was released (character names, story titles) before the story was released, and we made pages reflecting that information. When the story finally aired, the information had to be corrected across a range of pages. It's easier to wait for the airing of an episode to create pages than to clean up incorrect information. See Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar for an example and explanation of how this has happened.
To sum up, I think this issue arises from a misconception of what this wiki is. It is not a discussion site (there are tons of those online). It is not a DW news site. It is an attempt to catalog everything in the DWU that has already happened. That's why we wait for stories to be broadcast/published.
Now, granted, I'm an American and PCap wasn't the kind of choice that made it into US national papers. I'm sure it's more difficult in the UK, particularly if you've got a train commute every day, and you pass by a news agent with great regularity.
But as far as setting your internet browser to help you avoid likely sites, it's pretty much of a breeze.
On the 2017 event, I've been less lucky, because I was unfortunately spoiled during a FANDOM meeting. But it would have been comparatively easy to avoid otherwise.
So, no, we're not changing our spoiler poilicy to any great degree.
Some may scoff because of the advent of the FANDOM News and Stories module at the bottom of each page of the wiki. But even though I'm probably on FANDOM more than most, I still am unspoilt on a variety of big events in a variety of fandoms. You just have to learn to scroll carefully when major news events occur.
Alternatively, you could turn it off with personal CSS, if you absolutely want to avoid being spoiled.
Though we've recently made slight changes to our spoiler policy because of FANDOM News and Stories, our basic spoiler rules still make sense because they keep spoilers out of our local content until stories are officially released. That way, we confine spoilers to the FANDOM News and Stories modules -- all of which you can turn off in your personal CSS.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:222432
I've created this forum to discuss the possibility of changing the header image at the top-right of the site. Currently the image is a picture of a bit of the TARDIS interior as it appeared in the David Tennant years. Frankly I think this image is bad, and I would like to see it be replaced.
First off, I think there's an awful stereotype of Doctor Who fans that we're all completely obsessed with the show as it existed from 2005 to 2009, and that we only watch it in case there's a cheeky mention of Jackie Tyler or an Ood cameo. Frankly most people who edit this site don't work like this. Using an image of the RTD-era TARDIS interior 7 years after it stopped being used regularly within the show just gives the wrong impression to our users.
Frankly the image shown is just butt-ugly. The console is half-in-shot, there's tons of distractions -- be it the weird rust effect, the pillar barely floating into shot at the exact moment where the fade takes place, or all the wires strewn about. Most of all, the Tennant TARDIS set is not meant to be printed in black-and-white while tinted blue. It just looks weird.
I spoke with some users in private, and we came to the conclusion that it would be hard to find a better image from the Capaldi TARDIS. We could find an equally good image, but as this image isn't good we decided against that. The set's designed to be heavily console-specific, as is the Tennant control room, and it's hard to make that style of image look great with any of the post-1996 TARDIS interiors.
So instead, one user created a classic-series roundel design. Now this is a good call for many reasons. First off, it's a beloved design that has been in-use since An Unearthly Child. It gets brought back all the time, and it's very likely to be a recognizable image for the show -- much more likely than the octagon-rust-light from the RTD era. Second, it's been used regularly in the recent seasons of the show -- in fact the image itself is from Hell Bent. Third of all, it just looks good. The roundels are designed to be shown in a black-and-white design, as we have to have this be done, and it just fits the space much better.
- TheChampionOfTime
Being one of the users with whom OS25 spoke to in private, my views are completely represented in the above post. The roundels are much more timeless and recognisable than any of those TARDIS sets that only last a few years at most. I'd wager that the majority of stories covered on this wiki that feature a Doctor feature one that uses a TARDIS with a roundeled console room.
Now that I think about it, the best part is that - unlike the RTDIS (Russell Time Davies In Space) - the Doctor isn't the only Time Lord we've seen using a TARDIS with walls like that. It's the standard TARDIS interior design! So in a way it's also a representation of Time Lords as a whole.
Plus it looks better. :^P
- NateBumber
Given the roundels' prevalence in Classic and their reappearance in recent series, I'd actually expect that a given Who fan would be more likely to recognize the roundels as representative of the TARDIS than the current header image. I appreciate why it was picked at the time, but the aptly-named RTDIS just serves to unnecessarily date the wiki's CSS, and, especially now that the last few series have given us such prettier, more appropriate, and more quintessentially TARDISy images as the one QHoover has presented above, I don't really see any good reason to stick with the current option.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:224223
This year's Titan comics event, The Lost Dimension, is more complicated than the last two, so it's been suggested that we have a separate page for each issue. It does seem clear that we need separate pages with this story, especially as part 3, 4, and 6 are numbered issue from 10 (3.09), 11 (3.10) and 12's (3.08) ongoing series. I personally suggest making it like the Prisoners of Time pages.
Here's my proposal:
- The Lost Dimension (comic story) is renamed The Lost Dimension (To be the main hub article)
- Also, like POT 1-POT 12 and SOTC 1-SOTC 5, we need pages like TLD 1-TLD 8. However, 10DY3 9, 11DY3 11, and 12DY3 8 should be maintained.
The Special #1 and #2 are another complication, as they are said to have three separate stories in each issue... (Side note: Special characters like "#" can't be in the article, so that needs to be planned for...)
H̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶b̶i̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶:̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶3̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶e̶n̶t̶h̶ ̶D̶o̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶ ̶3̶.̶0̶9̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶u̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶V̶o̶r̶t̶e̶x̶ ̶B̶u̶t̶t̶e̶r̶f̶l̶i̶e̶s̶!̶ ̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶?̶!̶ ̶D̶o̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶k̶e̶e̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶e̶p̶a̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶V̶o̶r̶t̶e̶x̶ ̶B̶u̶t̶t̶e̶r̶f̶l̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶?̶ ̶(̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶.̶)̶
U̶p̶d̶a̶t̶e̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶4̶,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶3̶.̶1̶0̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶t̶w̶o̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶S̶t̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶L̶o̶o̶p̶s̶ ̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶s̶s̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶.̶.̶.
Update 2: OK, I misunderstood. 3.10 will be part 3 of TLD, but 3.11 will be part 2 of Strange Loops. The same goes for Vortex Butterflies.
My titles are a bit cumbersome tho... Maybe The Lost Dimension: Part 1 (comic story) is simple enough?
- Shambala108
This discussion began at Talk:The Lost Dimension (comic story), if anyone wants to get the background.
- Bwburke94
Are there any T:SPOIL concerns with discussing this right now?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:224745
this issue may have been mentioned before but this problem has existed since 2015 but there are two pagers on the TARDIS from the episode hell bent
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/TARDIS_(Hell_Bent) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Clara%27s_TARDIS
- Danniesen
That's true, and millions of times I have thought: "why don't they just merge the pages?".
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225047
I know this would be a lot of hassle, but I think it would be great if we had an opening quote from every episode that gives us a small idea of what it's about.
Examples could befor the Girl Who Died,He hasn't got a plan yet. But he will have, and it will be spectacular.
- Clara Oswald: "How long have you been travelling alone?"
- Twelfth Doctor: "Perhaps I never have."
- — Listen
- Moorhouse: "In all of the accounts, conventional weapons have no effect on the Foretold. It's immortal, unstoppable, unkillable."
- Perkins: "Can we get a new expert?"
- — Mummy on the Orien Express
I just think this is an interesting concept which has worked well on other wikis I've used, and it could make the opening more interesting. We could even promote it to non-stories too if possible.
- Shambala108
Actually, we decided a long time ago not to have quotes on pages because it would cause too much friction. Everyone has their own opinion about what would make the best quote. I can dig up the forum decisions for you later on, but right now I don't have the time.
- O Raz3r O
Ah ok, no biggie. Didn't realise that.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225222
Should there be pages for novel reprint collections: 50th Anniversary collection, The Monster collection, and the History collection.
http://merchandise.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-book-collection
http://merchandise.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctor-who-bbc-books-the-monster-collection
- CzechOut
Despite the names, these aren't collections. They're individual reprints under an imprint bearing the word "collection". If it were an actual collection of several books, yes, that would qualify for its own page. But as you can't buy them collectively, they're merely reprints of an earlier edition and should be handled on the existing pages for each work.
- LegoK9
Fair enough.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225264
Are the badges for making edits on Doctor Who (1963) television story articles (e.g. the "Hmmm-ing Hartnell" badge) and the ones for editing Doctor Who (2005) television story articles (e.g. the "While trying to make the site Rotten Tomatoes ready..." badges) no longer available? I'm sure I've made enough edits on these pages to get more badges than I have. Also, I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to be asking this question so if there is somewhere in particular on the site where it should go, please let me know and I'll post it there.
- Shambala108
The 2005 badges were removed a while ago (I'm not even sure if the RT project is still valid) and it looks like the 1963 badges have been removed as well. As User:CzechOut has pointed out before, editing tracks can be added or removed at any time. They are mostly used for highlighting areas that need a lot of editing, and at this point neither era of DW episodes really need massive editing.
- LauraBatham
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for that.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225477
Very few universes/dimensions have pages in Category:Universes and dimensions and established names. However, T:DAB OTHER requires to use names of other realities for disambiguation purposes. So having well-established names is necessary for naming characters, in addition to pages for universes giving readers the benefit of explaining what kind or reality it is. In addition, interestingly enough, several of the well-established universes are currently under rename tags. So maybe it makes sense to discuss this and develop a policy.
I'll start the discussion by listing cases I looked at. Please add more realities you think need names and pages. Many examples can be found, for instance, at Parallel universe#Examples.
Sometimes we are fortunate and the reality is given an in-universe name, like the Divergent Universe, which is consistently used throughout the namesake arc, or Pete's World, which is explicitly christened this way by the Tenth Doctor in Doomsday. It is when the universe is not (immediately) named in-universe that the questions begin.
- Inferno Earth is never used but makes sense both RW and in-universe. RW-wise, it references the name of the episode it first appeared in, while in-universe it refers to the Inferno Project. Interestingly enough, this universe was once named "Inferno universe" in The Quantum Archangel, which prompted Steed to suggest a rename.
- The Infinity Doctors universe is named after the novel it is featured in. To the best of my understanding without reading the novel, this is an exact match: the universe is only featured in the novel, and the novel happens wholly within the universe.
- Yssgaroth's universe, which I do not know much about. But NateBumber suggests renaming it to "Spiral Yssgaroth".
- Parallel universe (Sympathy for the Devil) is also named after a story, but under a different scheme. This is the well-known dabbing-by-first-story-of-appearance method, which fits well with this universe that appears in multiple stories. The obvious benefit of this scheme is that it's easily applicable to most cases. The problems, however, remain when two or more universes are introduced in the same story. I used this scheme when naming Universe (The Infinite Astronaut) even though it only appears in one story.
Looking at these examples, my first impression is that the cases when the name of the universe is not well established in-universe cause disagreements over what should be the best descriptive name for it: "Inferno Earth" or "Inferno universe", "Yssgaroth's universe" or "Spiral Yssgaroth", etc.
So my initial instinct was to apply the standard naming scheme with a dab term. Unfortunately, it doesn't work because sometimes these universe names are to be used as dab terms themselves. It wouldn't do to put something like Creator (Universe (The Infinite Astronaut)). In fact, it is impossible technically since a name can include at most one pair of parentheses. And here the example of The Infinity Doctors universe comes to the rescue: why don't we name the universe by
- (Name of first story it appeared in) (type of reality)
with the retitling making the name of the story in italics as is done for The Infinity Doctors universe. Then it is clear that the name derives from the story name. That will produce the following names:
- Sympathy for the Devil universe
- The Pit universe
- The Infinite Astronaut universe
- and, possibly, Inferno universe
Full disclosure: the reason I started thinking about this is an as-of-yet unnamed universe that is called ""real" universe" at Dead Romance. I fear that my proposal might do little for that case. However, as follows from Talk: Christine Summerfield ("real" universe), that case is complex. It would be better if it would be explained by someone who actually read the novel. It seems that the term "Real" universe is in-universe but there is currently a suggestion to rename it to Bernice Summerfield's universe by TheChampionOfTime.
I didn't want to pose a problem without any hint at a solution. However, I would be more than happy if another, better solution is proposed. My main objective is to converge on a naming policy for universes that is applicable in most cases, instead of agonising over each case separately. I half suspect that part of the reason many parallel universes don't have their own pages is the hesitation over what they should be called.
- NateBumber
I agree that we should standardise this in some way. However, I don't agree with the way in which you propose that we do it.
First, I think we should always use established in-universe terms for things. If The Book of the War called the Yssgaroth's universe "Spiral Yssgaroth", why shouldn't we rename the page to reflect that? I know that you make a distinction between "immediately named" universes and universes that are only given a name in later releases, but I see no reason why that should matter at all? If after twenty years, a Classic Who author decided to write a book about a minor character from their episode, known only as "John" in the original story, and the new book introduced their last name as "Nguyen", would we be wrong in renaming the page from John (Storyname) to John Nguyen? I don't think so.
T:NPOV says nothing about prioritising older or newer stories, but don't you think that to do such a thing would certainly violate, if not the letter, the spirit of the law?
(I'll also note that Pete's World isn't given that name until its fifth appearance.)
And on that note, why on earth are we worried about disambiguating characters by universe? I just reread T:DAB and T:DAB TERM, and I don't see anything about mentioning the universe they come from. If Story A introduced a character named John Nguyen who's from Vietnam, and Story B introduced a character named John Nguyen who's from Russia, we wouldn't call them John Nguyen (Vietnam) and John Nguyen (Russia), would we? No, we'd call them John Nguyen (Story A) and John Nguyen (Story B), because we dab characters based on the story they're introduced, not where they're from.
Completely analogously, if Auld Mortality introduced a character named the Doctor, and he's from one unnamed parallel universe, and Sympathy for the Devil introduced a character named the Doctor, and he's from a different unnamed parallel universe, should we call them The Doctor (Auld Mortality universe) and The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil universe), just because that's where they're from? Of course not! We call them The Doctor (Auld Mortality) and The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil), because we dab characters based on the story they're introduced. (As an additional point of support, The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe) was renamed to The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors) just a few weeks ago.)
(In addition, I think that making Story Title universe the standard would make for a completely unnecessary inconvenience while writing an article. Compare the difference between The Infinity Doctors universe and Parallel universe (Sympathy for the Devil) -- hint, the pipe trick works for one! By now, you can probably tell the latter format is the one that I'd prefer, if we were to make an official tool for the ambiguous cases.)
As for Christine Summerfield ("real" universe), which I agree is quite awkward ... the whole point of Dead Romance is that the protagonist isn't certain if the universe she escaped into is the really real one. First, she thinks her universe is real; then she finds out it's a bottle universe, and escapes into another universe, which she thinks is real; and then at the end, she realizes this new universe might itself be a bottle. Christine Summerfield ("real" universe) is from the new universe, and the quotes around "real" are very well-placed.
... for what it's worth, the page only has that dab term to differentiate it from Christine Summerfield, who is only called that in Dead Romance and goes solely by "Eliza" in all later stories. I don't know if that gives us an easy way out -- renaming Christine Summerfield to Eliza (The Eleven Day Empire), and then just slapping a very hefty "you may" on Christine Summerfield ("real" universe)? (That'd be very convenient, for all the times I've had to pipe Christine Summerfield into Eliza ...) But I notice we still use Ashildr rather than Me, so I don't know what that means.
- NateBumber
... since I made that post, I've been made aware of T:DAB OTHER, which I feel like I can argue against, since I'm in the Panopticon? It seems to me that the policies on that page are trying to solve problems that don't exist.
- Imagine the case of Greg Sutton. He was a character introduced in Inferno. But so was the version of him in the parallel Earth of that story. So the name Greg Sutton (Inferno) is ambiguous.
But plenty of pages have "Alternate timeline" or "Parallel universe" sections. Tenth Doctor#Alternate timelines and Tenth Doctor#In a parallel world are perfect examples of this; I'm not even going to try to list more, since there are so many. A section called "In the Inferno universe" would perfectly suffice for Mr Sutton.
- A good example is Adolf Hitler (Inferno Earth). He doesn't exactly appear in the book The Face of the Enemy, but his legend on Inferno Earth is described. A name like Adolf Hitler (The Face of the Enemy) wouldn't make nearly the common sense of Adolf Hitler (Inferno Earth).
... why not? If all the information about someone comes from a single story, why not disambiguate ? Or, even better, just pop the information into the already-expansive Adolf Hitler#Other realities! I guess in general, I just don't understand the appeal. If the Tardis Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, why are we intent on splitting information about characters as simple as Ellie Martin across multiple pages?
(Don't even get me started on situations like the Shadow World, where the Twelfth Doctor (Shadow World) clearly lived through the events of Deep Breath through Oxygen, but his page can only have information about Extremis; or, even worse, how we can't list Moira (The Pilot) as a recurring character in series 10 because Moira (Shadow World) is technically a different person ...)
- Amorkuz
I'll answer the first post first because I agree with much of what you say.
If there is an in-universe name of the universe, it should absolutely be used. And it does not matter when it was introduced. We just thank the authors for giving us a name and use it. Sorry for this "(immediately)", which turned out to be misleading. What I meant to say is that when the name is not yet given, then this is what I propose to do. If the name is provided for us, I'm taking it, thanks very much.
The Eliza angle is very interesting, but is not really relevant for this discussion. Maybe take it to her talk page? It might just solve that problem.
- Amorkuz
Meanwhile, while working through the renames, I bumped into another case that could benefit from this discussion, see Talk:Tulana. There are two copies of the same character, one from an alternative timeline. But the timeline is never named in the story.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: If The Book of the War called the Yssgaroth's universe "Spiral Yssgaroth", why shouldn't we rename the page to reflect that?
Another thing that I propose to take off the table in this discussion and move to the talk page. My problem there is which given name for the universe to use. This proposal should not apply since the Yssgaroth universe was named (in several ways).
- Amorkuz
Now regarding T:DAB OTHER. Yes, it is because of this we need to invent names for the universes. And yes, we are both arguing against (parts of) the current policy. NateBumber suggests to abandon the whole policy, whereas I propose to drop the idea of inventing a descriptive in-universe name that is not given in the story itself.
Let us talk about the idea of putting versions of the same person from different universes/timelines onto the same page. First of all, I believe this is a principal choice that everybody makes for themselves. It cannot be fully argued: it is largely a preference. Judging by what NateBumber wrote, he thinks it's better to keep all versions of the same person in one place, which certainly makes it easier to refer to them.
I, on the other hand, prefer to have a separate page for each of the versions. It should be noted that an (unwritten) rule (of thumb) that was explained to me at some point is that we put things onto one page if
- the split in the timelines happened after the person was born, or
- the person retains memories of the other timeline.
Thus, The Last Centurion is a redirect to Rory even though he was an Auton in an alternative timeline. And thus Oliver Morgenstern only has one page even though he is also mentioned in the alternative timeline of Turn Left: there is some part of his life that is common to the two timelines.
But barring these cases, where it can be argued this is (to some extent) the same person, the typical use of parallel universes is to contrast two completely different versions. The Brigadier is a stark example. It seems to me that putting opposite versions onto the same page is very often antithetic to the very idea of using parallel universes/alternate timelines device.
It seems profoundly unfair to assign the Third Doctor to the Category:Tyrants just because of the Third Doctor (Inferno Earth) or to assign the Brigadier to fascists because Alastair Lethbridge-Stewart was. More generally, if two versions have little in common, putting categories to their combined page becomes somewhat useless since it is not clear which category applies to which version. The same may apply to actors playing them and any other global characteristic from the infobox.
Further, there are various Remakes and Reprises of famous people who lived in wrong places and/or times. Putting corresponding "nth century individual" category onto the original's page is confusing at worst and unhelpful at best. Yes, this is not directly related to alternate universe versions, but it reinforces my internal belief that there should be one page per individual, unless some kind of continuity of conscience can be established.
I understand these arguments are not decisive. Rather they are a pragmatic side of my principal position. As I said, a matter of taste.
It would be interesting where others stand in the question of putting mirror-universe images onto the same page as the original.
NateBumber wrote: (Don't even get me started on situations like the Shadow World, where the Twelfth Doctor (Shadow World) clearly lived through the events of Deep Breath through Oxygen, but his page can only have information about Extremis; or, even worse, how we can't list Moira (The Pilot) as a recurring character in series 10 because Moira (Shadow World) is technically a different person ...)
Here I must disagree strongly. This is just a speculation. We know exactly what is stated onscreen, no more and no less. There is no point in listing the multiple differences between the real universe and the simulation. The clue is in the name "Extremis" (email). We are not even sure when the simulation started.
In addition, from the pragmatic point of view, sticking the "Extremis" part onto long pages such as Bill Potts and, especially, Twelfth Doctor is a sure way of making that information very hard to find and access.
As for Moira, if her recurrence hinges on two throw-away lines in Extremis, it is not very notable to fight for. Sure, we have such recurrent characters in, say, Nerys. But it's not terribly important to note or not note that they are recurring. In a certain sense, Trisha Delaney is more notable than both of them put together, having made it to the audios without making a single appearance. On this microlevel of recurrence, certain randomisation is unavoidable.
Now I'm done answering the preceding post. The floor is yours.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225625
I have noticed that the navigation panel at the bottom of all the Doctor Who TV story pages is a bit messy. Sometimes it links to a mini-episode which doesn't have the navigation panel at the bottom, meaning you can't continue to the next story, or other similar problems where the navigation panel differs between page.
Proposal: It should either follow each entry on List of Doctor Who television stories i.e. include Shada but not animated serials or mini-episodes, or just include every story in Category:Doctor Who television stories in release order (or something).
- Amorkuz
First of all, welcome to the wiki. It is not every time that a new editor immediately identifies an inconsistency. And an inconsistency we currently have. For instance, the animated story Dreamland is a full member of the "Doctor Who Television stories" navigation panel of the {{Infobox Story}} whereas another animated story, The Infinite Quest, does not have this panel at all. And since we're talking about consistency anyways, let me throw another page that should, based on the name, in principle, contain the same information as the list of stories page and the navigation panel: I mean the template {{DWTV}}, entitled "Doctor Who television stories", at the bottom of each TV story page.
As a matter of course for any new editors, I'd like to remind that by T:BOUND no changes relevant to this discussion should be made to the pages in question until an admin closes this discussion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:225793
The List of multi-Doctor stories page is an incredibly valuable page of this wiki, but it is one of the more controversial ones as there are never ending debates about what truly “counts” as a multi-Doctor story. Does it require the Doctors meet in person? What about stories where they don’t meet? What about flashbacks? Regenerations? Retro-regenerations?
With 117 (and counting) stories listed on the page, it has become increasingly more cumbersome (I mean, I can barely keep track of which column is which Doctor...) and less justifiable to treat all the different types of multi-Doctor stories as if they are all the same by listing them in one single table.
Say someone wanted to find out how many times 10 and 11 have met each other. They could simply check the list and see 18 stories with 10 and 11: To Sleep, Perchance to Scream; Endgame; The Name of the Doctor; Dead Man's Hand; Death's Deal; The Day of the Doctor; Legacy (invalid source btw); Four Doctors; Open Mic Night; The Doctors Do... Classic Comedy; Pull to Open; Outrun; Running to Stay Still; Supremacy of the Cybermen; The Long Con; The Jago & Litefoot Revival; The Promise; and The Lost Dimension
However, only 4 of those actually feature them meeting each other directly (in-arguably multi-Doctor stories}: Endgame, The Day of the Doctor, Four Doctors, and The Lost Dimension
The others fall into other categories that could be expansions of what a multi-Doctor story is:
- Close proximity to each other, but do not meet: The Jago & Litefoot Revival
- Separate narratives in the same story, but do not meet: The Name of the Doctor, Death's Deal, Supremacy of the Cybermen, The Long Con, The Promise
- Manifestation of past/future incarnation: To Sleep, Perchance to Scream; Dead Man's Hand; Pull to Open
- Retro-regeneration into a past incarnation: Outrun, Running to Stay Still
- Other???: Legacy (Invalid source), Open Mic Night; The Doctors Do... Classic Comedy (are these two joke strips seriously considered valid?)
Also, you can see that there are currently 13 footnotes on the page, mostly on recent stories, explaining some context on the event if the Doctors didn’t encounter each other. Many other past stories could use similar footnotes if we want to maintain consistency. But in order to prevent half of the stories being given incredibly similar footnotes for similar scenarios, here’s my proposal: We split the table into 5 tables for the different categories of multi-Doctor story.
My category suggestions:
Direct Encounters: The Doctors encounter each other either in person and/or through some form of direct communication (TV screen, telephone, psychic link, etc.)
- Examples: The Three/Five/Two Doctors, Time Crash, The Day of the Doctor, Deep Breath, The Doctor Falls, etc.
Separate Narratives: Multiple Doctors are involved in the same story, but do not encounter each other as they are in different times and/or place.
- Examples: The Name of the Doctor, Supremacy of the Cybermen, The Promise, The Bidding War, etc.
F̶l̶a̶s̶h̶b̶a̶c̶k̶:̶ T̶h̶e̶ ̶D̶o̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶D̶o̶c̶t̶o̶r̶(̶s̶)̶. ̶(Gonna merge this with Separate Narrative.)
- ̶ E̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶s̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶w̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶K̶a̶l̶i̶,̶ ̶S̶t̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶L̶o̶o̶p̶s̶,̶ ̶e̶t̶c̶.
Close Proximity: Multiple Doctors are in the same time and place, but do not encounter each other.
- Examples: Listen, A Matter of Life and Death, The Jago & Litefoot Revival, etc.
Manifestation: Some of the Doctor’s incarnations are manifestations of some sort (dream, inside the Doctor’s mind, Matrix projections), not physical incarnations meeting.
- Examples: Timewyrm: Revelation, To Sleep, Perchance to Scream, Dead Man's Hand, Pull to Open, etc.
Retro-regeneration: The Doctor temporarily regenerates backwards / is de-aged into previous incarnation(s).
- Examples: Timeslip, The Funhouse, The Fountains of Forever, The Then and the Now, Outrun, Running to Stay Still, etc.
I’m willing to consider other categories, as well as change the names to be descriptive as possible. And should Flashback and Separate Narrative be merged? They are a bit similar. And if retro-regenerations get a category, maybe regular regenerations also deserve one. Also, what about video/audio recordings one Doctor finds of another?
However, I will admit problems can occur if the story fits into multiple categories, in other words not all the incarnations fall in the same criteria. For example: Four Doctors. Doctors 10, 11, and 12 (and 12 from an alternate timeline) all meet in person. But the War Doctor appears in the opening pages in a Separate Narrative and does not encounter any other Doctors. Also, the 9th Doctor appears at the end in a cafe 10, 11, and 12 nearby, but 9 does not see them.
The simplest solution would be to list Four Doctor in Direct, Separate Narrative, and Proximity, and to italicise (or maybe bold?) the x’s to denote Doctors that do not fit the criteria.
This would be a massive change to the page, and would require much cooperation from wiki members knowledgeable on these stories to categorize dozens of stories as accurately as possible, but I think the increased clarity of what “counts” as a multi-doctor story by acknowledging the different definitions it really has.
It could also help dig up some obscure stories people realize are missing from the list, as well as correcting mistakes. (I just keep finding them!)
In the event my proposal is supported, I will need help categorising all the stories, as many non-tv stories to not have detailed plot summaries. I have created a Google Sheet with all the current stories listed (hopefully, I keep adding ones I see missing), feel contribute on which stories belong in which category.
UPDATE: This is the basic idea: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/User:LegoK9/Sandbox
- Snivystorm
Hmm, this could certainly work. I'm just throw out some feeble queries that I have on my mind regarding this:
We could put them into these five various tables but do we need to make the extra categories as well? Could we not simply rearrange the single page into the five proposed groups?
And the second, some stories already have footnotes noting when a Doctor is present but does not actually meet any other incarnations. Could we possibly do this for all of them?
Admittedly, this is just me promoting laziness but I really want this thread to be noticed. A revamp sounds like a great idea to me :)
- LegoK9
Snivystorm wrote:
Could we not simply rearrange the single page into the five proposed groups?
Keeping all five categories on the same page is my proposal, if I didn't make that clear enough.
Snivystorm wrote:
And the second, some stories already have footnotes noting when a Doctor is present but does not actually meet any other incarnations. Could we possibly do this for all of them?
We could do that, but I'd estimate at least a third, if not more, of the stories fall outside of Direct encounters between Doctors and would require footnotes. At some point the footnotes become overbearing and repetitive. You can already see how cookie-cutter some of the footnotes can be: "While the [flashback Doctor] does appear in this story, it is in a flashback and he does not encounter the [main story Doctor(s)]."
- Snivystorm
Seems like a categories may be best then, although (on the other thread) a navbox for each of them was suggested instead.
highlighting the previous discussion, here's what CzechOut said on the matter:
CzechOut wrote: Our category naming conventions are supposed to stop us from going down these rabbit holes. Multi-doctor stories is a vague concept. Probably the best thing we could do to aid reader understanding would be to:
- remove the category
- remove List of multi-Doctor stories
- improve the quality of the page multi-Doctor story so that it demonstrates different things that could be considered a multi-Doctor story, try to find quotes from a valid reference work that demonstrate the confusion, but draw no real conclusion about what a multi-Doctor story is.
We definitely shouldn't be using categories or list pages as a way to "validate" a story as a multi-Doctor story.
Tardis:Naming conventions was also brought up as well.
- LegoK9
CzechOut wrote:
- improve the quality of the page multi-Doctor story so that it demonstrates different things that could be considered a multi-Doctor story
Good to see that CzechOut may be willing to make this change, and I hope others will see the good it will have.
Would it be OK for me to go ahead and make the separate table for retro-regeneration stories on the page (There are only a handful of them.), just to illustrate my vision as clearly as possible?
- Snivystorm
It's not my call, but I have no issues with it :).
- Shambala108
LegoK9, you can put it on a sandbox page and post a link here for others to look, but don't change the actual page while the discussion is under way.
- LegoK9
Good idea, thanks!
- NateBumber
Having looked at your Sandbox, it's night and day how much better this makes the page. There are a few little kinks here and there -- eg why is Four Doctors listed under both "Direct Encounters" and "Separate Narratives"? If two Doctors have stories that start in separate narratives, then turn into a direct encounter, should we list it under one or both? (I'd be in favor of some sort of hierarchy system here, where Direct > Close > Separate > Manifestation > Regen > Retro-regen) -- but this is nothing that can't be sorted out on a talk page.
Given that this is essentially the fulfillment of a suggestion that User:CzechOut made ages ago, I'd like to see this discussion closed by an admin ASAP so LegoK9 can move his sandbox onto the page and other editors can jump in to help.
- Shambala108
I don't think this post should be closed so soon. This is a very difficult and potentially controversial page, and the thread has only been open a couple of days and attended by only three people. I'd like to see some more suggestions, because in my opinion some of the terms listed above are way too open to misinterpretation and disagreement. In addition, we still have never finished the multiple "what is an appearance" threads, and until we do, we can't really define whether an incarnation of the Doctor appears in a story.
I always look for the simplest solution, because that's the easiest to explain and enforce and correct. The comments at Thread:178629 point out just how complicated this situation is, as do NateBumber's comments above, and I'd like to hear a little more discussion before it's closed.
I think it's important to this discussion that every participant read Thread:178629 to get some perspective. Also, since User:CzechOut's suggestion has been brought up, I want to post it here so everyone can see exactly what he suggested:
- "improve the quality of the page multi-Doctor story so that it demonstrates different things that could be considered a multi-Doctor story, try to find quotes from a valid reference work that demonstrate the confusion, but draw no real conclusion about what a multi-Doctor story is." (emphasis mine)
- LegoK9
NateBumber wrote: eg why is Four Doctors listed under both "Direct Encounters" and "Separate Narratives"? If two Doctors have stories that start in separate narratives, then turn into a direct encounter, should we list it under one or both?
As I wrote at the end of the initial post, Four Doctors has 10, 11, and 12, (and an alternate timeline 12) all meeting in person. But it also has the War Doctor in an opening scene and he meets no other Doctors. The ending scene has 9, 10, 11, and 12 all in the same cafe, but 9 doesn't meet his successors.
Thus I decided to list it in all three categories: Direct Encounter, Separate Narratives, and Close Proximity.
I hope that doesn't over complicate things.
NateBumber wrote: (I'd be in favor of some sort of hierarchy system here, where Direct > Close > Separate > Manifestation > Regen > Retro-regen) -- but this is nothing that can't be sorted out on a talk page.
I initially had Close Proximity between Direct Encounters and Separate Narratives (it was a good hierarchy), but it looks like there are relatively few Close Proximity stories, so I decided Direct Encounters > Separate Narratives > Close Proximity looked better. Still open to moving things around, though.
- Snivystorm
Making a hierarchy risks difference in what deserves priority. If we do that, we're unfortunately going to have to decide a consensus for everyone to agree on.
- NateBumber
Snivystorm wrote: Making a hierarchy risks difference in what deserves priority. If we do that, we're unfortunately going to have to decide a consensus for everyone to agree on.
You're right, of course. In that light, listing stories under all categories that apply sounds good. Maybe we should just add a "Notes" column to specify what's being referred to; that would also help with the "Projections" section.
- LegoK9
OK, so my sandbox example is mostly complete. Please feel free to double check my work, ask questions, give suggestions, and inform me of any errors.
The spreadsheet is still open if anyone want to leave info there. Please make your comments in red text so I can see them clearly.
Also, I need help with a few stories:
- Birthright and Happy Endings: These stories feature Muldwych, who is apparently a future incarnation, thus listed under "other." This can lead into a debate on including stories with more ambiguous incarnations (The Valyard, Muldwych, Merlin, the Dream Lord, etc.) For simplicity, I say we do list these, but with footnotes to give context on who this "other" Doctor is.
- Zagreus: The more I hear about how, er, unique this story is, the more I want to hear it. (I know it's on Spotify!) To those that have heard it, what category is best for this one?
- Legacy: Deemed NOTVAlID, so simply removing this one can't be too controversial, no?
- Day of the Tune, Open Mic Night, and The Doctors Do... Classic Comedy: I know Titan back-ups were deemed valid, but these are just so silly and out of character I just don't see how they can be valid. They just seem like jokes to me, and not to be taken seriously.
- NateBumber
- Agreed re:listing Muldwych, Merlin, etc under "other", with explanations in the hypothetical Notes column or the footnotes.
- I think *Zagreus* is mostly a projection of the Third Doctor. (Definitely listen to it tho!)
- *Legacy* ... the video game? Yeah, nuke it.
- Yeah, I am ... also curious that I missed the Titan backup comic inclusion debate. But for now, I think we need to take them seriously. T:BOUND and all that.
- LegoK9
Shambala108 wrote: I don't think this post should be closed so soon. This is a very difficult and potentially controversial page, and the thread has only been open a couple of days and attended by only three people.
Well it's been nearly 20 days now and no one else has said anything. Could you run this by the other admins and see what they think?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:227296
For some reason Amorkuz deleted most of the content of Archibald Hamish Lethbridge-Stewart, despite the fact that:
- most of the content was the summary of the events in the episode in which the character participated
- the out of universe information was clearly marked as such in the behind the scenes section and there was no reason to remove it
- Archibald was actually apparently named as the brother of the grandfather of the Brigadier in Night of the Intelligence (at least according to the user who added it before this episode was aired to the grandfather's page citing that novel, but there's no reason to assume it's not true given the ensuing facts), and the tweet from the Haisman estate (removed by an anonymous user in a previous edit) merely confirmed that it's the same Archibald.
- That said, the fact that Moffat and Gatiss intended him to be the grandfather is also notable behind the scenes info, even if this was trumped by both a statement by copyright holders and by in-universe evidence from the books.
If the copyright holders actually confirm that the character named the same in two stories is supposed to be the same character, I don't see any reason to assume otherwise. Hell, it's actually more proof that they're the same person than we have for Kate Stewart from Downtime and the new series being the same. JagoAndLitefoot ☎ 13:13, December 27, 2017 (UTC)
- JagoAndLitefoot
Nevermind, looks like the content was removed by mistake and has since been restored.
- Amorkuz
Yeah, I apologise for this editing mistake. I still am not sure how it happened. But it was definitely not my intention (and could not have been as there was no reason for it) to remove either the info from the episode or the behind the scenes information.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:227406
Now that the pseudo-historicals category has been deleted, I think we should have a debate the pure historicals. The other category was deleted for being poorly defined so how do we feel about the definition of a "purely historical" story (i.e. no science fiction elements apart from the Doctor and the TARDIS)? Is that good enough or is more needed to justify the category?
- 2A02:C7D:4E64:9300:B9EF:673C:206E:F5C7
- Pathological Classifier
I don't see any reason to delete it. It's clear what the category is for and it is good to have. It doesn't need to have a massive amount in it to be worth keeping
- Shambala108
Actually, this was addressed by User:CzechOut in Thread:220978, in which his closing argument states:
- "Pseudo-historical and historical stories categories will be deleted, since we don't actually have a definition for them. And if we ever do get a definition, the same stories will probably not be included in the cat. Best to slash, burn, and recreate the categories."
The thread mentioned was an attempt to revive the pseudo-historical category, which was deleted per Thread:218056.
Based on CzechOut's comments, the historical category will be deleted, and it can only be created if/when we have a clear definition and a category name that doesn't violate Tardis:Category naming conventions.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:228010
Was suggested to bring this up by User:Amorkuz on Template talk: Dreyfus, regarding the naming templates used to hyperlink to a specific incarnation or rendition of the Master.
The outline I am suggesting here is as follows
- Dreyfus = The Master#Early exploits
- Delgado = The Master#Nemesis of the Third Doctor
- Pratt = The Master#A body in decay
- Ainley = The Master#In Tremas' body
- Frontier = The Master#A new regeneration
- Roberts = The Master#Fighting the Eighth Doctor
- Fallen = The Master#Fight for the Glory
- Macqueen = The Master#A new lease of life
- Jacobi = The Master#Working alone
- Simm = The Master#As Harold Saxon
- Gomez = The Master#As Missy
Also, Tardis:The Master is in urgent need of updating due to new context disputing what is read;
{{Delgado|c}} who had primarily tangled with the [[Third Doctor]] fused with [[Tremas]] to get {{Ainley|n=a new body}}. What no one on [[Earth]] could realise was that one day the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] would be yet another version of {{Simm}}.
should be updated to say something like;
{{Pratt|c}} with the decaying body fused with [[Tremas]] to get {{Ainley|n=a new body}}.
- Ben Moore812
These work, but I believe that the incarnation that Titan introduced, the child incarnation that's right before Jacobi's incarnation should also be included. I don't know what you could call it, maybe Titan, but it'd certainly fall under The Master#Alliance with the Doctor.
Also, Delgado should definitely not be used in place of Pratt, it's clear that they are separate incarnations, Doorway to Hell shows that.
- CzechOut
The problem as I see it is that it's not quite as straightforward as you suggest, Ben More512. Doorway to Hell does not invalidate Legacy of the Daleks.
Doorway to Hell has confused matters, not made them clearer. It's provided an alternate and contradictory explanation for what happened to the Delgado Master.
I think it's still completely valid to believe that every Master depicted on TV from Terror of the Autons to Survival are the same incarnation.
Unfortunately for us, it's also possible to consider Legacy of the Daleks the "alternate" explanation, and therefore to see Delgado and Pratt/Beevers as distinct incarnations.
- NateBumber
It's probably too late to just split them all into The Master (Terror of the Autons), The Master (The Deadly Assassin) etc with sections for all the conflicting information about which incarnations are the same? :'(
- Ben Moore812
Correct me if I'm wrong, Czechout, but didn't Legacy not actually explictly say that Susan disfigured him? I thought he was just shot and then the next chapter, he's on Tersurus and Goth finds him. I know that's what the book is trying to imply, but surely it leaves the gap by not explictly saying it was Susan with her gun?
- CzechOut
It's about as explicit as you can expect out of prose, really:
- He [the Eighth Doctor] aborted the sequence, with a mixture of relief and reluctance. Of course... He already knew that the Master had hidden on Tersurus when his final regeneration had been used up. Some devastating force had ravaged his body and left him a crippled wreck.
- But his TARDIS had left the world.
- That could only mean that Susan had been the one to trigger the Master’s grotesque change. And that she had taken his TARDIS and gone on alone. There was no need for him to go to her aid, then. She had acted swiftly and certainly, and solved the last remaining problem.
So:
- Delgado is the last regeneration (of what we would later discover in Utopia to be the original lot of regenerations).
- Whatever caused him to look like Pratt/Beavers was not regeneration but a "grotesque change" and the result of a "devastating force".
- Susan's the one who did it. And she stole the Master's TARDIS in the bargain.
That's just not reconcilable with the comic explanation depicted vividly in Doorway to Hell.
- BananaClownMan
I think we're getting a tad off topic hear. I just wanted to talk about the effectiveness of a name template for Dreyfus.
But, if this is how the conversation has evolved to, this might be interesting: I personally don't use "incarnations" for the Master, unless when talking about one that is shown to be between regenerations. I prefer to use the term "rendition", since the whole "is body theft a regeneration" thing makes it hard to know what counts and what doesn't. So, put could call Pratt and Ainley renditions of the Master rather than incarnations of the Master to simplify matters.
- Ben Moore812
Yeah, we are a bit. I think your outline is fine and if we aren't using it, should probably be included with the addition for one of the Titan Master.
- Bwburke94
When discussing the Master, "incarnation" and "regeneration" often don't mean the same thing.
Pratt and Ainley are significantly separate incarnations, despite no regeneration having taken place.
- BananaClownMan
https://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/User:BananaClownMan/Sandbox/The_Master_(UNIT_enemy)
I present a little experiment of mine to separate the renditions into separate pages. I've used Delgado, since he was the first.
Basically, we take the chunks of the biography we can map down, and move tem to their own page, with the titles we use in personality to differentiate, and have the "conjecture tag" to show that their not officially recognised as such.
Here are my proposed pages
- The Master (Inventor)
- The Master (UNIT enemy)
- The Master (Decayed body)
- The Master (Tremas)
- The Master (Tzun)
- The Master (John Smith)
- The Master (Deathworm Morphant)
- The Master (Bald)
- The Master (Time War)
- The Master (Professor Yana)
- The Master (Harold Saxon)
- Missy (The Master)
We can also have the name templates be edited to redirect to these separate pages.
- Shambala108
Are you talking about a template, or are you suggesting we re-separate the Master page?
- BananaClownMan
Shambala108 wrote: Are you talking about a template, or are you suggesting we re-separate the Master page?
Well, both, I guess.
We re-separate the pages with these conjecture titles, so that our mobile phone users don't have their phones freeze when looking the page up (as often happens for me), and for easier editing same named subheadings.
Following that, we can edit the templates to redirect hyperlinks to the separated pages, thus enables the wiki to continue using them.
- Bwburke94
"Incarnation" is a good enough word. Why call them renditions?
- Snivystorm
Just to add my input:
I think it's a great idea. We already do it for the Doctor's various incarnations and it would certainly help mobile users whose phones struggling loading the vast amount of content.
The separation will also enable users/editors to truly focus the articles on the various incarnations of the Master, meaning there is potential for the content to be fleshed out and truly wholesome.
There are several pages that cover this policy: Talk:The Master (including archives), Forum:The Master, Forum:The Master - 1 article and Thread:188305.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:228568
Hi, so a few days ago I tried to check who in the "Lethbridge-Stewart family" category went who on the family tree.
I did make it on my sandbox ([[1]]) using a very crude ASCII design. I purposefully avoided putting related families' members like the Lethbridges, Wilsons, Gores, Byrnes as well as parallel universes members; though maybe I should have put the adopted family (or father at least?) of Albert Wilson and should have avoided James' many reincarnations.
I believe we can put it in the "Lethbridge-Stewart family" page in the current state, but maybe we should wait for something prettier before.
Especially, by skimming through others wikias, I found that some people conceived a Template dedicated to it but I don't think common users like myself are allowed to create one here (not that I would understand how to do it anyway).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:229160
In the story The Promise it has been established that the fob watch used with the chameleon arch is called biodata module. At the moment all the information on the wiki regarding the biodata module is split between two pages: Chameleon arch and Fob watch (were all kind of fob watches are discussed). Should we have a Biodata module page for the specific fob watches used in chameleon arches and have Chameleon arch, Fob watch and all the pages pointing to them but referring to the biodata module linked to the new page?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:230162
As indicated by User:Shambala108, I'm starting this discussion for the deletion of {{Time Lords}}.
I strongly believe it should be deleted, as it goes againts Tardis:Neutral point of view. The template has the following note: "This only includes Time Lords who have appeared on the television series Doctor Who.". However, on this wiki, we're supposed to give all media equal weight, which is stated on the above linked policy.
The template fails to show a reader Time Lords with several appearances, such as Irving Braxiatel, Iris Wildthyme, Narvin, Ollistra, all of which are either main characters or series regulars, while unnamed Time Lords who have only one appearance are present, such as Second Time Lord (The War Games) and Time Lord 1 (Colony in Space).
However, it's obvious that adding all Time Lords who have ever appeared is not viable, since Category:Individual Time Lords has, at time of writing, 453 pages under it. Therefore, since it can't be useful while complying our policies, I believe it should be deleted.
- NateBumber
Agreed. The template as-is inarguably violates T:NPA, and just as there would be no logic in creating a template for all humans in the Doctor Who universe, the job of cataloguing all Time Lords is best left to Category:Time Lords. Here's hoping we can move this to a speedy resolution.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yeah I agree, too. The inclusion of TV-only Time Lords goes against the all-inclusive policy we have here. It has stood out for quite a while.
- Shambala108
Some history...
This template was created in 2008. A year or so later, there was an attempt to at least include a link to the (now deleted) article "List of individual Time Lords". This link was, unfortunately, improperly typed so didn't actually link to a real page. In 2011, after the format of the template was cleaned up, an attempt was made to clarify the unnamed Time Lords by sorting them by story.
Then, also in 2011, a user, probably noticing that most of the entries were TV characters, added the statement: "Note: This only includes Time Lords who have appeared on the television series Doctor Who." This user was not an admin, and doesn't appear to have consulted anyone about this move.
Since then, there have been occasional additions of non-TV Time Lords. Sometimes these additions were removed, sometimes they weren't. In 2013, User:CzechOut fixed the broken link to the page for all Time Lords, a page which has since been deleted. That link was then removed by me in 2017.
Now that I've bored you all to tears, I just want to clarify my stance. I asked User:OncomingStorm12th to remove the delete tag from the template page and bring the issue here because the delete tag was showing up on the pages that have this template. It's not a good idea to put delete tags on template pages. But I have no problem with the idea of deleting this template. The only other options I can think of, make one template for all Time Lords or make a template for each medium, are just not practical.
- OncomingStorm12th
Shambala108 wrote:
Then, also in 2011, a user, probably noticing that most of the entries were TV characters, added the statement: "Note: This only includes Time Lords who have appeared on the television series Doctor Who." This user was not an admin, and doesn't appear to have consulted anyone about this move.
Since then, there have been occasional additions of non-TV Time Lords. Sometimes these additions were removed, sometimes they weren't.
Also, searching the history revision, I found that, before the addition of said note, Time Lords like Astrolabus, The Other, Cuthbert Simpson and even the previously mentioned Braxiatel and Iris were present, but were then removed.
Additionally, I found out that Tardis:Neutral point of view was created in 2012, more than a year later of the addition of this note. As I wasn't an editor back then, I don't know if there was a previous policy which covered the subject of neutrality while writing, but I think that the datings of each event also help clarifying why decisions were made back then, and maybe help us decide what to do with the template now.
The only other options I can think of, make one template for all Time Lords or make a template for each medium, are just not practical.
While we could try that, I agree that they would both not be practical.
- Creating a template for all Time Lords would make it too big/messy for anyone to read.
- Creating a template for each medium would still be too big, and, IMO still not very close to the intentions of T:NPOV.
- SOTO
I agree with the proposition here.
It would not be practical to follow T:NPOV through and list all Time Lords. We have enough trouble determining companions, so figuring out "important" Time Lords sounds like a whole new unnecessary squabble. Perhaps we might simply include all Time Lords with two or more appearances? Three or more?
The best thing to do, I think, is to get rid of this template. One template for each medium is not in the spirit of NPOV.
- In future, if someone wants to use {{delete}} with a template, simple insert it between the <noinclude> tags. Still, because templates affect multiple pages, Shambala108 is quite right to have asked for the discussion to take place here in the forums.
- I don't think this decision should necessarily be based upon T:NPOV. Rather, I'm saying that navboxes which merely do the job of a category aren't necessary. And since navboxes don't currently show up on mobile, there's no need to slow down the load time of our pages for something that the majority of our readers can't see.
I personally think that the message which clarified that the template only showed TV Time Lords was in the spirit of T:NPOV because it at least highlighted the bias, encouraging some sort of fix. If no one had added such a note, we likely wouldn't even have had this conversation.
Also, we need to remember that media are different. It's not inherently wrong to create a navboxes of, say, directors and confine it to just TV. TV directors and audio directors are not the same thing, even though they may have the same title. I think it's also possible to argue that some variety of species — like a particular type of Dalek — existed only in the comics, so a navbox may be forced by, well, reality to describe a single medium. Or at least to exclude some types of media. I mean, if you created a template like {{Fitz' lovers}}, you're pretty much confining yourself to novels. I guess my point is that you shouldn't fail to create a useful template just because it happens to be about a subject that is mainly confined to one medium.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:230358
I feel like I'm going insane. Everywhere on this wiki it is said that The Mysterious Planet (and Iceworld) are set circa the year 2,000,000 (2 million).
However, the Doctor very clearly say it is "Oh, a long time after [Peri's] period. Er, two billion years or more." (Video)
Is there something wrong with my ears? I tried fixing this, but my edits were undone.
- SOTO
Per T:VID, please refrain from linking to off-site videos. Listening to the line, now, it does sound to me more like "2 billion" than "2 million", though I can hear how it might be understood either way.
But let's give the tiebreak to the novelisation, where page 25 reads:
- The Doctor produced a pocket chronometer and studied it. ‘A long time after your period. Two million years or more.’
(I also think that this is a good use case for preferring a DVD run through a decent sound system over the YouTube clip. Audio on YT is frequently too noisy to clearly hear this level of detail, particularly when talking about older episodes of Doctor Who.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:230484
Is anyone gonna complete them or what?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:230547
Why exactly these humorous sketches considered valid? They're just little additions to the main stories, not at all like DWM backup comics, where some serious staff happened - the introduction of Abslom Daak and Kroton for instance.
Here we have just tongue-in-cheek stories with farcical scenarios, much like, well, everything from this category. Such as the adventures of the depressed Tenth Doctor and his Rose-the-Cat, first four Doctors forming a musical band, the Eleventh Doctor's account in social media and a bunch of old companions from different time zones just like that meeting up to chat about the Doctor. I mean, even the artwork screams of non-seriousness!
And when those things are referenced in the main articles, it's just ridiculous…
Falling into a depression, the Doctor spent some time sulking in The TARDIS; apparently making so few travels that vast spider-webs began to grow in the control room. He soon began to binge-watch emotional films, such as Love Actually, The Lion King, and Annie Hall, as he ate large quantities of ice cream. Still heartbroken over the loss of Rose Tyler, he adopted a cat which he gave her name.
Polly remained friends with the Doctor on Bookface. She liked some of the Eleventh Doctor's status updates. (COMIC: Timeliney Wimey)
The Doctor attempted to form a band with his second, third and fourth incarnations, but creative differences, and the fact that they all wanted to play the drums, broke them up. (COMIC: Day of the Tune)
- NateBumber
For reference, it was decided in Thread:177099: in particular, see User:OttselSpy25's comprehensive posts beginning at Thread:177099#28. It's really a nice thread to read; the bit where the inclusion debate is settled by a vote is really charming. I feel like every day, I further and further resent the glut of inclusion debates that were pushed on these forums by a few users a year and a half ago, and I further and further regret any role I played in the volatility. What I wouldn't give to return to the status quo antebellum.
But at any rate, this question has been answered by User:NateBumber's post above, so this thread will be closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:230762
Why Real Time (webcast) / Real Time (audio story) and Shada (webcast) / Shada (audio story) are treated like separate stories?
"Audio stories" in this case are just re-released audio tracks from the webcasts with a few added deleted scenes. Everything is the same!
With Death Comes to Time BBC did the exact same thing of re-releasing the audio track, and this is just mentioned in that one page.
- 171.33.193.136
Yeah, I personally thought it was strange that we, say, have a page on the audio drama version of the Shada webcast but the audiobook reading of the novelisation, despite the audiobook novelisation actually having new recorded material (albeit a reading of an existing text), while the only 'new content' in the Big Finish Shada is reused audio clips of other stories when Skagra scans the Doctor's mind (which isn't even actually 'new content', since it's reused, just new to that story as it wasn't in the webcast). Everything else about the story is 100% the same as the webcast but without visuals.
- Shambala108
On this wiki, "with a few added deleted scenes" does not mean "everything is the same". And "everything else" is not "the same".
- NateBumber
Have there been any TV stories that were released on DVD with deleted scenes included?
- 217.42.24.158
NateBumber wrote: Have there been any TV stories that were released on DVD with deleted scenes included?
Well, there are the special editions of The Curse of Fenric and The Five Doctors, and they have articles, so there is definitely precedent for this. Seems like they do deserve an article.
- 217.42.24.158
217.42.24.158 wrote:
NateBumber wrote: Have there been any TV stories that were released on DVD with deleted scenes included?
Well, there are the special editions of The Curse of Fenric and The Five Doctors, and they have articles, so there is definitely precedent for this. Seems like they do deserve an article.
That said, we should create an article for the audio version of Death Comes to Time.
- This production is an extended, audio only, version of the animated serial that was originally broadcast on the Cult pages of the BBCi website.
So it is definitely not the same as the webcast.
Death Comes to Time is also a different edit on audio.
So different pages for the different media are justified in all three cases.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:231243
Regarding novelisations, Tardis:Valid sources currently says,
[Per] Forum:Doctor Who Novelisations - canon or not?, some excerpts [are valid:] If the passage specifically contradicts established facts on television, then that passage is disallowed. But if the book gives a new fact not contradicted by television — such as a character's name — then it's allowed.
In celebration of today’s release of Penguin Books’ novelisations of Rose, The Christmas Invasion, The Day of the Doctor, and Twice Upon a Time, I think it’s time to revisit this policy.
To start, let’s take a fresh look at the deciding discussion. It was started by User:Tangerineduel in February 2009 to question the then-current policy of total novelisation nonvalidity. Tangerineguel notably cited Paul Scoones’ criticism of The Universal Databank, which treats TV stories and their novelisations with equal validity, as reason for novelisations to be given a lesser priority than their televised counterparts. Another admin briefly described how they’d always cited novelisations; then, after a comparatively lengthy digression about the no-longer-extant “Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors” sections, User:Skteosk noted that Scoones’ criticisms simply don’t apply to this wiki: unlike in Databank, we transparently cite sources; someone can see if a name or plot element is derived from a TV story or its novelisation just by looking at the links at the end of the line and checking for a TV or PROSE prefix. In other words, the given justification for keeping novelisations as “less canon” simply doesn’t apply.
And then, the original discussion just kind of … ended. No one commented for a year; the thread was closed; and somewhere along the line, Tardis:Canon policy was amended to include an earlier phrasing of our current policy, which has been essentially unchanged for the last decade. Since then, our wiki has taken up a new perspective on the word “canon”, a more streamlined view of validity, and a firmer stance on what it means to maintain a neutral point of view, but the novelisation policy has gone unexamined, leaving us with a mess of inconsistencies in how we handle different stories.
For instance, look at the different ways we treat adaptations in different media:
- When an audio story is an adaptation of a novel, like with the Novel Adaptations or Bernice Summerfield series 1, it’s called (audio story) and has full validity alongside the original.
- When a television story is an adaptation of a novel, like Human Nature, it’s called (TV story) and has full validity alongside the original.
- When a novel is a loose adaptation of a TV story, like Shakedown or Dr. Ninth, it’s called (novel) and has full validity alongside the original.
- Only when a novel is a more straightforward adaptation of a TV story, like the Target novelisations, it’s slapped with (novelisation) and given selective validity.
To me, that looks like a violation of T:NPOV. And in fact, the inconsistencies go further: despite T:VS specifically listing character names as an example of something from novelisations that’s valid,
It's not generally our policy to rename something on the basis of a novelisation. Yes, we can include information from the novelisation, but articles shouldn't be named on the basis of an obscure work, like a novelisation. Tardis:Manual of Style#Naming of articles clearly states, "The titles of articles about individual characters should be the name by which the character was most commonly known in the Doctor Who universe . . ." This character is most commonly known by her first name only, thus she should be called just Miranda.
Note that the quoted line from Tardis:Manual of Style (now actually on Tardis:Character names) actually concerns commonality within the Doctor Who universe, so the real-universe obscurity of a story should be irrelevant here – as it should with all of the wiki, per T:NPOV: “That which is said in a short story in Doctor Who Annual 1967 is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who.” (Besides, infinitely obscurer stories have been used as sources for names before: R. Asquith was renamed after an Easter egg in the Security Bot video game!)
Holding that in mind, I posit that naming a page Miranda (Doctor Who) rather than Miranda Gerhardt is just like naming a page Clara (The Bells of St John: A Prequel) rather than Clara Oswald. (Or should that be Clara (Asylum of the Daleks)?) After all, surely Ms Oswald is far more commonly called “Clara” than “Clara Oswald”, inside the Doctor Who universe? But for some reason, this logic doesn’t extend to Miranda Gerhardt, or Cass Fermazzi, or Bert Walker -- not to even mention characters like Sardor, Hodges, and Sekkoth, all of whom are simply given job titles like “soldier” or “pilot” rather than their proper names.
The authors involved in today’s releases – Steven Moffat, Russell T Davies, Paul Cornell – stand as a testament to the important role the Target novelisations played in exposing a whole generation of Doctor Who fans and writers to Classic stories they’d never have otherwise enjoyed or been inspired by. I think it’s about time we give the novelisations the promotion they deserve: proper classification under the (novel) dab term, and equal standing with all the other valid stories on this wiki.
- NateBumber
(Side note: I know that a few admins have recently expressed that they have an aversion to inclusion debates, leftover from the toxicity of some debates in January of last year. But that was a year ago, and I'm hoping that novelisations are different enough from the subjects of those past debates to avoid such disdain. I'm posting this on the Panopticon, not the Inclusion Debates board, since novelisations are already halfway valid and this discussion spans more than just T:VS.)
- Pluto2
I have no objections to treating them no differently to any other valid work.
- Borisashton
I agree completely with this proposal. Something that was briefly touched upon: if a more accurate rename creates problems for the searchibility of the wiki (like Hermann Zaroff then the old name should be left as a redirect, not the other way around.
- Mewiet
I agree that we should allow novelisations to have full validity. Given our policy on canon and the multiple examples of adaptions provided above, the novelisation policy is outdated; it should not contradict our canon policy.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'm in favour of having novelisations as valid. In most cases they expand upon the source material, which is great for a wiki like this. The new Target stuff sounds to have plenty of vital revelations that we can't really afford to be ignoring.
On another note, what does everyone think on circumstances where the novelisation contradicts the source material (I don't have an example to hand, so it's just a thought)?
- Mewiet
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: On another note, what does everyone think on circumstances where the novelisation contradicts the source material (I don't have an example to hand, so it's just a thought)?
Treat it the same way we do with our numerous other valid source contradictions: "According to one account," "according to another account..."
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yeah I did think of that. I was just wondering what people thought to it being essentially the same account that its coming from.
- Mewiet
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Yeah I did think of that. I was just wondering what people thought to it being essentially the same account that its coming from.
I don't have a lot of experience with classic Big Finish yet, so: how is it done with the novel adaptions? Looking at AUDIO: Cold Fusion, for example, it's not a carbon copy adaption: there's a "deviations from the original novel" section with four notations. It seems a very similar situation with TV to novel(isation)s from my point of view.
- NateBumber
It's very true that the novelisations often contradict the episodes in ways that aren't just expanding the events seen on TV. I think that's true of all adaptations, whether TV-to-novel, novel-to-audio, or novel-to-TV! Most examples I've noticed are with name changes, like Tom Girton being renamed "Tom Wilkins". But we already have pretty good ways of dealing with this, as you can see on the Tom Girton page, Fendelman, or Auderly House: the page title is the way it's spelled in the captions of the episode, but the other names are listed as variant spellings.
In cases where the actual events are changed, like a line of dialogue from the episode being said by a different character ... well, little technicalities like that are rarely mentioned on pages, but when they are, as User:Mewiet pointed out, "According to another account"s can go a long way.
There are occasionally bigger changes: eg a few novelisations suggest that Ben and Polly come from the 1970s, not the 60s. But that can be very easily accounted for on their pages:
According to another account, he/she instead began traveling with the Doctor during the 1970s. (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Tenth Planet, Doctor Who and the Cybermen)
There are already plenty of examples of this concerning deaths, eg at Ace#Fate, so it's clearly a flexible format; I see no reason why it wouldn't be able to extent to this circumstance. After all, by their very definition, adaptations are different accounts of the original stories.
- Amorkuz
Maybe a non-trivial example of different accounts can be found in Just War (audio story)#Notes. I do not know the source materials myself but was explained that Benny visited the same place twice, once with a Doctor, another time without, and both visits were later referenced in other stories. I think Nate knows this better than me and can fill in the details. That could be a good test material to see what works and what not.
- TheChampionOfTime
The Time Ring Trilogy of Bernice Summerfield series 1 is I think about as far as one can get on the scale of Doctor Who adaptation faithfulness before reaching Human Nature (TV story). Unlike novelisations or the Novel Adaptations, the main character (Bernice Summerfield) is at a different point in her life in the adaptations than she is in the original stories, meaning that Birthright is currently covered twice on her page in two different places for its two different forms. Novelisations are quite far from that degree of seperation. The whole "same adventures happening twice without Bernice noticing at the time" thing is later acknowledged a couple times and then explained as being one of many anomalies resulting from Braxiatel messing around with Bernice's timeline.
Now, the overall plots and side-characters are fairly faithfully translated onto audio along with some of the dialogue, at least in regards to Birthright (I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading Walking to Babylon or Just War), so I think it's makes most sense to have the same page for characters that appear in the original and the Time Ring Trilogy adaptation (unlike what's happened with Joan Redfern). I just listened to Birthright while flipping through Birthright and updated Ch'tizz according to the "according to one account" method. The page looks just fine in my eyes and demonstrates that conflicting adaptation information can smoothly co-exist. I'd note though that there's probably much more switching between sources here than would happen on pages affected by a novelisation.
But this seems irrelevant. This isn't a thread about the validity of adaptations in general, but the novelisations, none of which alter the original stories to the same degree as the Time Ring Trilogy. Bernice Summerfield is fully valid, unlike this thread's subject. If there are serious grievances with the Time Ring Trilogy's validity, they probably belong on another thread so this one doesn't becomes more complicated than it needs to be.
BTW I'm fully in favour of complete validity for novelisations.
- OttselSpy25
Thought I'd step in and state that I personally am incredibly in favour of discussing the differences between stories instead of trying to select them. I think the practice of trying to say "this sentence in this novelisation is valid, and this one isn't" is entirely impractical. I feel as if this is a rule that would never be accepted today because the response would be "who is going to impose these rules, and who is to judge when a novelisation contradicts the TV story too much? What admin could possibly be able to objectively do that in every case?" Which is a perfectly valid concern. It's a rule that's close-to-impossible to enforce.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The matter seems pretty much settlee, then. There's no valid reasons for excluding novelisations, and no one seems to object, so let's get the ball rolling.
- Amorkuz
I am also in favour of including novelisations unreservedly. (So now neither I nor Revanvolatrelundar can close this thread.)
There are, however, practical matters to discuss. At least two of them were already mentioned. There may be more. Let us first agree on the parameters of inclusion.
The two questions are:
- What should be the name for pages where the novelisation gives more of the name?
- Should alternative versions of the same character with different names have two pages or one?
- Revanvolatrelundar
If the novelisation gives a full name then we should definately use it. By making them valid they can expand numerous existing articles.
That second one is a little trickier. I would say two separate biography headings on the same page, kind of like River Song with her different incarnations on one page. Having two articles would make things difficult for a reader, in my point of view.
- Amorkuz
As someone who feels responsible for R. Asquith, I completely agree on the full names from novelisations to be used. Obviously, the name with the dab term according to the TV version should always be retained as a redirect. The current decisions cited above rely heavily on the subservient role novelisations currently play. If they are given full validity, that naturally implies equal treatment for names too.
Though I believe this to be the best course of actions, I think it is important to understand that it will make searching a tiny bit more difficult for those who are not familiar with the novelisation. Currently, if one starts typing "Miranda G..." in the search bar, the suggested page is "Miranda (Doctor Who)", which is recognisable whether you know the TV movie or the novelisation. If the page and redirect are swapped, then typing "Miranda" or "Miranda (D..." would result in the suggestion "Miranda Gerhardt", which is not helpful for viewers, and only clicking on the page would help determine it to be the correct one. Having said that, this is just how wikis (including ours) work. R. Asquith is exactly the same in that viewers would not know where "R." came from. I remember being very impressed when some Disney related wiki provided me with the name of Anna's horse from Frozen (don't ask). If children are trusted to find that, I think we can expect our esteemed readership to handle one extra click in such rare instances.
- Amorkuz
Now for the tricky case of changing personalities. Note that there are two possibilities here.
- In the simplest case, the name is (partially) changed (possibly together with other personal details), but the function of the character in the story is the same. The very recent case is H.P. Wilson, chief electrical officer, from Rose (TV story), who became Bernard Wilson, senior caretaker, in Rose (novelisation). Whatever backstory he was given, his function remained the same: he is the guy Rose was supposed to give lottery money.
- Characters' roles are merged/swapped/combined. An example of this is Man with boat and Hopkins (Planet of the Spiders) (see behind the scenes notes). These are two characters from the episode. Essentially, their lines and actions are combined and redistributed among two novelisation characters who are given different names. Thus, there is no one-to-one correspondence of the TV character with the novelisation character, and I do not know how to determine which of novelisation characters is closer to which TV character.
I would propose to treat these cases differently. Namely, if it is clearly the same character, then having one page with clearly delineated and sourced names and one-account/another-account routine for differing actions seems to be the best choice. (Incidentally, there are also cases where lack of proof-reading caused the same story to give two different spellings of the name, like in Alice Xanada.
However, if it is not clear which novelisation character matches which TV character (this means, in particular, that the name does not match at all and the actions do not match decisively), I propose to keep two pages to avoid a flowchart style on the page.
- NateBumber
Amorkuz, I agree with these proposals 100%. The only thing I might suggest adding to Hopkins (Planet of the Spiders) would be a line like
to reference the discrepancy outside of the "Behind the scenes" section. Or do you think that would be out of place?According to another source, it was instead Mr Pemberthy who tried out the hovercraft and was blasted by Lupton. (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Planet of the Spiders)
- OttselSpy25
Here's a thought: when it comes to things like MAJOR alterations in the backstories of various characters, would it be beneficiary to separate them into their own section of articles? I imagine that the early Doctor Who novelisations, as an example, the origins of the Doctor, Ian, Barbara, etc. contradict almost all other stories to the extent that just putting them in their own section of the article would be helpful. Just thinking out loud, really.
- Amorkuz
To answer Nate, I suspect this depends on the editing style, size of the page, etc. I thought about it a bit and was able to come up with arguments to add it and arguments not to. It is very possible that even I myself would do it differently at different times. I would leave it to the discretion of the editor.
- NateBumber
Sounds perfect to me!
Amorkuz wrote:
I would leave it to the discretion of the editor.
However, two parts of the OP's proposal are not accepted:
- The dab term (novelisation) remains appropriate and will not be changed. It's odd logic to argue on the one hand that novelisations are an important part of the fabric of DW fandom — and then simultaneously argue for the term's elimination. Novelisations are different from novels, and it brings them no dishonour or lessening of importance to retain that dab term. Moreover, it's important in the cases where the novelisation's title is different from the TV story, to indicate that this is a novelisation and not a wholly original work.
- The proposal to change article naming to include the names that might have been given in novels is denied. The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site. Easily-provable statistics — the total print run of the Doctor Who (1996) novelisation versus the viewing figures for the televised event, and sales of home media thereafter — mean that to most people trying to use the site, the character's name is just Miranda. Miranda Gerhardt would be entirely confusing. In the case of naming articles, we need to go with what makes it easiest for the greatest number of people. While I appreciate the T:NPOV argument, naming articles is and must be done with respect to the convenience of the greatest number of people. We can't be so media-neutral that we then make it hard for people to find the article And indeed, it's better for accuracy if we put article at the name given in the widest-reaching version of the story — Miranda (Doctor Who) — and then in the lead, give her full name and indicate from where that full name comes. Finally since there has never been an objection to using redirects from the name arising from novelisations — as the existence of Miranda Gerhardt proves — there is an acceptable technical remedy that gives those more familiar with another medium a way to find the article.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:231439
I wanted to put forth the argument that the context of whoisdoctorwho.co.uk is in-universe and should be regarded as such.
The website is seen in Rose with the same context of the website being shown in the episode, albeit briefly. It is also listed as an in-universe website all over this wiki, with only the character pages indicating that it is an invalid source for information.
The only major contradiction present seems to be the Ninth Doctor walking around with "some old Edwardian outfit". Well, we know that the Ninth Doctor wore Edwardian-like clothing at the launch of the Titanic, so it's not as big as a contradiction than most of the Master's history.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Most of these pages were written by Joseph Lidster, and are written in-universe. From memory the UNIT and Torchwood website are done this way, and Martha Jones' MySpace page. All these sites were written as a companion to the series, so I don't really see why they were ever made invalid. Sure, the non-fiction sites like the Doctor Who official site aren't suitable at all to be made valid, but certainly in-universe ones are worth the discussion.
- SOTO
Rule #1 is that a valid source must be a story. Are you arguing that whoisdoctorwho.co.uk constitutes a story?
- BananaClownMan
Well, it follows a flow of successors like a story; following Clive's death, Mickey takes over until he leaves and someone else takes his place.
Plus, the encounters page is like a series of short stories.
- Amorkuz
Just for the record, the website includes the following entry
Marty McFly: I know that man, he stole my DeLorean!!!
Would the proposal to make the website valid cause Marty and DeLorean to become in-universe?
Arthur Dent: This rather odd man was lying down in front of a bulldozer in front of my home.
A bit of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Is Arthur Dent to become in-universe?
Then there is an entry by User:Josiah Rowe. Would he become in-universe? Also was this part of the website open for user comments at some point?
This is not an argument for or against. I'm trying to understand the parameters of proposed inclusion.
Finally, for completeness purposes, we need to make sure the original discussion at Thread:121084 did not cover the new arguments proposed. There seems to have been quite a robust consensus then, based in part of these websites generally not being narrative. Did that change?
- 109.147.248.180
Arthur Dent is already in-universe.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Arthur Dent is already in-universe.
- 109.147.248.180
He is mentioned in The Christmas Invasion
- GusF
I believe that the website should be a valid source for the reasons given by BananaClownMan and Revanvolatrelundar. However, the aforementioned references to Marty McFly, who has been referenced as a fictional character in more than one story, and Arthur Dent, whose mention in "The Christmas Invasion" was more ambiguous as to whether or not he was a fictional character, does give me pause. Making them real people (as opposed to fictional characters) in-universe may be a step too far.
That said, it is worth mentioning that, even if Marty McFly were to be so included, he would not be the first character who is considered both a real person in-universe and a fictional character. For instance, Jean-Luc Picard and numerous other Star Trek characters fall into both categories because of their appearances in Assimilation² and various other references.
- BananaClownMan
There is a possibility no one'seems brought up; those entries could just be someone taking the mick. Like the Phil Mitchell guy that comments on the Eastenders Facebook posts.
- Amorkuz
Let me repeat my earlier question: was it possible for everyone to edit this website or add comments at some point? I do not see another possibility for “someone taking the mick”.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree with BananaClownMan. The writer of this site, assuming this site was not editable, could have added those comments as faux-trolls who have stumbled across the website. For example, this "Marty McFly" was probably written as a troll character who is mocking the website, thus making the website look more realistic. Obviously, "probably" isn't good enough but I don't think it's logical to jump to the conclusion that Marty McFly from Back to the Future is leaving these comments haha.
- Thefartydoctor
Amorkuz wrote: Let me repeat my earlier question: was it possible for everyone to edit this website or add comments at some point? I do not see another possibility for “someone taking the mick”.
To my knowledge, the comments were all fake and no-one else could add their own or edit the site.
- Amorkuz
So to summarise, this is an out of-universe source that pretends to be an in-universe source and, from the in-universe perspective, is written by multiple in-universe characters, some of whom may have lied/pranked/be misinformed. In other words, some information on this website is, in fact, unreliable?
- Thefartydoctor
Yep. The characters used in the "comments" boxes can easily be giving false information. In my opinion, after reading the novelisation of Rose, the troll comments seem to add to the same opinion every Earthling shares of Clive. Everyone tends to take the mick. Where you talk about reliability, if we were to source this website, the fake comments would be a no-go. Furthermore, don't forget, this website is supposedly kept/run by Clive/Mickey - other in-universe characters. Every human can make a mistake and reach the wrong conclusions with the limited information to hand. Long winded way of saying I agree with you haha.
- Amorkuz
Ok, I'm switching from moderating to discussing mode.
I agree, that if information from this website is included, then it should not be a blank cheque for the reasons we just discussed. In other words, either we're discussing a new type of validity or, instead of including the whole website as a whole, we need to switch to discussing separate parts of it individually. To quote BananaClownMan, "the encounters page is like a series of short stories." Since the validity rules state that "only stories count", maybe it makes sense to talk about the validity of those individual encounters rather than the whole website.
In fact, maybe this is the wisdom of only including stories. Whichever form a story takes, it is supposed to wrap up the plot. In other words, though some characters can at some point be mistaken or lie, by the end of the story the reader usually gets an objective picture (or at least is alerted to possible remaining mysteries). Sure, this rule is not absolute, for instance, Basil is still unexplained. But in most cases, if Mickey is sure of something that is false, eventually we will learn of his folly. With comments and encounters on this website, there is simply no such expectation.
- SOTO
I'm not convinced that these sites can be considered narratives. That said, it seems to me the approach (were they in-universe) would be along the lines of...
- "An individual purporting to be X..."
- "A comment under the username X claimed that..."
- Indeed, "According to Mickey Smith's "Defending the Earth!" website..."
Giving the most amount of information possible means we don't have to take every bit of information at face value. We don't have to say "X definitely happened", with the website as reference, or "Marty McFly definitely came on the website to say this", when we can simply report what's on the website.
That said, how is this conceivably a narrative? How is it any different from a reference book/"in-universe" encyclopedia, supposedly written by an in-universe character? Not whether the website alludes to a narrative--is it, itself, a narrative, a story? Is the whole thing one story, or are you suggesting "SIGHTING OF ROSE!!!! [confirmed]" is a short story on its own? ([2])
Also, how could none of those sightings be user-submitted if Josiah Rowe has one there?
Also, even Josiah Rowe himself agreed with SOTO. Since he called for the movement of information gleaned from the RL version of the websites to "behind the scenes" sections, Josiah agreed — along with everyone else in that thread — that the information was not valid for the writing of in-universe articles.
Since there's no new information here run this thread, I'm closing it and upholding the previous discussion. whoisdoctorwho.co.uk is not a valid source.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:231584
Hi there, guys, I just want to voice something that bothers me every time I read it. So I read The Eyeless a few years ago now, and while my memory of the book isn't crystal clear, I'm fairly certain that The Moment doesn't appear in it.
From how I remember it, Lance Parkin alludes to The Weapon (as the book refers to it) being used in a temporal war, one which we have to assume is the Time War. Their is a flashback where the Doctor recalls the destruction of Gallifrey (from The Gallifrey Chronicles), but that is in no way linked to the use of The Weapon. The book is super vague on what The Weapon is, and when and where it was used. I went into The Eyeless expecting The Weapon to be the device that ended the Time War, and finished the book being disappointed it had nothing to do with it. Therefore I was a little confused when I opened the article for The Moment to find that information from the book had been included in it.
From recent revelations about The Moment, we know that its true nature is very different from that depicted in The Eyeless, and the article for The Moment currently feels disjointed because of it. While I know, sources about a number of things have differed many times in Doctor Who alone, I am of the opinion that The Weapon is a device completely separate from The Moment, and its currently creating misinformation in the article where it is currently housed.
Given that the information in The Eyeless regarding the Weapon is vague enough for it to be a different weapon entirely, I would like to separate the two pages, creating a new one for The Weapon, like it once had before the information was merged into The Moment's article.
- NateBumber
Hrmph. I rather disagree with your conclusions, but I notice you’ve already made the proposed changes, so I don’t know if there’s much point in this comment. Maybe this was more of a “Here’s what I’m gonna do, PSA” thread than a “Let’s talk about this idea” thread? Either way, I think it’s worth noting that I disagree with several parts of your assessment, and I think the text of The Eyeless backs me up. For one, I don't think it's fair to say that "the book is super vague on what The Weapon is, and when and where it was used." Throughout the novel, the weapon (and the Fortress it inhabits) is extensively physically described, and the Doctor actually spends several pages in the book doing a Socratic-questioning-style explanation of its function to the other characters. And while you're right that its builders are never explicitly named, there are a number of specific clues indicating that it was built by the Time Lords. For instance, just off the top of my head, the Doctor describes it as having “dematerialized” into its current place; he repeatedly emphasizes how he’s the only person alive who can disable it; and then there’s this exchange:
in which the Doctor and Alsa come to different counts because the Doctor was including himself among the “lot” that built the Fortress (and the weapon inside it). And just to rule out the idea of the weapon being first used in some other, non-Last Great conflict, we get passages like these:‘They’re aliens,’ Alsa said impatiently. ‘If they’re not the people who built the Fortress, are these the aliens that the Fortress was built to fight?’
‘No.’
‘So they’re a fourth lot?’
‘Third, surely…’
‘The ones who built the Fortress. The ones they were fighting. You.’
‘Ah. Well, yes, then they’re a fourth lot.’
‘Well, if I knew my enemy would destroy themselves when they fired, I’d know they’d never actually fire it. When it came to it, they’d hesitate and –’ she mimed herself smashing them. ‘When it came to it, they didn’t hesitate,’ the Doctor pointed out.
That's about as close as you can get without actually saying "Dalek". Not to mention that Arcopolis, the place that the weapon’s builders chose to deploy it against their enemy, is defined by its placement in the Seventh Galaxy ... which is the typical placement for Skaro, as testified in Parkin's previous book The Infinity Doctors!‘Do you know what? In the end their sacrifice made no difference. Because they survived. Thousands of them, millions. Just one. It doesn’t matter. It’s the same thing. And… do you know what?… life is always better than death. Always. Yet I want all of them dead. Every single last one of them. When did I become someone who wanted to exterminate? When was that? When did they win?’
As far as I read it, the whole matter is pretty unambiguous: this is the weapon that destroyed Gallifrey; this is the weapon that ended the Time War. And in that light, I should mention that the description of its function actually perfectly matches the “modified De-mat Gun” explanation of the Moment given in Don't Step on the Grass and shown in The Forgotten! Those stories contradict The Day of the Doctor at least as much as The Eyeless does, but they still happily coexist on the article.
So here's my counterproposal: You're absolutely right that the undifferentiated blend of information between the pre- and post-DotD versions of the Moment on its page was really confusing. Does the Moment destroy its user or not? Does it run off the observer effect or not? Did it end up in the Fortress? But rather than splitting the material between two pages just because it's contradictory, I suggest that we should just make a firmer separation between the "two accounts". I've drafted a potential fix on my sandbox, where you'll see I've rearranged all the conflicting or contradictory information about it into paragraphs labelled with "According to another account".
I think this would be a better solution to the problem than "The weapon" is, but I'd definitely be open to compromise. Does anyone have a problem with my suggested approach?
- CzechOut
Sure. I do.
- The Moment originated in The End of Time, which was written no earlier than mid-2009. And it wasn't even depicted until The Day of the Doctor in 2013.
- The Eyeless can come from no earlier than the end of the "proper" series 4, since it was released more or less on Christmas 2008.
Lance Parkin could not possibly have had copyright clearance to use something that wasn't even written by RTD yet, nor visualised by BBC Wales. Therefore he was not writing about The Moment in The Eyeless. It's just not possible.
Say what you want in the BTS section about similarities and all that. But you can't positively assert that the "weapon" in The Eyeless is The Moment from a story that hasn't even been written yet.
- NateBumber
Compare to Gallifrey's appearances in The War Games and The Three Doctors, when the planet wasn't actually named until The Time Warrior. No one would argue that the planet we see in The War Games and The Three Doctors isn't Gallifrey, and no one would argue that the authors of The War Games had the name "Gallifrey" in mind when they were writing those scenes. But what they did have in mind was "the planet of the Time Lords", and that was later named "Gallifrey", so the information is on the page Gallifrey. Analogously, I posit that what Lance Parkin had in mind was "the weapon that ended the Time War by vanishing the Time Lords and most of the Daleks", and that weapon was later named "the Moment", so it's on the Moment that said information belongs.
- CzechOut
I don't see it that way at all. Copyright is key here. The DW production office/BBC had copyright over the home planet of the species to which the Doctor and Susan belonged. It was central to the concept of the show, and would never be relinquished. The fact that it doesn't get named until The Time Warrior is unproblematic, because the BBC always owned the concept. Doctor Who starts from the notion that the Doctor and Susan are exiles from their own planet.
That's not the case here. Lance Parkin has no claim whatever to the Moment, because he, nor the BBC, could have in any way anticipated its creation by RTD or any subsequent show runner.
Think about where we were on TV at the time. There was nothing in any previous script which foreshadowed a single weapon as the instrument of the end of the Time Lord. All we knew is that somehow the Doctor caused the end of the Time War by destroying both sides. We didn't know how, at all.
Basically, though, it's very simple. If Agatha Christie describes a ruggedly handsome, no-nonsense British secret agent in Murder on the Orient Express, she's not talking about James Bond because Casino Royale hadn't been written yet.
- NateBumber
I don't see it that way at all. This isn't some scenario where a random unlicensed spin-off series has a story about Daleks-with-the-names-filed-off: The Eyeless bears the Doctor Who logo. Like all New Series Adventures, it was run past Cardiff for approval – approval by the Doctor Who production office itself, people directly answerable to the showrunner. Unless you can find me legal material that suggests the copyright for the Moment specifically lies with some showrunner rather than with the BBC itself, I posit that our uninformed speculations about copyright just aren't a concern here, kind of like how it isn't a concern when it comes to the BBC's uses of Grace, Oa, or the Daleks.
Even with that in mind, there's absolutely nothing stopping Lance Parkin from inventing a concept that would later be used in or by the television show. Just look at Beautiful Chaos, another Tenth Doctor novel released on the same day as The Eyeless, which introduced the character Henrietta Goodheart who got a namedrop in The End of Time. Of course, I'm not saying RTD was deliberately referencing The Eyeless when he named the Moment in The End of Time. That would be speculatory, since there's no evidence either way. But if there's no evidence either way, then saying "He had no idea about the weapon in The Eyeless" is speculatory as well.
And as it happens, that isn't even a concern, because Lance Parkin didn't invent the idea! In issue five of The Forgotten, we see the Eighth Doctor in the Last Great Time War, stealing the Great Key to – as our article for The Forgotten puts it – "recreate the De-mat Gun and possibly even modify the original to increase its lethality to remove millions from time and space at once." The Tenth Doctor then explained that he used this weapon to end the Time War and "doom everyone". This issue was also released before The Eyeless was. Call it simultaneous inspiration if you wish, but The Forgotten got there first. So there's your foreshadowing of a single weapon as the instrument of the end of the Time War. In fact, it's a lot more than foreshadowing; the Tenth Doctor straight-up says it!
(Do you think RTD checked in with Tony Lee to secure the rights to that idea, before he added that line in The End of Time?)
And in fact, it doesn't stop there: while The Forgotten just says the Doctor activated the weapon by turning the Great Key and time locking the Time War, 2010's Don't Step on the Grass specifies that the weapon – the same weapon, which the Doctor activated with the Great Key and used to time lock the war – was called the Moment.
I think if we were having this discussion in 2012, it would be happening very differently. I would say, "Look at the facts: The End of Time and Don't Step on the Grass agree that the Moment is the name of weapon the Doctor used to end the Time War. The Forgotten described the weapon, and The Eyeless features a weapon that was used to end the Time War and which matches the description of the Moment's powers from The Forgotten." I imagine that conversation would be going very differently. After all, the de-mat gun from The Forgotten was mentioned on the Moment page before Don't Step on the Grass even confirmed the connection! (I figure that the absence of The Eyeless back then was simply due to a lack of editors familiar with it.) No, the reason we're having this debate now is because The Day of the Doctor gave a contradictory description of the Moment. And I'm of the opinion that, rather than trying to hide contradiction by splitting it into separate pages, we should embrace the differences, embrace the juxtaposition, and embrace the full, messy history of the Doctor Who universe in all its forms.
And yet, if she had described a ruggedly handsome, no-nonsense British secret agent with a sha cut into his hand, who was said to have fallen in love after trying to bankrupt a Soviet counterintelligence agency on a gambling trip to Royale-les-Eaux, and also the main character of Murder on the Orient Express was a CIA agent named Felix Leiter … well, I think you would’ve picked a different example :)CzechOut wrote:
Basically, though, it's very simple. If Agatha Christie describes a ruggedly handsome, no-nonsense British secret agent in Murder on the Orient Express, she's not talking about James Bond because Casino Royale hadn't been written yet. - Revanvolatrelundar
‘They’re aliens,’ Alsa said impatiently. ‘If they’re not the people who built the Fortress, are these the aliens that the Fortress was built to fight?’
‘No.’
‘So they’re a fourth lot?’
‘Third, surely…’
‘The ones who built the Fortress. The ones they were fighting. You.’
‘Ah. Well, yes, then they’re a fourth lot.’
Isn't this basically saying that the Doctor himself was completely separate from all parties involved, which would make it not about the Daleks and the Time Lords? The Daleks were fighting the Doctor as well, which would make only three "lots". Doesn't seem like the best example from the book to me.
The part that strikes me is that Daleks are actually mentioned in the book, when he goes through recent memories he's had, including Racnoss, Lazarus, yada yada. My point here is that, if the Fortress and the weapon were meant to have been used against the Daleks, why wouldn't that just be mentioned? There's clearly no rights issues here, otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned at all in the book. Another little addition to this is how the words "time war" are not even mentioned in the book. Since the Time War was such a big part of the mythos in this era, I would have thought the weapon would have been said to be from the Time War if that was the intention.
With this book being published by the BBC themselves, we shouldn't need to be reading through the text to see what true intentions were behind the content within. They are the copyright holders: Time War, Daleks, the Doctor, the lot. The writer of Don't Step on the Grass clearly had permission to write about the Moment in reference to the De-Mat Gun, and expand on how the Time War ended. It seems strange to me that Parkin didn't if that was his intention.
- NateBumber
For what it's worth, The Eyeless was the first Doctor Who book I ever read, and I've revisited it several times since then, so consider that a disclaimer.Au contraire, I think it's maybe the best example from the book. Let me restate what's going on in that quote: Alsa knows the Doctor's an alien, and she knows the Fortress is built by aliens, and she knows the aliens that built the fortress were fighting another group of aliens. Then she meets the Eyeless, which (by her count) is the fourth lot. But the Doctor tries to correct her, "[The Eyeless are the] third [lot], surely..." By his count, the Eyeless were only the third group of aliens involved in this particular adventure, which means he was mentally conflating two of the groups. This gives us three possibilities:
Revanvolatrelundar wrote:
Isn't this basically saying that the Doctor himself was completely separate from all parties involved, which would make it not about the Daleks and the Time Lords? The Daleks were fighting the Doctor as well, which would make only three "lots". Doesn't seem like the best example from the book to me.- The Eyeless were one of the combatants in the war, so the Doctor wasn't counting them as a separate lot. This is ruled out pretty clearly by the events of the book, in which the Doctor is quite familiar with the events of the war and specifically states that the Eyeless weren't involved.
- The two combatants in the war were one "lot". This is also ruled out pretty clearly, namely by the Doctor's explanation of how to use the weapon against an enemy.
- By the process of elimination, that leaves us with the third explanation, that the Doctor was counting himself as a member of one of the other "lots" – not the Eyeless, so one of the sides in the war. This means that his lot, the Time Lords, are either the builders of the weapon, or the builders' enemy.
- The main thing the Doctor says about the people who built the weapon is that "They are all dead, and there's a lot less of their planet left than there is of this one." And "that weapon was designed to use against an enemy with footholds in different galaxies."
- Note that countless stories have shown us the Daleks' footholds in multiple galaxies – Dalek Empire, for an easy example – whereas the Time Lords generally never left Gallifrey all that much, before the war at least. Conversely, the Doctor reflects in The Eyeless itself on how all the Time Lords were killed at the end of the Time War.
- This means that the Time Lords are the builders, and the Daleks are the builders' enemy. QED.
At the end of the quote, Alsa explains how she got her number, and rather than launching into an explanation about his true role in what happened to Arcopolis fifteen years ago, the Doctor shrugs it off and moves on with dealing with the emergency.
(I suppose it's also possible that the Doctor was just making a counting mistake, but if that were so, you'd expect it to have plot or character development implications in some way — otherwise, Parkin would've had no reason to include it! In contrast, my interpretation above does give it plot and character development implications, as I'll explain below.)
Revanvolatrelundar wrote:
The part that strikes me is that Daleks are actually mentioned in the book, when he goes through recent memories he's had, including Racnoss, Lazarus, yada yada. My point here is that, if the Fortress and the weapon were meant to have been used against the Daleks, why wouldn't that just be mentioned?Yes, why indeed? Why did Parkin choose to explain the weapon's origin and purpose only through logical implication, rather than stating it outright? I'm sure we could come up with countless answers, and we may never know for sure, but I think it's a stylistic choice.
The entire book constantly tries to remind the reader about the Time War. It's one of the first events from the Doctor's past that Parkin mentions by name, on just page two; it's the subject of the Doctor's emotional breakdown in the Fortress, when surrounded by the ghosts; and that's not even mentioning the seemingly-random flashback to the destruction of Gallifrey, which — as you rightfully pointed out — is included in a way that makes it plausibly unrelated, but is undeniably a "Hey, remember what the Doctor did to the Time Lords?"
And these reminders are complemented by hints about the Doctor's greater role in the events on Arcopolis. It's right there at the climax of the novel itself:
Right after this, the Doctor and the Eyeless both lunge for the weapon; the Doctor gets to it first, and he uses it to destroy the Eyeless.The Eyeless looked down at the TARDIS key. The possibilities started to surge through its mind. It leapt for the Doctor, greedily gripping the lapels of the Doctor’s coat with a six-fingered hand, the Eyeless’ mind grabbing for the Doctor’s mind.
There was something he wasn’t saying, wasn’t there? His secret. That it was the Doctor who—
‘Oh, shut it,’ the Doctor snapped, shrugging off the grip of the glass hands. The psychic onslaught continued and for a moment, they were eye to eye. The bright green, unblinking, stolen eyes. The Doctor and the Eyeless both understood what had to happen next, and that it would soon all be over.
What is the Doctor's secret? What is it that he isn't telling Alsa and the rest? What is it that made the Eyeless decide it needed to kill the Doctor outright, instead of just taking the TARDIS key? That the Doctor was the one who ...? It's that he was the one who used the weapon in the first place, and I think that reading is more than supported by the story itself.
Overall, I'm really sorry that you didn't pick up on that element of the book during your readthrough! Completely understandable how you found it disappointing, in that light. I agree that Parkin could've been a hell of a lot more explicit with it, and for what it's worth he does make more of an effort to spell it out in AHistory (the relevant line being, "There is plenty of evidence that this was an incident during The Last Great Time War.") But I'm of the opinion that the way he built up the Time War as looming over the story, without ever explicitly stating it outright, made for a much more atmospheric and haunting environment, and the novel benefits as a result. That's just me, though.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The way I'd go about resolving this, as you mentioned about compromising, would be to have a section in the Moment article about possible other identities to what the device actually was. We could include the events of The Forgotten, and how the Advocate later states in Don't Step on the Grass that the device he created later turned out to be the Moment. I'd still like to keep the weapon on its own page, though, as an expanded entry to what appears on the Moment's page.
- NateBumber
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: The way I'd go about resolving this, as you mentioned about compromising, would be to have a section in the Moment article about possible other identities to what the device actually was. We could include the events of The Forgotten, and how the Advocate later states in Don't Step on the Grass that the device he created later turned out to be the Moment. I'd still like to keep the weapon on its own page, though, as an expanded entry to what appears on the Moment's page.
Yeah, that would be acceptable to me. Though if it is to stand on its own page, I'd prefer it to have a slightly more descriptive name. Weapon (The Eyeless), maybe?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:232095
As has already been mentioned in Thread:231309 before it was closed (for unrelated reasons) recently the novelisation of The Day of the Doctor mentioned that two Dalek films starring Peter Cushing existed in the Doctor's universe and that the Doctor was friends with him.
This brings me to the issue at hand: This evidence inspired a section on Dr. Who's titled "As a fictional character" detailing instances from the novelisation and previous instances of these films being refereed to. More recently the name of the in-universe section was changed (by me) after multiple circumstances of the Cushing Doctor seemingly existed in the Doctor's universe.
There is a core problem with this which is a page of this type cannot be part of the four main categories (i.e in-universe and invalid in this case). This issue also exists with people from the real world who played themselves like Bill Turnbull but that's a thing for another time.
My question: how do we best deal with this situation?
- Bwburke94
Cushing's "Dr. Who" exists within the Doctor's universe, but only as a fictional character. We can clearly split the in-universe fictional character from the rest of the article, but we'd need a title.
Because of the nature of this character's in-universe existence, I don't believe we can use the debut story. Titling the page Dr. Who (name of story) would be unambiguous, but highly misleading.
- Amorkuz
Not weighing in on the decision what to do with the page, for which there seems to be three options:
- keep it as is
- turn it into a character page with a BTS section on the character as he is in the real world
- split into two pages, one of the character from the real world and another for the in-universe character.
Just stating that the proper name for the page under the second option and for the second page under the third option would probably be Dr. Who (fictional character).
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote:
Just stating that the proper name for the page under the second option and for the second page under the third option would probably be Dr. Who (fictional character).That option is ambiguous because of Dr Who (The Adventuress of Henrietta Street) among others, but a link to the disambiguation page should suffice.
- Amorkuz
Hmm, that page might benefit from a renaming. Something along the lines of Dr Who (King Kong Escapes character) vs. Dr. Who (Cushing films character). (The latter one might need tweaking as the best in-universe name is to be used. This one is based on the description from the novelisation.)
- Amorkuz
Note that it was discussed at Talk:John Wisden#Rename "that dab policy requires an actual appearance to use the 'Name (Story Name)' format".
- Bwburke94
Dr. Who (Cushing films character) could conceivably mean the character from the real-world films.
I still think Dr. Who (fictional character) is the best option, because it's exceedingly unlikely that any reader would visit the page believing it to be for something else. (The Doctor's own article wouldn't be titled Dr. Who, and certainly not Dr. Who with disambiguation.)
As a sidenote, are we sure that the in-universe character's name includes the full stop?
- Amorkuz
Yes, it would be good to check the character.
As for the (invalid) character from the films in real world, those are still disambiguated by the first appearance, as it is now at Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks). Sure, this is not going to be obvious for a first-time user, but those are the rules. These rules would have the name of the story as the dab term for characters from DW stories and something else as the dab term for characters from stories mentioned in DW stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think the problem with the Dalek Movies is that in many way, the Validity policies are not equipped to deal with things like them. They are made invalid by the fact that they weren't intended to take place in the DWU as we know it, but that rule is written with "bits of fun" in mind (a la Dimensions in Time, Unbound or The Web of Caves); the Dalek Movies are a separate continuity in their own right, one that isn't marketing itself as a twist on the DWU but a legitimate "reboot" with the intent of possibly becoming the "main" DWU in the public's eye, on an equal footing with the original.
At the end of the day, what they really need is their own wiki, even if it might be hard to get it off the ground due to the low interest.
If we could manage to do that, this would free us of the need to have in-depth pages about those invalid things, and so the page about Cushing's Dr. Who on this Wiki could limit itself to the different accounts of his existence or lack thereof in main-DWU media, without having to balance this with a description of who he is in his own continuity.
- Amorkuz
Well, there was recently a very interesting discussion (at least interesting for me) at Thread:231309, which touched upon similar topics. Specifics and the outcome of that discussion aside, it pointed out something that I have not realised before and that is brought up in the preceding post: there are multiple Doctor Who continuities that were intended to be separate from the very beginning. The Dalek movies and, according to that other thread, Daleks Versus the Martians, and Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor are all parts of such a separate continuity.
Of course, creating a separate wiki for it is always an option. And, unlike this wiki, which is in no danger of losing space to develop any time soon, such a small wiki might even be made complete and perfect.
However, one can also think outside the box and ask why do we continue to treat stories in a binary way. It used to be a division into canon/non-canon. Now it is valid/invalid. (Well, that's not entirely true. It is rather a tripartite division into valid/invalid/not-covered-at-all. But the third kind is not present at all, so those stories that are present are de facto binary.) But why not allow more types? Why should one type be defined negatively, as INvalid? And why should the Dalek movies be relegated to another wiki? After all, it is quite preposterous to suggest that the Dalek movies have nothing to do with Doctor Who, isn't it? Isn't it fascinating that before playing our beloved Wilf, Bernard Cribbins was in one of the Dalek movies all those years ago? That's definitely something that tingles my molecules and something I would like to be able to learn here at Tardis, without the need to jump between wikis.
Sure, it is vitally important not to mix continuities that are not intended to be mixed, but there must be a way to create disjoint categories (and maybe prefixes) to make it work. After all, we do have invalid categories such as Category:Non-DWU Doctors. They are simply not too developed because the focus of this wiki is on the main DW continuity.
I know for a fact that there are editors interested in fleshing out such stories that are "invalid" according to T:VS but can be also viewed as a disjoint set of DW stories. While there is no literal prohibition on developing such stories, I suspect the negatives "in" and "non" used to describe them are not very encouraging. Rebranding them as separate DW continuities might help.
And isn't this what, in effect, happened to The Infinity Doctors (a BBC Past Doctor Adventures novel), which was put in the Infinity Doctors universe (see Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?)?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, but tread carefully, Amorkuz. OttselSpy brought up a similar suggestion before, but did so carelessly and thus it was shot down on the grounds that his opening post had several factual mistakes. What was done with The Infinity Doctors was done only because the creator actually went out and stated that he considers it an alternate timeline to the Prime Whoniverse.
This is a different matter than the Cushingverse and its fellows. In the case of the Dalek Movies, though there is a small, tiny sliver of suggestion in later sources that it's set in a parallel universe, the original intent — the one I'm calling forward here — is that it was not, in any way, shape or form, related to the Doctor Who Multiverse previously shown. We must be careful not to conflate "another dimension within the same multiverse" (which is what Infinity Doctor is, and what, according to some people, the Unbound stories might be[1]), with "another continuity" as in an unrelated canon within the same IRL franchise.
e.g. I entirely support the idea of letting there be a "differently valid" section for the Dalek Movies, and any other works which we can place within the same framework. [2] But it can't be done based on the precedent of the Infinity Doctors timeline.
What we're dealing with is a new bit of policy that needs drafting, from the ground up.
Notes[[edit] | [edit source]]
- ↑ Sympathy for the Devil has been officially confirmed as being one, and I think it's pointless lawyering to go on assuming that the others were meant to be anything else, though in fairness we haven't technically been told that. The Wiki rightly chose to consider them alternate universes too after a lengthy debate.
- ↑ Not all currently-invalid things would go there, to be sure. Some of them were meant as nothing more than a bit of "non-canon" fun, and shouldn't be misconstrued as an intent to make a new continuity. This would, for instance, include most parodies, and even things like Death Comes to Time.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nearly a year later (…really?), I have… obviously… had the chance to mull all of this over some more, and the more I mull, the more I think a separate w:c:dalekmovies Wiki is the way to go. Which doesn't preclude limited coverage on Tardis proper, of course. But one of the reasons for my developing this opinion is that there are things one would want to talk about in a Dalek Movies Wiki that simply cannot be talked about on Tardis in the length they deserve; I speak of course of the two recent "Peter Cushing Doctor" charity novels printed by Obverse Books. (And, to a lesser extent, of The Mission of Doom. But mostly the novels.)
- RingoRoadagain
Can't we just consider it the same as when "Remembrance of the Daleks" did a meta-joke and mentionned the Doctor Who franchise within the story?
("This is BBC Television, the time is quarter past five and Saturday viewing continues with an adventure in the new science fiction series Doc-")
- Scrooge MacDuck
Which would mean, in practice?
- RingoRoadagain
Not doing anything about it.
It's not like you need this wiki's permission if you want to make a new one about any subject you want such as charity books.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But we did do something about the reference in Remembrance of the Daleks. See Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks). And a rather well-furnished page it is too.
And no, I don't need the Wiki's permission per se. But it would certainly be nice for there to be a degree of partnership between Tardis and the Dalek Movies Wiki, akin to what was supposed to exist between Tardis and the Faction Paradox Wiki (prior to said wiki keeling over dead from the final Tardis decision of "you can cover Faction Paradox here, but proceed over to the Faction Paradox Wiki for detailed stuff", which was so vague that everyone seems to have mentally read it as "YOU CAN COVER FACTION PARADOX HERE but also the Faction Paradox Wiki will stay open for hardcore FP fans who want to cover it in isolation, if you like, maybe").
An official endorsement of the Dalek Movies Wiki by Tardis as its estranged little brother would allow back-and-forth linking, editor crossover, etc. All things which such a niché Wiki would be desperate for to get the chance to grow.
- RingoRoadagain
Ah my bad. I could not find a link to it on Remembrance's page. (i'm going to make it easier to find to help with that)
Then I would suggest making "Dr. Who (Day of the Doctor)" and "Daleks: Invasion Earth (Day of the Doctor)" and filling them like the Remembrance one. Renaming the currently existing one "Daleks: Invasion Earth (theatrical film)" (why isn't it already the case anyway??).
But I don't think we should remove anything concerning from the wiki. (which seems to be you opinion as well if i read correctly)
Putting the quotes from the novelizations for those who did not read them yet:
‘Peter Cushing played the Doctor? The guy from Star Wars?’
‘Oh, yes. Twice. We did try to suppress the films, but they kept showing up on bank holidays.’
‘Has the Doctor seen them?’
‘Seen them? He loves them. He loaned Peter Cushing a waistcoat for the second one, they were great friends. Though we only realised that when Cushing starting showing up in movies made long after his death.’
There had been an ugly period when they discovered a VHS tape of the movie Daleks: Invasion Earth and had insisted on watching it. They nearly derailed the negotiations by shouting, cheering and joining in, and then had spent the next hour calling each other Dr Who and talking like Peter Cushing. Clara had a sinking feeling that her Doctor might stick that way. ‘I love his bandy legs!’ he’d said, imitating Dr Who’s walk by making no apparent change at all.
‘I can tell!’ said the other one.
‘How?’
When they’d found a DVD of the other movie (‘Remastered!’) they’d tried to get the old man to join in, but he’d smiled, and waved them away.
Clara smiled. ‘It was the movies that did it. I think they’re on the phone to Peter Cushing now, pitching a third one.’
PS: I re-read my previous message and i appologise for the tone it conveys. I just wanted to say to just do it since you seem to have the motivation but i am just afraid that it would not be very active
- Scrooge MacDuck
Whether the two Cushing movies from the real world should get "(theatrical film)" dab terms is currently under discussion at Talk:Dr. Who and the Daleks. The crux of the matter is A) that invalid stories don't have to get dab terms by policy, though sometimes they do — note that Search Out Space doesn't have a dab term either —, B) that since there aren't any valid theatrical films yet, we would be creating a new story dab term just for a couple of invalid stories. Mind you, I fall on the side of dabbing.
I'm certainly not advocating deleting the info about the Dalek Movies' universe from the Wiki altogether; only that instead of awkwardly trying to cover it as "pseudo-valid", in the full detail we give valid TV stories from the mainline DWU, we would give shorter accounts of the main characters and not to have page about every last secondary character or item; and the pages we would have about those characters would have a shiny interwiki banner at the top along the lines of "This is a summary of what is of interest about this guy from the perspective of a TV Who fan, but if you want coverage of his universe for its own sake, proceed to w:c:dalekmovies:Ian Chesterton" or what have you.
Also, the issue with making a separate page for the in-universe movies and Dr. Who character is that we can't just dab it to The Day of the Doctor: there are other previous references to Dr Who in valid stories, as shown in the relevant section of our current Dr. Who page, titled "Within the Doctor's universe".
I suppose a possible solution would be to have Dr. Who (A Visit to the Cinema) be about Dr. Who as a fictional character within the DWU (the short story A Visit to the Cinema appears to be the earliest story depicting him so), Dr. Who (The Five O'Clock Shadow) about the version brought into existence by the Doctor as part of a scheme in The Five O'Clock Shadow, and Parallel Doctors (Four Doctors) or something about the hypothetical parallel Doctors, Cushing lookalike included, from the Four Doctors comic. All three would then contain reference in their BTS section to the fact that they're all nods to the Dalek Movies Universe (DMU?) character. Said BTS entries would then link to Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) and/or to the Dalek Movies Wiki page w:c:dalekmovies:Dr. Who.
But that's a bit convoluted, isn't it? And the John and Gillian and Sherlock Holmes precedents suggest not splitting character pages between "as a fictional character" and "as someone the Doctor can meet outside the Land of Fiction", if it's clearly the same character being referenced in the dueling accounts.
- RingoRoadagain
After dwelling on this a little, i have the following suggestion: we cover them on "doctor who (remembrace of the daleks)", making this page about any reference in-universe to a doctor who related product. After all it's not explicit from the stories themselves that the cushing movies and the tv series are not the same universe: we just know that from how it is in our own world.
I still don't think we should make any NONVALID pages un-detailed because they are not valid: i don't think editors would think they should not put any more information on these pages. (not putting information from an official BBC Doctor Who product is quite counter-intuitive).
But I agree that a wiki based on this continuity and with a template linking to it (similar to {{fpx}}) could be beneficial. (and that would be the only way to cover charity works so we can start it already) I am not familiar with tardis wiki policy: can users create templates or is it admin-only?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Glad you agree!
We'll wait until the thread is officially concluded for work to get underway, of course. That being said, I have registered dalekmovies.fandom.com domain, just in case. It wasn't too likely someone else would snatch it up, but it never hurts to make sure.
- OttselSpy25
I still am going to stand by my position from before.
I think that the idea that there has to be one Doctor Who canon is preposterous, and we should be able to find a way to cover these stories better than this. The idea that we have to cover the one Doctor Who universe supported by TV is totally at odds with our choices to set continuity to the sidelines, and us waiting for some fringe piece of spin-off media to explain each example as "an alternate universe" seems like a tedious practice. If someone wants to write about a specific reboot that didn't take off but decidedly is Doctor Who, they should be able to! If someone has to make another wiki to cover a fully liscensed, competent narrative, which has numerous sequels through the 2000's worth analyzing, then we're doing something wrong.
I do not support the creation of a seperate wiki for this canon, although obviously there's nothing stopping it from happening. I just believe that we can find a solution-in-wiki.
I know that saying "our existing policy in how we treat this certain thing doesn't work" is a taboo, but it's how I feel. I stand by the fact that stories like this shouldn't be invalid just because they fail to match up with the canon of the TV show, we should consider them as just a seperate pocket on valid stories. And doing this really wouldn't change how the site runs, since everything pretty much already runs like this is the case. All this would do is allow up to crack down on, say, pages being made based on non-narrative sources. I am sort of surprised, I must say, to see an admin siding with this position, even if it's a message more than 12 months old.
I mentioned ages ago that there is massive precedent in other wikis for how this can be done. The Power Rangers wiki, for instance, covers the events of both of the one-off reboot films and the recent reboot comics even though they exist outside of all other canon:
https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Oliver/Movie https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Tommy_Oliver/2016_comic https://powerrangers.fandom.com/wiki/Jason_Scott/2017_movie
And don't get me started on the Sonic wiki https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Doctor_Eggman_(disambiguation)
It just seems to me there's a practical solution to find here which takes the ticks out of how our policies work and allow our editors to contribute to whatever Doctor Who canon they're invested in that week without putting a big red stop sign in front of them. And literally all the change that would happen on the site is a different system for naming what these stories are called, since these pages already exist and are still edited to this day.
Anyways, that's my take. Thanks for reading.
- Borisashton
I've never thought about it like this and I think you might be right. Tardis:Neutral point of view states that we give all media equal weight and that television is not the most important source of information here. It's strange to think that we could have been breaking our own policy on an issue as big as this for years.
Who are we to say that the characters and continuity established in An Unearthly Child are the "valid" ones when Dr. Who and the Dalek Movies continuity exists as a perfectly valid (by our own rules) but different Doctor Who universe. It seems that this has happened because the universe featured in An Unearthly Child is the most used one, but surely invalidating the Doctor Who universe established in Dr Who and the Daleks is breaking T:NPOV.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Although I broadly agree with Ottsel's post in theory, what turned me around on the idea that what we really need is a sister Wiki is the fact that there's a lot of very essential "bits" of the Cushingverse which wouldn't be valid on this Wiki no matter what — chiefly, the Obverse charity books from a few years ago. The recent Now on the Big Screen in Colour! deletion is also an example of a source which featured new information about the Cushingverse but was not felt worthy of inclusion on this Wiki.
- OttselSpy25
Well if you want to make a separate wiki just to cover odd things like that, go on ahead, but it seems sort of irrelevant to the discussion? I don't particularly care about covering the Obverse charity stuff, I just want to fix this problem with the site.
- OttselSpy25
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: The recent Now on the Big Screen in Colour! deletion is also an example of a source which featured new information about the Cushingverse but was not felt worthy of inclusion on this Wiki.
Okay, so to be clear, that page was about a movie poster. It had no right to have a page, again that feels like a totally irrelevant issue from this topic. I think the issue here is that a movie poster isn't a narrative thus can't be covered, and that's why it's important that things like that be invalid.
But the Cushing films, among other complete narratives, can be covered, and we choose not to. That's what this discussion is about.
- Scrooge MacDuck
First, feel free to skip this and just consider the second section of this post, but here's a reply to Ottself concerning the whole 'why we need a separate Wiki' thing:
My argument goes something like this: for what I personally think are very debatable reasons to begin with, Tardis Wiki long ago decided it wouldn't consider non-narrative sources or charity novels valid. When it comes to the main Doctor Who universe where there are thousands of narrative non-charity sources to draw from, that's fine. But when it comes to the Cushingverse, it is something like 75% charity or non-narrative — so even if we made the two movies and the comic valid, Tardis just isn't wired right to cover that narrative universe in its entirety.
I am all for making the necessarily-limited coverage of the Cushingverse on Tardis better, don't get me wrong. As far as this Wiki goes, your proposal is sound and I might support it, although see below. But I also think that no matter how you slice it, a Dalek Movies Wiki with different validity policies is the only way to go to get proper coverage of the Cushingverse on Wikia.
That is relevant to this thread because such a Wiki would work best if it had a partnership of some sort with Tardis, like the Faction Paradox Wiki does. As the Faction Paradox precedent itself shows, that would not preclude full coverage of the Dalek Movies themselves at Tardis anyway, you'll note.
…Right, now that's out of the way.
Uunrelated to the Obverse books and whatchamacallits, and getting back to the matter of the movies themselves… I would pose you all the following question:
Whoever said they failed Rule 4 anyway?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Sure, they seem oddly universe-breaking to us, with fifty years of "I'm a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey in the Constellation of Kasterborous" behind us. But remember that Dr. Who and the Daleks was written before the word Time Lord even made its on-screen debut. That the Doctor and Susan were not Homo Sapiens was… it was implied in An Unearthly Child and The Sensorites, certainly, but even then it only said Susan was born on another planet, not hung a big sign on "They're aliens weird biology and incredible lifespans".
So using "but Dr Who and Susan are humans in this!" seems a bit disingenuous as evidence of intent that the films weren't set in the DWU.
What else we got? Oh yeah, the film presents a slightly different account of the first voyage to Skaro, and a substantially different account of how Ian and Barbara know each other, how they meet up with the Doctor, and how they begin traveling with him. And it calls him "Dr Who" several times.
Huhuh.
People… Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks does the exact same thing! And yet it's considered perfectly valid, and has always been; originally as a "secondary source", then, when we decriminalized novelisations, as an independently valid alternative account of the beginnings of Ian and Barbara's travels with the Doctor.
It's a rather bold proposal but whatever you might think of the "separate Wiki" idea (which as you can see is wholly unrelated to this one), I think the original inclusion debate on the Dalek Movies just wasn't up to scratch.
- OttselSpy25
I understand your motivation fully, but those charity books are nothing more than lightly published fan fiction. With the faction paradox, it's at least the same writers as far as I've been told. But with the Cushing films, it's literally unrelated fans making fan fiction. I can understand you wanting to make your own wiki to cover said fan fiction, but it's not a real argument as per why all the content should *move* from this wiki to another.
The rest of your post is sound in logic, but your implication that we should cover these films as we do novelizations (or that we have to do this, and thus a seperate wiki makes more sense) is something I don't agree with. The issue is that all of the Cushing media (which is to long films, one quality comic and one short-story, alongside other half-appearances discussed before) are part of another "canon", another universe, another collection of stories. But they are not Non-DWU texts, not by a long shot. Thus they deserve a place on this wiki, even if a seperate style of coverage.
I can not continue to emphasize enough that how we cover things like the Dr. Who films is pretty much exactly like how the Sonic/Power Rangers wikis cover their respective "weird reboot" properties... Except we, for a reason melting down to a weird policy evolution and a choice not to fix our internal problems, collect "weird reboot" stories under the same label of stories which aren't stories.
Then we encourage people to make pages like Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), because pages on stories like that clearly do work, but then we add stories to the same category based on it being impossible to use them to write pages. Like Attack of the Graske (video game), LEGO Dimensions (video game), plays which no longer exist in any way, deleted scenes, and many roleplaying books. We say "Pages on these topics can't be made and be accurate. But because of our inconsistent treatment of INVALID stories, people go ahead and make pages like The Doctor (The Ultimate Adventure), Street urchin (Attack of the Graske), Anthony Williams (P.S.), Vorgenson, and so many others. The final pages I've linked here exist as a mockery of our inclusion debates.
The difference here is that Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks) and many others are all totally competent pages made about Doctor Who stories which are only invalid because they don't fit into the pre-existing Doctor Who canon, while all the other pages are about stories that we deemed unable to have pages written off of.
So, really, this small group of stories where the pages do work (Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death), The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death)) should be split off into a new category of what we cover, and all the other pages should be deleted, or at least rewritten to be from an out-of-universe perspective0. This is good not only for these stories, but also the site's policies and content.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Woah, woah, woah. I was basically with you thus far (at no point did I suggest we should move pages to the hypothetical Dalek Movies Wiki and stop covering the Cushing movies here).
But these last three paragraphs… dude. Not only do in-universe pages about invalid characters work IMO (what exactly is wrong with Vorgenson?), but they're some of my favorite pages from this Wiki. You'll have to pry an in-universe Doctor Why page from my cold dead fingers, is that clear?
I'd support making a separate category of the Wiki for full-on "separate canons" like the Cushingverse, if it is "as a separate canon" that we agree is the best way to cover it. (My whole "why is it Rule-4-breaking anyway?" argument did indeed intend to raise the possibility of just covering the movies the way we do novelisations or audio adaptations, as alternative and equally true takes on the same in-universe events, for the record.) But at no point do I support a deletion of the usual {{Invalid}} pages.
Indeed, to tell you the truth, what I think is that the whole "invalidity" idea is overrated to begin with. What would be the harm to the Wiki if Inside a Skaro Saucer were valid? Does it murder you dog if we treat the Colossus Chicken of Gigantus as a real being who exists somewhere, someplace in the Doctor's multiverse? We do need rules for what we'll have pages about at all, or else all hell breaks loose. But I fundamentally don't see why we need to act like some stories are more real than others.
That being said, this all seems terribly off-topic to me. The different ways in which you or I would overhaul the entire {{Invalud}} system do not belong at the bottom of a thread called "The Cushing Conundrum".
- NateBumber
My feelings are very mixed on whether the Cushing films are best treated as an alternate universe or as adaptations. That said, there are a few side discussions which I can comment on.
I'm still very much in support of the general principle presented by User:Amorkuz and User:OttselSpy25 above, that stories which are non-DWU for narrative reasons are better presented as separate continuities, whether that involves "parallel universes" or "parallel validities", than as invalid. I am extremely eager to see this idea discussed and enacted. (Although I also agree that more discussion should be dedicated to how this changes the validity rules before we delete Vorgenson.)
I am also strongly opposed to the deportation of any Cushing movies content to another wiki, for exactly the same reasons that I opposed the separate existence of w:c:factionparadox. Yes, the FP wiki can cover relevant charity publications in a way that Tardis cannot allow, but this material can still be fully incorporated onto the wiki via BtS sections on relevant pages: see Last Contact#Behind the scenes for a particularly lengthy example of this. The same precedent can easily apppy to Now on the Big Screen in Colour! and the Obverse charity novelizations.
Can a parallel wiki be developed, dedicated to the Cushing 'verse, and treating the charity books as canon? Absolutely! Can Tardis link to those articles in our "External links" section? For sure! Should any topic be covered less thoroughly on Tardis because readers can be sent to another wiki instead? Absolutely not. That's my opinion.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Then I'm not sure we actually disagree on anything at all. As I restated above, I'm not at all against the Dalek Movies receiving as much coverage as they can on Tardis at all. I would just also like for this unbound parallel Wiki to exist, and for Tardis to acknowledge it as a partner.
For the record, do you agree with me that Ottsel's proposal regarding coverage (or lack thereof) of invalid-for-non-Rule-4-related-reasons material is, er, unabashedly terrible?
- OttselSpy25
I understand that everyone is protective of pages like Vorgenson, but my point about bringing this up is simple. The story said page is based off of, a play put on for a limited time, is invalid because it's a piece of media that doesn't exist. There was no home media adaptation, no official release as I know, it's a thing you could pay to see that now does not exist. Additionally, when it did, it was a different thing from show-to-show. Our ruling was that, because of this, we couldn't make pages about what goes on during the story. The same for things like The Doctor (The Ultimate Adventure).
Stories such as Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) and Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) are not like this, they are stories which were made invalid on the basis of "we can and will make pages on these, but they're not canon so they should be treated differently." this is the sole difference between the two kinds of stories, and if sacrificing one kind helps make the site run better I am all for it, despite how charming I find some of the ones which would likely be deleted.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I still don't see what about this situation requires the invalid-because-they're-not-accessible-stories pages to be deleted. Just make a separate "Separately Valid" category for the Cushingverse and so on on the one hand; and keep the good old {{Invalid}} tag for the rest.
- OttselSpy25
I think this is an irrelevant tangent in the discussion, but the main point we can all agree on is that there is a difference between these two categories of pages. The issue goes beyond the "Cushingverse," additionally.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Indeed. Although I'd still like to hear your thoughts, as concerns Cushing in particular, on my "is there a solid reason why we don't consider them just another weird 1960's account of the first Doctor's adventures, as valid as any TV Comic" point from earlier, especially now I know that NateBumber is tempted to agree with me, although still undecided.
But yes, there is a definite difference between things like Death Comes to Time and things like LEGO Dimensions, I'll grant you that.
- OttselSpy25
First off, that's not what TV Comic was. TV Comic told unique stories.
Second, it's just generally accepted that the Peter Cushing Doctor is a different "incarnation" than the Hartnell Doctor. The film's canon is a direct reboot, not a quirky novelization with some parts written weird.
More importantly, classifying the movies as on the same level of a novelization would mean deleting pages like Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) (and adding the comic and short story about the Cushing Doctor to the First Doctor page?) and it would fail to fix the systemic problems we've discussed here. Like the concept of making a new wiki, the solution seeks to find the easiest path, not the best one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
TV Comics told unique stories, yes; the point of comparison was in the fact that it has a version of the First Doctor called "Dr Who" with an outlandish family tree, which are two of the commonly-cited "strange" traits of the Cushing Doctor. Besides, since novelisations and adaptations have been ruled equally valid to the thing they're retelling, I don't see why that especially matters.
You speak of the film's status as a "direct reboot" being "generally accepted", but see, that's the thing, I'd like to see some hard quotes on that. There was some discussion of that very "accepted fact" on a Doctor Who Discord, and the thing is really, one struggles to see how Dr. Who and the Daleks is any more of a reboot than Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks was. It wants to go ahead with the business of retelling the Dalek story in a new medium, so it snips off the Tribe of Gum business and generally feels free to completely change the hows and whys of the beginnings of the Ian-Barbara-Doctor-Susan TARDIS team. In hindsight it feels more inflammatory to go "what if the Doctorhad just finished building the TARDIS" as opposed to "what if Susan's fake last name was English and Barbara was a secretary", but as far as a casual TV viewer was concerned, I scarcely think one would have been more of a reboot than the other.
That being said, I wouldn't have Dr. Who merged into First Doctor, necessarily. Instead, what we'd have is that in the First Doctor page's section about The Daleks, you'd have "According to another account, the Doctor who took his granddaughter Susan, as well as Ian and Barbara, on this adventure was a rather different individual, though the consequences for the Thals and the Dalek City were much the same." or something like that. And conversely, on Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), you'd have "According to many accounts, the Doctor who went on these Dalek-fighting adventures was the First Doctor, the longer-haired, clean-shaven, more cantankerous first incarnation of the Time Lord known as the Doctor."
- OttselSpy25
I'll ask you to stick to on-site precedent, debates on some far-off Discord do not interest me.
Again, you're suggestion is that info from COMIC: Daleks Versus the Martians should be added to First Doctor, Susan Foreman, etc. It's a concept that just isn't practical, the community treats Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks), etc to be a separate lineage and thus futher stories with them always have as well. You, especially, seem to consider it a seperate universe worth covering seperately, as you petition for it all to be moved to another wiki.
I really don't understand your perspective here, it's different enough to have a seperate wiki treating it as a unique universe... But similar enough that Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) should be merged with First Doctor?
I state again, this solution seeks to avoid fixing this problem through the easiest path, but it's not the right answer.
P.S. the TV Comic comparison really doesn't stand on it's own feet, I still say. The Doctor having a different set of relatives and calling himself Dr. Who doesn't contradict with the show (see Moffat's final three stories). But him calling himself Dr. Who and being played be a new actor while not intended to be the same incarnation as William Hartnell by definition is a whole other situation.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, as I said, those are two completely different, and, I daresay, opposite ideas of mine. But they coexist basically based on Tardis's rules about Rule 4 being based on authorial intent at time of release. I think it's obvious that later efforts like Daleks Versus the Martians or the Obverse books were written with the intent of being set in a continuity of their own, which sprang from the original two Dalek Movies. That continuity is different enough that it would deserve coverage completely separate from regular Doctor Who.
But I also think it quite likely that back in 1965, David Whitaker didn't think he was creating a whole new universe when he wrote Dr. Who and the Daleks, just a new take on a familiar Doctor Who story. The Doctor looked a bit different, but again, neither can we speak about him being "intended to be the same incarnation" as William Hartnell because the concept of regeneration hadn't been introduced yet. There was no such thing as a Dr Who who wasn't the same character as William Hartnell; Cushing is a recast, whose costume was given a touch-up to look more cinematic and kid-friendly, but it's unfeasible for him to have been intended to be "a different Doctor" from Hartnell in the same way that Troughton is.
I don't know at what point you got the impression that I thought Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) should be merged with First Doctor, though, since I said precisely the opposite in my last post. The fact is that this version of the Doctor is different enough, and his circumstances murky enough, that he warrants a page of his own IMO, just one that mentions that the accounts of his life concur in many ways with accounts of a longer-haired fellow to whom various other sources also ascribe a granddaughter called Susan and the name of Dr Who.
Again, the thing is that the Wiki's policy (and I think it is sound, even if it leads to a perhaps surprising result here) is that we care about what the intent-regarding-DWU-ness was at time of release, not what later writers thought, let alone what later fans thought. As far as validity goes, it matters not if we like to think of Susan Who as being a different character from Susan Foreman, what matters is whether David Whitaker thought the Skaro yarn in his script was a reboot, or just a retelling of the ones already featured on TV.
Oh, and—OttselSpy25 wrote: I'll ask you to stick to on-site precedent, debates on some far-off Discord do not interest me.
Twas no debate, let alone anything I meant to establish as precedent. I just mentioned it as an anecdotal detail of how I came to realise how flimsy the evidence we have of its having been intended especially as a "reboot" really was.
- OttselSpy25
Well still, you bring it up as if it has some authority. It doesn't, this is a new platform for discussion, "my friends agreed with me over DMs" doesn't really matter that much.
I'm not admin, but I think you should just stop bringing up these fan fiction book in the debate, they really don't matter.
As for the rest of your post, I am now thoroughly confused as to what you're suggesting. Are you saying that you want Susan English to be a different page from Susan Foreman? Because you've said you're not arguing for Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks) to be merged with Susan Foreman, but you keep comparing the foremer discrepancy.
I'm guessing that you want Susan Foreman to say something like "A few greatly different accounts claimed that Susan actually was a human born to her grandfather Dr. Who," and vise-versa. If that is the case, that seems like such a small argument that it totally takes us away from actually discussing the topic at hand? That's a small talk page debate to happen after we reach a consensus on the bigger issue.
I also strongly disagree about your take on "intent at the time." Your claim that the Dr. Who films weren't a reboot (they were) and thus we should see them as a fancy novelization (is that even what you're arging? I don't understand what you're getting at in the slightest) is additionally flimbsy.
No offense, but both of the topics you've brought up here seems like a frivious tangents, and I literally don't know what endgame you're trying to reach with them.
If people think we could find a place on the wiki for these stories, let's discuss how that could work. How the policy could take place. If they don't want that, I'd love to knowwhy. That's what I want to hear about.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again, please don't make too much of the Discord remark; if it came across as if I meant for it to have any authority I apologise, but this wasn't my intent.
As for the rest… fine, I'll stop blathering about the Obverse books, though we obviously have a sort of philosophical difference on the theoretical importance of them. (I espouse the view that due to the sheer mass of Doctor Who fanfic Tardis is very sadly forced to take some draconian measures regarding licensing, but that in the abstract, novels written by professionals about Dr Who aren't made any more "important" for having a nice slip of paper signed by a movie producer's estate.)
And you have my intent down pat with:
I'm guessing that you want Susan Foreman to say something like "A few greatly different accounts claimed that Susan actually was a human born to her grandfather Dr. Who," and vise-versa.
And you say it's a small thing, but I say it isn't, in spirit at least.
To my mind it's very different to wholly split canons as you have been proposing — whether through a separate class of pages on this Wiki, or through a potential Dalek Movies Wiki —, compared to acknowledging the Cushing version as a different, valid take on the DWU, albeit one whose differences and complicated BTS circumstances would mean we would rarely link to on the main page. In one case one is essentially creating a new subsection within the "Invalid" framework, while in the other one is bringing the stories from invalidity into a form of validity.
There would be larger practical differences, as well — I feel like if we created an, I dunno, {{Cushingverse}} tag/category, and go full-on with treating as a separate fictional construct, then we'd be led to have pages for Dalek (Dr. Who and the Daleks), Skaro (Dr. Who and the Daleks), etc.
Whereas if we take the view that the Dalek Movies present another account of who these time-travellers who interloped were exactly compared to The Daleks, but that it is nevertheless an alternative to it, occupying the same spot in a wider Whoniverse, there would be no need for any such pages. Skaro is still Skaro, the question is just of which madman with a box landed on it and why.
A good point of reference here might be The Dalek Chronicles, which are simultaneously prequels to the Daleks on TV Doctor Who in general, and, if certain wholly official, well-researched Doctor Who publications are to be believed, to Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (an idea which the presence of Cushing-design Daleks in the later Chronicles stories would seem to support). In other words, the same stories lead into both versions alternatively, rather than the two 'universes' being walled off.
OttselSpy25 wrote: Your claim that the Dr. Who films weren't a reboot (they were)
For the I think third time: what proof do you have of this? That seems to be quite an extraordinary claim. In 1965, it seems to me that ideas of "reboots" and "canons" simply wouldn't have been in David Whitaker's Overton window at all, and that he wouldn't have thought of the task "I'm rewriting The Daleks to work as a novel for new readers; what should I change?" differently from "I'm rewriting The Daleks to work as a movie for new viewers; what should I change?".
I struggle to imagine what mindset could have led him to have clear-cut ideas, there and then in 1965, about whether the one or the other was still in the same fictional universe as the TV series. Most likely, had he been asked, he would have just answered, "all three are basically the same story, you can pick whichever version you like best; and yes, inasmuch as that means anything, they're all in the same 'universe', a mad little place with vanishing blue boxes and Skaro and Daleks".
Per T:VS, failure to pass Rule 4 is defined by authorial intent at time of release. I don't see how, if Whitaker (or someone else involved heavily in the production/writing of the Dalek Movies) didn't have any such opinions in 1965, we can meaningfully declare them to take place in a different universe.
- OttselSpy25
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: To my mind it's very different to wholly split canons as you have been proposing — whether through a separate class of pages on this Wiki, or through a potential Dalek Movies Wiki —, compared to acknowledging the Cushing version as a different, valid take on the DWU, albeit one whose differences and complicated BTS circumstances would mean we would rarely link to on the main page. In one case one is essentially creating a new subsection within the "Invalid" framework, while in the other one is bringing the stories from invalidity into a form of validity.
This is not true at all. We're not creating a new subsection within invalid framework, we're creating a new understanding of how to expand these stories into validity. For instance, if The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death) and The Master (Scream of the Shalka) were valid in some way, then The Master could discuss them in some sort of "alternate universes" sub-section. The only issue is that the page probably couldn't say "Alternate universe" or "alternate timeline," because those imply narrative confirmation. "Alternative validity," as someone suggested above, sounds damn good.
All of the stories which would be effected by this policy change feature incarnations of the Doctor which contradict the 13 we know today. This incudes the Cushing films, which are intended to be a different version of the Doctor than the one on-screen. Furthermore, this would effect stories outside of the "Cushingverse" so the new contept would not be named after or based around what you have suggested.
Your stance here is without precedent, and your comparisons imply a conclusion which you then do not come to. If the Cushing films are novelisations, they don't get seperate pages. If the novelisation, the TV show, and the movie are just all different versions and you can "pick whichever you like" as a fan, then the character's in them only get one page. As simple as that. Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) gets deleted, the info gets awkwardly dumped into First Doctor in weird parts. That's the conclusion you're leading up to and then jumping off from, you can't argue 99% for that stance and then trail off into some other tangent without any real precedent.
What you're arguing is semantics, "Did Whattaker understand the concept of what a reboot was?" is such a weird argument, because the conclusion it comes to is explicitly not the conclusion you want us to see. "Did Whittaker understand Multi-Verse theory?" is even more insulting.
Your interprentation, as far as I can read it, is this: You want us to act as if the Dr. Who films and the Doctor Who episodes they are relative to are seperate events with different characters... But that both take place within the same universe. That's not a thing. Susan English and Susan Foreman remain as one page.
To me, it seems like is another easier solution but one which still leaves all these lingering pages with the exact same problem, and it's also a solution that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's saying "instead of fixing this systemic issue, let's find a really weird loophole for this one story right now."
Your quote at the end brings up a good point about why this simple interprentation of policy doesn't make sense: "Authorial intent at time of release" seemingly would mean that the Unbound stories should all still be invalid. Sure, later they were retconned to alternate universes. But do we have proof that was the intention at the tiiiiime? The answer is that this policy isn't really based on authorial intentions, it's based on fan theories and trying to burrow canon and continuity a place on the wiki long after those words were essentially banned.
- Borisashton
I'd be up for the "alternative validity" approach as you described. The idea that "the DWU" in rule 4 of T:VALID is just the universe introduced in An Unearthly Child seems to me like a blatant violation of T:NPOV to treat all media equally.
This sort of system would also help distinguish between the stories that are currently invalid because they don't conform to the idea of a singular valid Doctor Who universe as it exists in fandom today and stories that are invalid because of problems not related to this such as lack of narrative or licensing.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Actually, the conclusion regarding the Unbound stories was AFAIR that they had been marketed as "what-ifs" from the beginning, and that the later depiction of one of them as an alternate timeline only served to clarify what had been the authorial intent all along.
And let us be clear: are you walling off canons or aren't you? If we're not taking the view that alternative Doctors are a case of "the rest of the universe is the same, Jago & Litefoot and K9 and whoever are still having the same spin-off adventures, but the identity of the man in the TARDIS is different", which is the gist of my argument, but rather suggesting wholly separate fictional universes… how the heck could we then mention The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death) on the The Master page's in-universe section? What?
You write:
Your interpretation, as far as I can read it, is this: You want us to act as if the Dr. Who films and the Doctor Who episodes they are relative to are separate events with different characters... But that both take place within the same universe. That's not a thing.
Whoever told you it wasn't a thing? The WhichDoctor template and the business with the two Shadas are both clear precedent of us accepting cases where we know that stories happened in some fashion as far as the rest of the universe is concerned, but we're not quite sure who was in the TARDIS when they did.
Similarly, for a Doctor-less example, Birthright the audio story retells the same events in Bernice's life as Birthright the novel, except that a major character (Ace) is switched out for another entirely (Jason Kane).
The reason we don't create a separate Susan English page is that there is little doubt that the two are the same characters; Susan English still looks like Carole Ann Ford and does the same old Susan things.
Whereas Suzy looks and acts completely different, so the conclusion of an out-of-universe observer is akin to the one from Birthright — "two accounts agree that someone closely associated with Bernice and who had started space-travelling against their will when being caught in an alien transport-watchamacallit, but in one it's Jason Kane while the other one says it was Ace" —> "two accounts agree that a granddaughter of the TARDIS pilot's, called Susan or something like that, was present on Skaro at this point, but in one account it was big-haired psychic teen Susan Foreman while in the other it was an adorably precocious moppet of unclear last name".
Scream of the Shalka is actually a good point of reference, if you would have it covered by the same change in policy as Cushing — the current coverage of it doesn't seem capable of acknowledging it in full, but clearly Scream of the Shalka does take place in a universe where An Unearthly Child and everything after it up to and including The TV Movie happened. The intent at time of release was not so much that it didn't take place in the DWU as it stood then, but more that further entries in the An Unearthly Child continuity would not take place in a version of events where Scream of the Shalka had happened.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Scream of the Shalka is actually a good point of reference, if you would have it covered by the same change in policy as Cushing — the current coverage of it doesn't seem capable of acknowledging it in full, but clearly Scream of the Shalka does take place in a universe where An Unearthly Child and everything after it up to and including The TV Movie happened.
- Borisashton
I'll reiterate the idea from my previous post that having separate sections labelled something like "alternative validity" on the main page as a subsection of the biography as what could happen with The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death) would be a good way to cover stuff from stories like the Dalek movies because they should both be equally valid, yet different Doctor Who universes according to our policies.
Scream of the Shalka is an interesting example as one that could have been at one point been considered a part of "the" (singular) Doctor Who universe. Just because the Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) didn't appear in Series 1 doesn't mean that Shalka is any less valid, just that this now divergent Doctor Who universe appeared less than the Ninth Doctor's.
- Scrooge MacDuck
See, there's the thing — Scream of the Shalka is clearly not a different universe from the whole of the DWU as currently understood; it's a fork in it.
- Borisashton
To try and imagine how this might work in practice I try to think of a character from a currently invalid story. If Big Finish were to release a story with them in it (perhaps explicitly set in an alternate universe) that referenced the invalid story to the point it was undeniable that's what was happening would we make that story valid or would it remain invalid because it failed one of the other three rules.
Let's try some:
- The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death), valid. Passes the first three rules and could be considered an official continuation.
- Cyrian, not withstanding the current debate on sequels to invalid stories, Rescue would be passed as valid but Dimensions fails rule 2 and would remain invalid.
- Guard (The Last Dalek), not valid as The Last Dalek has multiple endings.
- Lallapalanges, not valid as The Dalek Dictionary is non-narrative and fails rule 1.
- Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka), valid. Passes the first three rules and at one point in its development was considered an official continuation.
- Anyone from any fanfiction, not valid. Obvious fail of rule 2.
I'm not sure what to do about parodies like Doctor Why. I guess that's a whole thing about whether parodies are written with the intention of fitting into any DWU.
- OttselSpy25
I think with parodies it would be a case-by-case basis, obviously The Curse of Fatal Death was meant to be a legitimate story at the time. I'll also defend Seventh Doctor (The Lenny Henry Show) just because it's one of my favorite pages.
I think parody pages like that are innocent enough to include, as long as they're made by the BBC perhaps? Or if they have other licensed things in them. I could also see accepting "they weren't meant to be real continuations" as a valid argument against this.
I think the point of this suggestion is that it finds a strong compromise -- the people who worked to have stories like Scream of the Shalka labeled "outside of the Doctor Who Universe" (back when our understanding of that was a little more simple") would still sort-of have that, but we would also allow our editors to have some path to include these stories. And if the wording being more along the lines of "According to one account, the Eighth Doctor regenerated into Blackadder" instead of "in an alternate universe/reality/valid account, 8 turned into Blackadder" then I think that would also be appropriate.
But what I think is important about the policy as it's being suggested by others is that it doesn't overrule precedent, of people saying "this story is too contradictory to be in the mainstream lineage," but it still gives people the route to cover said adventures.
- Scrooge MacDuck
OttselSpy25 wrote: And if the wording being more along the lines of "According to one account, the Eighth Doctor regenerated into Blackadder" instead of "in an alternate universe/reality/valid account, 8 turned into Blackadder" then I think that would also be appropriate.
…so do I. I thought I understood our disagreement but I really don't any more now. Why is "according to one account the Eighth Doctor regenerated into Atkinson" different from "according to one account, it was Dr. Who who helped the Thals fight the Daleks"?
- OttselSpy25
so in that quote I also mention saying "in an alternate reality/validity, this happened." I am more fond of this, because it fits with our pre-existing policy on these stories.
Think of it like this, if we just accept the Dr. Who films as an alternate validity in another reality, then we have a clear way to mention it on the page First Doctor. In the "alternate timelines" section, near the top.
but if we posit the show and the movies as equally valid stories of the same DWU, then we have to constantly mention the Dr. Who films in random places in the article which wouldn't make sense. Every four paragraphs we would have to say "of course, in another few accounts Dr. Who built TARDIS behind shed."
You're not arguing for that, you're arguing for the mention in a small sub-section like the alternate universes part, but without saying "alternate reality." It's semantics.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Important semantics, though. "Alternate timeline" is a real concept within the DWU, not something where we can just assume one exists; it'd functionally be the same as assuming that if an interior set doesn't match the exterior shot to which it supposedly corresponds, then the building must in fact be dimensionally transcendental.
Again, the practical question isn't so much what we do on First Doctor as it is this: do we want to be creating Skaro (Dr. Who and the Daleks) or Earth (Dr. Who and the Daleks)? Or are The Daleks and Dr. Who and the Daleks competing accounts of people landing on the same Skaro?
If we separate our "differently valid" material completely, either as an "alternative timeline" or as "alternative validity", then because we are positing different universes for Dr. Who and the Shalka Doctor & Co., then we would have to create all those pages to give these universes full coverage. Whereas what I am saying is, no.
A lot of the baseline facts of the Whoniverse remain the same in all theses cases, even if there is conflict over other baseline facts; these are conflicting accounts of what the DWU looks like, not alternative DWUs altogether. I mean, I think it's completely ridiculous that we have The Brigadier (Death Comes to Time), a page which just treats the character's two-minute cameo as all we know about him and acts as though we have no inkling of his prior relationship with the Doctor. That's just wrong. But I do not see how going with "alternative timeline" or "separately valid" would fix that.
Wholly separating 'canons' is just about viable if we were just talking about the Cushingverse, even if I think it's probably miles away from the authorial intent at the time to act as though Dr. Who and the Daleks takes place on a different Skaro than Dr Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks. But if we want to extend this change in our validity rules to other Rule-4-breakers, it just doesn't work.
- OttselSpy25
We wouldn't do that though? We don't have a different page for every Unbound version of the Daleks or Humans or Time Lords. That's not really a real thing we do, we cover alternate versions of species from other realities on one page. Treating these stories as alternately valid opens up the floodgates on content which has been cut out, but it does so in a way that still stays true to choices we've made on how to cover these topics.
And personally I think we could see Seventh Doctor (Death Comes to Time) be merged into some sub-section of Seventh Doctor if this comes to pass, the difference between it sayign "alternate reality," "alternate validity" or "alternate account" is so miniscule that it literally would effect our covering of the topic in 0 ways!
I think we need to find a way to bridge the gap for these stories without rewriting precedent, and treating them as alternate paths does this.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Alternative timelines are one thing (as are alternative accounts); different fictional universes are another.
- OttselSpy25
Alternate timelines are way worse than alternate dimensions in terms of avoiding fanon stuff.
I suggested alternate realities because it implicitly could be a universe or a timeline.
- Borisashton
OttselSpy25 wrote: And personally I think we could see Seventh Doctor (Death Comes to Time) be merged into some sub-section of Seventh Doctor if this comes to pass.
I think the pages should be fully merged if they are portrayed by the same actor like Seventh Doctor (Death Comes to Time) but in cases where they were played by different actors (and therefore clearly distinct from them) such as Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death) and Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) we should do a brief summary under the alternative validity section and then link to the page for that incarnation using {{main}}.
In these cases, I think it's important to establish that as per our policies Ninth Doctor and Ninth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death) have equal right to be called the Ninth Doctor but there is no denying that Eccelston is the primary topic and so it should be Atkinson and Grant that have the dab terms.
- OttselSpy25
Yes, exactly. And we should presume that our readers are expecting the coverage to be more centered towards Eccles.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As regards the Cushing Movies, another interesting thing is of course the fact that the events of Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. are mentioned by the Fourth Doctor in Genesis of the Daleks. If the solution we settle on allows us to cite this reference for what it is, I think that'd be just wizard.
- OttselSpy25
Here's another Wiki that has a solid way to cover issues like this one: the Ducktales wiki.
If you want to read about a character in their 2017 canon, you can. But to check back on a previous version, all you have to do is click on the 1987 sub-box.
I've also adapted a similar style for the Robotech wiki. It's a great way to encourage editors and readers to check out other universes while still keeping them seperate. Does anyone have any thoughts on the potential of us finding a way to cover pages like Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) in similar ways? I think it would be neat to make a sandbox version of this as a potential test.
- Scrooge MacDuck
So I'm sort of irrationally offended that you went with the DuckTales Wiki instead of the wider $crooge McDuck Wiki, even though in fairness they do have that "sub-box" thing we on $MW don't, to make up for their frankly preposterous canon policies.
At any rate, another, perhaps more notorious example of this neat tech feature is, of course, the "Canon" and "Legend" tabs on the Star Wars Wiki.
While this could be an interesting solution, I'm still not convinced about covering the Cushing stories as a wholly sealed-off canon the way this would imply that we would.
- OttselSpy25
I think it's less about it being sealed off and more about it being a practical solution which shows the pages as alternate valid takes on pages like First Doctor.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, but let's not forget where this thread started: the matter of how to cover direct references to the Cushing movie in mainstream media, of which there is a variety of contradictory ones (The Day of the Doctor novelisation & a few others where they're in-universe movies; the story where Dr. Who and Suzy are brought into existence by the Seventh Doctor to trick a villain, and then depart onto adventures of their own; Genesis of the Daleks where the Fourth Doctor remembers the event of Daleks' Invasion: Earth 2150 A.D.). I think whatever system we put in place ought to be one where we can easily make those links in the in-universe portions of the relevant page, or we won't have achieved very much at all.
- Chubby Potato
After reading this quite interesting thread, there's something I'd like to add: using the term "alternate reality" implies that a mainstream story acknowledged these stories as a sort of parallel universe, and "alternate validity" could be pretty confusing to readers who are not familiar with this wiki's policy and interpretation of valid sources. (I'm even having a hard time wrapping my head around that phrase.) So, I propose we call stories like the Cushing movies what they are generally agreed on to be: an alternate continuity.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Chubby Potato: If we were dealing with an actually walled-off continuity I'd agree, but see my post directly above. The thing is that although no clear, consistent answer (whether a parallel universe or otherwise) has been given on how the Cushing movies "happened" in a way that impacts the mainstream universe, many sources say that they did.
Also, that "are generally agreed on to be" also irks me. It's long-standing policy on this Wiki that Rule-4-compliance (that is to say, whether something is intended to be set in the wider DWU) is determined strictly by authorial intent at time of release, not by later stories ignoring it, let alone by general public opinion. Without solid evidence that David Whitaker & Co. meant for the movies to be "an alternate continuity" back in the 1960's (as opposed to just fanciful retellings like the novelisations, or to a parallel universe), it is my belief that we can't go about making that kind of sweeping statement, especially as it'd only make it harder to cover the problem we originally started with: the many, many cases of references to "Cushingverse" media in mainstream Who.
- Chubby Potato
Even so, I feel "alternate reality" and "alternate validity" don't work; the former implies a parallel universe, which we have no evidence of, and the latter simply doesn't make sense. Validity is defined as "the quality of being valid". By the way, I got "generally agreed on" from this thread itself— do a Control-F search for "continuity" on this page and you may see what I mean.
- OttselSpy25
"continuity" is contentious because of our policies surrounding not becoming invested in continuity or canon. Although, by most simple definitions, a canon is simply a collection of stories, and it is accurate to call the "Cushingverse" a "collection of stories outside of regular Doctor Who story collections."
Reality was simply a compromise to suggest neither timeline or universe, as both would imply that there was in-universe proof to support this.
- Chubby Potato
I see. I was confused because alternate reality is sometimes synonymous with alternate universe.
- NateBumber
(For what it's worth, there is some evidence that the Cushing films are in another universe specifically: namely, in the publisher's summary of Short Trips and Side Steps, the stories are described as following the Doctor and his companions as they
- take short trips around the universe — perhaps to a Wild West overrun with dinosaurs, to a land where robot rabbits roam, or a planet where the Doctor must marry or die — and then
- step sideways into other universes — worlds full of song and dance; planets made entirely of sweets; lands of movie monsters; places where the Doctor as we know him may never have existed at all...
It seems certain that Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor is set in a place where the Doctor as we knew him may never have existed at all, which would mean it's a "step sideways into other universes".
That said, this publisher's summary breaks the fourth wall by speaking directly to the reader, so its utility for in-universe validity is minimal at best.)
I'm still in favor of covering the films (and that short story) as another account on First Doctor, just as we do with the equally-divergent Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks; then, on a page quite similar to Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) (but obviously named differently), the in-universe existence of a fictional "Dr. Who" would be presented, perhaps alongside a brief in-universe recap of the Cushing stories and Dr. Who (Land of Fiction), and featuring extensive extensive behind-the-scenes discussion.
That said, beyond this one specific case, I think User:OttselSpy25's proposal is absolutely the best way for the wiki to cover other "divergent canons" like Scream of the Shalka, and I 100% stand by my comments at Thread:231746#3. If this is the best place to pass that into precedent, I say we move forward with it.
- OttselSpy25
I still strongly believe that we should count the films as part of the world shown in The House on Oldark Moor and Daleks Versus the Martians.
- NateBumber
Oh, I forgot about that comic! Lovely. Yes, I agree that the two films and those two stories are all attached, and whatever is decided will apply to all four.
- Borisashton
Woah, I think this conversation went a bit off-track some time ago. I also think some change is needed to the validity policies that govern this wiki but the place for that discussion is not a thread called "The Cushing Conundrum" where the titular aim was to figure out what to do with the Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) page and its siblings. If the solution to the problem outlined in the OP absolutely neccesitates a change in policy then I think the best thing we can do is close this now as unresolved and then start a new thread at some point in the future with some clear proposals on changes that could be made and how that would effect sources like the Cushing movies.
However, I think I have a solution that does not need policy to change to occur: we cover the Cushing-verse as fully valid. The Dalek Movies have been discussed in the forum a lot so I will outline my proposal in more detail using some recent precedents as examples.
Compatibility with mainstream Who[[edit] | [edit source]]
An argument used lots against the Cushing stuff is that it just isn't compatible with the DWU as originally established in An Unearthly Child. There are several reasons for this. The three I most often see thrown around are the fact that Cushing's character is called "Dr. Who" and not "The Doctor", the fact that he supposedly built TARDIS himself and the fact he is a human.
Starting with point one, it really isn't that big of a deal, especially in 1965. At the time Dr. Who and the Daleks was first released the Doctor Who universe was a small place with a fraction of the amount of expanded media that is around today. The most recent television episode broadcast was the fifth episode of The Chase entitled "The Death of Doctor Who" (yes, really!) and the first five stories of TV Comic's run had been released plus the first part of Challenge of the Piper. Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks and Doctor Who and the Daleks had also both been released along with the first Dalek annual, The Dalek Book. My point? Although televised Who erred strongly to the side of addressing its titular character as "the Doctor", William Hartnell was credited as "Doctor Who". Expanded media of the time often followed suit with TV Comic's narration addressing him as "Dr Who" and the Doctor introducing himself as such from the very first story. The same was true with Doctor Who and the Daleks and The Dalek Book. Exciting Adventure stuck to addressing the First Doctor as "Doctor Who" in title only but it started a tradition that would be picked up by Target novelisations in the years to come. This way of addressing the Doctor slowly fell out of fashion, especially when the credit was changed in the Peter Davison era to the "more accurate" The Doctor. Basically, the Doctor was called "Dr Who" a lot at the time the films were made and released so no reason to disqualify there.
For the second and third points, I'd recommend that everyone go and watch Dalek 6388's video about the Doctor's history as a human and the inventor of the TARDIS. You can follow the links on this page to find the most recently uploaded video. Just to briefly repeat and expand on what was covered there, in the early days of the show it is ambiguous as to where the Doctor and Susan come from and what species they are. In "Flight Through Eternity" the Doctor says:
"That's my Time Path Detector. It's been in the ship ever since I constructed it."Obviously you can twist the sentence to make it mean that the Time Path Detector had been present in the TARDIS ever since he constructed the Time Path Detector, but the implication is there and it is definitely ambiguous enough that the Doctor could be interpreted as the creator of the TARDIS. This position is backed up by The Klepton Parasites in which John and Gillian know of the Doctor as an inventor with a police box shaped time machine.
The question of whether the Doctor is a human was also in question at the time with the references in An Unearthly Child to the Doctor's origins being purely technological and chronological as you'd expect with a man from the future rather than biological and geographical as you'd might expect from an alien.
"They could not have known that an Earthman would go near the machine so the death rays had no effect on humans, apart from being hot."The simple fact of the matter is that Tardis:Neutral point of view says we cannot say that these sources are wrong, only that they conflict with other sources such as those that say the Doctor is a Time Lord from Gallifrey. This perogative has recently been successfully implemented on the wiki in the form of The Doctor's early life article and adding the Peter Cushing Doctor to the paragraph that literally starts "According to other accounts, however, the Doctor was a human named "Dr. Who"" seems like a great idea in my opinion that is not at all in conflict with how we are currently treating the First Doctor and his life.
To quote directly from Dalek 6388:
"We look back at [Dr. Who's backstory] now as a radical departure from the TV version but that's based on what we were told later. At the time making him a human inventor was the clarification or simplification of an ambiguous issue."Moving forward[[edit] | [edit source]]
I propose that Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. be treated as adaptations of The Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth. This means that pages for characters that exclusively appear in either two films such as Alydon (Dr. Who and the Daleks) or Dortmun (Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.) should be merged into their valid counterparts (in this case Alydon and Dortmun) as they are very similar and any significant differences can be covered with "account" language but characters that have appearances outside of the films should keep their pages.
This means that Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) wouldn't be merged with First Doctor and Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks) wouldn't be merged with Susan Foreman and so on. The reason for this is that they are two different characters and I feel it would be a disservice to the wiki to mix it all up. Although they are equally valid backstories for the Doctor, Daleks Versus the Martians is an appearance by Cushing's Doctor and his TARDIS team and I would call anybody that tried to argue it was a First Doctor and Susan Foreman story crazy. On the other hand, The Klepton Parasites is a "Dr Who" story but the intent was clearly for "Dr Who" to be William Hartnell's Doctor in that instance. I also don't see a need to throw away sections specific to the Movie portrayals. Ian Chesterton (Dr. Who and the Daleks)'s and Ian Chesterton's personality differences come to mind and they could be covered spectacularly if the pages were to remain seperate and in the case of the former, expanded upon greatly.
Obviously Movie original characters like Louise (Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.) would keep their pages.
For the two films "account" language should be sufficent as the differences are relatively minor compared to some of the things we've had to reconcile on the wiki in the past. Example from Dr. Who's page: "...the four of them were transported to Skaro, the home planet of the Daleks, where they helped the Thals battle the Daleks. According to another account, it was the First Doctor along with a teenage Susan and her teachers Ian and Barbara who landed on Skaro and helped the Thals." (My addition is in italics)
The original issue[[edit] | [edit source]]
Now, finally, back to the original issue of what to do with the in-universe references to the Cushing Movies in the novelisation of The Day of the Doctor. Fairly recent action gives us a solution to this one as well because The Doctor in popular culture and mythology exists as a kind of "hub" page that deals with the Doctor's impact in the universe. The Cushing films are currently located within the article at The Doctor in popular culture and mythology#Peter Cushing films. The jury's still out on whether to give each of these fictional depictions an article and what dab terms to give them if so but that is a discussion probably best suited for Talk:The Doctor in popular culture and mythology. Anyway, if the Cushing stuff is declared valid then the dilemma in the OP no longer exists as we'll be able to reference Day and link to the pop culture article in the main body of Dr. Who's page like what is sort of already happening.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
Well, that's the proposal. I hope everyone agrees but that is rarely the case but in any event I hope this can reignite the discussion over what to do with Cushing as it's now been almost two years since the start of this mess.
The most recent episode of Doctor Who, The Timeless Children, thrust the Doctor's origins into so much doubt and contradiction. As Chris Chibnall did for the questions surrounding the "Morbius" Doctors, I hope the community can work together on this proposition so the wiki can provide a more accurate analysis of the Doctor's origins by including Peter Cushing's Dr Who to expand on sections that already exist because of other sources. Now seems a more appropriate time to wrap this up than ever before.
(sorry for the immensely long post btw)
- Chubby Potato
Why can’t the movie characters just coexist in the DWU? We’ve already got lots of adaptations that would supposedly make two of the same character exist, such as Sally Sparrow (What I Did on My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow) and Sally Sparrow (Blink).
- OttselSpy25
It's probably just simpler for clarification, to at least let the reader understand that there is an incongruity.
Even just saying "in one reality" does the job (instead of "in an alternate reality." This is a good compromise, because it doesn't speculate on the "Canon" of the stories, but still lets the reader understand the issue at hand). The latest episode clearly wants us to accept all these "odd" Doctors as possible realities, and we should accept that our readers are intelligent enough to decide how to read these stories.
- NateBumber
Agree with this proposal wholeheartedly.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yet again more evidence (from the stories themselves) that David Whitaker likely didn't think of his cinematic scripts as being firmly separated from the story of the TV series: the opening scene of Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (which isn't adapted from anything in the corresponding Hartnell serial at all!) features the Doctor running away from the 20th century at the first time of trouble, even being willing to take along an unconscious Tom Campbell if it means a quicker getaway.
This is a stark departure from the status quo of Dr. Who in the previous film, where he appears to be a law-abiding citizen with his own house, who would have no reason to run away from police involvement. It seems, instead, to be drawn entirely from the televised First Doctor's attitude in the likes of An Unearthly Child, where the Doctor was very concerned with present-day authorities learning of his presence, and willing to kidnap Ian and Barbara if it meant saving himself from exposure.
The character still calls himself "Dr. Who", but then, there's Fourth Doctor material from the late 1970's which still does that, as well. Aside from that, all the peculiarities of the Cushing Doctor are scaled back for the second film: there is no longer anything to indicate he is a 20th-century inventor, nor indeed a human at all, and he appears wary of attracting the notice of the authorities, just like the Gallifreyan runaway we've come to know.
And no wonder: one film's from early 1965 (so likely written in 1964) and the other from the summer of 1966. It is no wonder at all, if the films were perceived by their writer and cowriters as just more material for the extended Doctor Who universe, that they would "get in with the program" in this way as the "canonical" facts of the world and premise began to crystallize over on TV and in the comics.
Whereas one struggles to imagine why the script of the second film would revert the Doctor to his TV persona and status quo, rather than his more jovial and earthbound 1965 self, if the adventures of the Cushing Doctor had always been meant to be a total reboot taking place in a different continuity altogether.
- Chubby Potato
Just because there aren’t references to Cushing's Dr. Who being a 20th Century inventor in the second film doesn’t mean he’s not, does it? That would imply he’s not the same person he was in the first film.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think it would imply that, any more than the Doctor in The War Games is made a different person from the Doctor in The Evil of the Daleks because he is now a Time Lord rather than a human altered by the experience of time-travel.
No, the second movie does not preclude the Doctor still being a 20th century inventor, but neither would you deduce that fact from the movie itself, and I see this as no different from the fact that you can take a given BBC Wales non-Time-Lord-reliant episode — say, Into the Dalek — and imagine it still takes place in the direct continuity of The Klepton Parasites and The Equations of Dr Who, with a Doctor who used to be a genius engineer and mathematician, invented the TARDIS, and then left Earth.
What I mean is that the second movie obviously does feature the same characters as the first one, but only in the same way that any two valid stories featuring a single Doctor will take place in the same universe. This doesn't mean they're not "canonical" to each other, any more than The Chase and Plague of the Black Scorpi are non-canonical to each other; but it does tell us something very interesting, which is that the status-quo/bible to which both Cushing movies revert by default is the status-quo of the televised Hartnell era, not each other.
This is all a very esoteric further demonstration of something we'd already largely established — but I think it's an interesting insight into the thought processes of David Whitaker and Milton Subotsky, which is certainly a useful intellectual pursuit when trying to establish Rule-4-compliance.
- Borisashton
Scrooge's explanation here is quite succinct. I find myself drawing parallels to a joking suggestion I once saw that any story that contradicts An Unearthly Child in any way whatsoever must take place in an alternate universe.
The second film took a perfectly logical approach as I see it. The DWU was still young when it was released but it had expanded since the release of the first film. The prime pieces of media I can think of being "A Battle of Wits" and "Checkmate" establishing that another of the Doctor's race also had his own TARDIS which cast doubt over the Doctor's claims in The Chase that he invented his ship.
By not mentioning Dr Who's race, the second film remained wholly faithful to both the DWU at the time and Dr. Who and the Daleks. The second film could be watched alongside the first one with nothing lost (as with the Into the Dalek example above) but equally somebody tuning in to the film in isolation, with their newfound Who knowledge from 1966, would not find any contradictions with established lore. A perfect compromise to please both groups as I see it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I have now, on a sandbox, created a revamped version of the Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) page as it might look if we do move forward with the changes discussed above. If consensus is deemed to have been reached, we will need only replace the current contents of that page with the code of the sandbox above, if that is satisfactory. I of course welcome any constructive criticism about the decisions I took when reshaping the page.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I have now, on a sandbox, created a revamped version of the Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) page as it might look if we do move forward with the changes discussed above. If consensus is deemed to have been reached, we will need only replace the current contents of that page with the code of the sandbox above, if that is satisfactory. I of course welcome any constructive criticism about the decisions I took when reshaping the page.
- Borisashton
I think the sandbox is excellent with a logical structure. It would be great if an admin could see this implemented as soon as possible!
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think all that needs to be said has been said, but here's a fun fact I recently found out about, which might help sway anyone still thinking that the Cushing Movies "split off" from mainstream Who: in The Witch's Familiar, more Daleks than just the Paradigm models ended up not making it to the finished cut. Among them was a Red Dalek of the Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. design.
Again, all that really matters is that the movies weren't intended to be outside the regular DWU back in the 1960's. Whether later writers thought otherwise isn't strictly relevant to validity. But if anyone's worried about implementation, it's always good to reassure ourselves that this decision (to cover the Cushing Movies as having "happened" somehow, somewhen, in the DWU) would be in accordance with the beliefs of several other, more recent DWU authors and stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I didn't think it was possible for yet again more crushing evidence to materialise, but I just read The Five O'Clock Shadow for the first time and the stubby description of its events that was on the page until today did not even remotely do it justice.
It is a story about how the Doctor, the one who's a Time Lord from TV, creates Dr. Who and Susan using some sort of Block Transfer Computation-type thing to create idealised versions of himself and of his memory of Susan as part of a scheme. Dr. Who and Suzy are last seen living happily in a house of their own while the Doctor is on his way, which presumably leads into Dr. Who eventually putting together his own TARDIS and thereby the events of Dr. Who and the Daleks happening.
This is, of course, of a similar ilk to "John and Gillian were really just from the Land of Fiction all along". We're not going to accept it as gospel without some serious "According to one account" language. But… folks, here is that valid story featuring both the Doctor and Dr. Who we've been waiting for all along, if there was still any doubt. Not only is Dr. Who in the DWU, but there is a perfectly good way to place him in the Doctor's timeline without any speculation, if you want one.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I read an article about the Cushing Doctor being "canonised" [[3]] but not read the story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's just about the reference to the Cushing movies existing in-universe made in the Day of the Doctor novelisation. It's one of the references to Dr. Who in valid sources which we currently have to cover on a page marked {{invalid}}, the confusing and untenable situation which sparked this thread in the first place.
Also, we don't speak about canon 'round here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If it should sway anyone, here's Jonathan Morris agreeing that the Cushing Movies were absolutely not a dead-end within the DWU, just another weird early EU thing — as evidenced by the reference in Genesis of the Daleks.
- 197.86.143.126
But how about Star Trek? Rose, Izzy etc. clearly know of the television series Star Trek. Only for the Eleventh Doctor to meet Picard and co. in Asdimilation2.
I think the same is true of Quatermass, Blake's 7, and if you count Dimensions in Time, Eastenders. Being established as a fictional character in Doctor Who doesn't mean the Doctor hasn't met Sherlock Holmes either.
Peter Cushing's Doctor Who may now be treated that way, but for 50 years he was just an alternate telling of Hartnell. And let's not forget for many years it was much easier to see the Cushing movies than it was to see the first two Hartnell series.
I think the Cushing Doctor should remain an 'unbound' Doctor, but with a paragraph at the end mentioning the day of the Doctor novelisation
Oh, and the real-world information that Cushing himself believed his Docyor to be a future incarnation of THE Doctor. - Najawin
I don't see what the issue is here. (The key to that joke is the last link)
Joking aside, the thread seems largely agreed upon, and I don't have much to contribute, except to just add that since we've been discussing TARDIS Eruditorum elsewhere in the forums, it might be interesting to note that it makes the case as well that the movies are creatively continuous with the show, "pop spectacle" versions of episodes. I'd almost liken it to Human Nature (novel) and Human Nature (TV story), except that it was early days for the DWU so we didn't really have all the kinks worked out on "incarnations" or "alternate timelines" etc etc. But the analogy isn't dissimilar.
- 197.86.143.126
Hmm. There's also a good video here <redacted>. And as for the name "Doctor Who" [4].
The main issue people have with Cushing is he doesn't fit into the "narrative" as it exists today.
But then, let's look at the Morbius Doctors. They never existed, until The Brain of Morbius (TV story) said that they did. Then The Deadly Assassin (TV story) gave us the "thirteen regeneration limit", making them very problematic. By The Five Doctors (TV story) they have been removed from the Doctor's incarnations forever. And one of the books said they were the faces of Morbius instead. Case closed.
Until The Timeless Children (TV story).
For younger viewers, who can simply say "Haha. He's a human inventor who is actually called Doctor Who! That's totally different to the Gallifreyan Time Lord we all know", people didn't know that at the time.
I could also bring up the Polystyle Publications, Ltd. stories. Which ran for FIFTEEN YEARS. Then, one day, a Virgin Novel said "Those all took place in the Land of Fiction". Was anyone reading those stories from 1964-1979 thinking that? It was clearly NEVER the intention for the Cushing movies to be "fiction set within the Doctor Who Universe". And, for 50-something years, they WEREN'T.
- Shambala108
Hmm. There's also a good video here <redacted>. And as for the name "Doctor Who" [5].
The main issue people have with Cushing is he doesn't fit into the "narrative" as it exists today.
But then, let's look at the Morbius Doctors. They never existed, until The Brain of Morbius (TV story) said that they did. Then The Deadly Assassin (TV story) gave us the "thirteen regeneration limit", making them very problematic. By The Five Doctors (TV story) they have been removed from the Doctor's incarnations forever. And one of the books said they were the faces of Morbius instead. Case closed.
Until The Timeless Children (TV story).
For younger viewers, who can simply say "Haha. He's a human inventor who is actually called Doctor Who! That's totally different to the Gallifreyan Time Lord we all know", people didn't know that at the time.
I could also bring up the Polystyle Publications, Ltd. stories. Which ran for FIFTEEN YEARS. Then, one day, a Virgin Novel said "Those all took place in the Land of Fiction". Was anyone reading those stories from 1964-1979 thinking that? It was clearly NEVER the intention for the Cushing movies to be "fiction set within the Doctor Who Universe". And, for 50-something years, they WEREN'T.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's well-put — only, User:197.86.143.126, I'm not sure you're actually engaging with a position anyone is arguing for. I don't think anyone has been proposing to cover the Cushing movies solely as in-universe fiction. The question has been whether the coverage of their content for its own sake should be done as {{invalid}} or not.
So do you agree with the proposed scheme of making the Cushing movies as valid as, indeed, the Polystyle comics, or Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks — regardless of the business of his possibly being in-universe fiction? Or is your position different from this?
Incidentally, you're not allowed to link to YouTube videos in the forums of this Wiki, for complicated procedural reasons. If you want to refer to a video which cannot be uploaded to the Wiki in earnest, you should give us its title and channel, and leave interested readers to look it up for themselves.
(Also, the "Morbius Doctors" are not covered at Morbius Doctors but at The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius). And arguably, it's not The Deadly Assassin which made them difficult, but rather The Caves of Androzani — there was no reason not to think Tom Baker was playing the twelfth incarnation of "Theta Sigma", albeit only the fourth to use the alias of "the Doctor"; indeed, the fact that his contemporary the Master was on his last life in Deadly Assassin suggests this may well have been the intent. …But all this is really neither here nor there. Later narrative discontinuity is irrelevant to these discussions; what matters is intent at time of release.)
- Shambala108
Please do not link to off site videos per Tardis:Video policy thanks.
- 197.86.143.126
I had no idea about that policy. Couldn't you at least have left the name? It's called "When the Doctor was a human who invented the TARDIS". On a well-known site that starts with "you".
Were you afraid it was a porn link??
- 197.86.143.126
I had no idea about that policy. The video is called "When the Doctor was a human who invented the TARDIS".
And Cushing was nowhere near the "discontinuity" that he seems to be today. In short, mention the 'Day of the Doctor' novelisation. But don't define the movies by it.
- 197.86.143.126
Why doesn't anything post here?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again, @197, no one is trying to define the Cushing movies using the novelisation. There appear to be three broad proposals:
- The Cushing movies stay invalid; a separate page for Dr.Who-the-in-universe-character is created, purging all valid content from Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks).
- A separate Dalek Movies Wiki is created, covering the movies in their own right but as a separate universe; a separate page for Dr.Who-the-in-universe-character is created, purging all valid content from Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks).
- The Cushing Movies are revalidated, on the basis that they never actually broke Rule 4, they just conflict with most modern viewers' personal beliefs about DW "canon". Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) is brought in line with this sandbox.
(Not included in this list is a potential #0 of just sticking with the status-quo, because the status-quo is absolutely ghastly, with tons of valid information being linked to, and linking from, a page marked {{invalid}}.)
Of these, I think #3 is the preferred option at this point, and #1 is the least-well-liked. But as you can see, none of them involve validating the movies as just in-universe fiction, which would, as you say, be extremely ill-advised. Not to mention it wouldn't actually fit all the valid sources which reference the Cushing Doctor — The Five O'Clock Shadow is a very different beast.
- OttselSpy25
It seems to me that making separate pages is sloppy, especially since it would be done exclusively to satisfy the rules of this site and not the context of the stories themselves.
I also will strongly fight against any solution which argues for us to trust in another wiki to do our work for us. The same was argued in the case of Worlds in Time, and (as far as I know) that wiki no longer exists, meaning that there's a lot of info about that game which simply isn't archived.
- JDPManjoume
Scrooge MacDuck wrote:
- The Cushing Movies are revalidated, on the basis that they never actually broke Rule 4, they just conflict with most modern viewers' personal beliefs about DW "canon". Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) is brought in line with this sandbox.
I would like to express my agreement with this proposal.
I'm aware that some of what I'm about to discuss has already been covered or discussed, but it's easier for me to illustrate all my thoughts together rather than in reference of others here. But... let's start with out-of universe intention of the movies since authorial intention seems a key matter and really hammer on why I would say that Dr. Who and the Daleks fits Rule 4;
Point 1: Why the Dr. Who main cast are so different - The Doctor Who File by Peter Haining quotes the following from Heather Hartnell when asked about Hartnell wanting to play the Doctor in the film: "He would dearly have loved to play the Doctor but he just didn't have the time. The programme was then on for 48 weeks of the year." Which is a fair point in matters - there was little chance of these versions looking and acting exactly the same because the main TV cast were exceptionally busy.
Point 2: The name of Dr. Who - Let's leave aside all the in-universe points and take note of one thing here. Terry Nation used Dr. Who in his scripts. That's how he referred the character - this is evident firstly in the DWM Companions special with the excerpt of Susan's farewell where he is listed as such, and secondly in the episode title of "The Death of Doctor Who". (A title that the production team seem to have been happy to go with. They weren't as fixed on the matter as we are now in the typical perspective of The Doctor.)
Doctor Who Bulletin 81 (now known as Dream Watch Bulletin) features an interview with Subotsky [who co-wrote the film with Whitaker] and he says, rather interestingly; "I just read the script. In fact, I haven't seen those Dalek episodes at all." Subotsky used two things for reference, then, in reshaping the script alongside Whitaker... and those were: Nation's scripts (which have them rendered as 'Dr. Who' in dialogue assignment & - if I recall correctly, also the title header... those I may be wrong on that for The Daleks specifically, I know that the 'And the Silurians' debacle happened because the internal procedure had been to write 'Doctor Who and... [TITLE HERE] & the recovered and auctioned Hartnell copy of the script for An Unearthly Child has the main heading 'Doctor Who and the Tribe of Gum'...) and Whitaker himself (who seems to have been flexible on the nature of the show in the main defining points, as his earliest drafts for Power of the Daleks show, indicating the intention that the First Doctor wouldn't be the first regenerated incarnation.)
Point 3 - He's a human Well, there's still several years to go before the concept of Timelords exist. And the individual interpretations of the Doctor up until then seem unclear and without consensus. For what it's worth, I think it notable that The Monsters from Earth (a 1966 Annual story, originally published in 1965) has the Doctor note himself as both a human and Dr. Who. And it is worth saying that though the First Doctor is firmly not of our time - as has been noted by someone here, Dalek6388 did a really good video pointing out the ambiguity on the TV show.
Now, there's a lot in said video but noting amongst various other things are three key points for me; 1. that Susan only ever notes to David in The Dalek Invasion of Earth that she is of another time, not another species. Seems like a large omission for Nation to make if he was viewing things otherwise. 2. that the First Doctor responds to the mention of Einstein with someone called Venderman in relation to the Time Space Visualiser, and that Vicki knows of this person. We can explain this away in-universe rather simply these days, but it seems a bit unlikely that Nation would have the Doctor citing a scientist Vicki would know of if he wasn't of the view that the Doctor was human. 3. that in The Massacre, the Doctor seems to imply that he is of another species... but in The Savages, the Doctor outright says "They're men. Human beings, like you or me.". Surely enough indication of the flexibility and lack of consensus even after the Cushing films?
Point 4 - He built the TARDIS Okay, we have a debatable matter of the intentions of that line in "Flight through Eternity" about the Time Path Indicator being in the TARDIS since he built it & what Nation's intentions were there. But I'm gonna forego that for now... Let me come back to this in a moment...
Point 5 - Where has An Unearthly Child gone?/The different start & Ian and Barbara dating etc. Is this really a distinct and deliberate attempt to be separate from the TV show and thus the DWU at the time? I would argue not so. It seems rather more than the opening is one of feasibility, than trying to break away from the DWU.
As has been noted above, Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks has a different start and is considered valid. As well as that, it must be noted that said different start came around because Whitaker, though with permission of Nation - was without permission of Coburn to touch anything definitely An Unearthly Child in nature. He not only wasn't trying to hold himself to the TV show exactly there in that valid source, he was also adapting to necessity. He changed the opening to fit what was feasible.
Firstly; why should DWiaEAwtD be accepted where Dr. Who and the Daleks isn't? Secondly; would it not be reasonable to expect that - having only the rights to Nation's scripts for the film, and that they already had 7 25-minute episodes to fit into the length of said film - Whitaker and Subotsky made these opening/character starting point changes for similar legal & length concerns...?
And back to 4. He built the TARDIS (or TARDIS) Could this not then be a change either in reflection of opinion of Whitaker, or out of necessity too?
It seems to me that those five main points that tend to be used against Dr. Who and the Daleks in validity (and indeed in discussions outwith this wiki about canon) are easily defeated when you look at them in perspective of the time rather than with our retrospective eyes, and I would say that there is a strong case here for revalidating them.
- Epsilon the Eternal
I'd also like to voice my support of coverage of the Dalek movies in the style of Scrooge MacDuck's sandbox.
- OttselSpy25
I just want to quickly note that pages like The Doctor's species have a clear effect on this discussion. The acceptance of stories which say -- flat out -- that the Doctor is a human means that we now have no real reason to reject the Peter Cushing stories. If we accept Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks as a valid take on the story which simply has adaptation quirks, then we should do the same for Doctor Who and the Daleks. The sandbox presented in this debate, not speculating on canon or realities, is the cleanest way to do this.
It's no longer became a topic of "should we change the rules," the rules have changed, the site has evolved, and what we have here is a quirk that should be rectified. Doing this would have no overall effect on the wiki what-so-ever, and would be able to pass without controversy. It's just a matter of changing categories and hitting publish.
- JDPManjoume
Just another point that has become apparent to me in the past week that further blurs the line between the Cushing films and the TV show.
Cushing never actually refers to himself as Dr. Who. in the first film - somehow Castle's Ian Chesterton pulls that out of nowhere twice throughout the film. In the second film, Cushing does once note himself as Dr. Who... but then, Tom Campbell refers to him as only Doctor or Doc.
I'm not going to speculate on what that means in an in-universe perspective, but it certainly raises some additional notes. I suspect based on conversations now had with Richard Bignell that the reason for this may have come from early drafts of the Daleks or An Unearthly Child. He detailed to me with some examples that up until draft 4 of AUC, the script lists Ian as Chesterton and he names the Doctor in outright dialogue as Dr. Who. For point of note, the AUC camera script that is publicly available on the DVD doesn't contain any instances of naming as Dr. Who... but it interestingly has a lot of notation of Ian as Chesterton in dialogue assignment with only a few instances of Ian - whereas having changed names after draft 4, Barbara is listed as Barbara.
Further to this, Hartnell's own copy of AUC that auctioned off some years ago... looking at the pictures released for the auction - the script directions vary between Doctor Who and The Doctor. (and also refers Chesterton for dialogue assignment)
I know the majority of the above has no bearing on how we treat this in-universe but I'm listing the above for reference of further context for Wiki users and anyone else who happens to read through this thread in future. (Also, just incase any of the budding researcher fans out there who do frequently read the Wiki fancy picking up that thread of thought and further examining it)
Getting to the in-universe treatment - a number of the 1966 Annual stories variate between referring Dr. Who and the Doctor, too of course (And The Lost Ones even seems a bit at odds with itself on his planet of origin.) so it would be worth chalking the matter of the name up in the same way that we do with them... but now that I've looked at the films closely, and it comes to be that Cushing only calls himself Dr. Who once & Ian says it twice - we have the strong point to consider that: The Twelfth Doctor has once referred to himself as Doctor Who in World Enough and Time (and a potential in The Underwater Menace with the "Dr. W" note) The Doctor's been called Doctor Who at least twice - Missy in World Enough and Time & the contentious in fandom but as I understand, accepted here example of WOTAN in War Machines.
I know further points might not have been required, but I thought it worth adding the realisation that the TV show has just as much 'outlying' dialogue usage of Dr. Who/Doctor Who both in self-identification and in others identifying the Doctor... as the two Dalek films do. As it casts both more doubt over the idea that there was any concerted authorial intent to be distinctly separate, and lends more credence to the films in relation to other media that is already considered valid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:232143
Thread:231243 ended with a decision that information from novelisations may be included in articles, but that when a novelisation gives a more complete name for a person than the televised story, the article name should be based on the TV version alone, as at Miranda (Doctor Who). That's fine. But what about the cases in which a person's name is not given at all on TV, but the novelisation gives them a name? We have a short article at Mickey Smith's mother. Rose (novelisation) names her as Odessa Smith (and incidentally confirms that "couldn't cope" is a euphemism for her suicide). I would be inclined to move Mickey Smith's mother to Odessa Smith, but the policy as written would seem to argue against that. Can we distinguish between cases in which a novelisation gives a surname to a character who doesn't have one on TV, and cases in which a novelisation gives a name to a character who doesn't have one at all on TV?
CzechOut explained the decision to use Miranda (Doctor Who) instead of Miranda Gerhardt as being in the interest of aiding casual readers of the site. But are casual readers more aided by an article titled Mickey Smith's mother than by one titled Odessa Smith? Surely the most likely method for anyone searching for an article on Mickey's mother would be for them to go to Mickey Smith and click on a link to the article on his mother, either in the infobox or in the article text. I could be wrong, but I don't think most readers would type "mickey smith's mother" in the search field.
- NateBumber
I'm rereading the conclusion to Thread:231243, and you're absolutely right that the rule on novelisation names could use some clarification. Conclusions based on the popularity (or lack thereof) of The Novel of the Film shouldn't be generalised to apply to the immeasurably more popular Target Books novelisations. Even then, when it comes to the case of Miranda Gerhardt, I can't bring myself to accept the notion that a "casual reader of our site" would be familiar enough with our dab term and TV movie naming rules to search for "Miranda (Doctor Who)" rather than, say, looking at the dab page for "Miranda" or checking the cast list on Doctor Who.
More directly related to the proposal at hand, here are some other examples of characters that, like Mickey Smith's mother aka Odessa Smith, are currently named with descriptions rather than the names given to them in the novelisations:
- Radio operator (The Sea Devils) aka Sharps
- The Squire (The Visitation) aka John (The Visitation)
- Co-pilot (The Horns of Nimon) aka Sardor
- Pilot (The Horns of Nimon) aka Sekkoth
- Soldier (Planet of the Spiders) aka Hodges (Planet of the Spiders)
- Sergeant (The Highlanders) aka Klegg [redirect exists]
- Interviewer (The Daleks' Master Plan) aka Jim Grant [redirect exists]
- Caretaker (Scream of the Shalka) aka Mitch Stannard
- Amorkuz
At the very least, the decision clearly states that redirects from full names should exist. Creating them would improve the searchability immediately.
Since there is a long tradition at Tardis (fuelled by end credits, mainly) of naming minor character articles by the function that character performs in the story, there’s no imperative whatever to prefer Klegg over Sergeant (The Highlanders). A page like Mickey Smith's mother is no different, as it's just naming a person by their function, too.
Moreover, though Mickey Smith's mother might appear slightly different because the character never appears on TV, and therefore has no credit, the nomenclature has significant precedence on Tardis. Many pages have possessive proper nouns in their titles. Unknown family members have been rendered as x's <relative>, like Bill Potts' mother, Susan Foreman's father and Martha Jones' grandfather. Objects are sometimes someone's <thing>, like The Doctor's TARDIS — one of our most-used articles. So regular users of the site really shouldn't find this nomenclature off-putting. And — for less-regular users — the page is pretty findable as it is, since entering "Mickey Smith" in the search bar returns this page as the #2 hit. And, if you don't know her name, why wouldn't you start looking for Mickey Smith's mother by typing in "Mickey Smith"?
Indeed, its searchability highlights a good technical use case for having a base name like Sergeant (The Highlanders) and the redirect at Klegg. Let’s say that you are someone who read the novelisation and remembered that the Sergeant’s name was Klegg. Maybe you love novelisations so much that they are your preferred form of the Shepherd's Bush version of DW. So all these names come as second nature to you. But there’s a lot of 'em, and nobody's memory is perfect. So when you start typing in Klegg — and as long as you don't complete the name — autosuggest will pull up Sergeant (The Highlanders) for you. That’s super handy!
But it doesn't work that way in the reverse. In other words, you can use Nyssa of Traken to quickly confirm that the PAGENAME is just Nyssa, but you can’t use Nyssa in search alone to see that she’s also known as Nyssa of Traken. Or you can type in a Hartnell-era episode name to confirm which serial it comes from. Or you can test your spelling of Perpugilliam by entering it letter-by-letter, and if Peri Brown is still showing, you know you've done it right. Or you can confirm that "Dorothy McShane" is the real name of Ace.
Whatever the case, if the more complex/accurate name is a redirect, it'll help you find the more common or descriptive name before you hit "enter". That's a really important function that we don't to remove, particularly for our mobile users, and for people who edit a lot.
The other technical point is that in the majority of cases, the page is at something like Function of character (Story Name) or Somebody's relative. Changing it around would involve a lot of work by the admin staff for no particular return. I know it's exciting that we've got these new novelisations, but they aren't cause to rip up the wiki and do a lot of page moves for what are really minor characters. If you happen to know the name of a minor character because of your reading, great! You should definitely have a redirect to reward your knowledge. But with the availability of redirects, there is no cause to do a lot of page moves.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:232753
I noticed some slight inconsistencies with the start of the series 7 story articles.
For example, The Sons of Kaldor and The Crowmarsh Experiment both are formatted the same way as the last 6 series worth of stories, "[NAME] was the [NUMBER] story in the seventh series of Fourth Doctor Adventures." Two parters are usually indicated as being so, however in this case it is done with the rather convoluted "and part two of the final story of part one of series seven."
This is then continued on for the single part stories 5 and 6 "and the second story of part two of series seven." and for the finale, "and the final part of the final story of part two of series seven."
This long run on sentence about the different parts of stories and series seems unecessarily complicated, and I think that indicating whether its from Volume 1 or 2 of the series seems unecessary, especially since they can be bought individually, and it isn't mentioned on all the story pages.
I thought it would be a good idea to establish whether or not mentioning the volume was necessary, since it seems future stories in the series will also be in volumes.
All articles require a lead, per Tardis:Leads. Unfortunately, some articles were written without leads, leaving editors, like me for example, who don't know anything about the subject, forced to come up with enough information for a lead. If you know of any useful, pertinent information to put in any article's lead, go for it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:234006
The title says it all: should we remove the "main enemy" field from story infoboxes?
A long time ago we deleted all categories that tried to define enemies and allies of the Doctor (located at Forum:What makes an ally and an enemy? for anyone interested in reading it). These categories were removed for violating the basic principle of category naming: that category names must be "clear and unassailable", to quote User:CzechOut. Well, the same thing applies to infoboxes - we don't allow disputed information in infoboxes.
Aside from being unable to define exactly who/what an "enemy" is, we also cannot really define "main" - it's something that would differ from editor to editor. And we can't get rid of the word "main" and just leave "enemy", because that would lead to a long string of (debatable) characters as "enemy". So we have some editors adding names and other editors removing them. Obviously, we can't all agree on who are and aren't enemies.
Another problem is that it's just too tempting for new users to fill up this field when they start editing. Just like was stated in the category thread, even if we agree on a definition, we'll still have to clean up after new users who are unaware of the definition.
- CzechOut
It's an interesting question, to be sure. And it'd be easy enough to delete. One keystroke would essentially wipe it out from the whole wiki.
But, in my opinion, you've drawn a false analogy between enemy categories and the infobox variable, {{{enemy}}}. Categories have a technical function on a wiki that an infobox variable doesn't.
And in this case, the {{{enemy}}} variable has no technical function at all. It's not wired up to be an SMW variable, so it can't generate reports, and therefore the results can't appear on pages anywhere. Anything put in the variable {{{enemy}}} merely affects that page — and even then, only the infobox on that page. Text on the story page can give greater amplification as to what the line in the infobox means.
"Main" indeed is debatable, but it has proven pretty successful in keeping a lid on overuse of the variable. Tangerineduel's concern back then was that people were putting really minor characters, sometimes people who never crossed paths with the Doctor, into enemy categories. By contrast, looking at a few, familiar, old stories:
- Cessair of Diplos is the stated {{{enemy}}} of The Stones of Blood
- The Daleks are the enemies of The Dalek Invasion of Earth
- Mavic Chen and the Daleks are the enemies of The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story)
- Omega is the enemy of The Three Doctors
- The Cybermen are the enemy of The Doctor Falls
And these are all cases where there are other plausible "villains" around. I think that "main", though admittedly imprecise, has actually been effective in keeping things under control — within the very different context of an infobox. For a category, it would be horribly imprecise. But for a thing that is merely meant to give a snapshot, it seems to be pulling editors' minds into focus.
Finally, I think it's a useful hedge against some categories, like
<species> stories. For instance, The Five Doctors is in Category:Dalek television stories. Now that categories are also at the top of the page, one of the first bits of information you see is that it's a "Dalek television story". But the infobox helps us immediately understand that they're not primary. So the reader can quickly deduce that it's a story that has Daleks in it, but it's not really "a Dalek story".And I think that use case is even more important as you get away from TV stories, where it costs little to involve multiple species, briefly. I mean, just look at how many
<species> storiesHappy Endings is in. In that case, it's very useful to have the {{{enemy}}} declared as "The Master" — especially when, for example, Category:Ice Warrior novels is more confusing than revelatory.So while I agree that it's imprecise — and while I might imagine one could point to some counter-examples of abuse — I think in typical use, it's doing more good than harm.
- Tangerineduel
I agree with the temptation for new editors, the infobox presents a 'thing to be filled in first' for new editors. So thinning it down to just the definable facts makes sense.
I do wonder if we're missing out by not having the main antagonist linked early in the article. But I think we just need to ensure that all stories have a properly written introduction, beyond the 'this story is part of X season'-type intros, so that we still cover the content that is being dropped.
- NateBumber
I couldn't agree with CzechOut more. The infobox variable is far from perfect, for all the reasons pointed out here, but that's more than outweighed by its usefulness. Removing it outright would be a disservice to the wiki.
I think having a better written introduction to articles would better define those articles where the enemy may not be as clear, or may be contentious.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:234559
We currently have a List of BBC Blu-ray releases, which does exactly what it says on the tin, and is a continuation from List of BBC VHS releases and List of BBC DVD releases.
It has been announced recently that TV: Twice Upon a Time is going to be released on UHD Blu-ray in the US.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Doctor-Who-Twice-Upon-a-Time-4K-Blu-ray/209798/ http://merchandise.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctor-who-twice-upon-a-time-4k-uhd-region-a-1/ http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Twice-Upon-a-Time-4K-Blu-ray/dp/B07FDMM7BK
(Incidentally, the BBC is also releasing Sherlock Season 1 on UHD BD, suggesting that more back catalogue releases may be forthcoming in the future.)
Given that UHD Blu-ray is the same medium as regular Blu-ray (the discs are the same, just higher capacity to hold the extra resolution), my question is do we treat this as a new format (with a new list article), or as a subset of the existing Blu-ray format (similar to how 3D BD was treated for TV: The Day of the Doctor, Dark Water, and Death in Heaven)?
(Aside: "Ultra HD" is the correct terminology when discussing television. "4K" is strictly a cinema standard. While the terms are interchangeable colloquially, I would advise the wiki standardises to UHD, unless the BBC uses differently.)
- CzechOut
Before we even get into this question, can I just step back a hot minute and say welcome back! I know you edited a lil bit in June, but I haven't seen you around otherwise in aaaagggggesssss.
As for the question at hand, I'm inclined to believe that at least some of our readers will want to know which things are in UHD and which aren't. But the medium is still a form of Blu-ray and that's what we should generally emphasise.
So on story or season pages, I think these should be underneath the Blu-ray subheading.
And I personally wouldn't spend too much time making a page on UHD releases. But what I would do is create a category called Category:UHD releases and apply it to the stories/seasons/special box sets that were released in UHD, whether physical or digital. That way, people wanting to see which titles were available in UHD could just click on the category.
Once all this is categorised, it's then easy to dump all this on a page via DPL so that we don't have to maintain it. (That's actually something we should probably do for just non-UHD BDs, as well.) And I don't personally like the thought of a page that's called "List of <whatever>". I think we should actually explain the format a bit, because it is somewhat confusing. At the bottom of the page we could then add a DPL list, of course, but just a list seems less than helpful to our readers — particularly because it's entirely possible that Apple will magically update latter-day DW to be UHD in the near future. Certainly, I would be shocked if S11 doesn't automatically hit iTunes as UHD from day one. So I would see medium-term utility in an article about UHD that covers both streaming and physical options.
- Eladkse
While DPL is good for convieninece, it doesn’t convey the same information that the current list articles do. At least, not at the moment. Number of discs, release dates, BBC catalogue nunbers, and details of any limted edition versions. Some of this could (and probably should) be ported over, but we would lose detail in some places. Especially with DVD where there have been several re-releases.
I agree explainations are needed on such an article. I’ve just given the Blu-ray article an overhaul, giving much more detail on how and why HD releases have been possible for the various serials. It’s also helped me find some fun anomolies (like TW S1 being released on HD DVD).
It has occured to me that if the BBC change (or do not change) their catalogue numbers for UHD BD releases, this would be a useful indicator in seeing how they view the format. This could then determine whether a new UHD Blu-ray list article is needed, or if it could be part of the existing one. However, no UK release has been announced yet, so we can’t use this for the moment.
Consievabley, Twice Upon a Time could be the only back-catalogue UHD release, with future releases such as S11 coming out simultaneously with their HD BD counterpart. It would be very easy at that point to just put both catalogue numbers into the table and be done with it. However, if more back-catalogue content comes forth, it will make the existing article rather difficult to maintain without confusing the reader too much.
TLDR: In reflection, I think it’s actually far too early to be making decisions about how to categorise the new format. Too many unknowns until we have some actual releases to look at. In the meantime, since it still should be documented, I’d prefer to add the TuaT UHD to the existing Blu-ray articles. It can always be split off at a later date.
As for streaming, it’s something I personally do not care for. Far too many platforms (with some like BBC Store having already died), with very little in the way of documented release history (some content has just on stores with no fanfare or announcement). Should they be documented on this wiki? Yes. How? No idea. Do I want to get involved in deciding that? Not if I can help it. ;)
- Eladkse
Just remembered that the BBC have already had some UHD Blu-ray releases! Planet Earth II has BBCUHD0397 as a catalogue number. This is rather annoying actually - they've changed the prefix code, but the numbering continues from the existing Blu-ray codes. Talk about sitting on the fence!
- CzechOut
Yah, I didn't see the level of detail you're describing as the goal, nor the current state of — for example — List of BBC Blu-ray releases as something that should be continued. And of course DPL isn't quite up to that challenge.
I guess I was just stressing in my own mind the info most people would probably be wanting: what exactly is UHD and whether or not there was at least one UHD version of a title. Likewise, we might consider revamping the List of BBC Blu-ray releases along a similar lines.
That way, a page at, say, UHD Blu-ray (or something similar) would tell you which items have ever been released in UHD, and then you'd click on the title name, which would be a link to the Blu-ray section on a story page — and that would be where the greater detail lived. If we refactored like this, we'd effectively give readers three avenues to the information: the page about the format, the category about the format, and the story/season/boxset page itself. But we'd only have to actively edit the story/season/boxset page to make sure readers had easy access to the greater detail.
Of course, none of that's to say I'm right. But luckily you've raised this discussion so early in the UHD life cycle that we have time to consider multiple approaches and come up with a more consistent approach to all release formats.
- Danniesen
I thought spoilers weren't allowed anywhere unless it was a "Series/Season" page or "The Howling". Doesn't that news about Twice Upon a Time's yet-to-be 4K release count as a spoiler??
- CzechOut
If it were a story that had yet to be released in any form, perhaps. But not in the case of, "Hey, this thing that you've already seen on BBC One is coming to home video." As laid out in T:OFF REL, the official release for Doctor Who televised stories is deemed to be the top or bottom of the hour after the BBC One premiere.
Now, if there are any additional special features on this release that were not a part of the non-UHD BD, it's possible pages about those might be considered spoilers. But would it be wrong to make a note on Twice Upon a Time (TV story) that a UHD BD is coming? Nah. In fact, I'd go ahead and put it in past tense — "was released on <date>" — so as to avoid having to go back and change it to past tense after release.
- Danniesen
Really? I was careful about not spoiling and put the info in "Howling:The Howling". I'll remember that to the next time.
- CzechOut
Well, certainly: thanks for your discretion. But the fact of a home video release isn't a spoiler. Our spoiler policy revolves around the first transmission or release of a story, not secondary ones.
- Danniesen
I just thought that EVERYTHING unreleased was a spoiler, but I'll remember in the future that that's not the case. Thanks.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:235666
I would like to open up a debate on the new Doctor Who video game Doctor Who Infinity. It consists of different stories within it, which each has a different Doctor/Companion combination, such as DLC each with a different story title - all separate self-enclosed stories.
Do these stories get individual pages ie The Dalek Invasion of Time (video game), or is it all under Doctor Who Infinity (video game) with different stories written in one article?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:235670
Nearly a year ago, a merger between the Virgin New Adventures and Virgin Bernice Summerfield New Adventures was proposed by User:NateBumber and yet it has not gained any traction. While the BSNA seem to funtion as if they were a new series with a new main character, they still are effectively part of The New Adventures line started with Timewyrm: Genesys and they maintain the cover design from Happy Endings until midway through Benny's novels.
The simple fact that "'Virgin Bernice Summerfield New Adventures' is a title based upon conjecture" is at the top of the BSNA page is a good indication it should be part of the VNA page.
NateBumber makes a more detailed and compeling case for the merger and has a sandbox page to show what the merged page would look like.
- NateBumber
Flattered that someone's finally noticed this! My main points, in summary from the talk page:
1. The given explanation for this separation (which remained on [[Virgin New Adventures]] until just last year) is that "the series concluded with the Eighth Doctor novel The Dying Days" and "the books continued with Bernice as the principal character in a new series of novels which were officially dubbed 'The New Adventures'." This argument doesn't seem to be based in reality: the novels had been officially dubbed "The New Adventures" since Happy Endings, a year before The Dying Days. If we were basing the page name solely on the names given on the logo, we'd actually need three pages: Virgin New Doctor Who Adventures, Virgin Doctor Who New Adventures, and Virgin New Adventures, the last of which would include all the Benny-focused novels!
2. There's no denying that there was a major shift in the New Adventures in 1997: namely, the focus of the series changed from the adventures of the Doctor to the adventures of his companions (primarily Bernice, but also Chris, Roz, and Jason). But Doctor Who underwent a much more dramatic shift in 2010:
- Doctor Who, like the New Adventures, got a new logo.
- It got an entirely new production crew – unlike the post-Dying Days New Adventures, which kept their editor and, with the exception of a handful of new co-authors, were only written by pre-Dying Days veterans.
- With very rare exception, post-2010 Doctor Who didn't feature any returning characters from the 2005-2010 series – completely unlike the post-Dying Days NAs, which featured tons of characters from the pre-Dying Days NAs in recurring roles.
But we don't split NuWho into BBC Doctor Who and BBC Eleventh Doctor Doctor Who. In fact, we don't even split NuWho from Classic! So why do we separate Virgin Bernice Summerfield New Adventures from Virgin New Adventures?
3. As LegoK9 mentioned, I merged the pages at User:NateBumber/Sandbox4, and I think it's a definite improvement. I'm eager to hear any feedback.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Defining series is always tricky, but I do think you've got it right.
- NateBumber
Just giving this a friendly little bump to see if anyone else has any input. I'd really love to see this brought to a resolution one day.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I like the idea. The New Adventures were always marketed as one single series, and the split only came from fans differentiating between the Doctor's adventures and Bernice's. For the sake of the wiki, it's more factually accurate to have the New Adventures all under one banner.
- NateBumber
While we're here, a brief summary of new developments on the talk page.
- While the editor's note (pictured right) says that the New Adventures was a series, and that The Dying Days was "the last" of this series, they also made it very clear that the New Adventures were not ending with The Dying Days but were continuing, perhaps "forever", with Oh No It Isn't! and the rest of the "new New Adventures"; and
- Meanwhile, the back cover of Oh No It Isn't! says that "New Adventures" is an imprint rather than a series, although as Amorkuz noted, the fine print still says the book was published by Virgin, not "New Adventures" as you'd expect if it was really an imprint; so
- My best-yet-painfully-incomplete attempt at an explanation, which I believe is roughly shared by SOTO, is that Virgin viewed "New Adventures" as not a series (despite saying it was) but an imprint (despite not actually treating it as such) that included two series, both called "New Adventures", one featuring the Doctor, and the other focusing on Benny.
Frankly, I don't think this absolute mess of terminology has much effect on the merger idea, since in terms of "what kind of coverage on the wiki will provide the best factual accuracy" I don't see a practical difference between "one series" and "two series published under an imprint, which is also a series, all of which share the same name". I've updated my Sandbox to try to reflect the verbiage, and I would welcome any comments or correction.
- Liria10
In the Bernice Summerfield Inside Story, there is a reprint of the publisher's afterword that Peter Darvill-Evans did for Twilight of the Gods (the last NA novel, not the MA novel of the same name).
In it, he mentions that "The New Adventures, I think, is the longest-running science-fiction saga in book form". On the same page, there's also a picture of a pile of NAs, from Return of the Living Dad to Twilight of the Gods, with the caption "From Return of the Living Dad to Twilight of the Gods, Benny's adventures under the NA banner come to an end."
Overall, the Inside Story mentions the NAs as one continuous series quite a few times, as well as referring to the stories from Oh No It Isn't onward as an imprint. I think Nate's proposal for the merged page in his sandbox is probably the best compromise considering the mess of terminology used by Virgin.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:237423
Disclaimer: Forgive me if any of the topics discussed here may be deemed offensive. I do not intend to make light of any issues that may affect some people in real life. This is purely a discussion about the use of pronouns as they apply to specific fictional characters, so let’s please not get too political about this issue.
So I was reading some articles, and I’ve noticed a few of them have starting referring to the Doctor and other Time Lords that have had cross-sex regenerations as “they/their/them.” What’s the deal with that? It’s even being used to refer to events that have a defined gender, when he was only male, like on the “Barn (The Day of the Doctor)” page, when it says “they” visited the barn in four incarnations, but each of those incarnations was male, so I have since changed it to male pronouns.
One major problem with doing this is that the grammar is honestly pretty painful. I began reading the Doctor's page, and I took particular notice of the third paragraph. It is as follows: "For their actions, the Time Lords granted the Doctor a new regeneration cycle, allowing them to live on after using up all available regenerations in their first cycle." That usage is so ambiguous. By the rules of the English language, "their actions" would have to be referring to the Time Lords, yet we're honestly expecting regular people to be able to immediately understand what the heck that is referring to? It's just so needlessly over-complicating things with this method of pronoun use for Time Lords.
That does, however, seem to be an instance in which I could fairly change all those pronouns to male, anyway, since those events are all specifically referring to things that happened to male Doctors, just as with the Barn article. But my point was to bring that excellent example up because I'm sure there are plenty of other cases like that that might supposed to be referring to the Doctor in a more general way, too, but are instead just confusing. And this becomes even more of an issue if you want have consistency, because then all Time Lords - even the ones that we have only known to be one sex - must be referred to as “they” always, as well.
Regardless, the Doctor is a male Time Lord. He just happens to have one female regeneration. It has been established in the show that there is a norm when it comes to sex with each Time Lord’s regenerations, but very occasionally one will swap sexes as an anomaly. The Doctor = male at birth + 12 or 13 male regenerations + 1 female. The Master, too, has always been male except for one time, when he became Missy. And then there’s the General, who establishes that she had always been female except for that one incarnation and that she was “back to normal” after that when she became female again. So, considering “they” is grammatically incorrect, anyway, it seems to make more sense to go with what the show itself already suggests: stick to using the pronouns that are appropriate to each specific incarnation, but not forgetting on a whole that just as the General is a female Time Lord with one anomalous male regeneration, the Doctor is so far a male Time Lord with one anomalous female regeneration. Meaning it is appropriate to refer to each in a broader sense as “she” and “he,” respectively. And until a much greater percentage of the Doctor’s regenerations are female, it seems unnecessary to confuse things by sticking the “they” in there, too, ESPECIALLY and AT LEAST when referring to incarnations that were indisputably male, as with my example from the Barn article.
I completely understand where those who advocate for the “they” pronouns are coming from, but that’s not how the show itself seems to treat the issue, and shouldn’t that be the #1 guideline to go by? The show establishes a gender norm, with the exceptions being just that - exceptions. So naturally, the Doctor would be a “he” (except for when he is a “she”).
The whole cannot be defined by its anomalous exceptions. So why aren’t we referring to these Time Lords just with their standard pronouns except for in the special cases in which those no longer apply, instead of just needlessly covering it all with the awkward “they”?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I completely understand where those who advocate for the “they” pronouns are coming from, but that’s not how the show itself seems to treat the issue, and shouldn’t that be the #1 guideline to go by?
I could not agree more. On top of the fact you raise that Time Lords seem to have one default gender (the one they have at birth) and then the occasional nonstandard regeneration, this seems to be the damning bit of evidence.
Whenever the Doctor refers to Time Lords who have changed genders, and I mean refers to them in general, across regenerations, he goes back and forth between "he" and "she", favoring what seems to be the "default" gender. When talking about the Corsair:
The Corsair, fantastic bloke! (…) Didn't feel like himself unless he had the tattoo… or herself, a couple of times — woo-hoo, she was bad girl!--
he generally talks about the Corsair with male pronouns, then switches to "she" and "her" when specifically talking about the Corsair's two or three female incarnations.
And when discussing the Master/Missy in that infamous scene in World Enough for Time —
She was my first friend, always so brilliant… since the first day at the Academy… so fast, so funny! She was my man-crush.
We had a pact, me and him — every star in the universe, we were going to see them all. But he was too busy burning them… I don't think she ever saw anything.
when referring to the Master's young self at the Academy, and then to his later, "star-burning" incarnations, all of whom were male, the Doctor uses "he"; yet even inside of a single sentence, when he's talking about the Master today, as Missy, he switches to "she". ("He"" was too busy burning them… I don't think she ever really saw anything": the Master across his past, globally-male selves was busy burning stars; the current, female Mistress hasn't seen anything yet as it stands).
So yeah. Greatly support this proposal. Referring to the Doctor, the Master, the General or the Corsair as "they" is simply not a good idea,
especially not when older sources (now disregarded by the main TV series, but valid as far as Tardis Data Core’s concerned) went even further with the "Time Lords have a baseline gender" idea and stated they could only regenerate to change gender in extraordinary circumstances such as suicide.(EDIT: I'm informed this was only ever in an Unbound story. The wider point still stands, though.) - Ben Moore812
I’ll just say this. The concept of “Can only regenerate and change gender via that if you commit suicide” was only in Exile. An Unbound story, so it doesn’t really count.
- Amorkuz
Could you please provide an in-universe confirmation that changing gender during a regeneration is an anomaly for Time Lords? I'm not sure I can remember anything of the sort.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: Could you please provide an in-universe confirmation that changing gender during a regeneration is an anomaly for Time Lords? I'm not sure I can remember anything of the sort.
Neither I nor Game-Fanatic ever said that changing gender during regeneration as such was an anomaly, that I recall; what we said was that most Time Lords have a main gender that most of their regenerations adhere to, and then one or two incarnations that fall out of line.
And I think there's plenty of evidence for that. The General's "back to normal" after she returns to being a woman, the Doctor's stunned (but enthusing) reaction at becoming a woman, the Doctor referring to the Corsair as a "bloke" first and foremost and then noting he was a she "a couple of times".
But the other big point is that regardless, the show doesn't use "they" for Time Lords who have changed genders, even when discussing several incarnations at once in one conversation; the dialogue just goes back and forth being "he" and "she" forms. I've produced relevant quotes above.
- Amorkuz
I guess I just highlight all the uses of the word "anomaly" (as well as claims that not changing the gender is the norm):
Game-fanatic wrote: It has been established in the show that there is a norm when it comes to sex with each Time Lord’s regenerations, but very occasionally one will swap sexes as an anomaly. The Doctor = male at birth + 12 or 13 male regenerations + 1 female. The Master, too, has always been male except for one time, when he became Missy. And then there’s the General, who establishes that she had always been female except for that one incarnation and that she was “back to normal” after that when she became female again. So, considering “they” is grammatically incorrect, anyway, it seems to make more sense to go with what the show itself already suggests: stick to using the pronouns that are appropriate to each specific incarnation, but not forgetting on a whole that just as the General is a female Time Lord with one anomalous male regeneration, the Doctor is so far a male Time Lord with one anomalous female regeneration.
[...]
The show establishes a gender norm, with the exceptions being just that - exceptions. [...]
The whole cannot be defined by its anomalous exceptions. So why aren’t we referring to these Time Lords just with their standard pronouns except for in the special cases in which those no longer apply, instead of just needlessly covering it all with the awkward “they”?
So let us first establish whether there is any in-universe evidence for such strong claims of norms and anomalies regarding gender changes in the course of a regeneration.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Er, that's what I was trying to say: we appear to interpret Game-fanatic's words differently. All these talks of "anomalies" and "exceptions" concern gender-crossing regenerations over a single individual's life.
It does not claim that changing gender on a regeneration is anomalous among Time Lords, it means that an individual Time Lord's gender during his one or two gender-crossing regeneration will be considered anomalous to his overall self.
And for that we have direct in-universe evidence, in, again, General Kenossium's comments post-regenerations in Hell Bent: "back to normal, am I?". If Kenossium considers that she has a "normal" gender (namely, female), it follows that her one male incarnation was abnormal — an exception that has no bearing on the fact that Kenossium sees him/herself as female in the absolute.
But for the third time, this is only half of the argument, and even if you disagree with this part (though I think it's a pretty evident reading of the in-universe data), my above remarks concerning the fact that regardless of whether Time Lords have one baseline gender and a few anomalies, or just change randomly across regenerations, the fact is that no sources use "they" to refer to gender-crossing Time Lords — they just go back and forth between "he" and "she" as needed.
- Amorkuz
Don't worry, there will be time to get to the other half of the argument. It is, however, important to decide based on a solid basis.
All I can see so far from the example(s) provided is that one or two Time Lords considered a particular gender to be normal for them. Given the total number of Time Lords (one can guesstimate it from the number of children on Gallifrey at the moment of the end of the Time War, which was in the billions), there is, statistically speaking, almost no information about their views on gender change. The percentage of Time Lords who voiced their opinion on the subject is (almost) 0.
Of course, if the Doctor (or another Time Lord) said something about all Time Lords rather than him/herself, that would be in-universe evidence. My question is whether any such general statement exists? So far I've only seen subjective statements about individual preferences. A reason to generalise from one General to all Time Lords is lacking.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I see where you're coming from, but from my point of view, we have one bit of strong evidence and three bits of weak evidence for Time Lords having a default gender and then variations; and no statements at all for Time Lords not having a fixed gender. So while it's possible to construe our argument as speculation, yours is even moreso.
- Amorkuz
Instead of repeating what I said before in another way, let me bring something new to the table. Specifically, a quote:
Bill: So, Time Lords... a bit flexible on the whole man-woman thing, yeah? Doctor: We're the most civilised civilisation in the Universe. We're billions of years beyond your petty human obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.
Would you agree that this is a statement about the whole Time Lord civilisation, not some single cases?
- Scrooge MacDuck
That is a good point. To be fair, being "a bit flexible on the man-woman thing" and being beyond "obsession" with genders are fairly vague statements that could still allow for the scenario Game-Fanatic and I derive from the other quotes. But I see what you mean. Let's wait and see what other people think.
In the meantime, what do you make of that second half of my argument?
- Amorkuz
Ok, as long as this thread does not establish some deep conclusions about an alleged baseline gender in Time Lord society, let us discuss the pronoun.
First of all, there is, in my mind, zero problem referring to a specific incarnation by the gender of that incarnation. No reason to abandon doing that. The case of referring to several incarnations of the same gender is more subtle, but the simplest solution is, again, to use the common gender pronoun, given that it was the same person after all.
The real question, for me, is referring to multiple incarnations of both genders. Note that this is not at all that common an occurrence. For instance, if Missy is talking about her lifelong feelings or interests, I would still consider the female pronoun appropriate. If Missy talks about herself, as you say, she is probably referring to herself as a she. So really I can only see a problem when a third person refers to an absent Time Lord who changed gender or when the reference specifically addresses multiple-gender incarnations.
Unfortunately, given Tardis:Neutral point of view, much of what is written about the Doctor etc. must be written from the 3rd-person perspective (omniscient narrator) and from the point of view of the end of the universe. So no connection to a particular incarnation is possible. The neutrality and the randomness of the in-universe pronoun use, pointed out before, seemingly leave no choice other than a gender-neutral pronoun. No other choice would be neutral.
If we are lucky, Chibnall may insert some dialogue in the upcoming series that would give an in-universe solution. But for now, the only neutral way without imposing artificial quantitative or qualitative value judgements is "they" or "it" and I strongly prefer "they".
Finally, I would like to point out that "they" is not the cause of problems with clarity. One has exactly the same mess when five male characters have a scene together, making any attempt at using "he" problematic.
After all, we only have four types of personal pronouns. Thus, by the pigeonhole principle, whenever five characters are discussed, at least two of them are going to be pronoun-confusable. Whatever is decided in this thread, good editing was, is and will remain the only solution to unclear prose.
- Scrooge MacDuck
First, let me congratulate you on a long and well-put-together post. (The Internet needs more people being nice to each other, darnit!)
In truth, I cannot say if this is what Game-Fanatic truly wanted (they seem to have dropped out of the conversation…), but here's what I think we ought to do: in cases referring to several incarnations of varied gender, do what the Doctor did when talking about the Corsair and say "he, or she" instead of saying "they". If "they" was the proper way to refer to gender-crossing Time Lords, one would expect the Doctor's above-quoted line to go something like "himself — well, themselves". Instead, Gaiman went with "himself… or herself, a couple of times".
And I think (though of course, this is rather subjective, as is the concept of gender itself these days IRL) that there is a nuance between "he or she" and a singular "they". The latter is most at home when talking about a person of unknown gender, or a person whose gender does not fit the traditional male-vs-female distinction; it implies a gender-neutral or genderqueer character. "He or she" means precisely what it says, an individual who is, at times, a he, and, at times, a she. But not both at once.
What I mean is that (regardless of the speculation regarding a "default gender") all evidence points to Time Lords being individuals who are, at times, decidedly female, and at times, decidedly male; but at no point do they consider themselves gender-neutral, and thereby as someone who could be referred to as "they".
- Amorkuz
Amen to people being nice to each other. It seems to me that we agree on the appropriate usage in many cases. As for the remaining discrepancies, as you said earlier, "Let's wait and see what other people think." That includes the OP, of course. While I can't close this thread because I engaged in the discussion proper, I would say that two or three opinions would be insufficient for me to determine the consensus.
- Game-fanatic
Hello again, everyone! Apologies for disappearing like that for so long; I was not seeing notifications for this thread. But thank you for discussing the issue with such interest and thoughtfulness while I was gone, anyway. Now it looks like I have a lot to catch up with, so allow me to address all of what could still use addressing. Prepare for a gigantic post...
Could you please provide an in-universe confirmation that changing gender during a regeneration is an anomaly for Time Lords? I'm not sure I can remember anything of the sort.
I believe I laid out the case fairly completely in the original post. The only examples we have of any cross-sex regenerations in the show are, by definition, anomalous; like I explained, the Doctor, the Master, and the General were all one sex for each and every one of their incarnations except for one time each. And, as Scrooge MacDuck pointed out, while the Corsair (entirely forgot to mention him, so thanks, Scrooge) did deviate from his usual sex more than once, it was still only a few times. So the anomaly is there.
But in addition to that, since those are our only examples of such a regeneration occurring that we have to go by, we are left only to assume that it is a pretty rare occurrence for other Time Lords, as well. And that is backed up by the argument that could be made that if such an occurrence was too commonplace it would destabilize Time Lord society and the fact that, if it were truly just a 50/50 chance every time, the Doctor, Master, and General could not have all beaten such odds with every single one of their regenerations except once each as they have. As depicted in the show with every Time Lord we have seen, there is an observable tendency to regenerate into the same sex each time. But anyway, that's kind of just a tangent.
All I can see so far from the example(s) provided is that one or two Time Lords considered a particular gender to be normal for them. Given the total number of Time Lords (one can guesstimate it from the number of children on Gallifrey at the moment of the end of the Time War, which was in the billions), there is, statistically speaking, almost no information about their views on gender change. The percentage of Time Lords who voiced their opinion on the subject is (almost) 0.
Of course, if the Doctor (or another Time Lord) said something about all Time Lords rather than him/herself, that would be in-universe evidence. My question is whether any such general statement exists? So far I've only seen subjective statements about individual preferences. A reason to generalise from one General to all Time Lords is lacking.
Okay, except using any of these pronouns requires some level of assumption, and my argument is that the only thing the show allows us to assume is that there is a gender norm – at least in the case of these 4 Time Lords, if not all of them. Instead, what this Wiki is doing is assuming that the Time Lords are to be referred to as "they" when not referring to a specific incarnation, in direct contradiction with all of what has been done in the show itself. THAT is something that should require evidence to argue doing, not simply sticking with the method that the show has set for us by using "he" or "she" instead.
When the only views we have on the issue all agree on one mode of thought, that is the only thing we can assume as true for the Time Lords as a whole, not the entirely out-of-universe concept of using "they." And keep in mind that it is not only those individual Time Lords' views on themselves that the show has presented us, but also other Time Lords views on them, as is the case with the Doctor's referring to the Master and the Corsair as generally male.
But even if we were to say okay about using "they" for all of the instances in which it is unknown what the individual Time Lord's views on the issue were, what this Wiki is currently doing does not follow that line thinking. If that were to be the policy, we should then be calling every Time Lord (as I mentioned earlier) except for the Doctor, Master, General, and Corsair "they," and referring to those 4 as "he," "he," "she," and "he," respectively, since we know from in-show dialogue what their "general pronouns" are. And if this hypothetical policy were to be taken to its logical conclusion, we would also have to refer to every single character of every species as "they," since we do not know who might have a different sense of gender or a different belief about their identity or an ability to change sex. But of course that would be ridiculous and extreme. Instead what we do is start from a sensible default that we logically must assume until proven otherwise, in which case we adjust for the exception. So all I'm suggesting is to keep doing that, since an inconsistency has arisen.
Instead of repeating what I said before in another way, let me bring something new to the table. Specifically, a quote: [...]
Ah yes, this infamous quote, haha. Now that is not a valid piece of evidence that we can actually use to argue anything, really, and let me tell you why: it is played off by the show itself.
First, let's take a look at the full dialogue itself:
Doctor: I think she [the Master] was a man back then. I’m fairly sure that I was, too – it was a long time ago, though.
Bill: So... Time Lords... A bit flexible on the whole, like, man/woman thing, then, yeah?
Doctor: We’re the most civilized civilization in the universe. We’re billions of years beyond your petty human obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.
Bill: But you still call yourselves Time ‘Lords.’
Doctor: ...Yeah, shut up.
Bill: [chuckles] Okay.
See? It’s immediately shut down as something not to be taken too seriously by Bill’s pointing that fact out and leaving the Doctor with no comeback after.
And beyond that, it is also contradicted by other examples throughout the show. For example, there was the time the General regenerated and asked how men could possibly cope "with all that ego," the time the Saxon Master said this: [when Missy calls Cyber-Bill "her"] "HER? It’s a Cyberman now. [...] Becoming a woman is one thing, but have you got empathy?" [and when Cyber-Bill tells them to stand aside and the Doctor says, "Do as she says"] "'Do as SHE says' - is the future gonna be ALL girl?" And this is all said with nothing but disgust in his voice, which fits with other sexist attitudes he had expressed before with such comments as "Killed by an insect! A girl ...How inappropriate!" Then there's also the Eleventh Doctor's sneaky laugh at Clara when he claimed he wasn’t shutting the TARDIS down to basic mode just because she was a girl. Oh, and I have unfortunately not seen Twice Upon a Time yet, but I have heard that they portray the First Doctor as rather "old-fashioned" and sexist. All of those instances prove that Time Lords are not, in fact, all beyond gendered thinking or stereotypes.
But either way, the way I've always took that conversation between the Twelfth Doctor and Bill to mean would not support using "they" to refer to Time Lords generally, anyway. The Doctor says they were beyond "gender and its associated stereotypes," clearly referring to "gender" as in the social/cultural/stereotypical idea, as opposed to the biological sex. Yet he is referring to the Master still as "he/she," so that would not mean Time Lords call each other "they" because they do not have gender, because that is shown not to be the case in the very conversation itself. Instead, it seems to be saying that Time Lords do not care about this imaginary idea of "gender" like human culture is so caught up in arguing about right now, instead only basing pronouns on biological sex. That is the only basis left at that point for whether to call a Time Lord a "he" or a "she," if we are to take that conversation seriously at all, but that does not really help us with this specific discussion we are currently having in any way, so that's irrelevant. But at any rate, it does not support a "they" usage.
Ok, as long as this thread does not establish some deep conclusions about an alleged baseline gender in Time Lord society, let us discuss the pronoun.
First of all, there is, in my mind, zero problem referring to a specific incarnation by the gender of that incarnation. No reason to abandon doing that. The case of referring to several incarnations of the same gender is more subtle, but the simplest solution is, again, to use the common gender pronoun, given that it was the same person after all.
Glad we're all in agreement here.
The real question, for me, is referring to multiple incarnations of both genders. Note that this is not at all that common an occurrence. For instance, if Missy is talking about her lifelong feelings or interests, I would still consider the female pronoun appropriate. If Missy talks about herself, as you say, she is probably referring to herself as a she. So really I can only see a problem when a third person refers to an absent Time Lord who changed gender or when the reference specifically addresses multiple-gender incarnations.
Except, seeing as I keep finding "they" all over the place, it is evidently fairly common :P
Unfortunately, given Tardis:Neutral point of view, much of what is written about the Doctor etc. must be written from the 3rd-person perspective (omniscient narrator) and from the point of view of the end of the universe. So no connection to a particular incarnation is possible. The neutrality and the randomness of the in-universe pronoun use, pointed out before, seemingly leave no choice other than a gender-neutral pronoun. No other choice would be neutral.
But that's simply not the case. The specificity and consistency of the in-universe pronoun use, as laid out in-depth by Scrooge, leave no choice other than using the pronoun most applicable to the predominant number of the Time Lord's sexes. That is how the show treats the issue, so the way I see it is that it would be an arbitrary and presumptuous act of reading our own independent, external interpretations/feelings/views into the material to do otherwise.
Finally, I would like to point out that "they" is not the cause of problems with clarity. One has exactly the same mess when five male characters have a scene together, making any attempt at using "he" problematic.
After all, we only have four types of personal pronouns. Thus, by the pigeonhole principle, whenever five characters are discussed, at least two of them are going to be pronoun-confusable. Whatever is decided in this thread, good editing was, is and will remain the only solution to unclear prose.
Except that is surely an extraordinarily rarer case than whenever there would otherwise be a single use of "they" in a sentence if it weren't for this inherently confusing system we've put into place, lol. There are common methods and standards to English that can help prevent unclarity when referring to multiple "he"'s, but there has never been a common need to do the same for "they"'s, so introducing that word's use in this way also introduces and multiplies the number of cases in which prose will no longer be clear and will require creative reorganizing.
And using "they" in this manner is, once again, not grammatically correct to begin with, so the means of solving those cases of unclarity will require even more creativity and potentially awkward phrasing than would ever be needed for the standard "he" situations, since the English language does not provide for such shenanigans. And that brings up another issue I have addressed that no one else has really responded to: this is not proper grammar, so why is it even an option to begin with? From an English perspective, we shouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place.
Anyway, sorry for the monstrous wall of text, lol.
- Game-fanatic
Basically I think Scrooge’s last message was spot-on
- Game-fanatic
Oh, I’d like to add one thing regarding the Time Lord / Time Lady conversation 12 and Bill had. I just realized there is another possible interpretation: the Doctor could be referring to gender as in sex “and its associated stereotypes” just to say that the Time Lords aren’t sexist, and thus they don’t judge if someone goes from a man to a woman. But of course that still does not help with this conversation, still does not support a “they” usage, and is still played off to not be taken too seriously and contradicted by the show itself.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Thanks for coming back, Game-Fanatic, and making your point clearer — albeit through a wall of text.
I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle with the matter of "anomalies". I'm personally with you, but Amorkuz has pretty unequivocally ruled that while the evidence supports such an interpretation, it's still an interpretation, and thus out of bounds for the Tardis Wiki (rather like how we don't quite have official confirmation that the Face of Boe is Jack Harkness, even though there probably isn't a Doctor Who writer alive who'd disagree, and thus this Wiki still keeps the pages separate).
You're quite right to point out that the idea that Time Lords are beyond gender-stereotyping is not only contradicted elsewhere, but contradicted right there in the scene. That's something to bear in mind.
But mostly, I'd focus on the fact that I stated many times and which you reignited — by pointing out that this very conversation about gender-fluid Time Lords still does not use "they". "They" is simply not a way of referring to gender-crossing Time Lords that is supported anywhere in valid sources, regardless of whether Time Lords have a "main" gender or not.
- Game-fanatic
Yeah, I guess I can give you guys that in regards to assuming all Time Lords each consistently have one sex for the most part, even though I would still argue that seems to be the case and that it is really the only thing we could conclude. But that’s not really my main point, anyway; at the very least the show does indisputably make that case for just these specific Time Lords, and they’re the only ones who ultimately matter for this discussion at this point in time.
And also, yes, of course, the entire concept of “they” is completely foreign to the material that we have to work with.
- NateBumber
It's probably worth noting that Titan Comics has now set precedent for the "singular they".
- Scrooge MacDuck
NateBumber wrote: It's probably worth noting that Titan Comics has now set precedent for the "singular they".
Huh, have they? (I don't know, I don't really keep up with them.) Where?
- Ben Moore812
On the blurb of The Thirteenth Doctor #0.
- Game-fanatic
Yeah, but that’s an out-of-universe thing. We’ll have to see if they make use of it in the story itself.
I’d also like to point out that the page for the Master also already follows the system Scrooge and I are suggesting when it comes to the Master’s name, only using Mistress when referring to the female incarnation, if that’s worth contributing at all.
- Amorkuz
There is also an interesting passage in "Previously..." at the beginning of the same comic, which is inching closer towards in-universe info: "...the Twelfth Doctor faced his darkest hour: ... losing Missy to herself..." It seems to me that he lost Missy to John Simm's Master. In other words, "herself" here kinda applies to a male incarnation.
I have a bad feeling about this: namely, that the writers will end up with the same discordial mess as us.
Accordingly, I have a proposal. Instead of continuing this debate immediately, we pull out popcorn, sit and watch how the in-universe will deal with it. After we have a larger sample set of strictly in-universe utterances, we might be able to make more educated guesses.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Words of wisdom. (The example you note, incidentally, seems consistent with a previously-cited instance in-episode where, soon after they learned of Missy, UNIT referred to her actions as Harold Saxon with "she".)
- Game-fanatic
Well should we at least attempt to fit the majority of what has been provided in-universe thus far until more light is shed on the subject, rather than just sticking with “they,” since that’s not really coming from anywhere?
- Amorkuz
Reminder: no actions can be taken until this thread is closed by an admin.
- Elib876
I'd just like to note that in the novelisation of Twice Upon a Time it says the following before 12 gives his final speech to his future self:
There were a few things he wanted to say to whatever old or young pale-skinned man took his place. Because he was one of those stuck-in-a-rut Time Lords who always got basically the same model of body.
Which would seem to suggest that not all Time Lords have one default gender that would very rarely change as an anomaly.
- Game-fanatic
Sounds to me like there’s a common precedent in Time Lord society based on that line that many retain “basically the same model of body” through all their lives. Not all, but it’s obviously enough to be a pretty common thing. All it means is that he thought he was not one of the Time Lords that ever changes race (notice he is also referring to his skin color) or sex. Which is apparently a thing on Gallifrey. That doesn’t really tell us which one is more rare than the other or whatever.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ehh… I was with you so far, Game, but I think you're kind of bending over backwards in trying to interpret that quote. "One of those stuck-in-a-rut Time Lords" implies that it's a rather common thing, yes, but it's pretty decisive on the fact that it's still not the norm, but rather an ailment/lack of skill.
- Game-fanatic
So you think that specifically suggests it is rare for Time Lords to not to change race/sex? I just read it as a sort of “oh well that stinks that I’m not one of the cool Time Lords that can regenerate with more variety” thing, which doesn’t really clarify what is more or less rare, just that there are some who don’t ever change race/sex at all and some that do...
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, "stuck-in-a-rut" implies not necessarily that it's rare, but that it's an issue — that normally a Time Lord ought to be able to regenerate with control and into any and everything, whereas in practice it ends up being not that way.
- Game-fanatic
Isn’t that expression usually used when someone is starting to feel bored or like they do the same thing over and over again? Which would mean it simply denotes the Doctor’s negative feelings about his particular regeneration situation more than any sort of idea of a defect, wouldn’t it?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm… I suppose it could go both ways, it's just that the phrasing "one of those Time Lords" seemed to sway towards my interpretation.
I'd say that on this issue like the rest we should probably wait until Series 11 (and some more, contingent 13th Doctor material) is released before we draw any definitive conclusions.
- Amorkuz
To add my two cents to your textual analysis. At some point I realised that quite a few experienced DW writers excel at writing things that, on the one hand, are easily interpreted and understood when first uttered, but on the other hand, would not strictly speaking contradict almost anything that future writers might decide to do. Perhaps, part of the reason is the infamous UNIT dating controversy, which taught everyone the value of being non-committal. To give an example, did you notice how evasive the Doctor has always been about his age? This evasiveness ensures that there is no problem to slot more stories in between existing ones, stories that may take hundreds of years of the Doctor's personal time (e.g., Orbis).
What it means for us, editors, is that sometimes we are trying very hard to divine the exact meaning of phrases that have been specifically designed not to have one.
- Game-fanatic
Very good observation, Amorkuz. It’s an interesting problem to have, as it is good for the show but difficult sometimes for us, haha. Perhaps that is in fact one of those things, perhaps “one of those Time Lords” is meant to be slightly ambiguous. I would definitely take it as a simple “ugh, I’m the boring type of Time Lord that doesn’t change [race and/or sex]” sort of thing, rather than “I’m one of the few who can’t do that,” but maybe it’s impossible to truly definitively categorize it as one or the other. In that case, though I agree that it would be helpful to wait for more in-show evidence for what to do, I also don’t think we should just continue to stick with the “they” concept we’ve merely invented until that happens; wouldn’t it be better to assume what the majority of the in-show evidence suggests until more information can be gleaned in the future?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ahah! A bit of interesting new data, from the The Thirteenth Doctor #0 comic: the narration (from the Doctor herself) refers to the Master in a way that supports Game-Fanatic's suggestions. Missy is referred to as "when he was a woman" (emphasis mine). And this isn't a case of referring to an old incarnation of a Time Lord who has turned back into a man, since as we know, Missy is (until the next retcon) dead as a doorknob before she could regenerate.
- Ben Moore812
I’d just like to point something out. Game-fanatic, you say;
Game-fanatic wrote: Yeah, but that’s an out-of-universe thing. We’ll have to see if they make use of it in the story itself.
Yet this wiki does take into account out of universe things from time to time. It counts Dreyfus’ Master as the first incarnation, when all we have to go on that is the news article announcing the set he was in.
So really, it doesn’t matter much if it’s only out of universe, because this wiki likes to use that sometimes.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ben Moore512 wrote: (…) this wiki does take into account out of universe things from time to time. It counts Dreyfus’ Master as the first incarnation, when all we have to go on that is the news article announcing the set he was in.
So really, it doesn’t matter much if it’s only out of universe, because this wiki likes to use that sometimes.
I think the Dreyfus Master is a rather different issue. It's evidence of authorial intent for a narrative element.
On the other hand, the fact that out-of-universe content refers to the Doctor as "they" here (and I'm not entirely sure this was a singular "they" as opposed to another "wonderful chap… all of them"-type gag) doesn't say much about whether this is how characters would refer to the Doctor in-universe.
Regardless, while Tardis Wiki occasionally uses out-of-universe sources, they are to be taken with caution (as they are technically disallowed by Tardis:Valid Sources, being non-narrative), and are secondary to in-universe sources.
So I think Game-Fanatic's point is that for now we have evidence of the "he-she switching" in-universe, and of "singular they" only out-of-universe; hence until such a time as "they" proves itself to be a valid in-universe alternative, we should go with the in-universe take over it.
- Amorkuz
Ben Moore512 wrote: Yet this wiki does take into account out of universe things from time to time. It counts Dreyfus’ Master as the first incarnation, when all we have to go on that is the news article announcing the set he was in.
This statement is not accurate. Tardis:Valid sources is the governing rule: Only stories count. The question of that being the first Master has been discussed multiple times and I know of no such discussion having been concluded. Please do not confuse an edit implemented by one or several editors with a decision made by the whole community through a forum or a talk page.
With that, we should all return to the matter at hand. Whether Dreyfus is the first incarnation of the Master is off topic and should not be discussed further at this thread. Those interested should contribute to multiple open Master-related threads, some of which are as old as 5 years.
- Ben Moore812
Of course. I was simply pointing it out. And yes, it's offtopic.
- Amorkuz
More quotes while we wait:
Nyssa: I didn’t know that Time Lords could change gender, Doctor. Fifth Doctor: Gender is a very fluid concept, Nyssa. For some people more than others. A Time Lord even more so.
- Amorkuz
Doctor narrating: One Time Lord in particular. He — or she — always manages to escape...
- Game-fanatic
That last quote is interesting. Is that a case where the Doctor is referring to a Time Lord in general as “he or she,” rather than simply “he” or “she”? Or, since the “she” seems to be more of an afterthought than the initial “he,” is this something more like what he did when referring to the Corsair?
- Amorkuz
As usual, it is hard to say. I'm not even sure whether it is the narration of the Twelfth Doctor right before the regeneration or the Thirteenth Doctor right after. (The frame with the Thirteenth Doctor did appear by this time in the collection though.)
This is the regenerating Doctor remembering his -- or her -- life and commenting on this or that episode. This particular phrase is at the last frame of the Sixth Doctor episode remembered. It seems counterintuitive to me that this might refer to the Doctor himself -- or at this point, herself. The next story features the Master (as male). And previous stories used narration with ellipses to preview the next story. So my money would be on the Doctor referring this way to the Master, not to a Time Lord in general.
- SOTO
It's actually real simple. It's incorrect to say the Doctor in general is a "male Time Lord", and generic "he" is not a thing. You cannot describe the Doctor, in general, with he/him pronouns. Some of their incarnations use he/him pronouns, and at least one incarnation so far uses she/her.
"He or she" is just generic "he", with "or she" added as an afterthought. And it does not describe the nuances of gender, anyhow.
It has been established in the DWU that Time Lords do not think of gender in the restrictive sense that most modern humans do. Being different genders in different incarnations is not at all seen as an anomaly; in that rooftop scene, recently, Twelve can't even recall if the Master was a man at the time they first knew each other.
I'm loving that Fifth Doctor quote Amorkuz found. In human terms, all Time Lords are effectively genderfluid. Many aspects of a Time Lord's personal identity change with regeneration, and that's just one of them. Not all Time Lords stay middle-aged white men throughout their regenerations; that's just what we saw in classic Who for real world reasons. This can no longer be considered the norm.
There's not much to discuss here. Singular they/them are simply the correct pronouns to use here, as they're the gender-neutral personal pronouns we have been blessed with in the English language. And as Nate brought up, Titan Comics has picked up on this, and is using singular they for the Doctor too.
So they/them for the Doctor in general, he/him or she/her for specific incarnations, and he/him is good when discussing only male Doctors, too.
The real objection here is about best phrasing. "The Fifth Doctor and Adric returned to the TARDIS because he had a cold." That sentence does not work, because we don't know who "he" is. Because singular they and plural they appear quite similar without context (much like singular/plural you), we will encounter sentences where further specificity would be most helpful.
So if it's not clear in the sentence if "they" is the Doctor or the Daleks, you make sure to swap out the pronoun for a regular old noun, or a noun group. "The Doctor hated the Daleks, because they always escaped their grasp" could always become "because they always escaped the Time Lord's grasp".
This is the same issue as with the Doctor and Adric. "Because Adric had a cold".
- SOTO
And beyond that, it's simply a matter of perspective. "The Thirteenth Doctor looked back on her past lives", because it's from her perspective specifically.
But, "Across their many lives, the Doctor remained devoted to the planet Earth", or "The Doctor's sonic screwdriver proved to be an invaluable tool throughout their travels and escapades", or "The Doctor usually had a companion by their side" -- all use they/them pronouns, because of the broader perspective.
Meanwhile, "The Fourth Doctor had spent much of his last incarnation working for UNIT on Earth".
- SOTO
As to that one voice here claiming singular they is not correct English, I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. We have been using singular they for longer than we've been using singular you.
At the time Shakespeare used singular they, "you" was specifically a plural pronoun (or a form of "ye", a plural pronoun), and many objected when people started using you as both singular and plural, in place of thou. Both they and you follow the same grammatical rules, in terms of conjugation.
For some reason, though, even though everyone uses singular they in common parlance, like all the time without realising it, there was some pushback in recent years. Just to note, some linguists were against singular they, and some others acknowledged that it is grammatically correct, and that it's been around for hundreds of years.
Now, it's taken some time, but it's finally been acknowledged, within the last year or two, by the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style, that singular they is very much a thing, and quite correct to use.
Don't believe me and the style guides? Take it from Oxford Dictionaries. Or Merriam-Webster. Prof Dennis Barron goes over the history here.
Singular they was literally declared Word of the Year for 2015 by a crowd of over 200 linguists at the American Dialect Society.
And all that aside, there exist many people in the real world who are neither "he" or "she", and many of us use singular they in our day-to-day lives, or opt for neopronouns. That is literally the only correct way to refer to me, and I'm not even a Time Lord.
So. Singular they exists. It's grammatically correct, it's linguist-approved, it's in the dictionaries, it's in the style guides, and it has a long history, from the 14th century to the present day.
Singular they is our gender-neutral 3rd person singular (personal) pronoun in English. "It" is for objects, or concepts, and maybe animals. Do not call a person "it". Assuming that "he" applies to everyone is incredibly archaic, and reflects past views that told the story of human life from men's perspectives only, and which assumed maleness as somehow default. Just as none of those would apply to me, an actual human person who's nonbinary, we should follow proper gender-neutral language with regards to the Doctor too.
- SOTO
And I get where we're coming from, looking for in-universe precedent, and saying, "But hey, this character once said 'he or she', so we should abandon all else and go for the least succinct option here!"
However, here at Tardis Wiki, the rules of the English language -- and British English specifically -- take precedence over specific language usage in the DWU, except in very specific circumstances where British English has an alternative spelling as an option, as well.
- Also, this is all specifically mentioned in T:DOCTORS, so unless a community discussion is closed by an admin in favour of changing things, this pronoun usage is laid out in the Manual of Style.
- I'll explain in a minute that we've already ruled all this from past discussions, but it should be pointed out that it would be in violation of T:POINT to go about acting on your position here, contrary to T:DOCTORS, while this thread is open.
So if you're sat wondering why we're using singular they for a character with multiple genders, for a character of indeterminate gender, or for a character outside of the gender binary, it's because we're using English.
Alpha Centauri is not a he or a she, either, and even though some early sources had the Doctor using he/him pronouns, later sources opted for better neutral language.
Now, we've had this discussion before -- here and here -- and we ruled that:- In general, use the pronouns given within a narrative. (This might be he/him, she/her, they/them, such as for Orr, and for Sgloomi Po, it's actually [ze]/hir.)
- If no clear set of pronouns is given, default to they/them.
- If stories conflict and give different pronouns, default to they/them, instead of flip-flopping based on the story cited. (This is the case with Alpha Centauri.)
We're in the "business" of presenting information from DWU narratives, truthfully and to-the-point, using our own language to best describe what is presented to us. And we have the Manual of Style to standardise the language we use across Tardis.So, for a Time Lord who uses different pronouns at different points in time, it's they/them in general, and when referring to specific incarnations, use the pronouns given. It's "the Doctor and their TARDIS", the "Thirteenth Doctor and her TARDIS", and the "Second Doctor and his TARDIS".
"The Master killed his next incarnation, Missy", and "Missy was killed by her previous incarnation, who took their future into his own hands." "The Master usually regarded the Doctor as their enemy, but in one incarnation, Missy found herself befriending him."
If you think there might be some confusion, swap out a pronoun for a noun, or add the same pronoun earlier on for consistency, and you'll have better flow.
- SOTO
Actually, I think that about sums it up. No new conflicting information has come up since the last discussions we've had. New evidence only reinforces the approach we had agreed upon.
My above posts summarise relevant grammar, policy, and precedent.
Opposing arguments are built on a false notion that we "made up" singular they/them pronouns, when it has been clearly established this is far from the case. Concerns about confusing sentence structure have been addressed: change your wording, when needed, to clarify.
Nothing new has been brought forward to justify changing our approach, and I do find it is the best approach, accurately describing what the narrative has given us, taking all variables into account. Titan Comics seem to be the ones on top of this, too, so I'd be curious to have a look again at what they'll be doing in-story with pronouns as time goes on.
So I'm closing the thread, in favour of continuing to use neutral pronouns. If properly new information comes into play in the future, we can always revisit these issues. Thank you all for taking the time to investigate. We stand on even firmer ground now.
- Shambala108
I'm reopening this thread because it has been closed prematurely. User:Amorkuz, about halfway up the page from here, suggested: "Accordingly, I have a proposal. Instead of continuing this debate immediately, we pull out popcorn, sit and watch how the in-universe will deal with it. After we have a larger sample set of strictly in-universe utterances, we might be able to make more educated guesses."
In closing this thread, User:SOTO stated "Nothing new has been brought forward to justify changing our approach". However, most users had probably read Amorkuz' suggestion to wait, and therefore held back from bringing forth other views. I know of at least one user, myself, who had something new to add but was respecting Amorkuz' suggestion that we wait for a bit.
I think it's unfair, and can come off as underhanded, for one admin to close a thread after another admin has suggested holding off for a bit. We haven't even started season 11 (or whatever number it is) yet, and we will most likely get plenty of information and ammunition for our policy, so it's best to wait for some or all of the season to air.
- SOTO
As I mentioned, people are perfectly free to open a new thread if new conflicting information does come forward.
This thread started out as a rehashing of discussions we've already had in the recent past. This approach was the conclusion of those threads. I believe any community discussion hoping to change our approach should arise from new information.
And I do maintain that this is largely an English language issue, and that, grammatically speaking, singular they/them is most appropriate to these circumstances. Titan thinks so too, even if they've only found occasion to use such language in BTS blurbs for now.
In-narrative with a different character, Orr, singular they/them is clearly established in Aliens Among Us as the correct set of pronouns for an individual who is not always identifiable as "he" or "she". The characters slip up, some of them assume one set of gendered pronouns and then get confused as to what to call them, but it is clearly established that they/them is the way to go with Orr. - SOTO
I suppose if the thread is re-opened, though, we'll see what Titan does next.
So far, on television, the convention has been to retain current perspective. Like I said above, from Missy's perspective, it's her past lives, and for the Saxon Master, she is his future self.
When the General regenerates back into a woman, everyone instantly switches pronouns, but as an encyclopedia, we cannot change perspective to always reflect the current incarnation of a Time Lord. Our in-universe perspective considers events as if recounted at the end of the universe, by a neutral omniscient third party.
So if we're talking about the Doctor or the Master, we really want the overview perspective. There is no "current" incarnation, as far as our writing goes, male or female. Stories will have the luxury of a fixed perspective. We do not.
For instance, the Titan blurb needed to pick pronouns for the Doctor, considered from a neutral POV. The same Titan story had no problem sticking to fixed perspectives. The point in the Doctor's timeline on display, at each point in the comic, determines the perspective they use. At no point in that story do they need to employ the "overview perspective", to comment more generally on the character. When they do have to, in the summary, they take the same approach we do here.
Most "new evidence" we'll get to look at will likely use a fixed perspective, relevant to that story. The Thirteenth Doctor will recall when she was an older man.
In World Enough and Time, Twelve talks about his time with the Master, in each of their first incarnations, and still uses she/her pronouns, because right then in the timeline, the Master is a woman. This does not mean we should retroactively call kid Master "she". The story uses a fixed perspective for pronouns, so she/her for all versions of the Master, but we have more to consider, to remain truly neutral in our perspective.
- SOTO
Examples of an overview perspective within a narrative would be more:
- Osgood reads out a file about the Doctor. It says something like, "Many of their incarnations seem reluctant to comply, but they will ultimately cooperate with UNIT forces, toward a common goal."
And maybe in prose, or exposition-heavy dialogue, one story finally will discuss the Doctor more generally, in the third person, from an overview perspective. But so far, even Titan hasn't given us that (within a narrative).
We already take cues from credits which name characters, by the way. Broken gives Ianto's mum the name Glenda in the credits, but that's not established within the story itself. And our naming scheme for Romana's different incarnations is not followed in any narrative, nor even in credits.
To quote:
The designation "Romana II" is not precisely derived from DWU narratives. Rather, it comes from various reference literature like Companions of Doctor Who and Doctor Who Magazine itself.
Even if we never see in a story what the Titan blurb gave us, there is clear precedent for following their real world usage anyway.
- (And again, it's what the English language would have us do, and I still maintain that grammar takes precedence over exact word choice in stories, unless we're giving a quote.)
- SOTO
To keep with the Osgood example, by the way, it should be noted that she also instantly switches to she/her for the Master in Death in Heaven, and talking about the John Simm incarnation too:
- Osgood: "We do have files on all our ex-prime ministers. She wasn't even the worst."
More examples of fixed perspective will not help us.
- NateBumber
I'm surprised to see this reopened, when it should have been closed within a day of the first post; User:Shambala108, you of all people surely recognize how important it is to consistently apply the rule against new discussions about already-decided topics without any new evidence. If only I could reopen every closed thread in which I thought I had more to say! I look forward to reading the new evidence that you were waiting to post.
Anyway, in my opinion, User:SOTO has done a wonderful job summarizing the reasons for the precedent set by Thread:137391 and Thread:152896 and encoded in T:DOCTORS. Because of how the English language works, it seems self-evident to me that "they" is the most preferable option, and I have yet to see any reason for that to change.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In-narrative with a different character, Orr, singular they/them is clearly established in Aliens Among Us as the correct set of pronouns for an individual who is not always identifiable as "he" or "she".Because of how the English language works, it seems self-evident to me that "they" is the most preferable option, and I have yet to see any reason for that to change.
Going to reply to both of these at once: what I've been arguing is that Time Lords are not the same thing as Orr. Orr is a constantly-shifting being who is, in fact, non-binary; thus "they" is appropriate.
But Time Lords aren't non-binary — nor is their gender unknown: it's a case that simply doesn't exist in the real world of a being who spends rather period of its life as one sex and gender, then switches for an equally-long and solid period of time. At times the Master is a "he", at times the Master is a "she", but there's never a time (to our knowledge) when the Master identifies as a "they".
Thus I argue that "they" would be appropriate for people whose gender is not "male" or "female", like Orr or Alpha Centauri; or for people whose gender is just unknown; but it doesn't accurately describe the situation of a Time Lord, who is either "male" or "female", as accurately as systematic "he or she"/"she or he" would.
I think this is a very real nuance. My calling-up of in-universe examples of "he or she"-type phrasing hasn't been to argue that "he or she" is the way people in the DWU refer to those whom we in the real world would refer to as "they"; it's been on the basis that "he or she" and the singular "they" mean different things.
- SOTO
If we're making real-world connections, I do know people who use different pronouns at different points in time; their gender fluctuates. They’re genderfluid. I might ask them on a given day what pronouns to use, but ultimately, if I’m unsure, or I’m speaking more generally about them, I will default to they.
The lovely thing about singular they is that it gets to wear two hats: they’re both gender-specific pronouns, used by many trans and nonbinary people, and generic, neutral gender-nonspecific pronouns, for anyone.
So I am not claiming here that the Doctor prefers they/them pronouns, or that they’re the best pronouns to use in all cases, as with Orr.
I’m using the latter sense, of gender-nonspecificity. Sometimes they’re "he", sometimes they’re "she", so described generally, "they" is most appropriate.
"They" is like "he or she", but compact, and doesn’t carry "or she" as a mere afterthought. Since "they" can be gender-nonspecific, its use is not limited to people who are not at all "he" or "she", or who fall somewhere in between. The Doctor is, in fact, he and she, at different points in their timeline.
It’s true neutral, not constrained to two options, and that means it's also future-proof. Time Lords can regenerate into any sort of person, so you never know what their future holds.
Five actually describes gender as fluid, for many people, and "even more so" for Time Lords. And Twelve says Time Lords are above "petty human concepts" of strict binary gender, so why force it onto them?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm… I'm kind of coming round to your view of things, but a few points:
- I do know of genderfluid people, but Time Lords felt yet again different: they don't change "at random" while still keeping the same body; each life, which is in many ways its own sentient entity, has a different gender. I think the difference is worth keeping in mind.
- I was definitely not using "he or she" in a sense where "she" is an "afterthought"; I meant it as literally what it is, "he" or "she" having equal values. If you do think that such a wording implies precedence of the "he", my suggestion would be that we'd flip it around depending either on majority (in which case, for example, Kenossium's lead would say "she or he") or latest known incarnation (in which case the Doctor's lead would read "she or he", but be switched back to "he or she" if and when we get a male Doctor again).
- Concerning the "petty human obsession (blah blah)" quote, look upthread for the very reasonable out-pointing that put back into its context the quote isn't supposed to be that convincing. The Fifth Doctor quote is a much better contender, if nothing else.
Still, if a majority feel that "they" can describe a being who has at times been a "he", at times a "she", and never a positive "they", even if we know about when that being was one or the other… then I'll retract my objection. Personally I feel that "they" oughtn't cover such situations, and "he or she" is better, but I'm not the Glorious Crowned Monarch of the Tongue of Shakespeare Incarnate, or anything.
- Game-fanatic
Thank goodness this thread was reopened. I was just wanting to discuss the sudden closure, in fact, as I was upset about what seemed like a rash, arbitrary, and honestly somewhat personal-agenda-motivated decision. I would have loved the opportunity to respond to some of the comments, because I really don’t see it being nearly as finished as Soto seemed to have independently decided. Now, please understand that it is not at all my intention to insult anyone, and I do not wish to disrespect Soto, but this issue must be spoken of with frankness in order to progress in any way, and I believed the closure was a simple, forgivable error in judgment.
Soto, your first comment brought almost entirely already-addressed - and I would argue pretty soundly refuted - points in our discussion, yet you stated them as matters of indisputable fact without much of an attempt to counter the arguments previously established against them, which had all yet to be successfully countered.
And then you went on to bring up the question of correct English, which I appreciated, as that had not received much discussion at that point in time. But then, instead of allowing the discussion on that currently controversial topic to unfold naturally, you, seemingly in part out of a personal thing of yours that I made clear in beginning the discussion should have no part in the decision-making process for this specifically in-universe issue (because, as much as any side of that issue in the real-life cultural sphere would like it to be, it is not yet a fully decided thing upon which everyone is ready to universally and correctly agree without a lot controversy, and I believe as a source of what is supposed to be only objective information, we must not allow this Wiki’s addressing of in-universe issues to be driven by any sociopolitical agendas from the outside), made a unilateral decision for the whole of the English-speaking world and closed the discussion on the basis of that decision. As an English major, the language and its use is very important to me, and so the conclusion that the issue of singular they is not at all questionable is something I find egregiously presumptuous and overly simplified.
You mentioned historical usage and cited such sources as the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster as if they supported your conclusion when in fact they do no such thing. What Shakespeare wrote does not define how we use the language today, and Oxford Dictionary admits that there has been no such definitive conclusion of singular they’s supposedly being grammatically correct, while Merriam-Webster merely seems to advocate for its use in this “new” context more than officially declare some kind of universal consensus regarding it.
But beyond that, you also seem to sometimes conflate the issue of singular they as it has been traditionally used in common speech as a substitute for the generic he (which you went on a seemingly off-topic tangent about regarding the theory of its being rooted in sexism, which some have argued that it is no more necessarily, inherently misogynistic than the relatively tame “mankind,” by the way) with the separate issue of the use of a singular they for directly referring to specific, known individuals. “They” is used in a singular way pretty regularly throughout history by many people, true (though that fact does not in itself mean it must be considered proper grammar), but never commonly in reference to specific, known people.
Dictionary.com says it well with this explanation: “However, while use of they and its forms after singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference or indefinite gender is common and generally acceptable, their use to refer to a single clearly specified, known, or named person is uncommon and likely to be noticed and criticized.” And Oxford Dictionary actually makes it clear in their entry for the definition of the word “they” that there is still a lack of common use or acceptance of many forms of a singular they, so that is definitely not a place to run to to say with such certainty that we can use “they” however we like, as you essentially were trying to do. These entries concur with what has been ruled by the style guides of MLA, Chicago, AP, and APA. Even still, they all pretty strongly discourage just about any use of singular they in formal writing and always instead suggest avoiding having to write a generic pronoun at all in the wording, and beyond that, only allow “they” to be used to refer to self-identifying genderqueer individuals solely on the basis that that is specifically what those individuals explicitly insist to be called, with Chicago admitting that, even though it is acceptable in limited cases, that “this usage is still not widespread either in speech or in writing,” and AP going so far as to say to “use the person’s name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible” but, if this use of “they” is truly essential, to “explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun.”
So it really is not as simple and conclusive as it was previously made out to be, and referring to anyone whenever you happen to be slightly confused about where they might fall gender-wise as “they” is definitely not some official rule in the slightest, grammatically. Rather, the only “rule” of the sort that we do sort of have available to us - and a technical and rare one at that - is completely dependent on what the person being referred to specifically wants to be called and only applies to genderqueer individuals. And while “Ask a friend if they could help” may make perfect sense and sound pretty natural in common, informal language, that is being said in a general, ambiguous way and not in a specifically personal, individual one. Disregarding the awkward lack of flow that that other practice can sometimes entail, I understand the current social push to try to force that pronoun into that specific use and make it acceptable. But there has to be a more organic way to make that happen, as that’s not the way language works. People cannot attempt to hijack the natural process of language’s evolution in order to fit a particular agenda, and that is why “they” is still uncommon to use in that way, regardless of what any of us may want.
So, while of course Time Lords seem to be “gender fluid,” in a manner of speaking, in that their regenerations can literally make them change sex, they obviously do not exactly fit with the situation of those who believe themselves to be “non-gender-binary” in human terms. So, since none of the Time Lords we are discussing have ever identified as genderqueer in any way; since, if they hypothetically were to, it still would not automatically mean they should be referred to individually as “they,” grammatically speaking, since some genderqueer individuals prefer to be called “he,” “she,” “ze,” etc.; since the logical conclusion of doing this would require referring to every Time Lord as “they,” and potentially everyone else, too, based on reasoning I explained earlier; and, most importantly, since the show already does with specificity indicate what pronouns these specific Time Lords are to be referred to with from the mouths of Time Lords themselves (those that fit with their dominant sex, evidently, as laid out thoroughly before in special detail by Scrooge), I would like to take us back to rule #1, which Soto mentioned and which is as follows: “In general, use the pronouns given within a narrative.” Once again, that would mean, in correspondence with the fact that the whole cannot be defined by its anomalous exceptions (which has been indisputably proven to be the case with these four Time Lords) and with what most all of the in-narrative evidence we have from the show thus far (as opposed to the argument for “they” that is consistently being made from material that is not in-narrative), that the Doctor, Master, General, and Corsair are not to be referred to as “they,” but I would argue for now as “he,” “he,” “she,” and “he.”
- Game-fanatic
The Osgood conversation is a good example of the perspective thing, but I’m not entirely convinced yet that that could apply to all of the pronoun references we’ve mentioned so far in this thread.
- Game-fanatic
And since the rules of grammar do not suggest we should use “they” for these Time Lords, but in fact strongly suggest avoiding doing so, as I have argued, I really think an effort to better fit in-show dialogue and patterns with what we do is precisely what should be happening, and really all we can do. But again, I also agree that it would be useful to potentially get more information of that sort from series 11 to do that with.
- Game-fanatic
By the way, I just wanted to say, in case Series 11 has already or will soon disclose more information on this matter, I haven’t seen it yet, but I will be binging it some time soon. The reason is that I am currently working through a chronological marathon of the entire Whoniverse, and I’m not quite to that point yet. So I’d really appreciate that no final decisions be made based on information from series 11 until I see it, too, if that’s not too much to ask. I just really want to have a part in interpreting the information presented there and such
- Amorkuz
Well, I was planning to write an extended reply for quite some time. But we all know where good intentions lead. However, there was new information, and it did not come from Series 11. Here is the quote
Scan me again. I'm not loba or human. I'm not man or woman in the way you understand it. Scan me again!
To give context, this was an explanation provided in a misogynistic society when she was charged with a violation as a female. Plus, she was talking to a drone. There is zero per cent of joke here. It is a matter of life and if not death, then a very painful torture. The reference to species right before shows, in addition, that she is
novnot (thanks to Shambala108 for pointing out the typo) speaking about herself personally.This is, therefore, how Time Lords perceive gender. I hope that this quote would put to rest once and for all any idea of having any preference for a gender applied to Time Lords. Any particular incarnation has a current gender, but it is wrong to apply a particular gender to the whole lifetime of a Time Lord.
- Game-fanatic
Now that is by far the best piece of evidence we’ve gotten for using “they” so far. If anything will convince that’s the correct pronoun, it’ll be that quote there, so thanks for that. However, I still have a few questions / reservations. First, is that from the book The Good Doctor? And also, more importantly, one thing about that quote that sticks out to me is “in the way you understand it”; what could that mean specifically - perhaps more context could help? Finally, even if we do say this quote definitely means what we think it means without a shadow of doubt (though I would still think we should wait it out until series 11 is finished just in case more detailed insight can be gleaned on the issue, personally), what does that mean for all of the information we gleaned about how Time Lords view gender based on dialogue from the TV series? Does the book’s single quote take precedence over those things?
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote: ... in addition, that she is nov speaking about herself personally.
Sorry, is this supposed to be "now" or "not"? I know it's a typo, but unusually it's not clear what is meant.
Are we now saying that one novel will wipe out decades of pre-Jodie references to the Doctor as "he"? Because I'm pretty sure that up till now the Doctor has always been referred to as "he", despite what this novel is now saying. I've read over 400 prose stories featuring the Doctor, and these stories never use the pronoun "they". Food for thought.
- Amorkuz
Apologies. That was a "not". I meant: In addition, the full quote shows that she is not speaking of herself personally. This is not a characteristic applied to her only. This is a general property of all Time Lords.
I'll write more later, but in short I view this quote as the affirmation of the current rules. "He"/"she" when referring to a particular incarnation or to an opinion of the said incarnation about themselves, as in many quotes above. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence for this. However, talking from an outside perspective (End of the universe perspective) about a Time Lord, there is no correct way of picking a gender, even if one gender appeared more times among the incarnations,
- Game-fanatic
Another thing I just noticed that brings a question to my mind: she demands the drone scan her again after saying she is not human or loba, not male or female “in the way you understand it” (which, once again, is an important piece of that quote, as I wonder what the “way [they] understand it” may be and if that “way” could affect how we interpret the meaning of this quote) - but what would the drone be scanning then except for her biology? Meaning, is this “I’m not man or woman” business actually referring not to anything that would necessarily apply to gendered pronouns, but rather her differences in physical anatomy as a Time Lord?
- Amorkuz
Ok, let me try to answer all questions now:
- Yes, this is from The Good Doctor (there is a link in the quote box, marked "[src]").
- "in the way you understand it" does not get explained more. It is easy to speculate that a Time Lord speaking to a human-programmed drone does not expect it to fully comprehend her biology or technology. This has been established more or less from the beginning of the show. Compare it to a slightly more rude
Not quite clear, is it. I can see by your face that you're not certain. You don't understand. And I knew you wouldn't. Never mind.
Given that the drone is not a thinking organism and has no imagination, this statement appears to also be factual. The drone does not have a concept of a species who routinely change gender in the course of an individual's lifetime.
- We should absolutely wait till the end of Series 11 as that was the whole point of reopening the discussion (not rediscussing things but searching for new in-universe information)
- In my view, this quote provides exactly the same view of the gender as all the previous mentions. The "dominant/natural gender" theory always lacked in-universe background whereas there were several occurrences of various Doctors stating that gender is not a fixed concept for Time Lords (cf. the upthread quote from Series 10). The only argument put forward against them was that they might have been a joke or did not reflect on all Time Lords. I've only added one that is all but impossible to dispute on such grounds. Other than that it affirms all the previous quotes. Just like hair colour is not a stable characteristic for a human though some people die before becoming grey-haired (I've also known people who changed hair colour spontaneously in their teens, from blonde to black), so male/female is not a stable characteristic for Time Lords though some of them never get to be the other gender.
- Regarding prior references to the Doctor. After suggesting to wait for Series 11 and watching the episodes, one after another, I was being disappointed that nothing came up. But then I realised I was being overoptimistic. Of course, in most cases, the Doctor would refer to a particular period of their life, which would determine a pronoun. Or, as in a Missy quote upthread, she would refer to her earlier male incarnation from her current vantage point using her current gender pronoun. In other words, in a normal story, most references would be subjective and this subjective reference point would naturally determine a he/she pronoun. On the contrary, our articles are supposed to be objective, which removes this reference point. Still in most cases, we can guess the incarnation (or infer that whatever the incarnation is meant, it was a male), which would still provide a specific he/she pronoun. In the same way, I now describe myself as dark-haired even though this description would hopefully become inaccurate at some point. And even then I would describe me now to my grandchildren as dark-haired. It is very rare mentions that really deal with the whole life of a Time Lord, from beginning to end, that we are disputing how to handle. Shambala108, I would be interested to see how they have been handled in the past to get a better picture of it.
- Regarding scanning again. My understanding is, indeed, that she wants the drone to realise she does not fit into its database of humans and loba, which is why she cannot be considered a female as humans and loba would understand it. But whatever the finer shades of meaning, we should not try to change or negate the meaning of a clear statement based solely on speculation. In many other quotes, some measure of hedging was admittedly happening. It is simply not the case here. The simplest, most direct way of reading "you" in "as you understand it" is to apply it to you and me and every other reader. She is talking to a human-programmed drone. We are humans. She is not male or female the way we understand it.
Let me know if I missed something.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: The "dominant/natural gender" theory always lacked in-universe background whereas there were several occurrences of various Doctors stating that gender is not a fixed concept for Time Lords (cf. the upthread quote from Series 10). The only argument put forward against them was that they might have been a joke or did not reflect on all Time Lords.
Again you overlook my interpretation that I've much argued upthread, that the Time Lords may not have a dominant gender, but that doesn't mean (unless one particular incarnation is non-binary) that they should be referred to as "they" when talking about them in general, because they have been a "he" or a "she", but would not ever, that we know of, identify as a "they". As I've said time and time again this is a separate argument.
And I don't think it's been proven that the Series 10 wasn't a joke. That doesn't mean much in the grander scheme of things, since the definitely-non-jokey quote from the comic is just as decisive, but I won't have the perfectly-true statemnt "the Series 10 quote is a joke" painted as just a straw-grasping argument.
Amorkuz wrote:
- Regarding prior references to the Doctor. After suggesting to wait for Series 11 and watching the episodes, one after another, I was being disappointed that nothing came up. But then I realised I was being overoptimistic.
Eh, I'm holding out a little hope. If "the Timeless Child" is something to do with the Doctor's distant past, as most speculation has it, we might get some juicy statements about the Doctor across-regenerations before the series' close. The chances may be slim but they exist.
Beyond these three points, thank you for the in-depth post and novel-checking!
- NateBumber
Worth mentioning this snippet from A Soldier's Education (emphasis mine):
Where we have honour, this foe is honourless. Where we have single-minded purity, they are polluted by compassion. Where we have a healthy contempt for those who are not of the Empire, this foe allies themself constantly with lesser races. Most confusingly, this Time Lord consorts with humans, even recklessly allowing their human pets access to a timeship and other advanced technologies.
- Amorkuz
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Again you overlook my interpretation
Overlook = do not argue against it at the moment? Indeed, I wasn't. At the moment. :)
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: And I don't think it's been proven that the Series 10 wasn't a joke. That doesn't mean much in the grander scheme of things, since the definitely-non-jokey quote from the comic is just as decisive, but I won't have the perfectly-true statemnt "the Series 10 quote is a joke" painted as just a straw-grasping argument.
You misunderstand me. I'm a mathematician. When I say "the only argument", in no way do I mean a bad argument, or wrong argument, or insufficient argument. One proof is sufficient in mathematics. I never believed this argument myself, but I could not conclusively disprove it either, which is why I mentioned hedging. I strongly disagree with the "perfectly-true" characterisation. But I never meant to say that the argument was perfectly false either, or straw grasping. It simply happens sometimes that something that comes across as a joke was not meant as one. SOTO at some point persuaded me and many others that "Petronella" as Osgood's name must have been a joke. It was a brilliant and thorough statistical and contextual analysis of the text. It later (1+ years later) turned out that it was intended as her real name because it was used in credits and in text in other stories.
So no offence was intended. Simply a statement that taking multiple quotes together invalidates the theory that Series 10 quote was a joke.
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Beyond these three points, thank you for the in-depth post and novel-checking!
Always at your service.
- Scrooge MacDuck
So no offence was intended. Simply a statement that taking multiple quotes together invalidates the theory that Series 10 quote was a joke.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you intended any offence. I simply thought it plausible that in this gargantuan discussion you'd lost track of some of the arguments involved.
For the record, I'm still not convinced that the Series 10 quote wasn't a joke. What has been proven is that gender is a fluid concept for Time Lords; that much is clear. But the particular statement in the Series 10 quote was that "[they]'re well past humans' petty obsession with gender and its stereotypes", against which Bill argued (and the Doctor had nothing to reply to that) that they still called themselves Time Lords as a species, calling attention to a stereotype of "males = in power". The joke being in the Doctor's rose-tinted statement being shot down by something so fundamental as the name of the species they're discussing.
But again, those two nuggets of information (the one from the other quotes: that gender is famous fluid and complex for Time Lords, and the one from taking the Series 10 quote as a joke: that they are, despite the Doctor's claims, not free from the stereotypes associated with various genders) are not incompatible. It could very well be, just off the top of my head, that precisely because Time Lords can more-or-less-subconsciously elect to be any gender by their next regeneration, gender stereotypes are more widespread in their society than on real-life Earth, since they're way less offensive and objectionable when you're not denigrating anyone's fundamental nature but rather something they can change as easily as humans can change haircuts.
Or, you know, a billion other possibilities. Going further than that would be Howling territory. But the Series 10 quote can still be a joke without putting the other quotes into question.
- Amorkuz
By the way, there is another quote explaining the Time Lady thing. But I do not guarantee this one is serious.
As incredible as that was, there was something else too. The Doctor's twelve previous bodies had all been male. Yaz's mind boggled every time she tried to picture the Doctor as a man - which she had been for over two thousand years. Knowing her now that just seemed mad. Although, it did explain one thing.
'That's why you call yourself a Time Lord, not a Time Lady,' Yaz muttered.
The Doctor had sharp ears. 'No, it's because "Time Lady" sounds like a watch you'd buy on the shopping channel.'
- Scrooge MacDuck
Though interesting, all this quote does is propose two possible explanations of why the Doctor describes himself/herself/themselves as a Time Lord. The Series 10 quote asks why the species as a whole calls itself Time Lords rather than Time Ladies. (Well, I say "species". The old "are all Gallifreyans Time Lords?" debate applies.)
For what it's worth, whether a Time Lord in a female body will call themselves a Time Lady seems to be established as something that's up to personal taste among Gallifreyans. As I recall, Missy says she calls herself a Time Lady because she's "old-fashioned", implying it used to be the regular form for female Time Lords but fell out of favor at some point before the Deca's time.
- Amorkuz
Agreed, this quote is useless despite being relevant. Still not giving it here would mean overlooking some evidence. Not all evidence is useful.
- Game-fanatic
I am planning out a lengthy reply to some of these comments soon, just so you two know I haven't died or anything. Just really busy at the moment. But thanks for the new and quite humorous quote, Amorkuz.
NateBumber, could you please give us some context about that quote? Who is speaking? Is the speaker referring to the Doctor? What's going on exactly?
- Game-fanatic
I posted a comment, but do not see it... Hmm...
- Shambala108
That sometimes happens to people. It's usually a good idea, if you have a long message to post, to copy it before publishing it, just in case.
- Game-fanatic
Welp I’ll have to try to rewrite that whole thing at some point...
- Game-fanatic
Well, I rewrote it. Not as elegant as it was the first time, but I think I remembered everything I needed to address...
Sure the Doctor has said individuals of other species wouldn’t understand him before, but this is the first time to my knowledge that she has said anything of the sort regarding Time Lord gender specifically. So it’s important to me to figure out in what way exactly she means the Time Lord concept of “man or woman” differs from human/loba gender in the “way” a human-built drone would understand it, as I don’t think it’s necessarily as clear and definitive as we’re assuming. There are very different and equally possible interpretations for what that “way” could be when just reading that quote in isolation with no other context.
For instance, my first assumption would be that it might supposed to be clearly referring to the fact that Time Lords can spontaneously change sex with regeneration, meaning they could be both male and female at many different times throughout their lives. That of course differs from humans, as they are not basically just stuck with one sex from birth to death as we are, necessarily. But that only addresses the physical change and is thus not anything we don’t already know about, so that doesn’t help us any more in determining pronouns or anything.
Another thought would be that, since she asks the drone to scan her again, if she actually expects it to be able to detect something about that through a second scan, the “way” she differs from how the drone would understand “man or woman” must be referring to an actual, anatomical difference. But that would be more of a species thing than a sexual thing (two hearts and such), so in that case the “man or woman in the way you understand it” comment would actually have to be an extension of her differentiating herself from the humans and the lobas, just elaborating on how she is in fact neither, but an entirely different thing, a Time Lord - the “man or woman” bit specifically being worth bringing up only because that is evidently the only thing the drone was scanning for, as opposed to seeing whether she was even human/loba at all to begin with. But once again, that wouldn’t tell us any more information than what we have already known and so couldn’t help us in determining pronouns.
The other possibility is that the “man or woman” part of the quote is just more of a corrective aside not directly related to the explanation that she is not human/loba or to her request for another scan. In this case only could we attempt to derive information on using different pronouns from.
So do you see my issue with the quote yet?
Also, it seems you are operating under the understanding that there are plenty of quotes that support the “they” usage but that we’re only not sure because they might be jokes or might not apply universally, but I disagree. I assume you must be referring to the Fifth Doctor quote about gender being a fluid concept and the Twelfth Doctor quote about Time Lords being beyond gender and its stereotypes. Well, as for the Fifth Doctor quote, once again I must say that while of course Time Lords seem to be “gender fluid,” in a manner of speaking, in that their regenerations can literally make them change sex, they obviously do not exactly fit with the situation of those who believe themselves to be “non-gender-binary” in human terms. So, since none of the Time Lords we are discussing have ever identified as genderqueer in any way (though perhaps this new Thirteenth Doctor quote will be argued to change that in some way) and since, if they hypothetically were to, it still would not automatically mean they should be referred to individually as “they,” since some genderqueer individuals prefer to be called “he,” “she,” “ze,” etc., that quote does not support the “they” usage period.
As for the Twelfth Doctor quote, once again, that has been thoroughly refuted both by the scene itself’s being written to “debunk” itself, as well as the countless instances throughout the show supporting the invalidity of that scene through consistently and blatantly showing many Time Lords expressing all kinds of gendered thinking and stereotypes. The Doctor there is written to be an unreliable narrator there in a situation played for laughs.
And another issue I’m noticing is that we all seem to be failing to address the fact that the show has already established a pronoun system for how to refer to these Time Lords by its own dialogue that we are completely ignoring. There has to my knowledge yet to be anyone to disprove this system in order to even merit forming our own using “they” to begin with. Remember the Corsair being a he expect when he’s a she and the General considering being female back to normal and the Master always being the Master except when she’s the Mistress (which is also how this Wiki even treats the gendered name switch)? All of these examples and more are still just sitting there, contradicting the “they” idea and not being examined…
And for future note, though I have still not seen series 11, I have heard there has been a few gender mixups and things of that sort from the Doctor, so I will be interested in discussing the implications of those once I see what they are and their contexts, and also if we eventually do end up determining “they” is the best English descriptor for this alien species in light of this new quote, we must not neglect to address the real issues of how to deal with the Master’s names and the fact that that will mean ALL Time Lords should be “they.”
- Amorkuz
I really did not want to go all admin mode. I prefer it when the discussion develops naturally and I can sit back and provide relevant info. So I did not interfere when, after another admin reopened the thread based on my request to hold on for potential new information from the new season and after the admin who closed it affirmed that new information would, of course, be of interest but warned that we shouldn't rehash conversations that led to the current policy in the first place, when soon after that a post continued along the same line of rehashing old arguments, discussing, of all things, English language, which is not likely to have been affected by Series 11 all that much, and made quite a lot of accusatory remarks, which did not sit well with me, personally.
So let me start from the end.
Game-fanatic wrote: if we eventually do end up determining “they” is the best English descriptor
You have it exactly backwards. We have already determined in Thread:152896 that they has to be used whenever source(s) do not provide a unique personal pronoun. This is a wiki-wide policy, and everyone has to follow it whether they like it or not, whether they agree with it or not, whether they participated in that discussion or not (see Tardis:You are bound by current policy if you have questions). In particular, since the Doctor is addressed as she in some stories (as the Thirteenth Doctor) and as he (as the First Doctor), then they have to be addressed by "they" by default and any deviation requires a justification. Same goes for the Master, for Kenossium, for the Corsair and for any other individual who has been addressed as both he and she.
Anyone who thinks that in individual cases some sources can be ignored in favour of other sources has to give a rationale that does not conflict with our policy of giving "all media equal weight" (Tardis:Neutral point of view) and that is based on new, not yet discussed evidence. By now, three admin explicitly asked to search for such evidence. And some evidence has been provided. What I do not understand is why some participants of this discussion, instead of providing evidence in favour of he/she, argue against the evidence provided for they.
The burden of proof is actually on the other side. You want to use he/she? Please provide new in-universe evidence why sources using she/he must be ignored. If you have not seen Series 11, which was the main rationale for reopening the thread, if you do not provide new evidence in favour of choosing he over she or she over he, then your posts do not bring anything new to the table. Once again, they is currently the law of the land. It need not be further justified. And, as someone with experience closing threads, I can tell you that you are only making the job of the closing admin harder without adding new information. And therefore, I would respectfully ask you to go and search for evidence in favour of he/she instead of trying to knock down new quotes reaffirming the old policy of using they.
Admin-hat off.
- Game-fanatic
Well I appreciate your contributions whether your admin hat is on or off, so thank you either way. As for the post about the English language, that was a relevant part of the discussion that Soto made a point to bring up, so where assertions are made that I know to be questionable grammatically speaking, I will speak up. Apologies if and when I ever fail to do so in a non-accusatory way.
As for the perspective of proving he/she versus proving they, my whole point in starting this thread was to show that the overwhelming majority of all of the evidence we have that is relevant to this issue in the show already inherently contradicts the they usage and supports he/she. The argument has been made pretty thoroughly, and much of the relevant dialogue dissected, and most of it points to he/she.
Others have since proceeded to provide individual instances that lend evidence for they, but so far most of them have been questionable at best upon analysis or are coming from an argument being made almost exclusively based on out-of-universe information or ideas.
I was simply continuing with this process how I see it has been going.
- Game-fanatic
I also should probably note that my writing style and just the way I organize my thoughts unfailingly sounds pretentious, as I have been told before, and so I do apologize about that. It is definitely not my intention if I am coming across that way, which I probably have been throughout this entire thread, no doubt.
- DW114
After reading through most of this, and the original thread, I still don't get why we would use "they" for refering to an individual. The in-universe mechanics of Time Lords changing gender are completely irrelevant to this discussion, the point is that any text that uses "they" (plural) to refer to a single person/object/thing/etc (singular) becomes completely unreadable.
I understand the issue with refering to for example the Doctor (general) as "he" or "she" since there both male/female incarnations of the Doctor. But there are solutions to this issue that don't break the text. Simplest would be to just use "he/she" but that does look a bit funky. Other option would be to just pick the prevalent gender (12/13 male > 1/13 female = he). Or the first incarnation's gender (if known). I could probably think of more alternatives, but randomly switching to plural is not the way to go if you want the text to make sense.
- Amorkuz
Admin note (for umpteenth time). Using "they" is the current policy of the wiki and is mandated for all users in cases discussed above. This thread is not about "randomly switching to plural". This thread is actually about randomly switching to singular in cases when the choice of such singular is unclear/unsupported by a narrative.
Admin note 2 (again for umpteenth time). Discussions of "prevalent gender" should be accompanied by in-universe quotes confirming that the Doctor or other Time Lords (a) accept the concept of prevalent gender in principle and (b) explain how prevalent gender is ascertained for an individual.
- DW114
Amorkuz wrote: Admin note (for umpteenth time). Using "they" is the current policy of the wiki and is mandated for all users in cases discussed above.
Sorry, I'm new...I read "our Panopticon is the home of our greatest policy debates." and assumed the purpose of this forum was to discuss policy. If not then what is it for and where would one go to discuss policy?
Amorkuz wrote: This thread is not about "randomly switching to plural". This thread is actually about randomly switching to singular in cases when the choice of such singular is unclear/unsupported by a narrative.
Please clafiry, as I understand from reading the thread it is about refering to the Doctor (a singular entity) as "they" (a plural pronoun). Actually, to be a bit more accurate the OP is about the misuse of pronouns creating problems in terms of readability, which is also what my comment was about.
Anyway, in essence my point is that this policy of using non-standard grammar is making the wikia harder to read (especially for non-native English speakers such as myself) and therefor I think it would be a good policy proposal to use 'regular' english pronouns.
I really don't see how in-universe information affects fundamental grammar, we're writing this in English for a real world human audience therefor the basic langauge used should be English (either UK/US standard, take your pick) and any non-English should be taken directly from the show not just made up by the users or taken from some obscure random dialect that has no bearing on the show.
EDIT: I didn't go into the "prevalent gender" thing that deeply because it was just an example, not the main point of the comment. Off the cuff suggestions to illustrate a further point don't need citations imho.
- Amorkuz
This thread IS to discuss policy. However, by Tardis:You are bound by current policy, the current policy remains in force unless this debate is concluded (by an admin) with a decision to change it. You erroneously assumed that this thread tries to introduce "they" to the wiki. In fact, the opposite is true. The use of they has been decided several years ago in Thread:152896. Everything written in the last post of that thread, including the note from SOTO is the current policy and must be adhered to.
This thread is, indeed, about changing this current policy of using "they" in referring to the Doctor and other multigendered individuals (Time Lord or not). It appears that the OP was under the same erroneous impression as you, which explains why your reading of the OP does not give you a current picture of the wiki policies. This is why, as an admin, it is my job to clarify it to you and all participants.
If you believe that the current usage of "they" has to be changed, you need to provide an easily implementable mechanism of choosing another pronoun, that relies on in-universe sources. The argument that, out of four 3rd person pronouns, "they" magically makes things unreadable has been discussed before the current policy has been decided and, therefore, should not be brought to this discussion by T:POINT (even though it has already been addressed upthread). In order to change the current policy, one has to provide new arguments in favour of changing.
Off-the-cuff remarks not supported by persuasive in-universe justifications, in fact, refuted my multiple in-universe quotes provided above, will rightfully be ignored by the closing admin. Thus, I strongly discourage users from issuing them as they do not help anyone and make the work of the closing admin unnecessarily harder.
To further address the concerns of User:DW114, they mostly stem with their unfamiliarity with this wiki's policies (incidentally, one of such policies is to use "they" referring to persons whose gender is unknown to the poster, which is the most common situation among editors). When DW114 write "should be English (either UK/US standard, take your pick)", they go against the established policy of this wiki to use British English. Their comment about in-universe information being irrelvant to the discussion is equally misinformed as in-universe information always takes prevalence over the real world as per T:NO RW.
Finally, as for "obscure random dialect", I strongly recommend DW114 to take their time to read all the threads linked to above. This wiki can boast of quite educated editors who do proper research before posting. In course of such research done in earlier threads, the use of "they" in standard English has been found to go several hundred years back. There are sources and discussions galore. I encourage DW114 to familiarise themselves with this accumulated knowledge before extending this already extremely long thread to the point that no admin will ever be able to close it.
- DW114
Nevermind, I understand now. If as a moderator you are this incapable of reading a simple post there is no way wikia policy will make sense. To clarify:
Both me and the OP clearly understand this is current policy and want to talk about changing this, you somehow missed that and assumed we assumed this thread tried to introduce the "they" thing, which is in itself a bit of a paradox.
I'm also a bit offended you reply to me in the third person as if I'm not in this conversation.
Anyway, don't bother banning me, I'll ban myself thank you very much. Good luck with your raging insanity.
- Amorkuz
After this short intrusion into our policy debates by a user who has not made a single substantive edit to the wiki, I hope we can return to discussing the matter substantively.
A note to make the work of the closing admin simpler: per T:DISCUSS, Users who are mostly here to use our discussion areas may find that their opinions on how to actually edit the wiki are discounted. It's important that your editing with us be well-rounded if you want your opinions in our forums to be taken seriously. Thus, all above posts of User:DW114, who has zero editorial experience, can safely be disregarded.
- Amorkuz
Since I've been reminded of the existence of this thread for unrelated reasons, here is another in-universe quote. Credit goes to SOTO for unearthing it:
'No, thanks.' Sam was surprised to find she did not need to think about the answer. 'There's some stuff I need to do here.'
'Oh?'
'I can't explain. You wouldn't understand.'
'Oh?'
'Yes.' Why did she suddenly feel on the defensive?
'Because I'm a man and you're a woman?'
'Yes, actually.'
The Doctor raised his eyebrows. 'But I'm not a man.'
Sam opened her mouth to speak, then shut it again.
He continued, 'I'm not even human. Not even close. Not unless you count the ears.' He wiggled them to make his point.
- Danniesen
I fully concur with Amorkuz and current policy. Makes perfect sense and is perfectly readable.
- Shambala108
My two cents (or maybe I should say six cents since I have three main points to make):
The following sentence comes from The Doctor's grandmothers:
- "According to the Thirteenth Doctor, the Doctor had seven grandmothers in their youth."
This is extremely misleading. "The Doctor" is singular, "grandmothers" is plural; and yet the "their" goes with the singular noun. Are/were the grandmothers in their youth? This kind of sentence is why I adamantly oppose the so-called "singular they", no matter how acceptable some in the field of grammar consider it. And honestly, after more than a decade of teaching grammar, I've never seen it used this way.
The truth is, this wiki is not for us. Most wikis are edited by probably less than 10% of the people who visit. That's why some of our policies seem to make no sense - they are aimed at the majority, that is, the readers of the wiki. We have a lot of knowledge about the DWU but I think many editors fail to understand that most viewers of this wiki do not have that detailed knowledge. Confusing syntax and grammar should be the last thing we want to see on the wiki.
Lastly, User:Amorkuz has cited T:DISCUSS as a reason to ignore a new user's posts above. However, that is taking the policy to a (very unwelcoming) extreme. My experience is that we have a lot of new users come to the forums first, probably because they want to engage in discussion about Doctor Who. It's important to make sure these new users feel welcome here and help them understand how the wiki works.
- Danniesen
It makes perfect sense to say it that way. I have not a single problem reading that sentence and it is very clear what it refers to.
Also, Amorkuz tried to be nice to the user and tried to explain the policy of the wikia, but when you are called insane, the ball of niceties drop heavily and it is perfectly acceptable that Amorkuz had had enough.
- Imamadmad
Shambala108 wrote: The following sentence comes from The Doctor's grandmothers:
- "According to the Thirteenth Doctor, the Doctor had seven grandmothers in their youth."
Sticking my nose in here where it doesn't really belong (that snippet from T:DISCUSS is particularly relevant in my case as a long-time forum dweller), but I believe that any confusion coming from that sentence comes from the fact that that sentence is a poor sentence, not because of the singular "they".
Consider if the sentence were instead:
- "According to blah, Rose had a grandmother in her youth."
(Note that I'm not sure that's an accurate statement, just one inserted for demonstration)
The exact same issue arises here from having two female characters, either of whom could be referred to by "her" and both of whom had a "youth". Given the context, you can take a good guess that "her" is referring to Rose in my sentence, just like you'd probably guess that "they" is referring to the Doctor in Shambala's sentence. While you can take a good stab at the intended meaning, if it were a question on DWA, it'd probably be tagged for deletion for being too vague (not that you guys are bound by or care about DWA, but given the many, many, many questions that need to be deleted for vagueness over there, it's fine-tuned my "vague" alarm quite a bit).
Some better ways to word the same sentence to remove the ambiguity while still using the singular "they" could be:
- According to the Thirteenth Doctor, the Doctor had seven grandmothers when they were younger.
- In this instance, using "when they were younger" instead of "in their youth" makes the last part of the statement less applicable to the grandmothers, therefore associating the "they" more closely with the Doctor.
- When the Doctor was in their youth, they had seven grandmothers, according to the Thirteenth Doctor.
- By moving the reference to the grandmothers after the "they", there is only one person available who "they" could apply to.
Or, you could sidestep the vagueness from having two "they"s by changing one "they" back into a "she" through context (given individual Doctor's have well-defined pronouns):
- The Thirteenth Doctor mentioned that she had seven grandmothers in her youth.
These are only a few examples of grammatically correct sentences which would express the concept of Thirteen having seven grandmothers, none of which requires assigning a non-"they" third person singular pronoun to the Doctor as a whole. Yes, it can be more awkward, but it's the same as any sentence talking about two males or two females.
Unless we want to replace all pronouns with initials or some other non-standard pronoun substitute, we're going to be stuck with the ambiguity of having only 3 pronouns to refer to thousands of characters in who knows how many combinations. That doesn't mean that we should remove one of those pronouns; we just need to learn how to write less vague sentences!
Now let me crawl back into my hole to not appear again for another year :)
- Amorkuz
I was planning to switch back to serious things, but my points are being made/reinforced by others (thanks Imamadmad, I couldn't have put it better myself) and, if an editor who is older than me applies my admittedly harsh evaluation of one user onto them, clearly I have to apologise to this long-time editor and explain myself better.
Everyone is welcome on the wiki in general and on the forums in particular. In fact, the very existence of this thread is a testament to how seriously we treat questions and opinions of even the most novice of editors. The OP to this day has only 69 edits, of which only 14 are in the main namespace. No one has ever disregarded their concerns because of that, nor should we. While much of the discussion, unfortunately, does repeat points thoroughly discussed in preceding two threads on this topic, it is not the fault of the OP, and much new material has been provided regardless.
The above-mentioned passage from T:DISCUSS has never been intended for regular use. In fact, there are very few circumstances where its use is warranted. Certainly not for a user in their 8th year on the wiki. In fact, I will go as far as to say that as long as a user is ready to engage in the discussion and provides thoughtful output, their ideas should not be ignored.
Unfortunately, this was not the case with DW114. They came into the discussion late on, said nothing new and decided to leave in their 3rd post on the wiki, ending with something that might be a personal attack against me or disparaging remark towards the whole wiki (the context for "ranging insanity" is not clear enough). To be absolutely clear, if this remark was issued towards any user other than me, a ban for violating Tardis:No personal attacks would have been immediate. Both Shambala108 and I have blocked people for much milder expressions.
There is, therefore, no reason to take posts of this user into consideration as they've taken themselves out of consideration and as they have shown disrespect to opinions of the whole community, by calling the community decision currently in force "randomly switching to plural". Operating on "my way or highway"-paradigm, they've taken the highway voluntarily after 2 posts.
Ans still, were there anything new in their posts, I would not have invoked T:DISCUSS. As it is, they did not bring a single new argument to the table (despite claiming to have read through this and preceding discussions). The "prevalent" gender has been brought up upthread as "dominant/predominant/natural" gender. And claims that it is confusing to use "they" have both been issued multiple times before in all three threads and are useless without specific examples. Now that Shambala108 provided such an example, the discussion immediately moved on.
Closing a thread of 100+ posts as this one is soon to become is hard, and distractions like this make it only harder. Since DW114 had nothing new to say and slammed the door on saying anything ever again, the most reasonable course of actions is to ignore them, which is allowable under T:DISCUSS. And the closing admin would benefit from knowing this.
To summarise, none of the admin (including me) proposes or intends to ignore users based on their number of posts. But it can be done, when the situation warrants it, and this was one of such rare cases.
- Danniesen
To put it in shorter words, DW114 provided nothing new and proceeded to personal insults.
- NateBumber
Don't really have much to say here beyond what's already been said. Obviously, even setting aside the pronoun concerns so aptly identified by Imamadmad, there are plenty of places around the wiki where language is ambiguous and has lead to misunderstandings. While no one would say that these shouldn't be minimized, that's an obligation of the editors, not the policy. Evidence propounds that "they" has been used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun for centuries, and it's obvious that language is only moving further in that direction. Hence, I think this is the best solution to the problem, and I fail to see any other viable solution at all.
Anyone who doesn't see the inadequacies in referring to the Doctor in general as "he" should keep in mind that our considerations need not be limited to the Doctor's past. Various valid sources outside the TV show have hinted at incarnations in the Doctor's future, and by no means are they all male. Eg the novelisation of Rose, which mentions not just Capaldi and Whitaker but also a "tall, bald black woman" and "a young girl or boy in a hi-tech wheelchair" among the Doctor's future forms and faces!
(And these problems are just more pronounced when we realize that the Doctor might have had early incarnations before the First Doctor. Cold Fusion hints that there were further faces beyond the Brain of Morbius ones, and we have no clue about what their genders were. Of course, that's kind of speculatory, so I won't belabour the point.)
Now, briefly addressing the recent upflairs. Searching through this thread and acrostic the site as a whole, I'm still not really seeing any significant reason to question our current policy, which has worked just fine on pages like The Master for the last several years. Experiences while moderating Reddit's Doctor Who communities have left me painfully aware of public outcry over the Thirteenth Doctor's casting, particularly in regards to gender. No doubt, the pervasiveness of that conversation is why this is thread has become such a hot topic of debate. Scenarios like these are when it's most important for cool-headedness and even enforcement of the rules, and I applaud Amorkuz for maintaining this. Ultimately, regardless of what is decided – or even if this thread is left to just rack up posts for the rest of eternity – I hope we can all agree to maintain civility. Successful resolution depends on it.
- OncomingStorm12th
Although this is my first contribution to the thread, I've been following it from the very beggining, and one argunent I've seen a few times is that the "most prevalent" gender of a Time Lordshould determine whether to use "he" or "she" to refer the them as a whole. Aside from the already given arguments to debunk it, a portion of T:IU and T:POV came to my mind:
"Articles about narrative elements — also called "in-universe articles" — are written as if the topic were real, but one that no longer exists"
That would mean we're not dealing only with Hartnell - Capaldi vs Whittaker incarnations here. We're talking about them + a bunch of future incarnations, which means that we can't possibly (as far as those policies are written now) say the Doctor's had a "more prevalent gender", now will we ever can.
I'm also in favour to keep current policy as is: if we know a Time Lord has had at least one male and one female (and/or at least one which is neither) then we refer to them in general as "they"
- Game-fanatic
Wow, I don’t why I keep missing notifications for this thread! Well, anyway, I would just like to thank all of the admins and other users here trying to keep order even when figuring out how to do that right gets tricky!
I would also just like to respond to the idea that has been mentioned regarding the dominant gender idea not being consistent with the Wiki’s policies on an objective, end-of-universe perspective. I don’t see how there is any more problem going with the dominant or birth gender system of pronoun use under our perspective rules on this Wiki than there is with how we have only up to the Thirteenth Doctor represented in the Wiki even though there will be more to come that we will have to add later, or how the Doctor’s personal history is only recorded up to the most recent episode of the show, or how the Sonic Screwdrivers are referred to as the X Doctor’s Sonic Screwdriver initially even though it might eventually become known as the X and X Doctors’ Sonic Screwdriver.
As for the conclusion that “they” is the clear best option grammatically speaking, once again I would like to point out that that is not really a perfectly accurate representation of the true complexities behind the situation, and it might not in fact be the best option in all cases, necessarily.
But that Beltempest quote is VERY interesting. A bit more vague and not elaborated upon than I would have preferred, but very good. Though I suppose one could argue that it is not meant to be taken literally, given the nature of the Doctor’s description of his inhumanness there, the distinction given to both “man” and “human” definitely does to me suggest something more like the view of gender described by 12 to Bill. But if we are to then take that scene with 12 more seriously, that still does not help much with the “they” pronoun argument, since, as has been explained before, that scene does still support a he/she usage as opposed to they.
Also, just a reminder of the gendered precedent that the show has pretty consistently set with multi-sexed Time Lords and the inevitable consequences to the rest of the characters and things indirectly affected by that (namely how to deal with the Master’s name switching which supports the he/she distinction and the fact that that will mean ALL Time Lords should be “they” regardless of whether they’ve ever regenerated into the other sex or not).
- Amorkuz
Game-fanatic, this quote (again found by SOTO) is given in extended format to provide enough context to show that this time there is not even a hint of a joke:
The Doctor swallowed the last of the bread, and pushed his plate away from him. There was no point in doing that, seeing as there weren't any waiters around, but he obviously felt it was important to maintain a sense of etiquette.
'Can I ask you something personal?' he said.
I.M. Foreman nodded. 'I warn you, though. If it's anything to do with how I got this body, the details are going to be messy. You've never been a woman, have you?'
'I'm not sure I've ever even been a man. That's not what I was going to ask.'
'Go on.'
He leaned forward across the plates, and across the bottled universe that lay in the grass between them. His eyes were glinting again. Sure to be a bad sign.
'Are you still a believer?' he asked.
- Game-fanatic
Well once again, if we are to take this quote to mean Time Lords have no concept of gender, that doesn’t remove all the gendered language and thought they consistently use throughout the show. So I guess it’s a matter of writing one of these sources off, the show or the novels? Or perhaps there is a way both can work together at the same time; I believe when I originally dissected the scene between 12 and Bill I mentioned the possible interpretation that perhaps the Time Lords don’t base all of the things relating to gender strictly on biology. But that still doesn’t really say much for a “they” usage...
- Game-fanatic
- ...perhaps the Time Lords simply base all...
- SOTO
It's not in-universe, but the new DWA Special (previewed online; I can't find a place to buy it) uses singular they to refer to the Doctor in general:
- "The Doctor is famous for their awesome ability to regenerate."
It's in an out-of-universe segment with facts about the Doctor, which otherwise uses she/her to discuss the latest incarnation specifically. Like 13D 0 before it, though, it establishes that these official publications have opted to use they/them for the Doctor when discussing them generally, and he/him or she/her for specific incarnations, just as we have.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Aw, phooey. It indeed looks like "they" is becoming accepted. Oh well.
- Game-fanatic
If it would just be accepted by the show, that would make things simpler
- SOTO
(Please note that we give all media equal weight here.)
- Game-fanatic
Right, I'm just referring to the current dilemma of most of the in-universe content seeming to not do much in the way of supporting a "they" usage, while some out-of-universe stuff is explicitly doing so.
- Amorkuz
Well, actually the show starting to use singular "they" for the Doctor would have exactly zero bearing on this thread. This is why I keep reminding everyone that singular "they" is already a policy. What you mean by "If it would just be accepted by the show, that would make things simpler" is "If it would just be accepted by the show, that would make it simpler for me to accept the current policy". But objectively the policy requires no further justification.
I feel that I bear the responsibility for the prolonged existence of this thread, twice. You see, it should have been closed from the get-go by T:POINT. The awkwardness/ambiguity has been covered in Thread:152896 and SOTO's note at the end applies literally to both the Master and the Doctor (the former being a woman for quite some time by the time of that thread's closure). And restarting old discussion without any material difference in circumstance or new arguments does not warrant a repeat discussion.
I hasten to emphasise, in light of the preceding happenings, that it was not Game-fanatic's responsibility to bring this up but mine.
Unfortunately, two things happened. The argument about dominant gender was brought up and in such a way that I felt was not supported if not downright contradicted by in-universe sources. And, frankly, knowing the policy regarding the Doctors, I forgot where it stemmed from, until SOTO brought it up.
When SOTO closed this thread as a duplicate of existing discussions, they were right through and through as, by that time, nothing changed in DWU since 2017 to upset the current policy. The thread was reopened not because new evidence came to light but because it could have come to light, which is not really how T:POINT works. And it was my enthusiasm for in-universe research that prompted the reopening, my second mea culpa.
Still, as Shambala108 said upthread, one can err on the side of welcome and indulge new users even against the letter of the policy. The wait was not too onerous and I went along with it.
That wait is over, by the way, and nothing going against the current policy has surfaced. On the contrary, a couple of quotes undermining the overgenderisation of Time Lords have been found (some by yours truly). While comic stories will continue to be released regularly, it is exactly against the infinite wait for something coming out of them that T:POINT is intended. When (and if) an in-universe source would violate the current policy, then there will be a basis for returning to this discussion.
Having said that, there were certainly additional points and suggestions made by various participants that can be added to the wiki lore in the closing argument. We just have to wait for an admin who has not participated yet to come around and write it. If I have time I might try to summarise everything that was brought up for their consumption.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Amorkuz wrote: And restarting old discussion without any material difference in circumstance or new arguments does not warrant a repeat discussion.
Whether the new arguments were convincing is another matter, but there certainly were new arguments not covered in Thread:152896: off the top of my head, Game-fanatic's original theory that Time Lords had a dominant gender, and my argument that the current policy (which refers to characters of fluid or unknown gender) did not apply to Time Lord, as Time Lord gender was neither, but yet another beast.
That in-universe evidence against Game-fanatic and my positions was later found does not invalidate the fact that new arguments/evidence were brought up. I refuse to see this thread closed on T:POINT when it didn't in fact fail to bring new things to the table. This has happened before with other threads and is extremely unpleasant whenever it happens.
By all means this thread should be closed, but because the new points have been addressed and we have found the current policy was correct after all even in the face of the new ideas — not because the discussion was just reopening the same old debate that had already been concluded.
- Amorkuz
I'll be sure to include these two in my summary then. And no, threads of 100 posts are not generally closed on T:POINT. That train has left a long time ago. (The first closure of this thread was not a T:POINT closure either as it cited new evidence.)
PS And thank you for trying to absolve me of my first mea culpa. :) Perhaps, if not memory, then instinct served me right then.
- Game-fanatic
So correct me if I’m wrong, but we still have no in-universe prescription for referring to Time Lords generally with “they”; it is primarily being done out of out-of-universe ideas being brought into the show. So what’s the problem? The only pronouns we have ever heard any Time Lords ever use/accept are “he” or “she”; and the only in-universe instances there have been of referring to Time Lords with general pronouns suggest still using “he” or “she.” Heck, we even have slightly dubious descriptions of how Time Lords - or in some cases perhaps only the Doctor - view gender (or rather, don’t at all) that even still in themselves continue to support the he/she usage either directly or through simply not specifying any difference from how the he/she pronouns have been used up to that point. So so far I would still argue the “rule #1” idea of generally following the lead of what the majority of in-universe pronouns suggest that we have for some reason not been following in this case is still not in favor of “they.” And that’s not to saying anything about the secondary consequences that have not been addressed relating to this decision and the grammatical issues connected with it (which I of course agree would ultimately have to be trumped by a story’s explicit prescription of using the “they” pronoun, such as in the case of a character like Orr, for example). Furthermore, series 11 arguably did present some even more evidence of the gendered thought Time Lords have been shown to experience the whole time, with the Doctor’s forgetting to switch her pronouns. The he/she usage has been supported consistently through and through.
- SOTO
Just to be clear on how the previous thread ended, it was established that we should generally try to use whatever pronouns are given in the narrative, but if a character like Alpha Centauri is "he" in one story, "it" in another, and still yet "she" in a third story, based on arbitrary decisions on part of the characters, we go with singular they, especially when speaking generally. Or indeed if no clear pronouns are given for a character, and it is left ambiguous.
And the reason they/them is the default is simply: that's how English works, or certainly how it has developed. But even real world English aside, especially in a fictional universe with all sorts of different genders, particular species established as having no gender or no fixed gender, etc., it would be simply nonsensical to assume that either "he" or "she" must always apply. "He or she" is not gender-neutral; it only allows for two options. As the First Doctor says when Ian and Barbara are desperately trying to determine genders for the Torcaldians, it's a big universe and we must "cast aside these preconceptions".
And characters like Orr specifically using singular they as a personal pronoun establishes that they/them is absolutely the established singular gender-neutral pronoun in the DWU, so you can’t base an argument on it being somehow "incorrect", because even the Doctor Who universe does not agree.
- Game-fanatic
Okay, that all sounds well and good, and perhaps I would agree in other circumstances (though Orr seems to be a different case altogether, and Alpha Centauri seems to be a bit questionable, too, grammatically, in that it didn’t identify as “they,” but perhaps I am lacking context, as I am less familiar with that character), except for the fact that in this one the show HAS already prescribed the specific pronouns to be used.
Grammatically speaking, “they” is not just “how English works”; it’s actually very dicey territory and highly dependent on individually specified circumstances and does indicate a specifically genderqueer identification, as I laid out in greater depth before. As for the theory that within the DWU that is the grammatically correct term, nowhere in Aliens Among Us is that confirmed from what I recall; there are no grammarians in the show. The characters simply use “they” (and sometimes “it”) because that’s what they personally decide is most applicable in that instance, as opposed to sticking with either “he” or “she” in this confusing situation which happens to be quite different from that of the Doctor’s. It seems to me that the Time Lords, however, have in fact been prescribed a specific, gendered system of pronouns from what we’ve seen so far that they themselves use. And the real world grammatical basis for a “they” usage does not apply as it does with Orr, since unlike Orr, those Time Lords haven’t expressed the actual preference to be referred to as anything other than “he” or “she,” but have in fact reinforced those terms and used them for general reference based apparently on birth/dominant sex, which makes sense when looking at the individuals from an overall historical perspective, seeing as the only deviations are at this point nothing more than minor exceptions to an otherwise very consistent and longstanding truth of their biologies.
Even using “he/she” (or “she/he” in the cases where the primary sex is female) for the Time Lords that have changed sex would be a radically more accurate and consistent method with the show’s established patterns and with the way the Wiki already treats these characters as it is now than the “they” alternative. The only reason I have been somewhat resistant to “he/she,” though, is of course because of its clunkiness, but perhaps there could be a way to minimize that drastically in order to prevent that clunkiness from being an issue.
But as Scrooge MacDuck has pointed out:
- "By all means this thread should be closed, but because the new points have been addressed and we have found the current policy was correct after all even in the face of the new ideas — not because the discussion was just reopening the same old debate that had already been concluded."
Indeed, I'm not particularly convinced by any previous claim in this thread that T:POINT matters as much in this case as it might do to other issues.
Language is an evolutionary — not a revolutionary — thing. Previous decisions were made on the basis of what was then a rare occurrence in this fandom: multi-gendered, un-gendered, or just differently-gendered characters. And they were certainly taken before the genuine advent of the thirteenth Doctor.
I therefore think it was good, right, and proper that we revisited this issue during and after transmission of the eleventh series. We collectively did right by trying to draw some inspiration from the series that most directly challenged our assumptions about our fandom’s central character.
Still, we shouldn’t claim that in-universe concerns hold the only key to our editorial choices. After all, we rather unusually write our articles in the past tense, which has nothing to do with either “good grammar” or “what’s done on the show”.
What this discussion proves is that there is no single right answer on this issue. Critics of the current policy have argued cogently why that policy fails; supporters have brought to bear what to me is equally convincing logic. But both sides can point to academic, cultural and sometimes even in-universe evidence to support their case.
So let’s be clear: this is us making a choice not “being right” or “using better English” or any of that. Both the “singular they” and the “always-plural they” are, in a defensible way, “correct”.
So I don’t want people on either side to feel like they are either right or wrong.
But at a certain point, we as an administrative staff need to pick between global variations in the English language because the Doctor Who franchise plays all around the world.
This is something we’ve done on multiple occasions:
- We’ve chosen to enforce British English, but we counsel the American use of double quotation marks
- We’ve chosen to use italics for episode titles, even though that’s not widely done
- We’ve chosen to use sentence case, even though other media outlets might use title case
Like any editorial staff on any publication in the world, we have a duty to establish and maintain a manual of style.
What this discussion proved is that, although the arguments on both sides are valid, there’s nothing from the most recent series, or coverage of it by the wider press, which throws up an obvious roadblock to our choice to include usage of the “singular they” on this wiki. If anything, usage of the “singular they” in the coverage of Doctor Who has accelerated in the last year or so — including amongst DWA, Titan and Fandom’s own staff writers.
So, we’ll be sticking with the “singular they”.
That said, this conversation must inform our usage.
Some of our readers are going to find the singular they massively unclear, especially when the subject of a sentence is singular and the object is plural. “The Doctor told their companions that they were special” is, for instance, ambiguous. Where possible, editors should try to speak about specific incarnations, using a gendered pronoun appropriate to that incarnation, or for the incarnation recalling their past lives.
If you’re an editor here, you may find it helpful to sometimes sidestep the pronoun issue entirely. Replace “they” with “the Time Lord” or “the Doctor”. Or, do what SOTO suggested upthread. Concentrate on the incarnation that’s recounting the past, rather than the regeneration that performed the remembered action. For instance, this is just fine:
“The Doctor remembered that she had ordered a fez a long time ago. ([[TV]]: ''[[Kerblam! (TV story)|]]'')
If series 11 has taught us anything, it’s that the concept of gender definitely exists in both the narrative and in the press coverage about the programme. So we’re obviously not getting rid of gendered pronouns when talking about an incarnation, or several incarnations of the same gender.
Therefore I don’t want this to be some signal that we need to go out and rewrite every line of every page on the wiki, or anything like that. Instead this is a narrower, but important, refinement to our manual of style. What we’re saying here is, when referring to gender-flexible characters in toto, the "singular they" is preferred. Equally, when talking about real life people who are gender-fluid or non-binary, we should use the pronouns for which that person has expressed a preference — but quite often, that will be the "singular they".
I also want to encourage people to actually review the situation in individual cases. I think it’s fine for people to have discussions on individual talk pages about particular sentences, in spite of all this conversation. This thread, and others before it, do not mean that individual sentences are beyond review. The object with editing is always to try to come up with the clearest sentence structure, while at the same time keeping our use of our evolving language current.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238030
This category is really confusing me. My own user page has the category, with no way of removing it, but I have no idea what? It appears to be because it uses the Reborn Master/Missy and so on template, but it can't be really, because there are so many articles that use those templates and don't have the category. I've linked some articles that have it.
What's going on there then?
- Shambala108
The issue is the "Dreyfus" template, which is still up for discussion at Template talk:Dreyfus and therefore does not work properly since it hasn't been incorporated into The Master yet. When I get a chance later I will remove it from all pages, but for now I did remove it from your user page.
The discussion for the inclusion of this template is located at Thread:228010 for anyone who wants to participate, and the original discussion is still available at Template talk:Dreyfus.
And please keep in mind that no Master template should be created without community discussion. The nature of these templates requires careful tinkering to make them work properly.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238065
I've been going through proposed mergers / deletions and recently found The Doctor (TV Action!) primarily overhauled by Borisashton. In the edit summary they assert "adding info set in other meta-fiction universe stories since they are all one character)".
Are they?
There's a merge tag on Doctor Who (Deadline) to merge with The Doctor (TV Action!) because "its the same universe". This can't be correct as in Deadline Doctor Who was a failed pilot. And I don't think it's enough to say that it's an "Alternate timeline" as The Doctor (TV Action!) currently has along with info from All Our Christmases (short story).
There's also a merge tag on The Doctor (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) citing the same reasoning.
The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who (comic story) and TV Action! (comic story) might share the same universe, because they both feature the Doctor in the "real world". But there isn't anything concrete linking them (not even a Meep in the background of Girl Who Loved's convention scenes (that I can see at least).
Is there anything that might suggest any of these stories take place in the same universe? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:15, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Scrooge MacDuck
You're quite right, of course.
- SOTO
I think the merge tags should be removed. Presuming these are all the same universe sounds dangerously like speculation. They may all be intended to be off-shoots of our world, where Doctor Who is fictional, but in-universe, it sounds to me there's no such evidence.
And as you also point out, there are fundamental inconsistencies between Deadline and the other two. Deadline is not even meant to be our world; it's an alternate timeline away from our universe already.
And nothing in-story links TV Action! and The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who. I see no reason to merge these pages.
- Scrooge MacDuck
And nothing in-story links TV Action! and The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who. I see no reason to merge these pages.
I think that ties into a wider issue, I think. If identical things appear in two Doctor Who stories, but aren't explicitly named as the same thing, and you can't establish for sure the writer of the second story had the first in mind, is it the same thing? It's the same problem as "Is The Doctor (The Death List) the Thirteenth Doctor?", basically.
- Borisashton
Yeah, the pages really shouldn't be merged. Originally, I only slapped merge tags on them because the Meta-fiction universe article asserted that they were in the same universe. If it's decided that they are not the same universe, the different universes should get separate pages as well.
- SOTO
All Our Christmases seems to be a story of interest here. The meta-fiction universe page seems to assert that the Deadline universe is really an alternate timeline to our universe. So in the future of our universe, Richard goes back in time, affects the history of Doctor Who, and ultimately his changes mean that the programme never took off at all. (I think it cites the implied Juliet Bravo connection to piece it all together.)
Even so, if we cannot be certain that TV Action! and TGWLD share the same universe, then this applies to an alternate timeline in Deadline and All Our Christmases too.
- TheChampionOfTime
This is mostly my fault. Sorry y'all. Taking the cue from Meta-fiction universe already covering both TV Action! (comic story) and All Our Christmases (short story), I added in The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who (comic story) when putting the Deadline (audio story) connection on the page. Reasoning being partially that Girl and TV Action! were both meant to be set in reality.
At some later point I was thinking of slightly rewriting Meta-fiction universe to be less assertive that all the stories were set in the same universe and be more on the concept of such a universe (another, entirely fictional, "meta-dimension" appears in Wildthyme Beyond! (novel)), but alas it never came to pass. Not to say it couldn't come to pass.
Now, back then there wasn't a central page for the concept of Doctor Who within Doctor Who. Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) isn't the best of disambiguations, but Doctor Who isn't likely to be renamed Doctor Who (franchise) anytime soon. I think it would make sense to put most of this info in an "Other realities" section of the page. Not necessarily merging them.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238242
We have pages for Rockspawn Peninsula and Roxbourne Peninsula, both listed as locations in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (TV story) (specifically, both listed as places where Solomon was trying to go). Are they both right, or is one right and one wrong and if so which one is which?
- SOTO
Checking subtitles might help here, but just a note from an editing perspective: Roxbourne Peninsula has been around as a page since 2012, and Rockspawn Peninsula was made in May 2018 by an IP editor, who I imagine did not find the Roxbourne page.
I have a feeling we'll find that Roxbourne is the correct spelling.
- This is how the iPlayer subtitles spell it.
So iPlayer subtitles within a day of the time of broadcast gave the spelling as "Roxbourne", and not Rockspawn, as reported by Tybort. Do we retain a redirect here, if it's a common mishearing?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238762
Just wondering if there's a reason the twitter feed on the wikia's homepage is from BBC America, rather than the official Doctor Who twitter, @bbcdoctorwho ??
MadeIndescribable ☎ 16:43, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
- CzechOut
Well, the short answer is because BBCA asked us very nicely, and we said yes.
See, BBCA aren't just broadcasting this series in the US. They're a co-financier. That's why you'll see the BBCA logo in the last frame of the end credits. It's kind of like what happened when Miracle Day was co-produced by Starz and the BBC.
Beyond that, however, their Twitter feed is also pretty amazingly well-updated. Their content team works really hard to deliver fresh content throughout every single day. And they're really good about responding to fans and retweeting ordinary fan messages. So we're actually quite proud to feature this legitimately official Twitter feed.
- MadeIndescribable
Cool, thanks for the info!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238793
I appreciate that this issue has been discussed previously, however one of the more recent posts was what pronouns to use for Time Lords in general. I am specifically talking about the Doctors page (since that is undoubtedly the most popular of the Time Lords pages on this wiki).
For background, I recently re-wrote the article in a way that never explicitly states a pronoun. Writing "they" and "their" makes the page very difficult to read in my opinion, and a lot of the time it's grammatically poor when it's hard to decipher who a sentence is referring to. "They" usually refers to more than one person, so it's very difficult on the average reader. I took out pronouns completely which shouldn't be an issue for anyone. It's not like I've simply reverted the edits, but I have worded the page in a way which makes sure no reference to a pronoun is used, like what Wikipedia has done on their "The Doctor" page. As far as I'm aware, there is zero reason to revert this. The article reads better and by taking out pronouns completely (expect for when referring to specific incarnations), it essentially settles the debate of which ones to use in my view. For reference, here is the revision of the page where no pronoun is explicitly used except for referring to specific incarnations: https://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor?oldid=2560325
Hopefully this can be discussed. I think we can avoid the entire pronoun issue if we just cleverly word the articles to make no explicit pronoun reference to the character overall - essentially making the page genderless. If this works (which I believe it does) it can hopefully be passed around the entire wiki. I've noticed major inconsistencies in the pronoun issues across the entire wiki. For the record, I have read Tardis:Doctors and my edits don't go against anything there at all. If nobody reverted what I changed, I believe nobody would even notice.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:238794
Reposting because this seemed to have been removed.
I appreciate that this issue has been discussed previously, however one of the more recent posts was what pronouns to use for Time Lords in general. I am specifically talking about the Doctors page (since that is undoubtedly the most popular of the Time Lords pages on this wiki).
For background, I recently re-wrote the article in a way that never explicitly states a pronoun. Writing "they" and "their" makes the page very difficult to read in my opinion, and a lot of the time it's grammatically poor when it's hard to decipher who a sentence is referring to. "They" usually refers to more than one person, so it's very difficult on the average reader. I took out pronouns completely which shouldn't be an issue for anyone. It's not like I've simply reverted the edits, but I have worded the page in a way which makes sure no reference to a pronoun is used, like what Wikipedia has done on their "The Doctor" page. As far as I'm aware, there is zero reason to revert this. The article reads better and by taking out pronouns completely (expect for when referring to specific incarnations), it essentially settles the debate of which ones to use in my view. For reference, here is the revision of the page where no pronoun is explicitly used except for referring to specific incarnations: https://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor?oldid=2560325
Hopefully this can be discussed. I think we can avoid the entire pronoun issue if we just cleverly word the articles to make no explicit pronoun reference to the character overall - essentially making the page genderless. If this works (which I believe it does) it can hopefully be passed around the entire wiki. I've noticed major inconsistencies in the pronoun issues across the entire wiki. For the record, I have read Tardis:Doctors and my edits don't go against anything there at all. If nobody reverted what I changed, I believe nobody would even notice.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:239449
This wiki repeatedly refers to the setting of Planet of the Dead and The End of Time as taking place in 2009. While there's a pretty overt passage of four years from Rose to Journey's End (notably Rose being away from home for a year in the pre-titles of Aliens of London, and Voyage of the Damned saying The Christmas Invasion was the Christmas before last), is the setting of Planet of the Dead and The End of Time ever actually stated (or suggested through mentions in other stories) to be the Easter and Christmas immediately after Voyage of the Damned, or even anything more specific than "an ambiguous amount of time after the planets in the sky"?
-
|-
|(239449)
|20181019154842-4139960
|Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4139960-20181019154842
|2822621
|2019-12-20 T16:14:30Z
|44554135
|The doctor of who?cirkd
|rik|
|1076{{{1}}}
- Shambala108
This still needs to be addressed. I welcome comments from anyone familiar with this issue.
- Borisashton
I've not listened to either but Last Chance or Lady Christina: Series One might reference this. This whole situation is also described in more detail at Aliens of London dating controversy.
- MrThermomanPreacher
Neither Planet of the Dead or The End of Time explicitly state the year. What we do know for starters is that Planet of the Dead takes place on an Easter after the "planets in the sky", referencing The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, while The End of Time clearly takes place on a Christmas after Journey's End, as we catch up with the Noble family, with Donna's wedding to Shaun Temple taking place in the following spring.
I believe that we can place The End of Time in 2009 by its crossover with the spin-offs. A case could be made using Torchwood, but it's The Sarah Jane Adventures that gives the clearer picture.
In The End of Time, the dying Tenth Doctor meets Sarah Jane for the last time as he saves Luke's life, who was just talking to Clyde about the recent Christmas incident with "everyone having a different face". Death of the Doctor later has Sarah Jane meeting the Eleventh Doctor, then there's Lost in Time, which is explicitly dated by a newspaper as falling on 23rd November 2010.
Also taken into account the 10/Donna novel Beautiful Chaos, the pre-Journey's End bulk of which is explicitly placed on 15th May 2009, a month following The Poison Sky.
Back to Planet of the Dead, a link exists between this story and The End of Time in the form of the advertisement for "Neon by Naismith" on The 200 bus. This is a reference to billionaire Joshua Naismith who, as established in The End of Time, is arrested between Christmas and Donna's spring wedding. In addition, Carmen tells the Doctor that "he will knock four times", however, this can be interpreted as her alerting the Doctor to his personal future. Infact, this matches up with the Ood who, from 4226, forsee the End of Time, which leads the Doctor to prevent it from coming to pass in 2009.
I do not believe that these references are concrete enough to place The End of Time after Planet of the Dead in the linear timeline, and so it could well fall on Easter of 2010 or even beyond that.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Great sleuth-work, but this is all the stuff from before. Couldn't we find something in the Matt Smith era to help us?
- Bwburke94
I don't believe the Smith era discusses the date of Planet of the Dead, if that's what you're asking.
What about the Lady Christina audios?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not per se, but I was thinking about more subtle clues — who's in charge of British UNIT, for one thing.
- Bwburke94
It might be weird to have UNIT matters resolve a dating problem for once. But it's the best we have.
- Schreibenheimer
I really don't think there's anything definitive about either one's placement. I think it's a mistake to take any part of 10's "farewell tour" as indicative of the date of the "main" story, though. Per Death of the Doctor, he checked in on all past companions, which means there was definitely time travel involved since not all of them would have been around in the same year.
I believe the year should be removed from both of these.
|- |263137 |20181019154842-4139960/20191220160658-44554135 |Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4139960-20181019154842/@comment-44554135-20191220160658 |2822618 |2019-12-20 T16:06:58Z |44554135 |The doctor of who?cirkd |rik|
|45For those new to the wiki, we don't allow speculation on our articles, and our in universe articles can only be cited by actual stories, not out-of-universe information.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:239497
The date and year in The Ghost Monument isn't explicitly stated, but is there any way by what is given in the episode that we can deduce when the episode takes place?
We know that Desolation is left in uninhabitably horrible state. Ilin mentions the ancient settlers on the planet had named the TARDIS "The Ghost Monument", and given that we know it reappeared every thousand solar rotation added to the pace at which the suns move around the planet, we can say that this must have happened at least a couple of times. We also know that the TARDIS could have travelled in time after disappearing in Twice Upon a Time, but is not a certainty. We also know that Desolation was in its natural orbit when the TARDIS landed and we can also add how far it has fallen out since then.
What we don't know for sure is whether the Doctor's transportation machine in The Woman Who Fell to Earth, which is partially human tech and partially Stenza tech and is set to track artron energy, also allows for travelling in time.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You're right that that's where the question lies, but it seems unlikely that the Stenza technology allows time-travel, or something of the sort would have been mentioned. (Considering what we've seen of their culture and their technology, if the Stenza had time-travel, they'd basically be on Dalek levels of dangerousness, and the Doctor would know about them surer than not.)
Considering that the episode went through the trouble of establishing that its "human" characters are not actually humans at all, it seems clear that the intention is that it takes place in the present-day of Series 11 Earth — notice how the humanoid-aliens in question haven't even heard of Earth or humans, suggesting this is before mankind starts taking to the stars and leaving their marks in "every solar system" as we know they did from Series 1 and countless other sources.
All that said, the above reasoning is, I think, the only straightforward, Occam-friendly conclusion, but it may still be too speculative for actual use on the Wiki. Let's wait and see.
- Shambala108
There is way too much speculation in this discussion. If there is any concrete information to support a date, it can be posted here. However, there will be no guessing or speculating or theorizing in this thread.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, I did worry I was crossing the line between "logical deduction" and "speculation" there. It's often a blurry one in cases like this.
- Shambala108
Yeah, I just wanted to make it clear to anyone who wants to join this discussion, especially the new users who won't be familiar with our policies.
- Danniesen
I should also point out that based on Dean the Salad Man's remarks to Tzim-Sha and Rahul's football ticket, we can deduce that The Woman Who Fell to Earth takes place in September 2018.
- Scrooge MacDuck
What remarks?
- Ben Moore812
"Halloween's next month, mate!"
- Danniesen
So... now that Series 11 is over and done, and the New Year Special is as well, I'd say we've gathered enough information about the current era, and therefore I wanted to revisit this discussion.
Has anyone picked anything special up with which we can deduct a timeline placement for the episode The Ghost Monument?
- SOTO
Tim Shaw teleports to Ranskoor Av Kolos in the present day, as near as I can recall, "across the universe" but not into the future. But unfortunately, no more context for The Ghost Monument is really given. I'm not sure we've given reason to believe the Doctor and her new friends travelled in time, though, nor any indication that the Stenza have time travel.
It would definitely be speculation to say that they did time travel, but is it better to clarify that they're still in 2018, or simply not to comment on it just in case? Not commenting is probably our safest bet.
- Danniesen
All I have is that space travel he made across the universe.
Alternatively we have Chibnall's statement that 4 episodes are present day, 3 are set in the past and 3 in the future, however this is a BTS statement, so that can't be used for validity in-universally.
- SOTO
That does add up, though, so it would rather seem the intent that The Ghost Monument is set in the present day. The statement itself is OOU, but there's also nothing in-universe to establish that they have time travel technology before getting the TARDIS back.
- SOTO
From The Woman Who Fell to Earth:
- "I've tracked that energy trail from the moment I lost it to where it is now. Now, given this is a transport pod, I'm configuring it to send me to the planet where my ship seems to have ended up."
The Doctor is tracking where the TARDIS is "now", and configures a transport pod to send her to the planet where it is now. Not space-time coordinates, she's not tracking where it's gone in time; just a transport pod, set to bring her to the TARDIS, in its current position.
- Danniesen
So... is our conclusion that the episode is present day?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:239998
This template is extremely hard to read with it's current colour scheme.
White on white simply doesn't work.
Could someone look into this?
- 205.210.17.241
forgot the link
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:240977
Despite the awkward title, this issue is actually pretty simple and straightforward, so I’ll just get right into it. I say we should refer to all branches of the Torchwood Institute, in every title or reference on any page, using the Arabic numerals as opposed to spelling their numbers out - so “Torchwood 3,” instead of “Torchwood Three,” for example.
The reason I am proposing this is because we can see in Children of Earth: Day One, when Lois Habiba is reading the government’s files on the team under the “Torchwood” tab on the screen of her computer, that the Cardiff branch is officially referred to as “Torchwood 3,” and not “Torchwood Three.” While I could not find a screenshot of when she is looking under the “Organisation” tab in Day Two as I provided for the instance in Day One, if you go through that episode again, you will see that that usage is consistently used for Torchwood 1 and 2, as well, when she looks at those files.
So it would appear the official designations in-universe of the various branches of Torchwood do in fact use actual numbers rather than spelling out the words, as this Wiki does, and so that’s why I think we need to rename them to fit that, to remain consistent with the Wiki’s naming conventions.
- SOTO
I'd like to note that I brought this very thing up in 2013, here: Talk:Torchwood Three#Torchwood Three VS. Torchwood 3. Same screenshot and everything. (Good times, nearly six years ago; three months in to editing here.)
It was immediately brought up that The Twilight Streets uses the spelled-out form. And that the text of the novel carries just as much weight as the text on-screen here (T:NPOV).
- SOTO
The Twilight Streets uses "Torchwood Three" in-narrative at least twice, and "Torchwood One" twice as well.
All things being equal — and without further evidence — I would say that "Torchwood Three" is the most common spelling within the DWU.
- Game-fanatic
Ah, good to know! Well, it appears there wasn't much of a conclusion made at the time, so perhaps it is still good I brought this up. But you seemed to change your tune a bit in these five years, haha :P
Well it's good to know that we've at least got a basis for the spelled-out variant. But I guess my only response would be that from Days One and Two of Children of Earth - the only times the names are written on screen to my knowledge - we see "Torchwood 3" twice, "Torchwood 2" once, and "Torchwood 1" once. So it appears it's a bit of a stalemate between the two variants as far as numbers of uses go...
Of course, I would personally automatically defer to the original TV series, but I understand that that's not how the rules were set up here. However, it is worth mentioning that, while both the novel and these episodes feature four uses each, the novel you're saying seems to only include such usages for two Torchwood branches, while these files in CoE deal with three different branches, so in that sense the numerical variant is more prolific.
Additionally, I'm not sure what the exact context is in the book, but I'm assuming it is merely the text of the book that we out-of-universe readers see as representative of the actual words being said by the characters within the story itself. If that is the case - and this is about to get very meta, so forgive me - wouldn't text seen WITHIN the actual world of the show itself take precedence, since it is literally in-universe, while the words that merely CONSTRUCT the world are not in themselves inside that world, necessarily, like the words on these files are? It appears the user who spoke with you did touch upon this idea, but without going quite into the layer I am thinking right now. I don't think they are quite the same. It's like a novel might say X character wore a brown shirt, but that doesn't contribute anything more to what is actually inside the story's world itself regarding that shirt beyond its simply being brown. If it were a television episode, though, the actual article of clothing used in filming the story - perhaps a brown polo shirt with a specific brand symbol on it. What I'm trying to say is that sure it might be written "Torchwood Three" in the text of the fictional novel written in the real world outside the narrative that its story contributes to, but can that really at all override what is specifically seen within that world itself, as Lois' files are? With the files, we are seeing what the characters of that world see. With a novel, we're seeing a real-world author's text on a page that exists outside the Whoniverse.
This is extremely difficult for me to convey at the moment, but am I making any sense?
- Game-fanatic
Apologies for any typos and of course for the confusing idea in general; it's very late at night for me, haha. But hopefully I am getting across the idea of the representative versus the in-universe adequately.
There's no compelling reason to put in all the extra work to change the way we spell it, given that, in the original discussion cited by User:SOTO, user:Tangerineduel cited a similar forum decision at Forum:Artifacts or Artefacts of Rassilon?, where one way of spelling was agreed on and chosen to be the one used on the wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:241988
Block rowspans in episode tables. Rowspans cannot be understood by screenreader. According to readers, 11x02 wouldn't have a writer. But every episode has a writer! But you're telling your fanbase it doesn't. Just hover over the spanning rows and see the colours, and see the massive issue with it. Every website needs to be accessible per W3, which surpasses the personal opinions of this site.
We take accessibility seriously here, so again, sorry for the delay. I see no reason to keep the rowspans at Series 11 (Doctor Who 2005) if it makes that table inaccessible to those who use screenreaders. After all, it serves no function there. I don't think, in that particular case anyhow, the rowspans clarify the information given.
However, I think I would make it more of a recommendation than a full-on ban on using them. First, I just want to clarify-- is it also an issue to use rowspans in the first column? For instance, is List of Doctor Who Extra episodes also an issue?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:243283
So, Channel Pup, on YouTube, released a video a few days ago entitled That time I created a Doctor Who Villain | Love and Monsters Retrospective Review, wherein they got William Grantham (then-9-year-old designer of the Abzorbaloff) to share his thoughts on Love & Monsters. I can't link to it because policy, but it's quite an interesting watch.
Aside from showcasing Grantham's opinions on the episode — of which a summary might, I think, be of interest on either his page or the Love & Monsters one — the video also gives more details about his original conception of the Abzorbaloff. He confirms the "double-decker bus-sized" assessment, describing him as "King Kong-sized". The monster was also, again in his original conception, meant to be "fluid-like" and to be a nonverbal monster of pure rage; the 'cane-wielding businessman' depiction of the finished episode really took him aback, though he liked it as a creation in its own right. The video includes a recent piece of concept artwork (I think by Grantham? it's not made clear) recreating his original vision with more polished artistic skill than the old nine-year-old-kid sketch we're all familiar with.
Fun fact, Grantham also mentions that Clom was originally supposed to be "Zom"; it was changed to Som, and eventually into Clom, at some point into production without input from, or explanation to, him.
But anyway, the problem is that I'm not entirely sure this video passes our policies for adding to our video library. It features quite a lot of stills from the episode and I don't think they were licensed to the BBC. And what's more, Tardis's policy is that you can't link to off-site videos that you're not allowed to upload to begin with. So how can we source all these interesting facts that really deserve to be added to the relevant pages?
(Along the same lines, I honestly have no idea how whatever "contract" they got Grantham to sign at the time works; does he have the right to make his own Abzorbaloff painting? Because if he doesn't, I don't think we're allowed to post the image I mentioned, even though it really is quite interesting…)
- SOTO
I've been meaning to bring this up. (I was under the impression that Channel Pup was William Grantham's YouTube channel. I stand corrected. He did at least write one other video for them, "Gotham's Joker Problem".)
My first thought is that the video contains stills from Doctor Who, but no video footage.
Usually, instead of citing a video, I would find an article about the video and cite that instead. Clearly, in this case there's no media coverage, nothing outside of the video itself.
PS: There's an interview with Grantham on YouTube, as well, entitled "10 Years On: With William Grantham (Abzorbaloff creator!)". It doesn't use any footage from Doctor Who, but it does feature a short clip from Blue Peter and another from Doctor Who Confidential.
Thankfully, this second video does have a written account online: https://geekzone107.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/will-grantham-interview-creator-of-the-absorbaloff/
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:243787
The broadcast of Resolution has reminded me of an issue I have been intending to bring up for a while: when the time period stated is the "present day".
This seems like a grey area in the wiki's policies because surely the phrase "present day" can mean nothing according to our strict policies for in-universe evidence because to extract a date for it we are using the out-of-universe evidence of the broadcast date but in contrast the setting in the present is the blatant intent of the author.
It is also highly ambiguous to the actual date. In the case of Resolution, Chris Chibnall did intend for the story to take place on the literal present day (1 January 2019) but I highly doubt that the authorial intent of Rona Munro when she wrote the "present day" sequences in The Eaters of Light were for them to take place on 17 June 2017; the much more likely case is that the intent was for sometime in 2017 or even an undisclosed point in the 21st century. Going even further, in comparison to the age of the universe any setting in the years, AD could be argued to be present.
I have always treated these sorts of stories as being set at some point in the same year as release, not to say that is necessarily the right decision in the circumstances. I am curious to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Your way sounds to me like the right decision. Present day means year of release.
But if I may… that matter is really along the same lines as the questions of "when we're shown a picture of a historical character, who is otherwise known to exist in the DWU, and the episode obviously wants the reader to know who that is, are we allowed to count that as an appearance of that character?" (i.e. Martin Luther King & Winston Churchill in The Lie of the Land) or "if a historical character is unmistakably mentioned but not by name, and we otherwise know the historical character from a different DWU source, do we count that as the same character?" (i.e. the mention of ‘King James's mother’ in The Witchfinders).
In all cases, the problem is when instead of fans taking their knowledge of the real world for granted in a Doctor Who context (which is what T:NO RW is a floodgate against), the intent is to rely on the viewers' RW knowledge for something. Tardis allows the latter for certain things (we're allowed to call a car a car even if we're never explicitly told "this thing with four wheels, there, is in fact an Earth vehicle called a motorcar"), but in most cases it's a grey area.
The matter had a thread about it that was closed down due to the original post being mistaken about part of the existing policies, which sent some of the debate on the wrong track. But it's a debate worth having properly, and I think it shoud be revived in a new thread that would kind of englobe the "Present Day" question, rather than having "what does Present Day mean?" as its own bit of policy.
- SOTO
Without bringing real world creep into it, I usually translate "Present day" as "around the time period of release/broadcast". So a story broadcast in 2008, set in the "present day", is set in the 2000s. One broadcast in 2018 might even be set in the "late 2010s", if there's sufficient evidence.
If a novel is in the present day for Amy and Rory in series 6, we know it must be the 2010s. And we can't even be that specific sometimes, especially with the Third Doctor UNIT stories, for well-known reasons. When there isn't enough to determine the decade, it's just 20th or 21st century.
Torchwood's present day is equally muddied, with many contradictions. In the end, it's better to say series 1 and 2 are all set in the 2000s, than to have conflicting years on each episode. So if a Torchwood story from that era is set in the present day, I wouldn't assume a specific year. Indeed, even with RTD-era Doctor Who, due to the Aliens of London thing, the "present day" for around four years is 1 year ahead of the real world. A novel featuring Martha in the present day, released in 2007, is likely set in 2008.
I'm not really sure that the intent always is for "present day" to mean "literally the day you're watching this on initial broadcast". It's not "These events are happening right now"; it's "This story takes place in your general time period, and features culture and technology with which you will be familiar."
So generally, we should air on the side of caution. The Eaters of Light is a good example, because as I recall, it features no real distinguishing time period clues. Was 2017 intended? A previous episode in this series spent a year on Earth, so it's not even 2017 for Bill anymore.
- LegoK9
SOTO wrote: A previous episode in this series spent a year on Earth, so it's not even 2017 for Bill anymore.
The Lie of the Land was only six months after TPATEOFW, so it could still be 2017.
- SOTO
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
We don't allow speculation on dates in the main namespace, and we don't allow any kind of timelines in the main namespace. We have provided a place for people to play with the timeline at Theory:Timey-wimey detector.
We only provide specific dates/years for stories if we have in-universe evidence.
But we are not going to be able to set some kind of policy regarding what "present day" means. Please see User:SOTO's first post above for how best to deal with this issue.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:244175
OS12th recently removed a paragraph from The Woman's page, which described the presumption (as per A Brief History of Time Lords) that she "was taken from her family at the age of eight for the selection process in the Drylands and made to stare into the Untempered Schism as part of a Time Lord initiation rite".
Since the publication of Brief History, I've seen identical paragraphs pop up on a great number of Time Lord pages, such that I (and, presumably OS12th) have come to wonder if, perhaps, the Brief History just states that this happened to "all Time Lords", without naming names. In which case we would be looking at another "should every dead human ever be called a former Cyberman, what with Death in Heaven?" situation, where the clear precedent is no, we don't put it on every damn page about a Time Lord, even if the information is nominally about all Time Lords.
This goes double with the fact that we absolutely know that some Time Lords didn't have this background (Ace to name but one), so any "All Time Lords…" would be a generalization at best, and a "According to some accounts…" at worst. And as concerns The Woman in particular, if she really is the Doctor's mother, then 1996's Doctor Who suggests that she too has an unorthodox background.
Could someone with current access to the Brief History clear this up?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Brief History has a chapter titled "NOVICES OF THE UNTEMPERED
SCHISM", divided up into "the ones that went mad", "the ones that were inspired" etc. It then talks about each character individually under those headings. I was in exactly the same boat as you when I saw these edits popping up across the Wiki, but there's nothing to worry about, it's all above board. :-)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, thank you.
Still, how exactly is The Woman identified, in particular? Is there a picture? A footnote? Because if it's just "The Woman", well, we've got at least one other Time Lady known by that name: The Woman (Hell Bent). Though the two may be one and the same.
And, as a matter of fact, is the Time Lady in question actually referred to as "the Woman" as though this were a title like "the Doctor", "the Master", "the Curator," "the Rani", etc.? Because I don't think we had any source for that thus far. If the book has her call herself The Woman, this is interesting info that should be added to her page.
- Revanvolatrelundar
She is called the Woman, but as stated on her page here, the book states that her name was wiped from history as a punishment for all the gubbins that happened in The End of Time. She gets a brief paragraph between Thalia and Zorac. There's nothing else from Brief History that can be added to the page. No mention of the Woman from Hell Bent in there whatsoever, unfortunately. It would have been nice to have tied that one up.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, I see. If the events of End of Time are referenced so, the identification does seem to make sense. One wonders if the punishment was for originally going along with Rassilon's Final Sanction, or for betraying him at the last moment and allowing the Doctor to ruin his plans…
(Oh, and if you were wondering, my addition of the "According to one account" language… it's because… I mean, we don't have a straight in-universe account, sure. But the implication is very strong that she's the Doctor's mother, and she was created as such. Yet certain accounts of the Doctor's mother certainly don't square with this info.)
- Revanvolatrelundar
The book is written as an in-universe book, despite appearing to be out of universe. If it was just a reference book, we wouldn't be able to include it anyway.
Out of interest, I read over the Heaven Sent section from the book. It's written from the author's point of view (see Boy (Heaven Sent)), and he never mentions the Woman from that story in his account, just all the "get off my planet" stuff when Rassilon turns up all guns blazing. But it does say the Doctor once lived at his house "the barn", so that's going on his article right now!
- Scrooge MacDuck
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: The book is written as an in-universe book, despite appearing to be out of universe. If it was just a reference book, we wouldn't be able to include it anyway.
…yyyes? What made you think I didn't understand this?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: (Oh, and if you were wondering, my addition of the "According to one account" language… it's because… I mean, we don't have a straight in-universe account, sure.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:245152
Hello, everyone.
I'm new here in the sense that I've just created an account, but have been on the wiki for a long time as I watched through the classic series and listened through all the Big Finish audios (through 2016, at least). Now that I'm finishing those up, I thought I'd start helping out here.
One thing that has been bothering me for a while is that there does not seem to be a great deal of consistency to who get listed in the "Featuring" column of tables on audio range pages. Some recurring characters are listed, but some aren't. On the Jago & Litefoot page, Queen Victoria is listed for one of her appearances, but not the other.
I've been doing some searching, and I have not been able to find any indication that there is a clear policy on this. Is there something that I haven't found?
- Shambala108
There isn't really a specific policy addressing your question. That being said, the format of the tables will look pretty inconsistent if some stories have two or more lines of "featuring" while other stories only have one. I'm not familiar with any audio stories so I can't be more specific, but it's probably best to only put "featuring" characters that have a decently large part in the story, not just what amounts to a cameo.
- Schreibenheimer
Alright, if there's not a policy in place, here would be my proposal:
1) Any individual character appearing in the story that appears in at least one other valid story should be listed in the Featuring column.
Example: Any story the Brigadier appears in should list him.
Rationale: Mostly, this seems to be the general point of the Featuring section so far. This would just be codifying it.
2) If unnamed member(s) of a fictional species that appear in more than one valid story appear in and are relevant to the story, the species gets listed as well.
Example: Any time the Ice Warriors show up and they aren’t just random judges at a singing competition, they are listed.
Rationale: This one’s certainly debatable. It seems to me it’s the best way to include recurring species in the section without having to list “Time Lords” every time the Doctor and the Master are in the same story. If the rule were to instead require multiple members, then The Dalek Transaction would not then feature the Daleks. For those unfamiliar with that story, it’s similar to the TV episode Dalek; a single Dalek is discovered on Earth and must be handled.
Being “relevant to the story” is admittedly subjective, but I feel it is necessary to exclude non-plot relevant cameos. As cited in the example above, there is a story where Ice Warriors are some of the judges at a singing competition, are mentioned once, and have no other relevance to the plot.
Finally, the word “fictional” keeps us from having to include humans or other real-world species.
3) The Doctor should not be included in any range where they already have their own column.
Example: For The Wormery, both the Sixth and Seventh Doctors would go in the Doctor column.
Rationale: This seems slightly cleaner than the alternative of making the subjective decision of whether a given story is a true multi-Doctor story where both should be listed in the Doctor column or whether one Doctor’s appearance is a cameo and belongs in the Featuring column.
4) Any character who appears in every story within a range should not be included. It should instead be mentioned elsewhere in the article that this character is a main character.
Example: Jago and Litefoot do not need to be listed in Jago & Litefoot.
Rationale: Saves space. Also, this seems to be the norm already for most series where this applies.
A debatable aspect of this is whether it should also include characters who are in almost every story, but miss one or two. For example, Helen is certainly a main character in Doom Coalition, but her debut is the second story. If we want a solid rule, we could designate a percentage of stories they have to be in for this rule to apply, but I think it’s easier to just have the rule the way I put it.
5) If a story ends with a lead-in to its following story that is disconnected from the narrative of the rest of the story, any characters that only appear in that lead-in will not appear in the Featuring section.
Example: Mother Superior does not need to be listed for Truant, as she is not featured in the events of the story proper. She only shows up at the end in the cliffhanger for the next story.
Rationale: This is the part of my proposal that may be the hardest to implement consistently, but would keep characters out of stories that they have no narrative significance in.
6) Those characters that do appear in the Featuring column shall appear in alphabetical order.
Rationale: Consistency.
The previous poster expressed a concern over too many listings for some stories. I personally do not share this concern as most examples of this are noteworthy stories where even the cameos would be of interest (Many Happy Returns springs to mind), but it is certainly worth discussion. A limit could be made on how many listings a single story could have, but I am hard-pressed to think of a consistent way to decide who does not get listed if this limit is exceeded.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Fixed a confusing typo.
- Shambala108
I misspoke somewhat when I stated that there's no policy. It's true that there's no tangible policy for the audio tables, but we do have a policy for the "featuring" field in infoboxes. "Featuring" is always for recurring characters, so any one-time character, no matter how "important", does not get included. I think this rule would apply as well to these tables.
In general, we don't list species in the "featuring" field; unnamed individuals of a species are listed only if the individual both has its own page and is a recurring character (which I would guess is pretty rare, but hey, I'm wrong all the time).
And I just have to point out that your original post and your follow-up express a desire for consistency, which was what I was aiming for when I suggested not listing too many characters per story.
- 8.20.65.4
Thank you for your feedback!
I admit to being slightly unclear on your thinking behind mentioning the infobox policy. My guess is that you're suggesting that the infobox policy for the individual story pages should be extended to the Featuring sections for any tables that include them. That would work but would be very different from how the section is used now. Recurring species are pretty consistently listed in the Featuring sections on tables; the inconsistencies I mentioned in my original post were more about individual characters than species.
My goal when making my above proposal was not to rock the boat. I tried to make it reflect what is already on the actual pages as much as possible so that things wouldn't necessarily be changed so much as edited to match one another. If we ignore the "listing alphabetically" part, the vast majority of listings already conform with my proposal.
In regard to your last point, I believe we are talking about two different types of consistency. I was referring to rules consistency, and you are talking about visual consistency. I agree that visual consistency should definitely be considered, but I believe it is an entirely separate issue from rules consistency. I just was having a hard time coming up with a rules consistent way of handling your visual consistency request and am entirely open to input on how it could be done.
- Schreibenheimer
My apologies; the previous post was me. I am on a new computer and forgot that I hadn't logged in yet.
- SOTO
I suppose infoboxes do also have a variable for main enemy. I can think of a (small enough but notable) number of examples in infoboxes -- such as they currently exist -- in which a species is listed under Featuring because they're not actually an enemy in the story.
I do think there's some use in listing Fendahl for Night of the Fendahl on Big Finish Torchwood series, or listing Wirrn on UNIT: The New Series, to use two recent examples.
That said, these tables should not generally contain as much information as is given in the infoboxes, and there will always be more information to be found by clicking the link to the story page.
The featuring section in these tables is useful for series where the cast switches up regularly (like monthly Torchwood), or to pinpoint "the one with X recurring character in it" to find the story you're looking for. My question is: Does adding Kate, Osgood and Josh to every line at UNIT: The New Series actually add anything valuable to the page?
EDIT: Ah, I see this is your (OP) #4, that characters who appear in just about every story should not be included.
- Schreibenheimer
I am now only a month behind in Big Finish audios and have some more thoughts in regard to this.
I still generally hold to the rules I already proposed. However, I have slightly more apprehension about the number of "featured" characters in some stories. Interestingly, one of the worst offenders is the very first of Big Finish's Doctor Who audios, "The Sirens of Time." As of The Legacy of Time, Knights of Velyshaa, the President, Raldeth, Sirens of Time, the Temperon, Time Lords, and Vansell would all be featured. It's not that this is quite so many ("Many Happy Returns" has far more), but a couple of them are entirely forgettable.
Overall, I still believe that there is no consistent way to set a limit on how many people can be featured, but I'm a bit more willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has any better suggestions.
I do believe that my Rule 4 should be altered to exclude from the tables characters who are in 90% or more of a series' stories, though. Josh fits that amount of stories in UNIT (Kate and Osgood are in every story), and it would mean that we can get away with not listing Romana II in Gallifrey.
I would love to get some more feedback on all this, though!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:245508
Five years ago, it was decided that there was no need to make a separate page for Professor Yana, even though it would make sense for there to be one in theory (we have separate pages for Tenth Doctor and John Smith, after all).
The reason was that since all we knew, save for a few minutes, of the Derek Jacobi incarnation of the Master was its life as Yana, and it was basically impossible to distinguish the two; thus the page [[Yana]] inevitably ended up being about the Jacobi Master in general, and thus fell afoul of our policy to group all incarnations of the Master on just plain The Master.
All fine and good, but now, we have had many stories about the Derek Jacobi Master as himself (we even have an official incarnation name for him, "War Master", a luxury only shared by Missy of all the Master's incarnations), thanks to Big Finish and its The War Master series. Now we do have plenty enough material about the pre-Yana Master that a page about Yana would not be redundant with the section of The Master that deals with the War Master. We can make pronouncements about the human Yana's differences in personality compared to his Time Lord self.
So I think the time has come to overturn the previous decision and make an individual Yana page.
- Shambala108
I don't know this series, so I need to have some things cleared up.
To start with what I know: In Utopia we see the chameleon-arch Yana who doesn't know he's the Master, then he gets his memory back and becomes the Jacobi Master who is then killed and regenerates. So far so good.
But I need some more information about what The War Master covers. Is it the Master (who knows who he is) or is it the unaware Yana? And what do you mean by pre-Yana Master? Is this the same as the Jacobi incarnation (pre-memory loss) or is it a different incarnation?
- SOTO
Basically, The War Master is Jacobi's incarnation before he turned himself into a human. This is the same incarnation of the Master before he becomes Professor Yana. At the end of the first box set, the Master uses the Chameleon Arch and turns himself into a human baby, as referenced by Yana in Utopia. Other box sets are set earlier on in the Time War. Hope that helps.
- SOTO
I wouldn't say Quarren Maguire, a character in The Eighth Doctor: Time War who uses a Chameleon Arch, should be split into two pages for his human and Time Lord identities. In that case, we don't spend very much time with the Time Lord, and we don't even have a separate name for him. So if we do give Yana a separate page, it shouldn't be under the reasoning that all Chameleon Arch identities deserve their own pages. We should look at the case of Yana on its own merits.
For instance, we have a John Smith (Tenth Doctor), but we also have separate pages for many different incarnations of the Doctor, which we decided against doing for the Master. How does that decision impact our coverage of Yana? Would giving this identity his own page be going against it?
- 68.131.63.11
Yes this helps but raises another question. The other box sets: is he the Master-Yana or the memory loss human Yana?
- Shambala108
(That last IP post is me.)
Basically the question comes down to: is there any point in The War Master series where Jacobi is playing the memory-loss human version of Yana?
If so, we can consider making a separate page if there is enough information.
However, if throughout the series he is playing the Master at various times in his Jacobi incarnation, then there still is no more information about human-Yana than we had before.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Shambala108 wrote: However, if throughout the series he is playing the Master at various times in his Jacobi incarnation, then there still is no more information about human-Yana than we had before.
Wait. I'm very confused now. My impression from the original thread was that we had, like, one minute of the Derek Jacobi Master as himself. That we had two little of the Derek Jacobi Master. Not at all that we had too little of Yana.
The spirit of the old debate seemed to be that separate pages for Chameleon Arch humans were justified only if we could draw a clear distinction between human and Time Lord, with each having their own biography and personality. This wasn't the case before, where the Yana page had become cannibalized by the wider "Derek Jacobi Master" page. It definitely is the case now: we have the Utopia info for Professor Yana, and we have all his War Master adventures for the Derek Jacobi Master per se that can clearly be distinguished from anything to do with Yana.
- Shambala108
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the series covers Jacobi as the Master? If so, there will be no separate page for "Yana", since all the Master incarnations are covered on The Master. We aren't going to split off just one. I believe there is a thread recently opened that proposes re-splitting the Master pages, if you want to argue your point there.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You misunderstand me.
What I am saying is that Yana is a different person from the Master (Derek Jacobi incarnation included) and deserves a separate page for the same reason we have a separate page for the Tenth Doctor and for John Smith. Information about the Derek Jacobi incarnation in general, and all his Big Finish adventures, would remain on "The Master" as per Tardis:The Master, and the "Yana" page would be solely about the friendly human inventor who had no idea what his fob watch was.
The core of the old debate was that we couldn't really do this because we knew practically nothing else of the Derek Jacobi Master than what he was up to as Yana. But now that the War Master series has shown us what the Derek Jacobi Master was like before the Chameleon Arch, it becomes trivially easy to speak of him and of Prof. Yana as different entities.
With all that we have on him, I am pretty sure we would have a separate page for John Smith even if we grouped all incarnations of the Doctor on "The Doctor". The key factor is that the Chameleon Arch humans don't have continuity of consciousness with their Time Lord selves and often grow an independent personality. For all intents and purpose they are different individuals.
Of course, you may disagree with this. You might say that John Smith was still the Doctor. But then what justification is there for his having a separate page? Yeah, he's technically a different body than the Tenth Doctor, kinda, but so is the Twelvfth Doctor we follow for most of Heaven Sent, and he too has forgotten some things that happened to the original Twelfth Doctor, yet we haven't made a separate page for him, because for all intents and purposes he and the Twelfth Doctor are one and the same.
Both "Yana" and "John Smith (Tenth Doctor)" live or die on the same battlefield of whether they're to be considered individual people or not. I don't see a justification for keeping the one and not the other.
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, it seems inconsistent to give one a page and not the other. I'll concede that John Smith is better developed than Professor Yana, so Yana's page would probably be smaller, but I hardly think that means it shouldn't exist.
I'd probably be satisfied with there not being a John Smith page, though. Either way, as long as we're consistent.
- Danniesen
I agree with this.
Since then, as noted extensively above, the War Master (as he is now called) has been given his own spin-off series with Big Finish, on top of multiple appearances being made in other BF series, like UNIT, Gallifrey, The Diary of River Song and Ravenous. As a result, a clear distinction can now be made between the two characters, both in personality and biography. We have more than enough now to follow the precedent of John Smith (Tenth Doctor), and give Yana his own page, as a Chameleon Arch identity.
The same should apply to all cases where a Chameleon Arch is used, so long as the requirements set by Thread:122404 are met. So as noted above, Quarren Maguire should not be split into two pages until or unless we hear from him again (in part due to a lack of information to distinguish his identities, and in part because we have no other name for the Time Lord), but Ruth Clayton might well deserve her own page, alongside The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon), if a talk page discussion finds that these requirements, as laid out for Yana, have been adequately met.
So, take care to follow John Smith (Tenth Doctor)'s basic format, and ensure that the War Master himself does not become the subject of this article. The Yana page is now, once again, open for editing.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:246790
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the info boxes were designed to basically give important info in a small and manageable chunk?
One thing I've noticed is that under the "Notable non-DWU work" sections for many cast and crew, there are many who seem to have their entire filmographies listed rather than "Career highlights" as is suggested. Paul McGann has "Ripper Street" and "The Musketeers" for example, but single guest appearances aren't something I would describe as "notable" or a "highlight" in such a long and varied career.
Is there any kind of policy which could help cut this down, or could it be an idea to introduce one? Either limited to a certain number of entries per person, or ruling out work such as single guest, or panel show appearances for example?
MadeIndescribable ☎ 18:06, February 25, 2019 (UTC)
- SOTO
It's really a case-by-case deal. I agree there are many examples where this list could surely be cut down.
In some actors' careers, of course, a guest appearance on The Musketeers or EastEnders might be notable, if they don’t have a lot of television credits. But John Hurt's impressive filmography need not mention Thomas & Friends: Sodor's Legend of the Lost Treasure.
Do you have any suggestions for specific credit limits? My go-to is just, if the infobox is longer than the page, something needs fixing. Either the person has had a long and varied career, as you say, with many roles which do warrant mentioning — in which case the article is a stub, and needs expanding — or, if there isn't a lot to say in the article, that list ought to be cut down.
I'm not exactly an expert on pop culture myself, so in terms of notability, I don't know enough to make these judgements. Certainly, bringing this variable down to the absolute basics is still better than clearing it entirely. Do feel free to remove credits that you don't think merit mentioning, when a list seems unproportionate.
EDIT: Shambala is correct that this is also covered at Tardis:Infoboxes.
- Shambala108
Yes, there is a policy located at Tardis:Infoboxes. Basically it amounts to this: it is not necessary to populate every field of the infobox with as much information as possible. If something is notable enough to appear in the infobox, it should appear in the body of the article (with the kind of exceptions noted on the policy page). There are two things at work here:
- First, as the policy states, "Infoboxes are cool, but they're not the main purpose of an article. They should be only a summary of what's in the article." We don't want people to read a bunch of stuff in the infobox and then leave the article; we want the infobox to be a teaser of what is in the article.
- Second, an infobox that is longer than the article itself is bad design. In addition, a very long infobox can sometimes shove the table of contents past the items it's listing, and on story pages a very long infobox also shoves images down the page, causing a clumping of images just below the table of contents. This results in a messy-looking page.
- MadeIndescribable
Thanks for your input guys, I was mostly wondering what other people thought about this and yes, I agree it is mostly a case by case basis and so I'm not sure what kind of catch all limits could be put in place.
But basically as long as no-one has any objections to me using a bit of my own judgement to cut down any needlessly long infoboxes I come across, then I'm happy to do that as and when.
There is no objection to you cutting down long infoboxes; as a matter of fact, I've been doing that already whenever I come across a page that has a long list of non-DWU work that makes the infobox longer than the article and/or isn't even mentioned in the body of the article.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:247670
I initially brought this matter to SOTO in their talk page, but was encouraged to bring this to a forum in my talk page. So, my idea is: Category:Doctor Who monthly audio stories needs renaming because it doesn't match the series page's name.
But while we would use a bot to do it, I proprosed two new types of categories to be implemented as well: one for "Main Range stories by Doctor" and one for "Main Range stories by year".
The former is supported by categories like Category:Tenth Doctor NSA novels and Category:Fourth Doctor DWM comic stories. So I think it's only fair to have Category:Seventh Doctor Main Range audio stories, et al.
For the latter, there's no exact precedent, as far as I know, but I think it's a good idea, because it helps to "clean up" categories like Category:2018 audio stories, which would then have 15 stories, rather than the current 28. This way, users can more easily navigate through more sporatic stories (like the Subscriber Short Trips and Cardiff Unknown - October 2018.
The main concert for the "stories by year" would be naming: as SOTO pointed out in my talk page: "Main Range/2019 audio stories" would be highly irregular, but I don't see why something like "2019 Main Range audio stories" should be off the table.
- Shambala108
You know what, I don't know anything about audio stories, but you seem to have some concrete ideas here. In the interest of finally moving forward on the many open forum discussions, I'm giving you the go-ahead to implement your idea, and if you need admin input (i.e. moving/deleting pages or categories), let me know.
- OncomingStorm12th
Just got around to creating all the categories that had been proposed. The only thing that needs to be done now is deleting Category:Doctor Who monthly audio stories.
- Shambala108
Does the information on the category page need to be preserved somewhere?
- OncomingStorm12th
In my opinion, it's so outdated and presented in a page with so little acess that is just not worth keeping. Especially now that there are pages for each year's releases.
I mean, basically the same information is present at the top of Main Range, at not even that is propperly updated. I say that the info is more trouble than it's worthy.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:248116
There seems to be an issue in which all Wikpedia article names Template:W links to appear as redlinks on Special:WantedPages. Is it possible to rectify this?
- SOTO
It is possible. I also find these WLH hits are useful. I see it as a helpful bug. I'm more than willing to revisit the issue, though.
- MrThermomanPreacher
SOTO wrote: I also find these WLH hits are useful. I see it as a helpful bug.
How so? As I see it, Special:WantedPages is burdened with hundreds of pages that, as they are linked with that template, are not intended to ever be created.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:248287
Tardis welcomes everyone.
Both our administrative staff and our editing populace are comprised of people of many different cultural backgrounds, gender identities, sexual orientations and ages.
These differences help us create a vibrant and evolving community.
We also feel that our strict policy against personal attacks — and the harsh penalties it invariably brings — make for an environment that is much freer of interpersonal rancour than is typical on the internet.
Recently, one or two users encountered those penalties as they sought a better way for us to deal with the serious topic of "deadnaming". This blocking was interpreted by some as transphobic.
Instead, it was merely an attempt to uniformly uphold civility on the wiki. The issue was never the content of the message, but the harsh way in which that content was delivered.
In fact, our policies have included a facility to handle deadnames, and were written with that goal in mind. T:ACTOR, for instance, has long maintained that crew members' page names should always be moved to the most current name by which the crew member wishes to be known. Indeed our own trans admin, SOTO, was in the middle of trying to re-organise all these pages when some boring technical issues suddenly put a stop to their efforts. These changes were a work in progress, and the details were under discussion behind the scenes.
This created a misunderstanding for which we are deeply sorry.
We invite you to respond to this message — within the bounds of our policies on civility, of course — giving us ideas about how we can be more inclusive. And we do mean you. Whether you've edited this wiki, are an infrequent reader, or a first-time visitor, we need to hear your thoughts on how we can do better. We hope this discussion will be a place where those with the lived experience will help guide those in our community without it.
In the meantime, we're going to be expanding a few of our rules so that examples of documenting trans people are given. And we're going to revisit a few, crusty, old decisions that affected documenting other members of the LGBTQ+ community, which were made long ago.
We want you to join us in this journey.
While much work has already been done this week, some work remains undone. We want to get to that unfinished work quickly, since we believe the matter is urgent. So we'd like to put a tentative close date on this discussion of two weeks from now. If you're reading this page far in the future, though, and you still think there are areas where we can improve, please be sure to reach out to an administrator.
For now, we on the administrative staff want to step back and turn this discussion over to you. This is your conversation to have, and though we may provide insight on current convention and policy, we will do our best not to talk over you.
- Snivystorm
Could you perhaps link us to where this controversial incident and block occurred so we can have the complete context to the incident? Thanks.
- AzureKesil
By their own nature, wikis will be diverse. Similarly, the Whoniverse is a worldwide-known franchise, so diversity is to be expected. Now, why should anyone care who the user on the other side of the screen is as long as said user behaves and edits correctly? "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".
Please note I'm but a mere lurker who edits once in a blue moon, so I don't know if anything serious prompted this to be posted.
- Snivystorm
So, to clarify, this is a debate about whether or not we should include transgender people's birth names on their articles with one position being yes because it was factually their birth name and thereby worth including to record that truth while the opposing side is no because it is disrespectful to them as a person because said individual openly rejects that given name?
Have I understood the premise of this discussion correctly?
- Empjoker
I've never edited at all, and I rarely comment. But I would like to comment on how nice this is. Go diversity!
- SOTO
@Snivystorm: This is not actually a debate. This is an open discussion for people to bring up issues that need to be dealt with at Tardis.
What we hope comes from this discussion is more things being brought to light which need changing, and better still solutions to them. For instance, how can we make Tardis a safe(r) place for those who use it? Are there any problems in our articles that really need to be called out and dealt with?
(There is no truth to our deadnames, btw. They reflect a gender that was never ours. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's misleading to put anything other than trans people's current names in infoboxes, etc, because that deadname represents someone they never truly were. Self-designation first, anyway. I've expanded T:ACTOR to clarify all this.)
- SOTO
(I responded to your first query, Snivystorm, on your user talk page.)
- Snivystorm
SOTO wrote: @Snivystorm: This is not actually a debate. This is an open discussion for people to bring up issues that need to be dealt with at Tardis.
Ah, so its really an open thread to bring up any grievances we may have. Cool. :D
SOTO wrote: (There is no truth to our deadnames, btw. They reflect a gender that was never ours. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's misleading to put anything other than trans people's current names in infoboxes, etc, because that deadname represents someone they never truly were. Self-designation first, anyway. I've expanded T:ACTOR to clarify all this.)
I take it that means the discussion I perceived this was about is mute then, since admins have already decided on the policy for this issue?
- SOTO
Eh, the expansion at T:ACTOR is not really new policy. It's just a necessary addition, and a clarification to a policy we already had. I'm really glad I finally got to write that up.
- Snivystorm
SOTO wrote: Eh, the expansion at T:ACTOR is not really new policy. It's just a necessary addition, and a clarification to a policy we already had. I'm really glad I finally got to write that up.
Nice. :D So, to confirm, the said policy (by virtue of this discussion) is up for potential change?
- Starscream1998
Culture of inclusion, sounds pretty good to me.
- Andrybak
]
- Andrybak
SOTO, could you please clarify: are there any transgender actors which were ever credited in "Doctor Who" under their deadname?
- SOTO
- Starscream1998
That's a point, the people behind the scenes we don't actually visibly see outside of Doctor Who Confidential.
- Game-fanatic
Well I believe as an encyclopedia we should avoid taking social/political stances - while of course also doing our best not to offend anyone - so in order to provide as much objective information as possible, it would make sense to include a given person/character’s legal name, whether that be their birth name or not. Surely if they were credited for their work in the DWU with their birth name we would at least include that name (perhaps preceded by “formerly...”) so people could actually find who they’re looking for, right?
- AeD
- There's a difference between "taking social/political stances" and having a basic respect for people.
- That specific matter seems to have been settled by the admins, and is not up for debate.
- AeD
More on-topic: One thing that comes up occasionally when talking to friends about our frustrations with this wiki is that time the in- and out-of-universe categories for fictional queer characters and real queer performers/writers/other staff and crew were deleted with very little debate.
Some of the arguments in that short thread -- from over seven years ago -- are somewhat... Let's just remember the past is a different country, because surely the fact that Russell T Davies is a gay man, or that characters like Jack Harkness, Bill Potts, or Bernice Summerfield are prominent queer heroic figures, is somewhat more significant to both Doctor Who and its fan community than whether or not a writer is a known smoker or was born in Kent.
Doctor Who as a cultural entity is massively informed by the British (and global) queer community (especially during the RTD years, but before and after, too) and has significantly informed it in return. That the man who brought a camp children's show to mainstream drama success is a gay man is a huge deal. That the spinoff of that mainstream drama was led by a gay man playing an enthusiastically queer man was a huge deal. Bill Potts was and is a huge deal.
The argument raised in the thread -- "We write articles in the past tense from an 'end of the universe' POV" -- holds up only if this wiki were imagined to be a perfect vaccuum, inhabited only by robots. The thoughts and feelings of real human beings should occasionally be allowed to trump the cold, hard logic of policies and points of view. (Which is why I was very happy with the decision to swiftly eliminate the remaining deadnaming still going on.)
Some kind of reinstatement of these categories, or, given that "LGBT individuals" is somewhat broad, a better thought-out set of categories than I can quickly come up with in the middle of the night, or even some other form of solution as an acknowledgement of this as an issue, would be much appreciated.
- OncomingStorm12th
Also, regarding "DWU goes to such unusual lengths to prove that sexuality is fluid and has no definition" (emphasis mine) is just... not true, given we have lenghty articles on gay, lesbian, gender, homosexuality et al.
And then, for the concern of "potential misapplication", we do what we already do for every information: require sources. Both for characters and RW people. We don't need to simply claim Lucius (The Eaters of Light) is bisexual. He outright says he likes men and women. Similarly for Bill. In the same scene, she clarifies that she only likes women, and not men "that way". "Not ever. Only women".
For real world people, surely there's bound to be an interview where the (actor/writer/director/etc)'s sexuality is mentioned. If there is, we add the reference and the category. If there isn't, we don't, and keep searching.
And we don't speculate. If we see a character X who's male, and dates another male character, we don't categorise him as gay, unless he (or someone else in-narrative) establishes him as such. After all, he very well could be bisexual, pansexual or something else entirely.
I really don't see this addition as much different from what we do already for everything else.
- Snivystorm
AeD wrote: The thoughts and feelings of real human beings should occasionally be allowed to trump the cold, hard logic of policies and points of view.
I think this is a line we have to draw here in our policies - to what extent do we allow politics to play a role in our policy making and on what occasions do feelings supersede logic in regards to us (as editors) and the wikia (as an encyclopedia)?
We need to draw this line on what constitutes as human decency here, so the wikia can be inclusive to all without offending a select group(s) of people, and what constitutes as presenting factual content, which (lets be honest) is why the majority of people come to a wikia in the first place.
Therefore, we need to establish how the wikia can be both inclusive and factually informative from a neutral perspective without supporting one political view over another.
- SOTO
I don't see how human decency became a political stance, to be perfectly honest. I understand that people who oppose various minorities having rights try to frame these things as "political", but in my mind, anyone who sees these "political" concerns as somehow frivolous should take the time to understand how privilege plays a role in this perception.
In any case. More to the point, our stance should always just be deferring to the group in question. If POC come on and say there's a problem with our treatment of RW or fictional people of colour on the wiki, we should just listen. If certain language around disability is better for the real-world community, we should just go with that. The wiki is improved, in my mind, and certainly no lesser, for me having reworked statements about Ryan Sinclair "suffering from" dyspraxia, or certain characters being "confined to" their wheelchairs. There's no reason we, as editors, shouldn't be conscious of the implications. Absolutely nothing is lost by showing that sort of respect.
- SOTO
On the subject of LGBTQ categories: I agree this needs to be revisited. The reasoning for originally denying these categories -- first, that it would be potentially libellous to mistakenly call a real world person LGBTQ+, and second, that freely expressed sexuality and blurred lines on gender and sexuality across the DWU somehow erase queerness -- are.. questionable, at best. Other members of the admin team have also expressed that we need to look at this again, with a new lens.
I can expand on my own thoughts on how best to do this later, if anyone's interested. Basically, the problem to navigate, for in-universe cats, is:
- Does the character actually use a specific identifier/label? We know Bill Potts is only attracted to women "that way", but she never calls herself a lesbian. Can we apply that to her? In my own life, I know more queer women who don't use that term than those who do.
- Are we making assumptions about a character's sexual orientation? For instance, X male character is attracted to other male characters, but he might be gay, he might be bi, he might be pan, he might be omnisexual (which is more a thing in the DWU than in our world). Basically, it's easy to tell that a character is non-heterosexual, but sometimes, beyond that, it's not made clear.[note 1]
- If we want to go for a broader, catch-all category: As of yet, we have no DWU source for the term LGBTQ. We do have a source for queer as a shared identity, and that's an incredibly important word to me personally, but not everyone wants that applied to them, in the real world anyway.
- ↑ Side note: Even if we know a character's attracted to more than one gender, how do we know they're bi and not pan? If we're going for categories recording specific identities, we really need characters to express that these labels apply to them.
What do others think is the best way about this for DWU characters? There's really no such barriers for real world people, in my mind, because we ought to be able to find sources for their specific identities. I also agree with OS12, above: just like any other categories, these should only be added when there's accompanying text, and a valid source to back it up.
- Snivystorm
Game-fanatic wrote: Well I believe as an encyclopedia we should avoid taking social/political stances - while of course also doing our best not to offend anyone - so in order to provide as much objective information as possible, it would make sense to include a given person/character’s legal name, whether that be their birth name or not. Surely if they were credited for their work in the DWU with their birth name we would at least include that name (perhaps preceded by “formerly...”) so people could actually find who they’re looking for, right?
Agreed - end of the day, this place is about providing information to the general public and I further agree that politics (including identity politics) should not play a role here; I believe, when on wikia, we are first and foremost neutral editors dealing with information and how best to provide that to the general public as efficiently, accurately and clearly as possible.
- AeD
This specific matter continues to not be up for debate in this thread. This is new and current policy that is unlikely to change again this rapidly, and, as SOTO put it: "There is no truth to our deadnames, btw. They reflect a gender that was never ours." A deadname is a lie, and thus not a fact that needs to be in an accurate encyclopedic reference work.
As a non-binary and trans person, my gender identity -- which I'm making the assumption is covered by your reference to "identity politics" -- is not a thing I am able to meaningfully separate from the rest of myself. Not from my politics, not from other parts of my identity, not from my body or my soul.
To request that "identity politics," quote, "not play a role here," is essentially to demand that I, as a whole, and other queer folks, keep our noses out of things.
Do you understand that that is a somewhat silly demand to make in a thread where the admins of this website very specifically request input from people who are part of minority communities to help them make this a safe(r) place?
- Snivystorm
AeD wrote: To request that "identity politics," quote, "not play a role here," is essentially to demand that I, as a whole, and other queer folks, keep our noses out of things.
That is not what I said. I meant the actual politics within the discussion (hence why I said "politics", not people)
I never said anything about excluding anyone from the wiki and it's discussions at all - hell, I implore it in order for the wiki to include as many fans of the show as possible, therefore more editors and a more diverse editing community as a whole. I imagine we can all agree in favour of wanting such a diverse community.
What I'm talking about is the need to prevent political opinion from affecting how users edit articles in a way that favours one political opinion over another.
As I understand wikia, editors are meant to practise neutrality when editing here to avoid any political bias - I'm not promoting excluding minorities to "keep [their] noses out of things" as you unfortunately misread.
- AeD
If I've misread you, I'm sorry -- I do hope my previous post at least helps clarify where I'm coming from.
- Snivystorm
AeD wrote: If I've misread you, I'm sorry -- I do hope my previous post at least helps clarify where I'm coming from.
It's all good pal :) I figured it's best to clarify that I agree with you that a diverse and inclusive community is best for the wikia - all view points matter here in the discussion. *thumbs up*
- NateBumber
Snivystorm wrote: What I'm talking about is the need to prevent political opinion from affecting how users edit articles in a way that favours one political opinion over another.
As I understand wikia, editors are meant to practise neutrality when editing here to avoid any political bias
Chiming in to say that I absolutely agree with this sentiment, and I urge us all to continue making sure that no editorializing language is added to pages like Marxism or Donald Trump or Brexit; so far, we've done a great job of that, with statements like "Barack Obama condemned Donald Trump as an unsuitable candidate for president" (rather than "Donald Trump was an unsuitable candidate for president"!)
Admittedly, I'm not sure what that has to do with the recent changes to T:ACTOR, but regardless, political neutrality (like every other kind of tolerance) is an important ideal to keep in mind.
Replying more generally to the responses in this thread: I strongly second the need for overturning that old ruling about categories pertaining to LGBTQ characters. While our valid sources don't seem to have given us a citation for the general concept of the acronym LGBTQ, we do have ample evidence for heterosexuality and straightness; while we're waiting for precedent on that, should we follow Wikipedia's lead with Category:Non-heterosexual people, to cover LGB+AP at least?
Edit to add: Or does "in-universe precedent" even matter here? I don't think we have in-universe precedent for "Writers from the real world", after all!
For years and years people have been trotting out this LGBTQ categories debacle as a reason to shit on our community, so it would be really great to see that fixed as soon as possible.
- CzechOut
Just wanted to drop back by and clarify that this sentence from the original post —
- And we're going to revisit a few, crusty, old decisions that affected documenting other members of the LGBTQ+ community, which were made long ago.
— was indeed meant to refer to the category issue SOTO, OncomingStorm, AeD and others brought up.
Now that we have new forum technology that will actually alert people to discussions — unlike back in the day when the issue was discussed — it’s clear that this will be a more meaningful, impactful and inclusive way to proceed.
So from this moment, we’re done with the past. There is no policy about LGBTQ categorisation. That is for us, here, to decide anew.
So please feel free to continue fleshing out a new approach to LGBTQ categorisation. For the sake of clarity, I’ve taken the additional step of deleting the previous discussion so that there is no misbelief that the previous decision is somehow still in force.
A lot of great ideas have already been raised about in this thread, and we’re thrilled to see the level of insight and civility that’s clearly on display. You know, if we keep this up, we just might arrive at a more inclusive future!
- Imamadmad
Chiming in here. I agree that it'd be nice to have categories for those who identify as queer/fall within the queer community. On the point of what to call the category though, that's where I have some thoughts.
I believe that queer is the best term for the category, at least for characters, because as SOTO said, it is an in-universe term to start with.
It's also far easier to be able to identify somebody as not-straight than trying to figure out their exact identity, so putting all the not-straights in the category queer is easier than trying to figure out people's exact gender + sexual + romantic identity. (Also, note how I'm saying not-straight instead of non-heterosexual. Heterosexual people can also be queer, such as those who are heterosexual biromantic or heterosexual trans. Sexuality is only one dimension of somebody's gender + sexual + romantic identity).
I also personally have a problem with the term LGBTQ and its variants, as it feels like it's saying "lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and everybody else", which, if you are one of the "everybody else" like myself (asexual), sort of feels like it's putting you as a lesser member of the community. But that could just be me and other people don't mind as much.
But then you are stuck with the issue of queer being a reclaimed term and so many people, especially older people, still associate it with the older negative connotations. Looking back at our in-universe sources shown at Queer, even in-universe characters like Ianto don't like the term.
And then there's the issue of real world people preferring one term over the other. That could either annoy some people being put into a category whose name they don't think reflects who they are, or both terms could be used and that would really mess with the category tree!
To sum up, I'd prefer the term queer for in-universe characters, but categorising real-world people is a whole 'nother kettle of fish to deal with.
- SOTO
To be fair, Ianto's response can also be read as "It's not the 1960s. That word doesn't have the sting you think it does, but nice try."
What's nice about LGBTQ in my mind is that it sort of allows people to opt in or opt out of calling themselves queer. So if I don't fit neatly into the first four letters, I can still point at the Q and say "that's me", but someone who doesn't want that word applied to them can also point to the other letters.
That said, your take does matter. Personally, I love being queer; it describes my own identity (trans, nonbinary, pan but also gay, in that everything is gay when you're nonbinary, greyace..) better than any other word. Just hearing the word can fill me with such happiness, because it means so much to me. I just know not everyone feels that way, especially those in the community from older generations.
[Side note: I think you're looking for a term like cishet, as in cisgender and completely heterosexual. A straight trans man is still straight, though he's not a cishet, or in other words he's still definitely queer, if he claims that word / LGBTQ.]
- Game-fanatic
Well I definitely fear the complications that will certainly arise if the transgender name policy that has been put in place entails changing past credits themselves or not including redirects, in terms of being a website meant to present all factual information as it relates to the show and one that is easily and efficiently accessible by all people for finding that information without issue - especially if this was based on the idea that there is any “truth” to any name at all, which is irrelevant to fact-keeping and organization and is kind of mistaken, anyway, honestly... If that's not how the policy works, though, and old names are still used in the credits they appeared as such in and do redirect to the new names and such in a way that still keeps all the information right and findable, that's great; I was just having some confusion reading the policy, myself.
But as that is apparently not what we are discussing here, anyway, I’ll be off, as I can’t say I have many ideas how we can foster an even more diverse community; I think the Wiki is doing a pretty great job overall on that front right now, personally! Though I will say regarding the use of “queer,” that, in the interest of avoiding offending anyone unnecessarily, that would be best not to use, perhaps, since many still find offense in that term.
- Snivystorm
Game-fanatic wrote: Though I will say regarding the use of “queer,” that, in the interest of avoiding offending anyone unnecessarily, that would be best not to use, perhaps, since many still find offense in that term.
Such as?
Further, I thought the LGBTQ community endorses it (given it's in their acronym)?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Snivystorm wrote:
Game-fanatic wrote: Though I will say regarding the use of “queer,” that, in the interest of avoiding offending anyone unnecessarily, that would be best not to use, perhaps, since many still find offense in that term.
Such as?
Further, I thought the LGBTQ community endorses it (given it's in their acronym)?
It varies per person. Some people want to reclaim it and some people are uncomfortable with it, finding it offensive. I'm in the latter category.
- Snivystorm
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: It varies per person. Some people want to reclaim it and some people are uncomfortable with it, finding it offensive. I'm in the latter category.
So what term do you propose we use instead to categorise queer characters?
- Game-fanatic
What Jack said, also the Q can mean “questioning.”
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Snivystorm wrote:
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: It varies per person. Some people want to reclaim it and some people are uncomfortable with it, finding it offensive. I'm in the latter category.
So what term do you propose we use instead to categorise queer characters?
I'd suggest LGBT or LGBT+.
- Shambala108
- Imamadmad
It can't be just LGBT, because there are many forms of non-cishet-ness (thanks for the word BTW Soto!) other than being lesbian, gay, bi, or trans, such as but not limited to those who identify as ace, intersex, pan, poly, etc. Unless you want that acronym to bloom out uncontrollably, you need some kind of catch-all in there.
The only thing is, if you then have a catch-all along with an acronym, you have to make the decision as to who is "important" enough to be included in the acronym part and who is just a part of the catch-all. Personally, if I go with the acronym, I use LGBTIAPQ, but a) that's long and b) there're bound to be categories left out of that which would make the people who fall into those categories feel left out, and considering this is an inclusion measure, I don't want smaller minorities to get the short straw and feel even more left out.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Gender and sexual minorities or GSM works too.
- AeD
That's far from a mainstream phrase, though, and we certainly don't have more of a Doctor Who-based basis for it than we do "queer."
Part of the problem, obviously, is that every way you could possibly put this is going to either be inaccurate in some way, or be offensive to someone.
- Snivystorm
Precisely - despite our efforts, there will always be someone who will take offence to the terms we decide on; all we can do is come to a consensus, allowing majority rule to decide the term and stick with that.
- Bologuy
ok then
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:251268
Months ago, I created a page for the 1975 television special Disney Time 1975. The special in question was an installment of the Disney Time anthology series — which, like other similar Disney specials, mostly hosted extracts from preexisting properties and shorts, with a framing story around it featuring a guest star. You may have guessed it by now, but the guest star of this particular episode was none other than the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker.
Soon after, a delete template was added to the page; it surfaced that the rationale was that the connection to Doctor Who was too tenuous, and that this was more “the host is Tom Baker, and he's sort of lightly pretending to be his most famous character but not really” than a story (albeit an invalid one) about the Fourth Doctor.
This is, in my opinion, very much untrue. The Doctor/Baker arrives in London in the TARDIS (it is seen materializing on-screen!), constantly acts like the Doctor without ever breaking character, and ends the special when he receives an urgent message from the Brigadier. That last bit is important — not only does it establish that this is the Doctor and not Tom Baker pretending to be the Doctor, but it appears to be a direct lead-in to Terror of the Zygons, broadcast just a few days later than Disney Time 1975, and which does indeed begin with the Doctor hurrying to the Brigadier after receiving an urgent message from him. A direct lead-in to a regular TV story is more of a narrative connection to regular Doctor Who than Search Out Space — undeniably something we cover — did, so why should Disney Time 1975 be out while Search Out Space is in?
We discussed this at some lengths on the talk page: Talk:Disney Time 1975 (TV story), but, even though User:Danniesen and myself were still arguing for the special to be covered, and the "delete" side had not answered the points I restated above in any clear fashion, the page still ended up being deleted.
Since the conversation is unlikely to be noticed by anyone who didn't already participate in it if we confine it to the talk page of a deleted page, I thought it best to bring it to the Forum. (Considering that this is a debate about whether to cover the thing or not, rather than about whether it is valid — for it is invalid either way; the Doctor breaks the fourth wall throughout, since he serves as a TV host — I think it belongs here, in the Panopticon, rather than in Inclusion Debates; someone, do correct me if I'm wrong on this.)
But to add to the earlier points… if this sort of clearly-invalid TV special thingum, where it's even slightly unclear whether the Doctor's actor is in-character or not, isn't within what Tardis covers — could somebody tell me what the justification is for keeping pages about the likes of The Lord Mayor's Show, or Tony Blair Regenerates, or the Surprise Surprise! special?
- Danniesen
It SHOULD have a page. It's a valid page to have, and that is a fact and can't be altered no matter what anyone can say against it. It doesn't change that there should be a page about it.
- Borisashton
I think the last point there is very important and perhaps should be the focus of the entire thread. There is no policy (that I know of) that clearly regulates pages within Category:Parodic comedy sketches from non-DWU series. What stays and what goes in this extremely broad category of obviously invalid stories?
One way that I looked at it when I was into making invalid pages was that if an actor reprised their role as their character in a licensed appearance then it can have a page which, with hindsight is a bad way to do things.
Another way that I thought was surely better was if the parody had been included in some way on an official DW BBC DVD. The Real McCoy was deleted for being unlicensed despite being included in its entirety on the Earthshock DVD and Pakistani Dalek was deleted for being unassociated with Who despite clips being featured in More than 30 Years in the TARDIS.
I don't know what the solution is here, but I thought I'd bring it up.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think that if an actor reprised their Doctor Who role and it was licensed with the BBC (which is clearly the case for Disney Time 1975), then the thing's place on the Wiki shouldn't be questioned.
Beyond that, you'r quite right that this is sort of the soul of the debate, though it's not just "parody sketches"; the Surprise! Surprise! special wasn't parody, and nor was Disney Time; it's just incursions of Who characters and concept into Rule-1-breaking media.
- Danniesen
Since this haven't been countered, I think it's safe to assume that the page can be recreated.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, let's not be hasty. Neither of us is an administrator here. Though I share the sentiment, of course.
- Danniesen
I know.
- Shambala108
Admin note: User:Danniesen is not an admin and therefore has no authority to "assume" or allow open issues to be resolved thanks.
- Danniesen
Wow wow wow, I did not claim authority or allow for anything.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Whether it counts as a valid story or not, it should definitely have a page, in my opinion.
- Danniesen
Yeah. It doesn't make sense to exclude it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not just a bump (though that too), but also an addition: another story not currently covered on the Wiki, but which I think falls in the same batch as Disney Time 1975, Search Out Space and the rest. Namely, the Out of the Unknown episode Get Off My Cloud, with the Daleks (Daleks voiced by Peter Hawkins at that!) and the TARDIS (the actual TARDIS prop!). It's currently alluded to only in the Behind the scenes section of the article I linked to.
Why?
It's obviously non-DWU, since it features the Daleks as fictional creatures brought into existence because of a machine that makes a boy's imagination into reality. But it's still a BBC story where fully-licensed Daleks play a non-trivial part in the plot. And as detailed recently in the Terry Nation Army episode which brought this to mind, it even had a long-lasting impact on the Doctor Who TV series proper, as modifications were made to the TARDIS prop in Out of the Unknown which stuck for the rest of Two's run.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Even more evidence that we should cover Disney Time: look at what I just found in an article in DWM 274: a screenshot of Disney Time sitting proudly next to one from the Prime Computer advertisements and other such bits of paraphernalia. Why should one of these things get a page but not the other?
Note also that the caption, even though it refers to the Prime Computer advertisements as being "Tom and Lalla's", explicitly calls the host of Disney Time the Fourth Doctor, not Tom Baker.
- NateBumber
Just stopping by to express support for this story (as well as Get Off My Cloud, The Real McCoy, and Pakistani Dalek, all of which should be covered as invalid at minimum).
- Danniesen
Soo... what's the situation?
- Danniesen
Disney Time 1975 deserves to have a page here.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:252210
I think this is the best place to ask this question, but why does every number need it's own individual page? I understand something like "Pi" that's a part of mathematics and would have multiple sources, but something like "13500020012" surely doesn't warrant it's own page. Or does it?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The thing with Wikis is that they don't have a maximum page count. It costs us nothing to have pages on the most minute and trivial of data-points. So we might as well err on the side of the overly trivial; it hurts no one, and if one or two people get something out of the page anyway, so much the better.
Hence in this case, it's of relatively small relevance, yes, but it may amuse some reader to have a page that lists all the times in the DWU that someone had 13500020012 somethings.
- Danniesen
Agreed with Scrooge MacDuck. As long as it's part of Doctor Who in some way or another it warrants a page in most cases.
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, if someone's willing to put the work into creating a page, why shouldn't it exist? Assuming the number exists somewhere in a story, that is.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:252344
Find and remove the following zero width unicode characters [\u200B\u200E\uFEFF] (Space, Left-To-Right Byte Order Mark, and No-Break-Space). Programming wise, they can screw up a lot of things, namely causing regex matches to fail where they should pass. They might be serving a purpose, but more often than not, it's visual wiki editor barf, and it usually winds up in or adjacent to links.
My last analysis indicated 184 matches across the wiki's main article space.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:252449
Putting this up for discussion here:
Several Bernice Summerfield novels have rename tags of the following sort:
- "Both the novel and the audiobook covers clearly have the title as Professor Bernice Summerfield and <page title>. However, given the website uses Bernice Summerfield: <page title>, the current title should be kept as a redirect"
For convenience, I am removing the rename tags until/unless we agree to one or more of these changes. For the convenience of whichever admin might be performing any moves, I am listing the titles here:
- The Doomsday Manuscript (novel)
- The Gods of the Underworld (novel)
- The Squire's Crystal (novel)
- The Infernal Nexus (novel)
- The Glass Prison (novel)
- The Big Hunt (novel)
As always, remember that only admins are permitted to move pages on this wiki (Thread:128198).
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree that when applicable, the page titles should definitely be Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Something of the Feeblefetzer, if we're going to stick to the same principles used for Terrance Dicks books (i.e. Doctor Who and the Dalek Invasion of Earth (novelisation)). Printed title trumps the shortened form used in advertisement.
On the other hand, per the infobox image of The Big Hunt, it appears not to have an 'and' on the cover. So it alone would probably stay The Big Hunt no matter what.
- Shambala108
Some previous forum decisions that might have applicability here:
- Scrooge MacDuck
Thanks for all the links!
But in my opinion, while they're interesting for reference, the decisions reached there are not that applicable here (except for The Big Hunt). These were all for prefixes of some sort, where it's Doctor Who: Something-or-Other. Not what we have here, which is more along the lines of Doctor Who and the Something-or-Other.
So the most relevant link here is, I believe, Forum:Removing "Doctor Who" from "Doctor Who and the Iron Legion" and others.
- OncomingStorm12th
Thank you to both Shambala108 and Scrooge MacDuck for bringing this to the forum. I'm all-supportive for removing prefixes (in fact, I was the OP for the forum which stripped the "UNIT" and "Torchwood" prefixes from pages).
But as Scrooge pointer out, in this case we are not dealing with the prefixes. On the covers, they are presented as "Professor Bernice Summerfield and.... ".
It is only the Big Finish website which uses Bernice Summerfield (the series name) as a prefix.
- Shambala108
Just to point out, one of the reasons for removing the prefixes was for ease of searching and for minimizing the steps necessary to trigger the auto-suggest. So those previous forums can be applicable for this question. If it was the exact same issue, there wouldn't even need to be a discussion here.
I know from personal experience that trying to get to the page Bernice Summerfield - list of appearances in either the search bar or auto-suggest necessitates typing all the way to the hyphen. One of User:CzechOut's arguments in favor of dropping prefixes in the previous decisions was to minimize that kind of extra work.
Just something to keep in mind as we discuss this.
- OncomingStorm12th
In that regard, this wouldn't affect much the searchability of, say, Bernice Summerfield - list of appearances, or even Bernice Summerfield, nor Bernice Summerfield (series). In this case, we'd be adding Professor Bernice Summerfield to the titles.
Typing "Professor" in the search bar and the auto-suggest currently wields no "big pages". The only character which is not a one-off character is Salyavin, also arguably not a "big page".
Plus, there is great precedence in matching titles with the cover of audio and book releases. I wholeheartedly see this as much closer to the topics of Forum:Removing "Doctor Who" from "Doctor Who and the Iron Legion" and others than those of any other forum liked so far.
- NateBumber
Personally I'm 100% in favor of renaming the pages to Professor Bernice Summerfield and _, per the previous decision in Forum:Removing "Doctor Who" from "Doctor Who and the Iron Legion" and others. (I've preemptively added those stories to Doctor Who and.) Thread:193754#21 seems like a particularly good admin comment on the matter:
The webpage name can be changed (and in many cases has been changed), whereas the CD cover (especially the physical version) remains constant. There may be alternative covers, but they do not replace the original one completely. Thus, for me it is better to go with the cover. If "and" is present there but not (at the moment) on the website, follow the cover.
That's obviously relevant to this scenario, where BigFinish.com says "Bernice Summerfield: The Doomsday Manuscript" but the book cover itself says Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Doomsday Manuscript.
Since it's the same situation, could the following Iris Wildthyme page names also be fixed to Iris Wildthyme and _, when/if this discussion closes in favor of renaming the Benny pages?
- Scrooge MacDuck
NateBumber wrote: (I've preemptively added those stories to Doctor Who and.)
…may I ask why? I don't quite see how they (and the Iris Wildthyme one) belong on that page. I see little sense in cataloguing all titles of the Character Name and the Plot Device of the Thingum, and even if we did find this a worthy goal, this would surely not be the right page to do it, would it? The interest of the page lies mainly, I think, in the weight that such titles bring to the "What is the Doctor's name?" debate. It's not as though the Wikis of franchises which use such titles in less contentious fashions have such a page; no Indiana Jones and the page on the Indiana Jones Wiki, etc.
- NateBumber
Yes, I agree that the primary interestingness of the page is its connection to the "Doctor's name" debate. Frankly I updated it because (1) it's had a tribute section since User:OttselSpy25 first made it, and (2) I find it a lot of fun to update! (In other words, regardless of whether "we" find it a worthy goal, I certainly do.) But tying into the concerns voiced in this thread, I think it's also very helpful as a disambiguation page. If you're trying to remember the name of the Cadet Sweets stories and you type "Doctor Who and the" into the search bar, you'll only see a few results, mostly novelisations. Doctor Who and the helps by listing the full search results for that phrase and related ones. Since the same logic applies to the list of stories starting with "Iris Wildthyme and", and since (as you pointed out with your Indiana Jones example) it would be a bit silly to give them their own page, I include them as a footnote on Doctor Who and the.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm, I see. Fair enough.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Reading through Thread:193754, I find that post #25 of that thread was already discussing this issue, though only for the Big Finish audios, ignoring the matter of the novels.
- NateBumber
Shall this thread be closed as a special case of / redundant to Thread:193754? I always thought that thread was quite sensible, and I'd love to see some more discussion bring it to closure + codification into policy.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, Thread:193754 is very explicitly about Big Finish, so the matter of what we title the pages for the original novels is technically off-topic.
- NateBumber
The novels under discussion were written for and published by Big Finish.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That… is true. ('was deceived by the absence of a Big Finish logo on the cover.) I did infer they were a shared project sort of thing, but not that the books were outright published by Big Finish. Thanks! Every day, something new…
Still, the circumstances of the books' release, by nature, mean the sort of stuff that factors into the name we choose for audiobooks don't necessarily apply here. Personally I'd argue the separate threads are still warranted for clarity's sake. The other thread is after all mainly about audios.
- Shambala108
Thread:193754 deals with (and is titled) "Policy Creation: Naming convention for Big Finish audio stories".
This thread deals with (and is titled) "Bernice Summerfield novels".
Two different issues, two different threads.
In future, please leave the question of closing forum threads to the admins thanks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If I may, NateBumber wasn't calling for the thread to be closed in the way an admin might, though — nor even declaring that one thing or the other should be done. He was merely asking whether the thread would be closed.
- Shambala108
Just to add to the confusion, here is some more information about the books I have.
On the top of the spine is the little "Professor Bernice Summerfield" logo. Running down the spine (perpendicular to the logo) is the title without the word "and" e.g. The Infernal Nexus.
Inside the books, there is no title running across the tops of the pages, so no help there.
- Borisashton
I'm definitely in favour of renaming the pages to include "Professor Bernice Summerfield and" where appropriate. The recently released audiobooks are helpful examples that this is the route that should be taken.
Using The Doomsday Manuscript as an example the title is formatted "Bernice Summerfield: Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Doomsday Manuscript" with the "Professor Bernice Summerfield" in an identical font and size to "the Doomsday Manuscript" while the Bernice Summerfield logo is above, clearly indicating what is the series name and what is the title.
Another thing to note is that typing "Professor Bernice Summerfield" into the search bar of the Big Finish website still yields search suggestions even though more concise names are used when you actually land on the pages.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:252652
Why are notices (aka hatnotes) broken? For example, preamble (lead section) in Matt Smith flows around two hatnotes (Template:real world and Template:you may) in a very bad for readability way. —andrybak (talk) 01:51, June 19, 2019 (UTC)
- Shambala108
I don't know the answer to that specific question, and hopefully someone who does will answer soon, but I will say that we have a certain order and location that templates must follow. Sometimes that makes for weird looking pages; the hope is that any stubs will eventually be filled out enough to remove the stub template and give enough content so these pages don't look so weird.
- Andrybak
Shambala108 wrote: ... the hope is that any stubs will eventually be filled out enough ...
User:Shambala108, could you please clarify what do you mean by "stubs" here? Stub articles? Or do the hatnotes not have enough text in them? Article Matt Smith does not seem like a stub to me, nor its lead section.
- Andrybak
Compare for example, how "real word POV" notice looks at Memory Alpha: Jonathan Frakes. The hatnote is wide, and above the infobox, which makes the lead section start at a correct place: top-left corner of the text. At the Tardis Data Core, template {{real world}} is more like a badge, which the lead section has to awkwardly flow around, and "You may be looking for..." template does not help it one bit in the article Matt Smith.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:252879
Ever since Tardis has been "upgraded" (quite nicely I must add), I've been noting that in some templates there's almost llegible text. For example, in Amy Pond, when you scroll down and open "COMPANIONS OF THE ELEVENTH DOCTOR", after you read "Original to television/prose/comics/audio", you can barely make out the text in the subcategories (Multi-story/Single-adventure/Multi-adventure), and there are some links to articles (like Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright) that are plainly unreadable. Now, I think it must be because of the pallet of colours used in them. Like, "Ian Chesterton" has the same colour as its background. And this is happening to many templates. So, is there a way to change the colour so all text may be legible?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:253808
Now, The Planet of Storms (stage play) doesn't currently exist on this Wiki, and there is not even a reference to it at Stage play.
Planet of Storms, for the unaware, is a 1996 stage play written by and starring Nick Scovell as his own incarnation of the Doctor — it occurs to me that a The Doctor (The Planet of Storms) page, obviously in the Category:Non-DWU Doctors category, this being a stage play, would also be warranted if the play is covered.
Online information about it is scarce, but according to this source, the "necessary rights" were acquired before its performance. This reference is good enough for Wikipedia, at any rate, as they list Nick Scovell alongside Trevor Martin and David Banks in their list of actors who have officially played the Doctor on Stage on the basis of Planet of Storms with this link as their reference.
But, of course, the case for the prosecution goes "this is one sentence in a 9-year-old website, and given that he's also played his Doctor in all sorts of unlicensed stuff, we should be wary of Nick Scovell material before we let it in".
So I suppose the question is — do we trust this reference enough?
- Shambala108
My computer won't let me access your source. Got a more secure one?
- Scrooge MacDuck
…that's very curious. It's the official website of the Evil of the Daleks stage play production — and it is linked to elsewhere on the Wiki, as well, as I mentioned, as on Wikipedia.
As I said, precisely the issue here is that information about this old thing is quite scarce. Perhaps of some relevance is this contemporary review from The Portsmouth News?… It doesn't say anything about rights per se, but it does by its sheer existence testify that this was indeed a professional production.
The page I was trying to link to is also on the Internet Archive, maybe that might work?
If it doesn't, at any rate, here's the relevant passage:
The Plays Before Evil
Nick Scovell, the man who would go on to write, direct and star in the stage show of The Evil of the Daleks, began his Doctor Who stage career in 1996 when he was offered a slot at the Portsmouth Arts Centre and and opted to put on a theatrical performance of his recently-written script entitled Planet of Storms.
The Paul McGann TV Movie had not long been broadcast, and after obtaining the necessary rights, this Graham Williams-esque romp was mounted in October 1996 featuring gold aliens called the Pertinax, and the Terrible Zodin.
- Shambala108
I'm going to say no to covering this unless/until we can come up with some more reliable sources and more information, preferably not wikipedia as it's not a valid source.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fair enough. Could we still mention it in passing on Nick Scovell's page, though?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:254184
For some reason, this wiki uses "et al." instead of "etc." despite the fact that the former is for people and the latter for everything else. I wonder why this is and suggest that it be corrected.
- Danniesen
There's a difference? I always thought this was interchangable.
- Shambala108
I looked this up a few months ago and it seems there isn't enough of a difference to warrant an actual policy. As long as people aren't using "i.e." when they mean "et al" or "etc.", I think we're good.
- Danniesen
Well... "i.e" does mean something different. Sooo...
- Shambala108
Yeah, that was my whole point. That's why I said "as long as people aren't using" it instead.
- Shambala108
As far as I can recall, there is no policy regarding the use of "et al" versus "etc" (there was a discussion about whether to allow it at all in citations, but that isn't quite the same thing as we're discussing here). I don't see a need for one since they apparently can be used interchangeably, but if there is enough strong feeling out there to make this a policy, then have at it. I'll keep this thread open for enough time for anyone interested to speak their piece.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar/style-and-usage/what-s-the-difference-between-etc-and-et-al.html
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/et-al/
I don't see much evidence of them being interchangeable, having only ever seen "et al" as being used for people and never for other things until visiting this wiki.
- SOTO
I lost my whole response to this, so I'll keep this one short. I would love to hear a more informed view on this than mine, but here's my understanding of the et al. situation:
- Yes, by convention (but by no means in all circumstances), the preferred use of et al. is for people. Indeed, it is most commonly used in lists of people.
- However, I would like to highlight one little nuance that I think might take precedence here. While et al. means "and others" in the unabbreviated Latin, indicating that an exhaustive list would contain more items, etc. translates more as "and the rest" or "and so on". In other words, etc. is used only when it is quite plain to the reader which items should follow, or what class of items should follow, when it's obvious enough what might come next in the sequence, when you'd have a general sense of what is contained in that "etc.": "all else that (logically) follows".
- Bringing this into the realm of citing stories, I do not think that most cases of our use of et al. here would jive well with this understanding of etc. I can think of exceptions, of course.
(TV: Everything Changes etc.)might indicate that the information cited can be found in most if not all Torchwood stories, so Everything Changes "and so on", "and all else that follows". The same would go for citing, say, An Unearthly Child, or talking about the Doctor's exile on Earth from Spearhead onward. But in so many cases here, the sources given are in different media, published in different time periods, and released as part of different ranges or series even within a medium. I do not believe that etc. lends itself particularly well when what we're citing are disparate sources which all agree on a fact, "and others". - For instance, the first source given on our Time Lord article is
(COMIC: Time Bomb!, TV: The Time Warrior, PROSE: The Crystal Bucephalus et al.). The preceding statement concerns their invention and subsequent attempts at total control over time travel technology. I can personally think of so many sources just within Big Finish's output that could go into this citation, but nothing about(COMIC: Time Bomb!, TV: The Time Warrior, PROSE: The Crystal Bucephalus, etc.)would clarify for me, as a reader, which stories might come next in the series. A 1989 Death's Head comic, a 1973 TV story, a 1993 Virgin Missing Adventures novel, and then...? What follows? Here, there is no list of similar or sequential items, so et al., which means to us "and other stories", still seems more appropriate.
- Shambala108
For information purposes, we discussed the use of "et al" in Thread:129568 with no clear resolution. It's not the same issue as here, but it might be of interest.
- Schreibenheimer
While I agree that the origins of et al. and etc. are what SOTO says they are, I do not agree that they are relevant. Language is a living thing, and origins of words only have practical meaning if the people who use the words know those origins. Otherwise, the words only reflect how they are currently used. I doubt people who haven't studied Latin would have any knowledge of the words' original meaning, so the distinction SOTO is making is entirely immaterial to most people. Which is not in and of itself a problem; this wiki makes borderline determinations over minutiae all the time.
The problem is that using et al. in an unconventional manner, even if it is a use that is supported by the original Latin, is a little more substantial. While et al. is infrequently used for lists of things other than people, those are so sparse in appearance that I had to dig to find an example. Meanwhile, many English language style guides actively advise against its use for lists of things other than people. It seems to me that going against the grain of the words' common modern usage is distinctly more problematic than going against Latin meanings that most people won't know anything about.
- Epsilon the Eternal
I've had a thought - we could, instead of using either et al or etc, we could create a short phrase, perhaps, "among other stories" in place of et al.
Example: Paul Magrs, (PROSE: Bafflement and Devotion, among other stories)
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
The quickest Google search of "et al vs etc" will show that etc. is the appropriate thing to use, meaning "and so forth" or "and so on".
- Epsilon the Eternal
I personally think that SOTO nailed the subject on the head.
Another solution that could be used would be a template - not unlike {{|source}} - which could be placed at the end of a citation, and when clicked, leads you to a separate citation page with the full list of relevant sources.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
That would make sense in certain situations but not in others where a full list would be difficult or impossible to put together. For example, this bullet point from the Continuity section of Rose - "The Doctor uses his sonic screwdriver. (TV: Fury From the Deep, et al.)"
Given that this thread still has not been closed after fourteen months, I figure I'd better double down so I can go back to only teaching people the difference between adjectives and nouns.
- Definitions of etc.
- Merriam-Webster - "and others especially of the same kind : and so forth"
- Collins Dictionary - "used at the end of a list to indicate that you have mentioned only some of the items involved and have not given a full list."
- Macmillan Dictionary - "used after a list of things to mean ‘and others of the same type’, when you do not want to mention everything"
- Cambridge Dictionary - "and other similar things. It is used to avoid giving a complete list"
- Definitions of et al.
- Merriam-Webster - "typically stands in for two or more names, especially in bibliographical information"
- Collins Dictionary - "is used after a name or a list of names to indicate that other people are also involved"
- Macmillan Dictionary - "used after a name to mean ‘and other people whose names are not mentioned’, especially people who have written a book together"
- Cambridge Dictionary - "and others. It is used in formal writing to avoid a long list of names of people who have written something together"
For the difference in usage between the two, a quick Google search will find pages such as this one on Grammarly or this one on Grammarist, in which "etc. vs et al." is dedicated the tiniest of sections reading, "Et cetera refers to things. Et al. refers to people."
Why this wiki has been using et al. all these years, I cannot say, but the above information speaks for itself and proves beyond, I'd say, any reasonable doubt that it is incorrect.
- Definitions of etc.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Perhaps:
- The Doctor used his sonic screwdriver to unlock a door. (TV: Fury from the Deep, among other stories)
With a link to the The Doctor's sonic screwdriver - list of appearances page.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
But why use the unwieldy "among other stories" rather than "etc.", which exists to avoid writing such things?
- Epsilon the Eternal
- The Doctor used his sonic screwdriver to unlock a door. (TV: Fury from the Deep, etc)
- Scrooge MacDuck
To account for User:SOTO's criticisms of "etc." in citations at Thread:254184#8, which I think are very valid.
- TheDarkBomber
"et al." seems fine here for listing the names of the stories.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I'd be fine with "among other stories", although I don't really see the point when you can use etc.
Et al., as shown above, is for people and not stories, DarkBomber.
- Epsilon the Eternal
The only issue is, etc can be open to interpretation, whereas something like among other stories is not (at least to the same extent).
- Epsilon the Eternal
Also, a new type of page could be introduced (although I'm not sure of the technical difficulties it could face).
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
If I'm understanding the problem right, we could say "TV: Everything Changes-The Blood Line" to mean Torchwood and "TV: Everything Changes, etc.)" to mean Everything Changes and others.
But so long as we stop using et al., I won't argue any further with what we replace it with.
- Epsilon the Eternal
But then issues will arise with your suggestion when non-TV sources need to be included. Especially those which have a non-chronological release order.
- Scrooge MacDuck
No, Jack, I think you've actually got it backwards. Per SOTO's interpretation, (TV: Everything Changes, etc.) looks like it means "most of Torchwood", or at least, "other things similar to Everything Changes, whose nature you can guess from the example".
Whereas "et alt." as it has thus far been used on the Wiki instead carries a connotation of "and a bunch other miscellaneous things".
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
These are issues which exist no less with the entirely erroneous "et al.", but I'm not against your suggestion. I do, however, think that it would take a massive amount of work to implement rather than simply replacing "et al." with "etc."
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Right. I'd say it's no more a matter of interpretation than "et al.", which is understood as meaning what you've said only by those familiar with the wiki and because it's been that way for so long.
- LauraBatham
While I am not too bothered about whether we use et al., etc, or "among other stories" (though, considering how many pages the wiki has, it would be a lot of work for what is, in my opinion, such a small change), I don't think Epsilon's suggestion of a template would work. It seems like a fine enough idea for sources for items and people where you can link it to a specific page of appearances, but there are also plenty of instances where the subject matter is a phrase or action, which do not have their own pages. Such as this continuity point for Kill the Moon (TV story):
The Doctor says "When I say 'run', run", a saying favoured by his second incarnation. (TV: The Power of the Daleks et al.)
Whatever we chose to use, however, I think it would be a good idea to add the outcome to the citation policy (or another relevant policy if it isn't on one already) so at least the wiki can be consistent. At the moment, some pages use et al. and other pages use etc and some pages even have both.
- JDPManjoume
I would say that et al. served as some confusion for me when I saw it on occasion on pages. Obviously a personal thing but I always presumed it to either mean the other instances of that story under other names or acting as cover-all for the episodes of a story within early Hartnell era.
It took me a bit of time reading through various pages that featured it over time to realise that it was being used in the way that it is. I will concede, like Laura above said, that making a decision either way would create some amount of work as both have been used variably throughout the Wiki.
I'm not fussed about pressing this matter too hard, but if asked for a viewpoint - I would argue etc. (and would be against "amongst other stories" - just seems awfully clunky to me...)
It's much more commonly in usage amongst casual conversation, and et al. aside from being baffling for those less familiar with the Wiki could perhaps cause a bit of confusion for academically-involved individuals reading the Wiki, who of course would know the terminology only in the context of people.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:254284
As a knitter and a Whovian, I want to knit/crochet all the things in Doctor Who episodes! I figured I wasn't the only knitter who would be interested in a list of knitted/crocheted items in the episodes to refer to. I was thinking this would be a good place to do it. I was thinking of including:
Knitted and crocheted items that the Doctor, his companions and other major characters wore (not minor characters).
Picture(s) of the item in the episode.
Links to patterns for these items (if available). Or references to patterns in books. There are at least a couple Doctor Who knitting books.
Possibly some decor / non-wearable items. I don't think there are many of these, but I can think of a few blankets.
I've edited Wikipedia some, but I don't have a lot of experience creating pages, etc. If this seems like a good idea, how would I start? Thanks!
- Shambala108
We do have the following pages Knitting and Knitting for Girls. You can check the "what links here" for these pages to see what else connects to knitting.
- Earthnut
The pages I was thinking of wouldn't be so much about knitting, though, but the items. More like The Doctor's scarf page. Although most items would be very short articles, ie "This __ was worn by __ in the episode __." Or have pages for outfits. This would cover several pieces of clothing at a time and be useful for cosplayers too.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:255740
So there's this "non-fiction template" used on some pages on the Wiki. It currently reads:
- This is a work of non-fiction.
- Unlike other fictional universes, the Doctor Who universe is created solely by fiction. To us, this is not a valid source. Information from this source can only be used in "behind the scenes" sections, or on pages about real world topics.
It's used, for example, on The Writer's Tale, where it serves a useful purpose; point out that it isn't a novel, and remind editors that as such, any in-universe info that happens to be packaged in it isn't counted as valid by Tardis.
But I also see it popping up on a lot of pages which would be better-served by the "Invalid" tag, unless the wording of the {{Non-fiction}} template is significantly changed. AHistory. Adventures in Time and Space: The Roleplaying Game. Aliens and Enemies. All that kind of thing.
And… look, Tardis long ago decided that in-universe info presented non-narratively didn't count. (As far as I can tell, this is due to worries that if we start copying down informations from other Doctor Who encyclopedias, we're liable to just repeat mistaken readings of TV stories and the like, which would eventually garble the Wiki's coverage of full-blown narratives, as if Lance Parkin misunderstands a plot point about The Evil of the Daleks, we'd now be forced to repeat it as though it were an alternative and equally valid account. Fair enough, though thereby forbidding new information released non-narratively has always seemed a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.)
But that doesn't change the fact that a non-narrative but in-universe encyclopedia, or a roleplaying game set in the Doctor Who universe, or what-have-you, are fiction. They are non-narrative, but they are not non-fiction, and it's simply wrong to tell our readers that Adventures in Time and Space is not a work of fiction.
So I propose that either the “Non-fiction” template as it exists should stand, but be confined to pages that are genuinely about works that are not works of fiction (i.e. The Writer's Tale), or we should replace it with a “Non-narrative” template that fixes the error.
- SOTO
I second the proposal. {{non-fiction}} should be restricted to works with an out-of-universe, real world perspective. I agree that non-narrative works written from (something resembling, at least) a DWU perspective, or in any case a fictional perspective, should be marked with {{invalid}}.
(Unless we need a third tag for those? I do not oppose the idea to rewrite for a potential {{non-narrative}}.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Some more trouble: I've just realized that script-release pages get the {{Non-fiction}} tag as well. Which is also wrong — of bloody course Galaxy 4 is fiction — but wouldn't be fixed by a {{Non-narrative}} template, because it's not non-narrative either.
The only out I see is just to put the {{Invalid}} tag on such pages and keep it at that. It's good enough for deleted scenes (see example), which are invalid for broadly the same reason of being unfinished stories released to the public in a self-confessedly incomplete form.
- SOTO
The issue with script books is more a matter of categorisation. The template was added by bot in 2012 because the category for script books falls under the category for works of non-fiction.
- Najawin
I apologize in advance for the wall of text, I did a fair bit of digging through old threads and paraphrasing for users who might come to this thread.
Okay. So this thread was mentioned in Thread:277798 and it piqued my interest. For a variety of reasons. I wholeheartedly agree with this split, and also think, after this split is done, a reconsideration of the validity of "non-narrative" works might be warranted, but that's outside the scope of this thread. So the thread has further context for anyone else who wants to discuss it, I went digging to see what information I could find on the current wording and history of our fiction/non-fiction/rule 1/narrative/non-narrative splits. I've found some stuff, but it's not actually something that seemed to be well documented or thought out, and searching forums is awful.
Forum:The_original_inclusion_debates has some small references to things that might be useful, related to discussion around merchandising and suchlike, but this really predates our current view of how to approach the subject.
What really starts becoming relevant are the following threads.
Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time
Josiah Rowe mentions that CzechOut has been working on the new valid sources policy, which had just recently been implemented, and expresses his view that the entire project is futile. Czech then responds saying the same thing, and how frustrating the task has been.
CzechOut wrote: I strongly resent the implication that the process of fomulating a valid sources policy is a "game" or that it in any way is done "for the amusement of admin". This is the least enjoyable thing I've ever done on the wiki.
And what stands out to me is this. I haven't been able to find a discussion about the original choice of validity rules. I don't think there ever was one. The comments here suggest, though I've been told not to interpret other user's comments, that there wasn't one. Now, I'm not criticizing CzechOut for going ahead and writing the validity rules as he did. Clearly it was needed, it was a tremendous effort, and it's had great success on the whole. But the history of "narrative" vs "non-narrative in-universe content" on this wiki seems to be a bit odd.
This edit on the valid sources page added in rule 1, 2 days after the page was created, meaning that it wasn't immediately seen as an obvious demarcation.
Later that year, Vultraz Nuva asked about rule 1 at Tardis talk:Valid sources, saying that at Wookiepedia, "reference works are treated as valid sources depending on their content--in-universe or behind-the-scenes. The aforementioned books contain both".
CzechOut then went on to argue against all non-narrative works being valid by addressing only two of the three, and saying the rule should be simple for admins to rule on without having to buy the books. Which again doesn't necessarily apply to the third one he left out, it might be deeply ambiguous as to whether or not it's narrative. See Thread:277798. Or how even an admin was confused about whether The Book of the War (novel) was narrative. Another user 2 years later pointed out that Wookiepedia didn't have the solution Czech thought it did and they still had to vote on some issues, and was ignored (not blaming anyone for this, stuff gets lost, but it would be wrong to ignore it).
He brings up specifically The Doctor Who Technical Manual and Brilliant Books, and the relevant threads for those are Forum:Brilliant_Book_2011:_a_valid_source?, and Forum:Canon_policy:_Items_on_which_policy_is_unclear.
We then have, in 2018, Scrooge come in to Tardis talk:Canon policy, and ask about the distinction, pointing out it's pretty porous and asking for the thread where it was decided, and a then admin tells him to read T:BOUND.
As stated above, such discussion does not appear to have existed, based on comments made. I don't think it's interpretation to say that. Again, this isn't inherently a bad thing. But it is something we should bear in mind if we discuss this thread.
Now, lastly, and most relevant to this thread, concerns the non-fiction template. Specifically this edit. This is the very first edit after creating the page, and it moved the RefWork template to the NonFiction template. Indeed, the documentation page still says it's predominantly for reference works.
So to recap, I've not been able to find a community discussion on the place of non narrative in universe works, some original discussions concerning them certainly happened without community discussion, people who have asked about them in the past have either had some of their points ignored or have been told that the matter was settled and to stop asking about it, and the template used for "non fiction works" (applied both in and out of universe) was explicitly a reskin of the "reference works" template (applied out of universe). All of the original decisions here are fine, but looking through the history of the issue, it seems to be this odd game of telephone, where people just assumed that there was a serious discussion of these issues in the past, and doesn't seem to have been.
Regardless of your stance on this issue, I think the historical evidence is compelling that there's more than enough reason to open a serious discussion on the place of non-narrative in-universe content within this wiki. This thread is a good first step in doing so.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Lots to unpack in this post, @User:Najawin. While I'm in broad agreement with you, I wish to stress that while we might also want to reconsider the specifics of Rule 1 of T:VS, this is not in any way codependent with the main proposal to stop confusing "non-narrative" and "non-fiction", regardless of whether we continue to call "non-narrative" stuff invalid.
But for what's it's worth, I have given a thread such as you propose such serious thought that I have already carried out the historical research you begun in the post directly above mine. A draft of an OP for such a thread sits in my Google Docs already. Let us not confuse this thread with these only partially-related matters; rest assured that a thread such as you are proposing will happen someday, 'cause I'm already working on it.
(For your personal information, the actual origins of Rule 1 are, as best I can fathom, a series of admin decisions at Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals and Forum:Canon policy: Items on which policy is unclear; the former by User:Trak Nar, who acknowledge that "features" in Dalek annuals were something different from reference works but unilaterally decided they shouldn't be covered as "canon" because the information in them was too silly by modern standards… which surely runs afoul of T:NPOV; and the latter by User:CzechOut who "explains" his reasoning with "I can't see the rationale for including the Technical Manual's ideas of what makes the sonic screwdriver tick in the main body of sonic screwdriver. Primacy must be given to narrative works on in-universe pages.", which is circular reasoning at its finest. Only stories count because… only stoires count??…
I don’t mean any insult towards any of the participants in those early conversations, but surely, in hindsight, we can all see that this isn’t exactly sensible policymaking behaviour. This isn’t a solid base on which to write the first of the four most important rules’’ of this Wiki’s validity policies! But again, that is a thread for another day.)
- Najawin
Oh, of course. I was bringing this up for people who were interested in relevant context as far as I saw it. This particular issue is not dependent on the overall strength of arguments for making in universe non narrative sources valid. I do think the historical arguments here should give everyone pause, is more my point.
Hence why I started out saying this, and ended by just wrapping up the broader context and how the thread stands alone.
- Chubby Potato
For future reference, I have opened a discussion regarding the validity of in-universe non-narrative sources at Thread:282038, which are some of what this problem applies to. (Sorry Scrooge, I was unaware you were drafting such a thread until Najawin mentioned this in that one.)
As for this discussion, I would support a non-narrative template for these while/if they remain invalid, as well as other things that Template:Non-fiction doesn't really apply to, like Adventures in Time and Space: The Roleplaying Game. It really bugs me that, for example, TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual is labeled non-fiction when the entire book is set in the DWU and there is no mention whatsoever of anything in the real world. (Although I still believe there's a case to be made for that being a narrative anyway.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:257167
The Golden Emperor and the Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks) are currently treated as two separate characters and given two separate pages. So is the Dalek Prime. Or, rather, the Dalek Prime page is simultaneously treating the Dalek Prime as an individual and as a rank, as if Dalek Emperor and Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks) were a single page, which is weird enough.
This is, in my opinion, going about this all wrong. Let me explain.
Part I: Why the Dalek Prime appeared in "Evil of the Daleks"[[edit] | [edit source]]
Let us first consider the Dalek Prime. All of its appearances but one are under the pen of John Peel, in his novelisations of televised Dalek stories and in his infamous Eighth Doctor vs. Daleks novel, War of the Daleks.
Why Peel's Dalek Prime is one guy, and why that guy is the Emperor[[edit] | [edit source]]
This is the easiest one: Peel's own Evil of the Daleks novelisation says in so many words that the Dalek Emperor in Evil of the Daleks is the first Dalek ever created, the Dalek Prime, who improved itself and declared itself the leader of its race. This tells us, incidentally, that in Peel's mind, "Dalek Prime" is to be taken as literally "the first Dalek", a very personal designation; not a rank in the same mould as "Dalek Supreme". He is the Dalek Prime, and it would be an oxymoron for there be a second one.
Over the centuries, the Emperor Dalek had enhanced its own capabilities. It had begun its own existence as merely the first of the Daleks that the mad Kaled scientist Davros had created. It had been its weapon that had cut down their creator. It had been the Dalek Prime, the first among many. But that had never been sufficient.
It would, furthermore, be completely uncalled-for to argue that the Dalek Prime in War of the Daleks is not the same Dalek Prime as in the other Peel books. Here is the Dalek Prime in War, going over the exact same data presented in the Evil of the Daleks novelisation:
The first Daleks understood your futile madness when they elected to destroy you. I am the last survivor of those first Daleks, which is why I am the Dalek Prime. This is why I speak for the Daleks, and hold authority. I am the ancestor of the billions of Daleks alive today. I have guided the race throughout our history, and brought us to the position of strength we hold today. This entire galaxy is poised to collapse before us. This is my achievement and my claim to rule.
Consequently, it would be sheer bad faith to be wishy-washy about whether the Dalek Prime that Peel writes about in the novelisations The Chase, Mission to the Unknown and The Mutation of Time is the same Dalek Prime. In Peel's mind, the Dalek Prime is a character, not a title, and to make room for that possibility would be exactly as pointless as having scruples on whether, when a Doctor Who writer alludes to one of the Doctor's enemies who is a Time Lord known as the Master, they might not be referring to a different Reneagde Time Lord also calling themselves the Master.
One might still question why the Dalek Prime in PROSE: War of the Daleks doesn't call himself the Dalek Emperor like he did in Evil, if he's really the same individual. But there is an easy answer for that: unlike all previous appearances of the Dalek Prime, War takes place post-TV: Remembrance of the Daleks. And in that story, we learned that Davros had declared himself the Emperor of his own faction of Daleks, such that in the Dalek civil war that ensued, members of the Davros's faction were the Imperials (while the other, pure-Dalek side was known as the Renegades). In light of this, obviously the Dalek Prime reverted to calling itself that rather than confuse everything by having the faction led by the Dalek Emperor not be the ones calling themselves the Imperial Daleks. Duh.
Why Big Finish is neither here nor there[[edit] | [edit source]]
The current Dalek Prime page seemingly only mentions AUDIO: The Thousand Worlds to declare it irrelevant: that story mentions a Prime Dalek being active in the Time War, but only the precedents of "Dalek Supreme"/"Supreme Dalek" and "Dalek Emperor"/"Emperor Dalek" even raise the possibility that "Dalek Prime" and "Prime Dalek" might be the same thing; it is little more than fannish speculation. More to the point, the War Doctor claims never to have heard the designation, even though, as we saw, the Dalek Prime as understood in the novels very memorably faced off against the Eighth Doctor.
So what about AUDIO: The Four Doctors, then? Well, once again, I don't think Peter Anghelides was thinking of the same Dalek Prime as John Peel, at all. As we saw, the whole point of the name "Dalek Prime" in Peel's works is that it refers to the original Dalek; that is what those words mean. Yet the Dalek Prime in The Four Doctors is simply the commander of a Dalek assault vessel (I don't believe there is anything to suggest it's in charge of the Dalek Empire as a whole) and ends up being pulled back in time with the Doctor(s) to a Dalek war that predates his existence, so there's clearly no intent of its being the first-ever Dalek, either.
Now, if you go to Dalek Prime right now, you'll find the following paragraph:
According to another account, however, the battle of Pejorica, fought between the Daleks and the Jariden, occurred at a point in Dalek history prior to the creation of the Dalek Prime. The notion of the Dalek Prime as one of the earliest Daleks and their first leader would arise when, after travelling back in time, the Dalek Prime was able to take control of earlier versions of the Daleks, which didn't know about his existence and rank. (AUDIO: The Four Doctors)
I read that paragraph months ago (even reworded it a bit) before I knew more about The Four Doctors, and assumed that meant everything was A-okay and Big Finish were simply positing that the Dalek Prime being in charge of the Daleks at their very beginning was a result of its retconning itself into their past. That impression was completely unjustified, as it turns out. The Dalek Prime does manage to assume command of the Battle of Pejorica-era Daleks in The Four Doctors, but there is no hint that he went back any further, nor, indeed, much narrative opportunity for it to have done so.
In conclusion, the only time Big Finish used the term of "Dalek Prime", it was in a context utterly unlike everything that had been done with the character until then. That Big Finish posits a long Dalek history before the Dalek Prime existed shouldn't cast doubt as to whether Peel's Dalek Prime is the Dalek Emperor, it should just make us create a Dalek Prime (The Four Doctors) page.
First batch of requested changes[[edit] | [edit source]]
Based on all the evidence above, I am firstly putting forwards the following batch of change, which I feel compelled to point out, could be implemented regardless of whether you also follow the second part of this massive, massive thread, I feel compelled to point out.
- Information pertaining to the "Prime Dalek" rank referenced in AUDIO: The Thousand Worlds should be moved to Prime Dalek, which should cease being a redirect to Dalek Prime.
- All information pertaining to the Dalek Prime in AUDIO: The Four Doctors should be removed from the Dalek Prime page and instead transferred to a new Dalek Prime (The Four Doctors) page.
- Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks) should be made a redirect to the page Dalek Prime, as "Dalek Prime" is the proper designation of the character who held the title of Dalek Emperor in The Evil of the Daleks.
One question remains: what would we title the page about the Dalek Prime, the singular fellow as understood by John Peel? Part of me feels like he's a primary enough topic to just keep Dalek Prime to himself, but then again, it would be more within established use to have "Dalek Prime" be about the 'title' and its various usages, while giving the Peel Prime a dab term.
What would that dab term be, though? Peel tells us his Dalek Prime is the Dalek who shot Davros in TV: Genesis of the Daleks, which means that story is the Dalek Prime's "first" field in the current infobox, but Dalek Prime (Genesis of the Daleks) would sort of imply that there is a character called the Dalek Prime in the TV story, and the fact is that there isn't. So should we use the first story in which the name was used for this guy? That would be PROSE: The Chase, but of course the Dalek Prime didn't appear in the TV story of the same name, so once more we run the risk of confusing readers.
Part II: Why the Golden Emperor is the Dalek Prime[[edit] | [edit source]]
Crushing similarities[[edit] | [edit source]]
The first thing to note is that John Peel very, very, very obviously meant for the Dalek Prime in PROSE: War of the Daleks to be the same individual as the Golden Emperor dear to all our hearts for his starring role in COMIC: The Dalek Chronicles. They have, for one thing, the same unique casing. Let me demonstrate:
"Doctor," said a Dalek voice. "Welcome."
Sam and the Doctor turned to face their host. It was a Dalek, but not like any she had seen before. This one was slightly larger than the others, with a bulbous head. It was a burnished gold colour, and had about a dozen lights about the expanded dome instead of the average Dalek’s two.
"The Dalek Prime," the Doctor murmured.
Granted, different Dalek leaders have had identical casings before. The Dalek Emperor in Parting of the Ways (whom, don't worry, I'll let stand as his own person, though neither is there any conclusive in-universe evidence that he isn't still the same old Dalek Prime AFAIK) had his casing repurposed by the Dalek Emperor in City of the Daleks, and it was made explicit that the City Emperor is a new Emperor installed by the Paradigm who used the old one's casing like a hermit crab stealing another sea creature's shell.
But they're not different Dalek leaders, because they are both the first Dalek, in almost exactly the same way. COMIC: Genesis of Evil sees the first Dalek first moving about in the first of the regular Dalek travel machines before building itself the golden one, presiding over the creation of more Daleks, and finally proclaiming itself the Emperor. PROSE: The Evil of the Daleks tells us that its Dalek Prime was originally the Davros-murderer from TV: Genesis of the Daleks, who had a regular casing, and that he then created more of his kind and declared himself its Emperor; and PROSE: War of the Daleks completes the equivalence by showing us the Dalek Prime gets about in the golden casing in his functions as leader of the Dalek race.
It goes something like this:
| The Golden Emperor | The Dalek Prime |
|---|---|
| The first full Dalek ever created (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) | The first full Dalek ever created (PROSE: The Evil of the Daleks, War of the Daleks) |
| Originally gets about in the very first standard Dalek travel machine. (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) | Originally gets about in a standard Dalek travel machine (PROSE: The Evil of the Daleks through logical deduction of which Dalek in TV: Genesis of the Daleks is being referred to) |
| Eventually discards the standard casing in favor of a golden one with a bulbous head and a bunch of lights (COMIC: The Dalek Chronicles) | Eventually discarded the standard casing in favor of a golden one with a bulbous head and a dozen or so lights (PROSE: War of the Daleks) |
| Has a history of organizing public showdowns, so as to convince his Daleks that he is their worthy leader, whenever another individual wants to seize power over the Daleks from him (COMIC: Duel of the Daleks, Shadow of Humanity) | When Davros tries to seize mastery of the Daleks from him, organizes a public trial/shouting match to prove he is the worthy leader of the Daleks, not Davros (PROSE: War of the Daleks) |
"Genesis of Evil" isn't as irreconcilable as it seems[[edit] | [edit source]]
Now, of course, the big thing is that in Peel's texts, the Dalek Prime's being the first-ever Dalek is contextualized as its being the first Dalek created by Davros, the guy who exterminates the scientist in question in TV: Genesis of the Daleks. Whereas in COMIC: Genesis of Evil, he comes into being as an unguided mutation from the neutron war and climbs into one of the travel machines designed by the scientist Yarvelling. Undoubtedly, some conflict exists.
But… first, I would argue that conflict over origin stories doesn't stop two characters from being the same same individual if it's otherwise blindingly obvious that they are meant to be the same individual. The Seventh Doctor in PROSE: Lungbarrow was loomed into existence from discarded bits of Other DNA, the Seventh Doctor in TV: The TV Movie is "human on his mother's side" and has fond childhood memories of his father on Gallifrey. But they are both, for all that, the Seventh Doctor.
And most importantly, John Peel's got you covered. How Genesis of Evil and Genesis of the Daleks can both coexist as valid origins of the Dalek is a topic that is given much attention in PROSE: War of the Daleks. When Davros insists to a Black Dalek that he created the Daleks, the Black Dalek answers with some of the Dalek Prime's wisdom:
Incorrect. I was created by the neutron war. You merely accelerated the process. The Daleks would have arisen anyway in the fullness of time. The universe was ready for the rise of the Daleks. It was inevitable.
In other words, says the Black Dalek, the Genesis of Evil account of the Daleks coming into being as unguided mutations is exactly what would have happened if Davros hadn't foreseen the Daleks' destiny ahead of time and accelerated their evolution.
Davros does not deny this; instead, his next reply attempts to take credit for the technology the Daleks used, but accepts the premise that the "mewling balls of slime" didn't need his guidance to appear. Note also how he speaks of the species from which the Daleks sprang as simply "their humanoid ancestors", so that it could refer equally to Genesis of the Daleks’s Kaleds or to Genesis of Evil’s humanoid Daleks, depending on which name you prefer.
Without me to guide your creation, the Daleks would have been as weak and pitiful as the humanoid race from which they sprang. It was my genius that created the travel machines you utilise. My genius that made you what you are. Without me, you would all be mewling balls of slime, without technology or a future.
Moving along, we see the Dalek Prime (a firsthand witness in all this) restate the Black Dalek's faith in the fact that the Daleks would have come into existence without Davros as a fortuitous mutation, and even wrenches the "but I created your technology, your travel machines!" argument from Davros with this bombshell:
You did not create the Daleks – our creation was a fortuitous consequence of war. We were destined to become the race we are today. Instead of allowing destiny to run its course, you interfered. That was the first time that you attempted to usurp the power of the Daleks. It was not the last. These travel machines we use were created by the scientists of the Kaled race. You took credit for their work to lend support to your claim of supremacy.
The Dalek Prime has just said that no, actually, Davros didn't create the Dalek travel machine; instead, some scientists of the pre-Dalek humanoid race came up with them on their own before Davros took credit. Was one those Kaled scientists called Yarvelling, one wonders? Dun, dun, dun.
The Dalek Prime (a first-hand witness in all of this, do recall) has in essence told us that the original, correct timeline was a sequence of events perfectly matching up what we saw in COMIC: Genesis of Evil, but then Davros interfered with the Daleks' 'destiny', stealing the Dalek machine designs from the scientists who had designed them and accelerating the Daleks' evolution. And that is what we saw in TV: Genesis of the Daleks.
To be sure, there are still some discrepancies between the two geneses: did Davros's species prior to the mutations call itself "Kaleds", or "Daleks"? And did they have blue skin and big foreheads, or look almost completely human-like? But those are rather minor, I think. When it comes to species name inconsistencies, the Silurians have had worse. And as concerns designs, one loses tracks of the many, many times Doctor Who has shown us a completely different monster and told us it's the same species as a past baddie (*cough* Cybermen *cough*).
The point is that John Peel refers himself just as much to Genesis of Evil as he does to Genesis of the Daleks in War of the Daleks, and has the Dalek Prime know of the events of both firsthand. The first Dalek in one Genesis is also the first Dalek in the other Genesis, come into being early for timey-wimey reasons centered on the person of Davros. When the story reintroducing the Genesis of Evil Dalek origin story features a guy calling himself the first Dalek, who knows all about the events of Genesis of Evil, and looks and acts exactly like the Golden Emperor, then there's nothing speculative about pointing out that that character is the Golden Emperor.
Second batch of requested changes[[edit] | [edit source]]
- The page Creation of the Daleks should be amended to reflect that one account at least fully reconciles the Genesis of Evil and Genesis of the Daleks versions. There is still much comparison and "In one account" language to be written, but strictly delineating the two accounts as though they're just completely unrelated and irreconcilable will no longer do.
- Golden Emperor should be merged into the Dalek Prime article, or whatever we're calling it if we decided to dab it once we've split off Dalek Prime (The Four Doctors) as documented in Part I.
(By the way, Golden Emperor, while indeed used once or twice in-universe, really doesn't hold much water as the guy's most common in-universe name, even within The Dalek Chronicles. I get the feeling we call him that more because everyone else does than because this fits out naming policy. But that point is kinda moot if we go ahead with my suggested merges, as there will no longer be an independent Golden Emperor page and there would be no harm in retaining it as a redirect.)
Afterword[[edit] | [edit source]]
Well that was… crazily long. Phew. But it feels good to finally give forms to all these suspicions and ramblings that have been simmering in my head for a while, and I think the Wiki will be much improved for it if it deigns to acquiesce to my suggestions.
Also, people who subscribe to the commonly-held opinion that War of the Daleks is a bad book should… well, first, they should reconsider: I read it in preparation for this thread, and while it has its flaws (yes, the Eighth Doctor's painfully bland coming off the likes of Vampire Science, and oh yes, the massive Skaro retcon is every bit as dumb and overwrought as everyone says it is), it's not Dimensions in Time either.
But secondly and more relevantly, they should remember that how much we like a story shouldn't affect how accurately we cover its contents on the Wiki. You may not like having John Peel's writing affect how we cover the characters of Evil of the Daleks and dislikeGenesis of the Daleks, but hey, there are quite a few people who hate how Day of the Doctor makes us cover the end of the Time War, too, and that's no reason not to give it the full coverage it demands. Subjective quality differences between DotD vs. WotD aside, this is precisely the same thing.
Also also: yes, I know that I used "COMIC: The Dalek Chronicles" as a citation several times in this thread, and this is naughty, because Dalek Chronicles is a series rather than a single story. I know. But this isn't a page, it's a thread, and so for clarity's sake I allowed myself this unorthodox mode of quotation. Besides, treating Dalek Chronicles as a series of stories rather than one very long serial is as much convention as doing the same for Trial of a Time Lord, if not moreso.
A Post-Scriptum: Get That On Tape![[edit] | [edit source]]
Also also also: after some praiseworthy sleuthwork for User:Borisashton, this thread ended up digging up interesting information about the related subject of precisely what The Dalek Tapes; since it's as involved as War of the Daleks in the matter of "stories which attempt reconcile the two Dalek Geneses", this closely related topic was basically covered on this thread as well, de facto. Heck, "Geneses", of which The Dalek Tapes certainly is one, was right there in the title of this thread all along. Ergo, here's a third, I think fairly incontroversial requested change:
- The Dalek Tapes should be valid, making it yet a third (well, fourth) version of the Daleks' origin, yet one which is in truth completely consistent with whichever of the other ones one favors, via an unreliable narrator.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I have now pinged User:Skittles the hog to come take a look, considering that it was they who pegged the appearance of a "Dalek Prime" in The Four Doctors as a continuity point connected to the past Dalek Prime appearances, according to the revision history.
- NateBumber
Well, it's certainly true that many folks (myself included) have cringed away from reading deeply enough into War and Evil of the Daleks on account of their infamy, and this seems like a good explanation of what we've been missing.
I'm not sure I'll understand your suggested changes to Creation of the Daleks until I see them happen, but I'm fully convinced that there should be separate pages for Prime Dalek and Dalek Prime (The Four Doctors), and that Golden Emperor and Dalek Emperor (Evil of the Daleks) should be merged into Dalek Prime (which, in my opinion, should stay undabbed as a primary topic).
Frankly this proposal is such a straightforward application of the text that I can't imagine it meeting much resistance. While it'll undoubtedly get more attention here than it would on Talk:Dalek Prime, I encourage you to move forward without waiting on enough comments to form a consensus (or whatever).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, I could create the Dalek Prime (The Four Doctors) page on my own, but I understand merging is the privilege of admins around here. Also, the issue of how (or whether) to dab the main Dalek Prime page remains.
Concerning Creation of the Daleks, the thing is that the splitting into different parts, as though "Davros's account" (what does that even mean? Davros isn't the narrator of Genesis of the Daleks!) was wholly different from, and irreconcilable with, the "Yarvelling and the Dalek Emperor" account, and both separate from, and irreconcilable with, the "historical account" presented in The Daleks. And it is frankly ridiculous that "the Seventh Doctor's account" gets a whole paragraph to itself as though it were a full parallel account on part with the two Geneses.
For a demo of what a more linear page taking into account War’s explanation of both timelines 'coexisting', simply see the way I rewrote the "Origins" section of the History section on the page "Dalek" a short while ago when I completely overhauled said "History" section. What I have in mind would be something like this, but longer and more detailed — moving chronologically through 1960's Dalek history, then introducing Davros through a citation of War about his meddling in Dalek destiny, and putting all details about Davros's creation of the Daleks there. I confess I don't know quite where We Are The Daleks would go in this scheme — I think that situation is most comparable to the utterly conflicting Cybermen origins, and we should take inspiration from however we'll handle the "parallel evolution" stuff once the dust settles on the merged Cyberman page.
- Shambala108
NateBumber wrote: Frankly this proposal is such a straightforward application of the text that I can't imagine it meeting much resistance. While it'll undoubtedly get more attention here than it would on Talk:Dalek Prime, I encourage you to move forward without waiting on enough comments to form a consensus (or whatever).
Please leave that kind of determination to the admins. User:Scrooge MacDuck correctly posted his ideas here, and it is wiki policy to discuss such things before implementing them. I suggest you carefully read Tardis:You are bound by current policy thanks.
- Doug86
There's a flaw with the premise that Dalek Prime and the Dalek Emperor in The Evil of the Daleks are one and the same: namely, that in John Peel's version of Dalek history, Davros was executed after the events of Revelation of the Daleks, The Dalek Masterplan (set in 4000) takes place soon afterwards, and Evil really is "the final end" of the Daleks. However, Evil has to be set before Remembrance of the Daleks, in which Skaro is destroyed (though admittedly there are ways to work around this), and in any case the Daleks have to survive in order to fight in the Last Great Time War.
- NateBumber
Thank you for that reminder User:Shambala108; I've just carefully reread Tardis:You are bound by current policy. What rule is User:Scrooge MacDuck proposing be changed? I must admit that I'm a bit startled by this, since the vast majority of other merger proposals haven't required forum threads.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Doug86 wrote: However, Evil has to be set before Remembrance of the Daleks, in which Skaro is destroyed
Ah… but aren't you forgetting what War of the Daleks is most famous for? It is in fact the story in which Peel hatched a ridiculously complicated retcon for why Skaro wasn't destroyed in Remembrance, so that he can go on believing that Evil takes place after Remembrance. Not that he says this explicitly, mind you, so we can continue placing Evil at a sane point in the timeline for our part. But that is absolutely not an argument for Peel's authorial intent being the two Primes aren't the same.
(IIRC, the Trial of Davros, e.g. the scene Peel then expanded into War’s second act, is already related in his previously-published non-narrative Complete History of the Daleks, if you want to go back and check exactly where War slots in in Peel's headcanon. Again, we don't have to listen to that "where", only note that it is absolutely no obstacle to Peel thinking of both Primes as a single character.)
Also, the Last Great Time War is neither here nor there. Even assuming we stick to Peel's theories in light of NuWho, obviously the answer to "how did the Daleks take part in the Time War if they were destroyed?" is the same as "how did Gallifrey even though it had already been blown up in the EDAs?": a thing happened, possibly a timey-wimey one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
A mockup of what a Creation of the Daleks page more closely integrating the various accounts together in the way suggested by War can now be found at User:Scrooge MacDuck/Sandbox Alpha.
- Doug86
I think that this can be compared to the implication in Legacy by Gary Russell that The Robots of Death took place on Japetus instead of on Kaldor, in that it is not only not supported by other stories but is in fact contradicted by others.
Also, in AHistory Lance Parkin and Lars Pearson work out a way in which the Dalek Chronicles and Genesis can take place in the same continuity, although it does involve a great deal of speculation.
- Scrooge MacDuck
AHistory isn't a valid source either way. And I'm not sure what exactly, if anything, you're comparing to the Japetus-Kaldor situation.
- Doug86
I meant that it was an idea or theory supported by one Who author that has not gained wide acceptance by other authors and/or fans.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Which "theory" are you comparing this to, though? Dalek Prime = Dalek Emperor, or "Genesis of Evil was destined to happen but Davros interfered and changed history"?
Either way, what's your point? "Sometimes one DWU writer's interpretation isn't shared by other DWU writers, but the writer in question still manages to put their interpretation in a valid source" is inarguable fact but has little bearing that I can see on this discussion, especially as, unlike what I think is happening with Japetus/Kaldor (but I'm no authority on that issue) there aren't any stories which actually clash with the "Prime" and "Genesis" links drawn by Peel.
AUDIO: Across the Darkened City comes closest, but A) it doesn't actually say in so many words that the Dalek Emperor proclaimed at the end is the one from Evil of the Daleks, even if the implications are clear in listeners' mind; and B) it doesn't actually preclude Genetic Experiment Two-One-Zero being the first-ever created Dalek. After all, Genesis of Evil may suggest the Dalek Prime was proclaimed leader soon after the Daleks' emergence, but The Evil of the Daleks already disagrees with this notion by positing that following the Neutron War, he he spent years doing genetic experiments on Skaro wildlife and eventually on himself. It is perfectly possible that it was in this way that he became the "Genetic Experiment" being tested by his fellows at the start of Darkened City and who, once he passed the test, was finally proclaimed the Emperor for good.
- NateBumber
I think most of the (minor) disagreement in this thread stems from the counterproductive mentions of "Peel's authorial intent". All that matters is what is spelled out in the text; making any references to authorial intent, whether it's supported by the text or not, is a non sequitur and just confuses other editors. Nobody should be talking about any author's interpretation at all, just the content of their stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's a fair point, but authorial intent is relevant (in a very narrow context) when it comes to the matter of identifying characters, I think — in much the same way, as I said, that even though it's technically possible the text is referring to someone else by the same name if looked at in a void, we know that if a Third Doctor story has him mention "that jackanape the Master", he means the Master.
So my intent in the relevant section was to establish that in Peel's mind "Dalek Prime" is the name of a character rather than a Dalek rank, so that this same reasoning can establish that when he speaks of a Dalek Prime in other stories he means the same character rather than some other Dalek with "Dalek Prime" as their rank.
Compare, for an earlier Wiki decision based on authorial intent of what character is being talked about in a situation where the text itself is ambiguous, the decision that the Cabinet Doctor is not the Shalka Doctor based on O'Mahony's words to this effect.
But yes, that is where the relevance of "authorial intent" in this matter ends. Peel is free to think what he wants of Dalek History, but the only bits that matter to the Wiki are the one he squeezed into his valid works.
- NateBumber
Unfortunately authorial intent isn't relevant to even character identification. Authorial intent said that The War King was The Master, but the connection hasn't been made clear enough in-text, so the pages have stayed (mercifully) separate. The same goes for Ulysses and Daniel Joyce and the Doctor's father (at least until I open that Panopticon debate :P). I guess it's one thing if we conclude that two characters are the same based on in-text connections, and an author comes out and explicitly says they aren't, which indicates that we misread the evidence. But if a writer intends two characters to be the same, and there isn't enough evidence in-text to back it up, their intention is irrelevant.
Thankfully, we don't need an ounce of authorial intent to conclude that the Dalek Prime = Golden Emperor = Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks), because it's sufficiently specified in-text. Setting aside Doug86's suggestion that the timeline doesn't line up - which I think you successfully countered - you've proved pretty definitively in OP that there is enough in-text evidence to conclude that the characters are the same.
And I think Doug86 agrees. As I read it, his point of contention regards not what is stated in Peel's stories but what is stated in others. If there is conflicting information, it should definitely be treated analogously to Kaldor City's location in Legacy: the conflicting information will be included on the combined page via a "According to another account" clause. That's no worry.
And that's my preferred approach for the Creation of the Daleks page, with the Davros-centric account we saw on-screen being placed alongside the "According to the Dalek Emperor", Genesis of Evil version of events. As it stands, User:Scrooge MacDuck/Sandbox Alpha reads a little like "Here's the Davros story, but here's what really happened," when I think really both of the two competing narratives should each be allowed to stand on their own merits. But that's just me.
- NateBumber
User:Doug86, which specific stories do you have in mind that present information that conflicts with the identification between Dalek Prime, Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks), and the Golden Emperor?
- NateBumber
User:Doug86, which specific stories do you have in mind that present information that conflicts with the identification between Dalek Prime, Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks), and the Golden Emperor?
- Scrooge MacDuck
But what place would you make on "Creation" for War’s reconciliation of the two stories as Davros interfering with the Genesis of Evil version of event? The reason I wrote the page the way I did wasn't to marginalize the Davros accounts but simply to put the whole thing in the logical order of events posited by War, so first time as it originally was, then how it was rewritten to be. Which has the added benefit of matching up to the real-world order in which these stories were told.
You write: “Thankfully, we don't need an ounce of authorial intent to conclude that the Dalek Prime = Golden Emperor = Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks), because it's sufficiently specified in-text.” That we don't. But I was merely worried about whether we could definitely say the Dalek Prime that Peel mentions in his novelisations of The Chase, Mission to the Unknown and Master Plan was the same Dalek Prime rather than possibly another Dalek belonging to the Dalek Prime rank as featured in The Four Doctors. Peel very very definitively meant for those mentions to be of his Dalek Prime, the character.
(Also, Ulysses/Daddy Doctor may be another matter, but I'm fairly sure the reason we keep ignoring the War King=Master connection isn't so much the lack of clear in-universe hints as the fact that if we accepted the link, a bunch of stories featuring the War King would now have to be invalid because they didn't have the rights to use the Master. Think Cosmic Hobo. The problem isn't that we can't conclude he's the Doctor from the evidence, but that if we did, which if these were BBC-released stories we definitely would, we would then have to say Candy Jar was in breach of copyright.)
- Doug86
The return of Davros most likely takes place after The Evil of the Daleks, since in that story the Daleks state that travelling in time has made the Doctor 'more than human', implying that they are unaware of the Time Lords at this point; but in Resurrection of the Daleks they are planning to assassinate the High Council of the Time Lords, having gained knowledge of them since then.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That seems like speculation. Anything could have happened to make the Daleks say that. Especially considering that in the Chronicles they constantly use the word "humans" for "humanoids". Even if this didn't convince you, though, where would the actual problem be? It's all timeline trouble best left to the Howling, irrelevant to eh character's identity.
- Doug86
The point is, that if the Davros stories take place after The Evil of the Daleks, then the Dalek Prime and the Emperor from Evil cannot be the same individual, as the Emperor was killed at the end of Evil.
- Scrooge MacDuck
My point about Peel's intention very much being that Evil takes place after the Davros stories still stands.
Also, apparent timeline contradictions never stopped us from considering two characters to be the same if they're otherwise obviously the same and identified as such: hello, Second Doctor in The Five Doctors prior to spreading of the Season 6B idea.
Also also, a character apparently dying at the end of a story has never ever stopped us from considering that character reappears in a later story. Or are you asking that Davros The Magician's Apprentice must be considered to take place pre-Journey's End because Davros died in Journey yet appears alive in Apprentice?
Also also also, the Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks) page as it stands already notes the Emperor is explicitly identified as having survived the Civil War by a Bernice Summerfield audio as well as a comic story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
A full merged version of the Dalek Prime page can now be found at User:Scrooge_MacDuck/Sandbox_Beta.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Right, so that was two months ago. Any chance of moving forward with all these changes? Or, failing that, any reason we shouldn't?
- Borisashton
Not sure if this entirely relevant, but I saw on The Dalek Chronicles page that when the series was reprinted in DWM as The Dalek Tapes. I don't have access to these early issues so can't verify how extensive this is but it states that on a random planet an unspecified incarnation of the Doctor discovered a history of the Daleks and that's what we see in The Dalek Chronicles.
Given Genesis of the Daleks being broadcast some years before this seems to imply or leave open the possibility of this history being wrong or corrupted in some way. Do we consider such reprints valid and if we do, how would we go about integrating it?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I see no reason this wouldn't be valid; {{WhichDoctor}}'s existence is as good evidence as any that reprints which change things are considered valid on an equal basis with the original, for one thing.
As for how we would cover this, that's a better question. Do we treat this as a prequel short story (The Dalek Tapes (short story)), or as a reprint-with-extended-material-constituting-its-own-story (The Dalek Tapes (comic story), with the reprinted comic strips being taken to be part of it), or just as an addition to Genesis of Evil not deserving of its own page? Perhaps we would need a page for this.
That being said, the fact that this later story says the Doctor found a possibly-corrupted History of the Daleks doesn't supersede the fact that the original Dalek Chronicles were released with an omniscient narrator.
e.g. even if we do try to lean on "the history the Doctor found may have been wrong", all we can say is:
According to one account, the Daleks first came into being without Davros's influence from a race of blue humanoids; (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) the Doctor once found old, decayed records of the Daleks' history on a twilight world, which were consistent with this version of events. (PROSE: The Dalek Tapes).
Not
According to old records of the Daleks' history the Doctor once found on a twilight world, (PROSE: The Dalek Tapes) the Daleks first came into being without Davros's influence from a race of blue humanoids. (COMIC: Genesis Evil)Or at least that's what I think is Wiki policy — and quite right it is too if so — although here's a forma disclaimer that I am not an Administrator of Tardis and that as such, my understanding of policy isn't to be followed as gospel or anything. I could be wrong.
- Borisashton
First and foremost I think we need to see more of the unique panels from The Dalek Tapes. If the reprints continued in DWM for twelve issues it seems a bit hasty making any concrete decisions based on a single panel.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Are you sure there were ever any? At a guess that image is just a fun in-universe way to start off the reprints, and then they just reran the strips as-were without any more significant changes or additions. Certainly looks that way to me. What gave you the impression there was anything more to it?
- Borisashton
I got the impression that all the opening and closing captions were edited. From The Dalek Chronicles (comic series):
"The first block of reprints went uninterrupted from Doctor Who Magazine Issues 30-42 and used the title The Dalek Tapes. Those included the standard elements of the tape graphic and the series title, however sizing, placement, and the presence of the other elements varied. Tape number didn't alway receive a special font and the episode title was originally placed in the news box."
- Borisashton
Right, so I've gotten access to the DWM issues in question and can confirm The Dalek Tapes premise is kept throughout. First off, I'll cover the easier question of how to cover The Dalek Tapes as a story. I think The Dalek Tapes (comic story) is the way to go. Firstly, I don't know if it's just me that thinks this but when compared to the narrations mid-story in the original editions the new narration feels like it has a very documentary-style vibe to it with a lot of happening in the past tense rather than the present. For example, the start of the opening caption of what would be Genesis of Evil Part Two states: "The warlike nature of the Daleks had led to the near destruction of their race and planet. The devastation had enveloped the whole world of Skaro." Compared to the original: "For two years nothing stirred on Skaro, planet of the Daleks..."
The second and most obvious reason is the last panel of Genesis of Evil is new and does not appear in the original. The panel to the right depicting Skaro appears after the iconic conclusion of the original edition in which the machine Dalek was revealed that read "Skaro was not a dead world!"
The point about the narrator is interesting. After reading the stories I think creating Narrator (The Dalek Tapes) would be a good idea. Sentences like "In the first two tapes the Daleks became mutated and inhabited their metal shells", "And thus ends the first of the Dalek Tapes", and "And so ends tape seven" all seem to indicate that an individual is recording himself recounting the stories or examining the content of the tapes and then the readers of DWM are lucky enough to get some visuals with it in the form of comics. The narrator also uses pronouns to give themselves a voice in sentences like "We must now look at tape 6", "Now we can follow the story as it unfolds" and "The next tape tells us of the Dalek attempts to rebuild their civilisation".
As such, instead of:
According to one account, the Daleks first came into being without Davros's influence from a race of blue humanoids; (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) the Doctor once found old, decayed records of the Daleks' history on a twilight world, which were consistent with this version of events. (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)
It would be something like:
An individual once recounted or found evidence that indicated the Daleks were created as a result of a similar catastrophe but without Davros's influence (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes) from a race of blue humanoids. (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) The Doctor discovered these tapes many years later in an ancient library on a twilight world. (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)
For other articles like Drenz or Amaryll where the info presented doesn't conflict as much we could preface them with something like "According to the Dalek Tapes, (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)" and then more fully explain the situation on that article.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fantastic sleuth-work, but I insist that it'd be disingenuous to act as though The Dalek Tapes putting all this info at a remove made the originals’ veracity questionable.
Since Genesis of Evil itself is presented as unquestionable in-universe events rather than a version of history that is itself at a remove, what we have here is one story (Genesis of Evil) saying one thing in earnest, and then another (The Dalek Tapes) having a character find old records which may be reliable, but are in point of fact consistent with said thing.
In other words, instead of
An individual once recounted or found evidence that indicated the Daleks were created as a result of a similar catastrophe but without Davros's influence (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes) from a race of blue humanoids. (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) The Doctor discovered these tapes many years later in an ancient library on a twilight world. (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)
we'd have
According to some accounts, the Daleks were created as a result of a similar catastrophe but without Davros's influence, mutating from an ancestral Thal-opposing race of blue humanoids. (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) Another account showed that an individual once recounted or found evidence of these events, retelling this history of the Daleks in the Dalek Tapes which the Doctor discovered many years later, in an ancient library on a twilight world. (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)
This seems like a similar situation to this recent short story that claimed that Destiny of the Daleks never actually featured Romana II, but rather the TARDIS's soul posing as her. I don't think we want to follow these kinds of in-depth retcons to decades-old stories blindly. It must be "one account says that Romana II did this, this and that upon regenerating (TV: Destiny of the Daleks), although another account stated that these actions were instead undertaken by the Doctor's TARDIS in human form. (PROSE: The Lying Old Witch in the Wardrobe)", for the sake of our collective sanity. Well, this is the same thing.
- Borisashton
I guess that's a good compromise. While it would be easier to ignore Genesis of Evil for the wiki to cover Dalek history, it probably isn't in the spirit of treating all media equally.
Something your example showed that I'm happy about is just how similar the two accounts are to each other and therefore how understandable it is that somebody after the fact could get facts such as the Daleks' ancestors being blue and them not being called Kaleds wrong. Obviously we can't say that they're wrong but The Dalek Tapes stands as further proof if there need be any that Genesis and Genesis are not completely irreconcilable.
More to the point though, I'd make a slight alteration to that draft because we need to remember that as far as I can see The Dalek Tapes does not actually contradict anything. It can exist in a world where Genesis of Evil is "true" as an accurate recollection of events but it can also exist in a world where Genesis of the Daleks (or even We Are the Daleks) are "true" as a corrupted or just wrong (on the part of the narrator) version of events.
So instead of what you have above we'd have:
According to some accounts, the Daleks were created as a result of a similar catastrophe but without Davros's influence, mutating from an ancestral Thal-opposing race of blue humanoids. (COMIC: Genesis of Evil) In an ancient library on a twilight world, the Doctor discovered a retelling of this history of the Daleks in the Dalek Tapes. The Tapes were either found or created by a different individual sometime after they had become a major galactic power in their quest for universal domination, long after their creation was ancient history itself. (COMIC: The Dalek Tapes)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Looks good to me! And, regarding the similarity — indeed! In fact, if you throw in War of the Daleks’s statement that the Daleks' travel machines' designs were stolen by Davros from other scientists as detailed in the OP, all you'd need to reconcile the two accounts is to fudge the timeline a bit and either imagine all the Kaleds were blue, or that all the blue humanoids in the comics weren't blue, for the two stories to coexist.
After all, the Dalek Prime in Genesis of Evil only says that it climbed into a Dalek War Machine of its own accord. It's imaginable that it might just have climbed out of a certain bunker when it confronted Yarvelling and Zolfian, and that it just didn't want knowledge that the Daleks hadn't created themselves to get out ever again.
Although my favored option is still just War of the Daleks’s clear implication of Genesis of Evil being the natural timeline which Davros's meddling with history collapsed, all adjustments regarding what the Kaleds looked like aside.
Let's not lose track of the original topic, though — do The Dalek Tapes say anything of note about the Dalek Emperor which differs from what is said in the original comics or in the John Peel novels?
…Oh, and having recently rewatched The Dead Planet, I note that while the Thals know of the Daleks' ancestors as the Dals, the Daleks themselves, when describing their history to the Doctor, speak about "their Dalek forefathers" instead, saying that "there were two races on Skaro — the Thals, and us, the Daleks". So the name of the Dalek's humanoid forefathers isn't actually a discrepancy between Genesis of Evil and The Dead Planet at all.
…Should that make the TV story the "first mention" of the Humanoid Dalek page's infobox, I wonder?
- Borisashton
There's nothing in The Dalek Tapes about the Emperor, no. Outside of the opening caption I posted when I first brought up the topic, all that can be really gleaned is the existence of the narrator and that they are narrating it after the Daleks have become a galactic power.
I'd say that in light of that quote The Daleks should be added as the first mention. It's frankly surprising that nobody seems to have noticed before now that the Daleks said their ancestors were called Daleks and not Dals or Kaleds or something else.
I have no more concerns about these proposed changes now then if you were to implement what we've discussed into your sandbox.
- Borisashton
I was conducting a final check for thoroughness via Special:Whatlinkshere and noticed that there was a reprint of Genesis of Evil in DW50Y 1. A quick inspection of our page revealed in the contents list there were chapters on all the main Dalek stories currently broadcast including Genesis of the Daleks and by extension the creation of the Daleks by Davros' hand. A very intriguing section called "Daleks in the 21st Century - An introduction to The Dalek Chronicles" is also contained within.
Although it wouldn't be strictly necessary to close this thread without examining it greater detail it would be extremely useful to take a closer look at what I believe to be the only publication to explicitly address both Davros and Yarvelling, if not some nice linking narration reconciling the two even further there would no doubt be some material for the bts sections. I'll keep half an eye out for a copy and obviously it would be helpful if anyone on here has it would be willing to share its secrets.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, I don't own that book, but I have just realised that DWMS The Dalek Chronicles doesn't actually contain an article called The Dalek Chronicles Found! as was mistakenly reported on the page until today, but rather another in-universe framing device by that name, which, similarly to the Dalek Tapes, posits that the contents of the book are a 2094 translation of some story-cubes about Dalek history. Interesting enough, although it doesn't actually change much of anything; its use on pages is much the same as that we could make of Dalek Tapes, and it doesn't say anything new about the creation of the Daleks or the rise of the Emperor.
- Borisashton
Just to clarify, as I assume they reprints were entirely as they appeared originally unlike The Dalek Tapes, do you propose that we classify the whole of DWMS The Dalek Chronicles as part of The Dalek Chronicles Found! or just the short article at the beginning?
- Scrooge MacDuck
No, no, just the short "article". It's a prelude/prequel, not a whole frame thing like The Dalek Tapes.
- Borisashton
Ah, that makes it far less useful than The Dalek Tapes then. This is a very strange situation but I think T:NO RW applies here. We can't say all the stories in The Dalek Chronicles were in the Dalek Chronicles.
Tell me if you agree with the conclusion that the only stories from the TVC21 run we can say are part of the in-universe Dalek Chronicles are Eve of War because of the mention of Dalek/Mechanoid relations and The Archives of Phryne because of its explicit mention. A story depicting the creation of the Daleks is also mentioned but we cannot be sure that it is referencing Genesis of Evil or Genesis of the Daleks et cetera.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Agreed. Heck, we should even be circumspect on Eve of War, as this could theoretically be a different "the Daleks meet the Mechonoids" story. I think it's a fairly uncontroversial move of me to have included the relevant Dalek Chronicles stories that are being referenced in the ==Continuity== section of the page about the prose story, but as for whether the story-cubes directly match up to the comic stories from the real world… 'mafraid we indeed can't say that they do.
- Borisashton
Hmm, I might be having second thoughts about that last statement. Looking at the page that The Dalek Chronicles Found! is on, there is more context than originally appears. The in-universe article called The Dalek Chronicles Found! is the front page of the first issue of a newspaper called The Dalek Chronicles. The original prose ends with the words "The full story begins on Page 3", the start of the reprints.
There might not have been any new material in the DWMS The Dalek Chronicles reprints but those reprints were recontexualised and given new meaning by the new material that was present. What do you think?
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
I can help with the DW50Y 1. There's a short overview of what TV Century 21 and The Dalek Chronicles were about. It acknowledges Genesis of Evil as a "radically different theory" from Terry Nation prior to Genesis of the Daleks and describes it as an "alternate Dalek origin", but it's a real-world article and doesn't try to reconcile them. The reprints of Genesis of Evil aren't altered with any linking narration (nor is The Terrorkon Harvest which is also reprinted.) Interestingly, though, the introduction says The Road to Conflict is a prequel to Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. rather than The Dalek Invasion of Earth. That's likely down to a contemporary effort to promote the former's release. Other than that, there's not a lot new on the issue.
I feel like I should have said my piece on this sooner, since I'm the guy who added a lot of the John Peel Dalek novelisation info to the Dalek Prime page in the first place - I integrated some of it into other articles but was never brave enough to venture very far. From my own reading of the stories involved, the reasoning for the mergers is solid and the proposed changes are sound. And for my part, a clean-up on this scale of the various Dalek Emperor pages would be very welcome.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Borisashton wrote: The in-universe article called The Dalek Chronicles Found! is the front page of the first issue of a newspaper called The Dalek Chronicles.
There I disagree with you on the interpretation. As seen from the way I cropped the page image, I think the "The Dalek Chronicles" logo on top of the page isn't part of the short story, but rather the overall title page for the book. What sense would it even make for the newspaper whose summer special is about the recent recovery of the Chronicles to be named after the Chronicles, anyway?
- Borisashton
Oh, it defintely doesn't make sense, I'd put it down to lazy editing. It doesn't actually matter what the newspaper is called as long as we know it exists. I certainly have no strong feelings about it.
Do you agree with the last bit about the stories being part of the newspaper? It's in the same font as the article and if it were not part of The Dalek Chronicles Found! I would find it strange to link into the next page by referring to it as page three.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, here's the thing: within the conceit of The Dalek Chronicles Found! being a clipping of an in-universe newspaper, it wouldn't be page 2, but rather the front page.
Ergo, while there's definitely a metafictional in-joke to that effect, we cannot chalk up the real-world Page 3 featuring Genesis of Evil to the in-universe Page 3 of the (nameless?) newspaper.
Consider that separately from the "See it begin on Page 3" line of the newspaper, there's a table of contents which clearly isn't part of the story any more than the box containing the editorial credits for DWMS The Dalek Chronicles.
Also, if the whole book were "part of the story", you'd expect true bookends, with a return to the conceit of a newspaper framing at the end of the book. There is none.
All in all, it's somewhat arbitrary either way, but I still think the most straightforward, common-sense way of covering The Dalek Chronicles Found! is as a short story "prologue", akin to DWM's comic prologues for novels and audioplays, rather than as a "reprint with additional framing device" like The Dalek Tapes or The Incomplete Death's Head.
- Borisashton
Fair enough, I'm just trying to be thorough. I'll return back to the position discussed in #40 and #41.
And thanks to User:TheCoud'veBeenKing's help, with every publication that references the TV21 strips in any meaningful way thoroughly examined, I can now be absolutely certain I have no more concerns about this thread and that I am happy for it to be closed.
Since there has been little dissent to the proposed changes, I look forward to hopefully help implement them soon!
- Scrooge MacDuck
I've made a few small edits to the "merged Dalek Prime" sandbox. Could we get a move forwards with this?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Final nail in the coffin of the Dalek Prime in The Four Doctors being the Dalek Prime: I have noticed upon relistening to it that the pair of that Prime and its damaged Special Weapons bodyguard are referred to as "a Dalek Prime and a damaged Special Weapons Dalek". A Dalek Prime, not the Dalek Prime. It isn't even remotely the same thing as the guy from the John Peel novels.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
As this thread is still open, I thought it would be worth bringing up another passage from the novelisation of The Evil of the Daleks regarding the Black Dalek from most of the John Peel novels. After the Doctor goes to Skaro, he comes across another Black Dalek:
The Doctor stared at it with interest. The Black Dalek had been the second in command of the Dalek race. He had been instrumental in its destruction on Kembel. Was this the same one, meaning that they were earlier in time than the events of the Daleks’ masterplan? Or was this a new one, and was this later? He shrugged. He would find out soon enough.
Shortly after, he finds his answer:
He noted several other Black Daleks. So this had to be later in time than the affair on Kembel. That had been about AD 4000.
This is the clearest link drawn between the Supreme Dalek in Master Plan and The Chase to the Black Dalek Leader from The Dalek Chronicles - also an "irreplaceable" second-in-command Black Dalek (who never was destroyed during the comic series). If the Dalek Prime and various Emperor pages are to be merged, should a similar merge take place between the separate Black Dalek Leader and Supreme Dalek (The Chase) pages? The Dalek Prime/Emperor isn't likely to have two "irreplaceable" Black Dalek second-in-commands after all.
- Borisashton
Which way should they be merged? I noticed you put the merge tag on Black Dalek Leader but as Duel of the Daleks was released before The Chase doing it that way would mean we would have to both merge the two pages together and rename the destination page to have the correct dab term.
- NateBumber
It was actually me who placed that Merge tag (as a sign of my support), not TheCould'veBeenKing. Sorry for any confusion!
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
The merge tag was placed by User:NateBumber. I myself agree that the Black Dalek Leader page should be retained while the info from Supreme Dalek (The Chase) is merged onto it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree with TheCould'veBeenKing. It's the same reasoning as why the merged Dalek Prime-Dalek Emperor-Golden Emperor page should be at Dalek Prime — "Dalek Prime" and "Black Dalek Leader" are the singular designations of these individuals, who also, at some points in their lives, held the titles of Dalek Emperor and Supreme Dalek.
- NateBumber
Okay, that makes sense. With that feedback I've swapped which page the Merge tag appears on! Thanks everyone.
- Borisashton
Right, okay. I'm glad the confusion is cleared up and even more glad everyone seems to agree on these additional changes!
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
As with Scrooge MacDuck's own proposed merged version of the Dalek Prime page, I've whipped up another for the Black Dalek Leader at: User:TheCoud'veBeenKing/Sandbox II.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Your Could'v'Been Majesty: that merged page looks great.
- Snorki McBolderbast
Hello there. I'm a long-time lurker, first-time writer.
I've been reading articles on this wiki for years and always found the 'Dalek Prime' and 'Dalek Emperor' pages a bit lacking. And now I've stumbled upon this thread, and I got to say, I think Scrooge MacDuck's version is far superior to the current article. I completely agree with this way of going about things.
So I'm wondering, why hasn't this been implemented into the real article yet?
- Shambala108
Because on this wiki, new policy from forum threads is only implemented if/when an admin closes the thread in its favor.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Slight addition to all the above: just stumbled upon the stub Emperor Dalek (Nemesis of the Daleks), which I think should rather self-evidently also be merged into the merged Dalek Prime page. It's the Dalek Emperor, it looks like the Golden Emperor and it's the Emperor with whom Davros competes for leadership of the Dalek Empire in the Seventh Doctor's era, who else could it be?
- MrThermomanPreacher
It should be noted that this DWM Emperor is explicitly destroyed at the end of Emperor of the Daleks!, which is between Revelation and Remembrance for Davros and the Daleks, so that wouldn't add up with with the Dalek Prime/Golden Emperor being around in War of the Daleks. Filling in that page now.
- Scrooge MacDuck
There was clearly a feeling, at one point, that the Renegades in the War were ruled strictly by the successive Supreme Daleks. It was a bit of a retcon when PROSE: War of the Daleks revealed that the Supremes had been acting on the orders of the Dalek Prme, all along.
But I think it's a retcon that the (singular) Emperor didn't really die in Emperor of the Daleks!, rather than a retcon that the Emperor in these comics was an impostor or decoy. Remember that War of the Daleks has a plot point of the Dalek Prime faking his death thanks to a remotely-controlled, automated duplicate of his casing…
- MrThermomanPreacher
There is one more issue. Just reread Nemesis of the Daleks and I see that the Emperor doesn't have a clue who Davros is, to the point that when the post-Remembrance Seventh Doctor confuses him for Davros, he replies "Davros? Who is Davros?" That doesn't sound like the words of the first Dalek who "exterminated" Davros in Genesis.
To be honest with you, when creating the page I took it for granted that the Emperor in Nemesis and Emperor was the same since they are pretty much the same design-wise, that and the fact that Emperor is basically a sequel to Nemesis (from Abslom Daak's point of view at least). In retrospect I'm not too sure.
- Scrooge MacDuck
A high-ranking Dalek not knowing who Davros is seems a very odd beat however you slice it. The Daleks in Destiny of the Daleks are clearly fully aware of their history even before Davros returns in the flesh. Are you sure the line isn't meant to be an ironic boast? "Davros? What century are you from? He's so yesterday's news I'm going to feign not even remembering who that twerp is. This is my Empire now."
- MrThermomanPreacher
Hmm, I did consider that before you said it, though personally I would have expected the Emperor's reaction to be one of anger ("DO NOT BLASPHEME!"). But yeah, that a Dalek Emperor would genuinely not know who Davros is pretty jarring. That the Emperor was feigning ignorance is the only explanation I can think of.
- Snorki McBolderbast
While the emperors in Nemesis of the Daleks and Emperor of the Daleks! look identical, they are likely not the same individual. The last time we see the emperor in Nemesis, he's on the Dalek Death Wheel-spaceship. This ship blows up not too long afterwards.
I would prefer if at least the emperor from Emperor was also Dalek Prime. That would mean that Prime killed Davros, then Davros rose from the dead and had Prime killed. Alas, that seems to not be the case.
The "Who is Davros?"-line from Nemesis confuses me too. I assumed that so much time since Davros' era had passed that no records of him exist anymore. No current Dalek knows who he is. This would mean that the emperor in Nemesis is not Dalek Prime. Nemesis is supposed to take place sometime in the Frontier in Space-era, right? That's likely before Davros is resurrected in Destiny of the Daleks. If I don't remember wrong, Emperor of the Daleks! might as well take place centuries later from the Daleks' perspective.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But Daleks do not die of old age. The fact is that the Dalek Prime is all but stated in War of the Daleks to have been the Emperor, all along, up to that point in the Daleks' timeline. He was the Emperor at the very beginning, and he's still Emperor now.
There is some wiggle room for his to have gone into hiding at one point or another, allowing for spurious other Emperors; the Emperor in Dalek Attack, who is favourable to Davros, might be one of those. But the fact that two given Dalek stories take place hundreds of years apart shouldn't change anything about whether the Emperor in them can be the Dalek Prime; it's already officially the case, per War and Evil, that the Prime's reign spans a wide breadth of Dalek history and that it changed casings several times.
- Snorki McBolderbast
I meant that Daleks go to war constantly, and sooner or later, all of the original Daleks would have to die.
I agree with you that Prime does wear different casings throughout his appearances. In fact, he says in The Secret of the Emperor something to the effect of "I have to be rebuilt!"
The fact that Prime seems to have been in charge of the Dalek Empire since the beginning in War of the Daleks makes it hard to fit with a lot of other stuff.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Snorki McBolderbast wrote: While the emperors in Nemesis of the Daleks and Emperor of the Daleks! look identical, they are likely not the same individual. The last time we see the emperor in Nemesis, he's on the Dalek Death Wheel-spaceship. This ship blows up not too long afterwards.
I would prefer if at least the emperor from Emperor was also Dalek Prime. That would mean that Prime killed Davros, then Davros rose from the dead and had Prime killed. Alas, that seems to not be the case.
The "Who is Davros?"-line from Nemesis confuses me too. I assumed that so much time since Davros' era had passed that no records of him exist anymore. No current Dalek knows who he is. This would mean that the emperor in Nemesis is not Dalek Prime. Nemesis is supposed to take place sometime in the Frontier in Space-era, right? That's likely before Davros is resurrected in Destiny of the Daleks. If I don't remember wrong, Emperor of the Daleks! might as well take place centuries later from the Daleks' perspective.
Working on the Second Dalek War pages recently, I've reached much of the same conclusions. I've noticed Nemesis and Emperor! tend to get mistakenly lumped together as if they're a Part 1 and Part 2. But apart from the latter briefly revisiting the former in order to bring back Abslom Daak and the Kill-Wagon crew, the stories are separate and deal with Daleks from different eras (Nemesis, the Second Dalek War; Emperor!, the Imperial-Renegade War) and the Emperors, while identical, are not the same (unless they're both the Dalek Prime).
From my reading, I reckon it's more likely the Nemesis Emperor (Nemperor) is the same as the Dalek Emperor from The Dalek Conquests (Conquemperor), who approves Operation Divide and Conquer. They're both active during the Second Dalek War. And while it's possible one is the successor of the other, it doesn't seem likely. Reason being that if the Earth Empire was powerful enough to take down Conquemperor, how can they still be in such dire straits at the end of the war in Prisoner of the Daleks? Even if they got him by accident, then at the very least, you'd think somebody would mention, "How can we have killed the Emperor in '65 [or whatever] and still be doing this badly?!"
I think is that Conquemperor is Nemperor, and he finally bit off more than he could chew with Operation Genocide. Bear in mind, Nemperor and the Death Wheel were blown up not by Earth forces, but by a motley crew comprised of the Doctor, Daak and a band of Helkans. Not to mention that this happened above a quiet and primitive world where the Daleks are afforded a lot of secrecy. So like Nazi propaganda pretending Hitler's not dead, the Daleks keep the death of Nemperor/Conquemperor a secret, with no reason to publicise it to Earth. Then Prisoner happens where nobody mentions the Emperor, the Supreme Dalek is in charge and the Daleks have quietly woken up to the fact they're losing the war. (The Supreme Dalek may also be the one from Planet but let's not worry about that.)
It makes more sense than there being multiple Emperors for no given reason. The jury's still out on whether these Emperors are also the Prime, but if this thread exists to clear various disparate Dalek pages, I think merging Conquemperor with Nemperor is a move. (If we're being really strict, both pages should maybe be merged into a page called Emperor Dalek (Doctor Who and the Planet of the Daleks), as that's where this one's first mentioned.)
If we can reconcile all (or at least most) classic Emperors as the Prime, then a lot of the above is moot. But until we're so confident, a smaller merger is a decent place to start, though the information about Emperor of the Daleks! will have to go somewhere else.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Very impressive research, albeit secondary to the main issue.
As for whether we can "reconcile all (or at least most) classic Emperors as the Prime", I'm unclear on how the Second Dalek War is meant to relate to the Imperial-Renegade Civil War, is all. Reading the page for the 2DW, the final paragraph of Second Dalek War#Operation Genocide seems to imply that it all takes place before the civil war breaks out. If so, then War of the Daleks clearly identifies the Prime as the Emperor who was pulling the strings of the Renegade side all throughout the Civil War, through the succession of Dalek Supremes. So it would stand to reason that Conquemperor and Nemperor are also the Prime, even if they weren't already depicted as having the round-headed casing.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Very impressive research, albeit secondary to the main issue.
As for whether we can "reconcile all (or at least most) classic Emperors as the Prime", I'm unclear on how the Second Dalek War is meant to relate to the Imperial-Renegade Civil War, is all. Reading the page for the 2DW, the final paragraph of Second Dalek War#Operation Genocide seems to imply that it all takes place before the civil war breaks out. If so, then War of the Daleks clearly identifies the Prime as the Emperor who was pulling the strings of the Renegade side all throughout the Civil War, through the succession of Dalek Supremes. So it would stand to reason that Conquemperor and Nemperor are also the Prime, even if they weren't already depicted as having the round-headed casing.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Emperor!s continuity is a tough beast to explain (would not recommend to newcomers!). Writing about the only bit relevant to the 2DW (all confined to Part Two) was a timey-wimey nightmare. The two wars aren't really related - the IR Civil War-era Daleks go back in time to save Daak from the Death Wheel, send him to Hell to find the Doctor, then they scoop them all out of the 26th century and the 2DW is no longer relevant to the story.
Parts Three to Six of Emperor! - the main bulk - bridge the gap between Revelation and Remembrance. Though the Emperor (... Empemperor?) is having trouble with Davros, there's no real war until Davros' Spiridon army attacks and pushes all the way back to Skaro. A text box calls this "the first round of what will become a bitter civil war", so that's what the paragraph means when it says civil war is "brewing". (This takes place after 4590 based on the Resurrection novelisation.)
I agree that Empemperor in this story and the Dalek Prime are the same individual though. While Davros's Daleks kill Empemperor, you previously pointed out that the Prime uses a decoy in War, which also explains that he's been playing a chess game of his own. On the same note, I do think it's possible that Nemperor and Conquemperor are also the Prime - Nemperor evidently having escaped the Death Wheel. And I'm totally on board with the idea that the casings change, don't worry about that.
I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around the Prime's chronology in this era, since Emperor! doesn't really read as a proper sequel to Nemesis for anyone except Daak. If it helps, here's a rough layout of what the Dalek timeline, and the shape of Prime's post-Great War reign, seems to look like this:
- Second Dalek War: Frontier, Planet, Abslom Daak, Star Tigers, Nemesis, Prisoner
- Third Dalek War: Death
- Dalek-Movellan War: Destiny
- Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War: Resurrection, Revelation, Emperor!, Remembrance, War
- Snorki McBolderbast
A Dalek Emperor seems to die in all of Evil , Nemesis, and Emperor of the Daleks!. I therefore have a hard time accepting all of them as being the Dalek Prime. And I personally don't like the idea that none of these are the real McCoy. These being only decoy-casings feels cheap. But I guess that's necessary if we are to fit everything into one narrative.
This is semi-irrelevant, but the Third Dalek War article states:The Third Dalek War took place around the same period as the Human-Draconian War, which took place in 2520 and led to the Second Dalek War, which ended "over forty years" later, circa the 2580s.
Does that mean that the Third Dalek war happened before the Second one?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nemesis and Emperor are more complicated, but it's undoubtable that the death in Evil was circumvented somehow and that the Emperor in that story was the Prime. Which does set a precedent. I don't think, mind, that we should speculate about decoy casings on the page (that's simply a hypothetical to make people on here see that it is possible for the Prime to escape any one death). We don't need to get into how the Emperor shows up after his apparent death any more than we do for any time Davros or the Maste return from certain death.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Evil Emperor, at least, is revealed to have survived the civil war in The Lights of Skaro (at least according to the wiki article, I'll see if I can confirm that), and both sides say his forces win (Bringer of Darkness, Children of Skaro), so he's still able to have tonnes more whacky adventures after that.
So there's scope for the Prime to be Emperor all the way up to at least Nemesis (with "Who is Davros?" meaning "Davros? What? Where? Which Dalek in this room is Davros?"...?)
As to the Dalek Wars, no, 2 takes place before 3. It's a bit of a cluttered paragraph where I try to talk about too many wars in one elongated sentence. I'll have a go at rephrasing it.
Scrooge brings up another point though. It wouldn't be the only time the wiki has to deal with contradictory information within an article, Doctor Who being as big as it is and continuity hiccups abound. From Dodo's backstory, to Borusa's fate, to the many deaths of the Master, to UNIT dating. What's one more unexplained Dalek Prime survival among friends?
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Here's what I've found regarding the Emperor surviving Evil.
Bringer of Darkness: On the outcome of the Civil War, one Dalek says, "The traitor were destroyed! The Emperor reigns supreme!"
Children of the Revolution (not of Skaro, my bad): The Doctor finds a colony of Humanised Daleks led by Alpha. The Doctor assumed the Humanised Daleks were too small in number to win and thought they had all been wiped out. Alpha explains a number of them escaped Skaro when they realised the Emperor's forces were winning.
The Lights of Skaro: Benny is caught in a number of time jumps which take her through different points in Skaro's history. She sees visions of the Civil War and comes across what she thinks is the dead remains of the Emperor, but then he speaks to her and questions why the Civil War happened. She claims he is dead, calling him a "ghost" and a "phantom" but this seems to be in the context of what she is experiencing having happened in the past. Because he is unarmed, Benny just walks away.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Some more observations about the scene in Lights.
Benny says of the Emperor: "You're just a huge Dalek brain. The only Dalek that's allowed to think." It slots right in with what we know about the Prime/Golden Emperor.
- In the Evil novelisation: "the Dalek Prime could never risk another Dalek evolving beyond its own capabilities [...] Its mental powers were a hundred times greater than any other member of the race."
- In The Secret of the Emperor: "We know that our Emperor has the greatest brain in the universe - so we will elect him again!"
The Emperor also tells Benny the Daleks are not evil, they believe that strength and power are essential for survival. They seem to view human qualities as capable of eroding that idea, and therefore threatening their survival. That's pretty much the same as what the Golden Emperor sets out in Shadow of Humanity.
- Snorki McBolderbast
Okay, so the Evil Emperor survived the Evil-civil war. And this emperor is Dalek Prime, since the novel confirmed it. Okay.
What evidence is there for Evil of the Daleks being set after the Movellan war and the Imperial/Renegade civil war? I seem to recall Evil coming before... but maybe I'm misremembering. The reason I'm asking is that if Prime survives Evil, then he can pop up and die in Emperor of the Daleks! without any problems.
Of course, this still leaves the issue of how he can appear in War of the Daleks after that... And then there's Nemesis, which in any case has to come before both civil wars...
Emperor! and Lights of Skaro seem to say that Prime survived the Evil war, but dies in the IR war. However, War and the Evil novelization says he survived the IR war, but dies in the Evil war.
What a confusing mess.
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
Evil isn't set after those stories. It's just dawned on me that I've used "Civil War" to refer to two different conflicts, so sorry if that caused any confusion. To clarify:
- The Dalek Civil War is the one between the Humanised Daleks and the Emperor that happens in Evil. This one stems from the Great War which links it to Master Plan, according to the Evil novelisation.
- The Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War is the one against Davros and the Emperor. This one has roots in the Movellan War and spans from Resurrection, Revelation, Emperor!, Remembrance and War.
The Dalek Civil War happens first. Peel's Evil novelisation treats it as a kind of finale to early Dalek history. His novelisations were mostly interconnected while also tending to incorporate elements or aspects from The Dalek Chronicles and the 60s Dalek annuals. This is the period of Dalek War Machines and Silver Daleks, the Golden Emperor, the "irreplaceable" Black Dalek Leader and unstable taranium time machines. It this Civil War that Lights, Bringer and Children are talking about. This early era appears to look roughly like this.
- Genesis (either one), The Daleks/Chronicles, Invasion of Earth, Dalek Book, Dalek World, The Chase, Outer Space Book, Master Plan and Evil
After that comes Day. It's never explicitly said to come after Evil but the Daleks have better time travel by then, they know the First and Second Doctors, and in the Day novelisation, the Doctor says "I thought I’d destroyed them once before, but I was wrong." Conquests suggest this is the point at which the Time Lords start taking the Daleks seriously.
Eventually they get to Frontier and so on, and follow the rough timeline laid out in the previous post. The Daleks exterminate their merry way through time and the universe until Davros comes back during the Movellan War and starts challenging the Emperor/Prime's authority. And that's when the Imperial-Renegade Civil War happens.
Therefore, minus one (apparent, but unseen) death aboard the Death Wheel in Nemesis, the Prime could have a clear run from Genesis all the way up to Emperor!. Then it's just a bridge between Emperor! and War.
- Snorki McBolderbast
Maybe you're right that Evil should go before Day of the Daleks. I've always imagined that the Daleks' hatred for the human factor in Evil is what made them abandon their biological components, meaning that Evil would lead into Destiny of the Daleks. I don't think any official source supports that theory, though.
I believe the idea that Evil is after the IR civil war comes from the fact that it is often treated as the final end of the Daleks. I've even read theories about the Evil-emperor being Davros, following on from Terror Firma. Of course, that wouldn't work if Prime is that emperor.
- Snorki McBolderbast
Hey, I just had a thought.
If Dalek Prime was truly the first Dalek created, wouldn't he be the same individual as Baran, the Thal spy who is turned into the first Dalek at the end of I, Davros 4?
Should Baran and Dalek Prime's ideally articles be merged too?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think so, no. The Dalek Prime is the first true Dalek — the one we see exterminate Davros in Genesis of the Daleks and give the "this is only the beginning" speech to the camera. Baran, by contrast, seems to be the first prototype — in a Mark 1 rather than Mark 3 travel machine.
- Snorki McBolderbast
I had a listen to I, Davros again. In the bonus features-interviews, Nicholas Briggs says "Finally, what I think is a fantastic irony [...] is that the first Dalek is in fact a Thal that's been experimented on."
This seemingly confirms that Baran is in fact the first Dalek - the same title that Dalek Prime has. And there's no reason that the Baran-mutant couldn't survive the upgrade from a Mark I to a Mark III travel machine.
Sure, this is behind the scenes, and therefore not a valid source. But I think it should at least be mentioned somewhere that indirectly Nicholas Briggs at least considers Baran and Dalek Prime to be the same individual.
- Thalek Prime Overseer
I've read through the discussion, and there's something I wanted to point out.
In The Heart of the Battle, from The War Doctor: Only the Monstrous, at the 27 minute mark, a Dalek in the background can be clearly heard saying "Protect the Dalek Prime", despite the fact that throughout both this story and the previous one, The Thousand Worlds, the "Dalek Prime" is constantly referred to as the "Prime Dalek". This sounds strange, given that the War Doctor doesn't express any familiarity with the term "Prime Dalek", and makes no mention of the Dalek Prime at any point.
- Scrooge MacDuck
An interesting data-point to be sure. I'd assume this is just Nicholas Briggs applying the usual "Dalek Supreme = Supreme Dalek" standard to his invented designation of "Prime Dalek", without taking stock of the fact that the phrase Dalek Prime already existed. Besides, this is a Last Great Time War story. Big Finish's output doesn't always emphasise it but it shouldn't surprise us if something about the Daleks' stated history doesn't quite make sense, in the context of the Time War.
- Thalek Prime Overseer
Although there's no real hard evidence to support this, my personal headcanon is that the Dalek Prime's varying accounts occurred due to the effects of the Last Great Time War: it started as the Dalek Prime from the novelisations / War / Legacy of the Daleks, then had its past rewritten so that it became a Dalek rank rather than an individual (like in The Four Doctors), then got rewritten again to become the Prime Dalek in Only the Monstrous.
On a side note, Nicholas Briggs voiced the Dalek Prime in The Four Doctors, so I'd imagine he's familiar with the term "Dalek Prime" as something more than just a word reversal of "Prime Dalek". Then again, there's a 5-year gap between The Four Doctor and Only the Monstrous, so maybe he forgot.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Right. So. COMIC: Defender of the Daleks has just made our golden boy current again, so it'd be nice if we could bring this to a resolution…
The comic seems to take place within some sort of alternative timeline, as the Daleks have no memory of the Last Great Time War having ever happened, but all the same, it does provide some interesting data. The Doctor recognises the Golden Emperor as "the Emperor of the Daleks" and isn't surprised to see him rather than a later model; and more to the point, he recognises him.
Which would be quite a trick if we don't recognise that the Dalek Prime in War of the Daleks and/or the Emperors in the DWM comics weren't the Golden Emperor, because of the currently-accepted list of appearances of the Golden Emperor, none of them involves the Doctor.
- Danochy
Also of note is that the introduction page, albeit not part of the narrative, refers to:
- The Emperor. The almighty leader of the Daleks - The Doctor's greatest enemy - his golden battle armor portrays his royal superiority. Merciless, the Emperor strives for universal domination.
So that at least shows intent in that it implies the existence of non-battle armour for this same Emperor in other appearances, such as in Evil. I suppose it's just more comfy in there.
Also, apparently the Dalek Prime Strategist is older than the Emperor, but that's only by his own reckoning.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, that's true — and a bit odd. I'm not quite sure what they're going for here. But the Doctor's immediate reaction to this claim is "and yet he’s the Emperor, isn't he?", which could be expressing skepticism about the claim thanks to the Doctor knowing that the Golden Emperor is Emperor because he's the original Dalek.
Speaking of which, while it could be coincidental, the fact that the Golden Emperor's main advisor is the Dalek Prime Strategist is — it's not exactly irrelevant to proving the Golden Emperor is the Dalek Prime, is it?
At any rate, I've updated my sandbox with the information from Defender of the Daleks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah! Finally, a bit of clarity on the one remaining mystery in this thread, the intended meaning of "Davros? Who is Davros?" in Nemesis of the Daleks. I am told that Nemesis was actually originally written with the intent that it would take place some time after the Shoreditch Incident in Remembrance of the Daleks, and so, the Emperor in Nemesis was Davros himself having further degenerated himself into a Dalek. The casing is, after all, patterned after the Remembrance Emperor casing, except with an eyestalk added. And so the meaning of the line was to show that Davros himself had begun to lose his grip on his own identity, lost to the Emperor persona — the same idea later used in AUDIO: Terror Firma. The full exchange spells it out pretty clearly:
Doctor: "For pity's sake, Davros, have you lost all sense of compassion?"
Emperor: "DAVROS? WHO IS DAVROS?"
Doctor, quietly: "Ah… I see that you have."…And then, Emperor of the Daleks! completely retconned the place of the events of Nemesis relative to the Imperial-Renegade Civil War and thus making it impossible for the Emperor in Nemesis to have been Davros.
I'm unsure what we should do about this.
- Snorki McBolderbast
Aah! That makes sense! At least I think so... It's been a while since I read either Nemesis or Emperor.
Is it possible that the Nemesis-Daleks are time-travelers from post-Remembrance? That would mean that Davros' timeline would look like this:
Emperor of the Daleks! -> Remembrance of the Daleks -> Terror Firma -> Nemesis of the Daleks (in which he likely dies, since the space-base blows up). And then via Last Great Time War-shenanigans, he's brought back in The stolen Earth/Journey's End.
Does that work? I'm pretty confused and can't really double-check right now.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think it more or less would, although Emperor of the Daleks! does seem to have been written with the intent that it would retcon the earlier story, what with its Emperor (who is clearly not Davros, and is most probably the Dalek Prime) being drawn to look exactly like the Nemesis one. That's not necessarily an intent we have to listen to, though. I see no problem with merging Emperor Dalek (Nemesis of the Daleks) itself into Davros while excising the content based on Emperor of the Daleks! and funneling it into Dalek Prime.
- Snorki McBolderbast
I believe I agree, although I would need to re-read, re-watch, and re-listen to the relevant stories before I can say for sure. I agree that the Emperor!-Emperor being drawn with the same design as the Nemesis-Emperor is an attempt at a recton. It's annoying.
But as you said, I think it could work and make sense this way. I'm curious to see how it flows with Terror Firma leading into Nemesis for Davros!
I think I've always assumed that the Doctor stopped mid-sentence when he said "Ah... I see that you have..." in Nemesis. Like, I maybe thought he would have said "I see that you have forgotten Davros" or something like that. But everything makes more sense with Scrooge MacDuck's latest clarification.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Heyheyeheyhey! Hold the presses!
I can't link to it just yet, because the same post also contains information about unreleased material for <spoiler>, but Nicholas Briggs has just confirmed on Twitter that the recurring Big Finish "Genocide Machine Emperor" was always thought of as one and the same as the Golden Emperor/Dalek Prime/what-have-you, as per the old covers.
- Snorki McBolderbast
I just re-read Emperor of the Daleks! and Nemesis of the Daleks. I did not notice any problems with the timeline-order i proposed in my second to last post, save for one. In his final scene in Emperor, the seventh Doctor says that he hopes that Davros died during the events of Remembrance in 1963. That's odd, since he believed that Davros was alive and well as the emperor in Nemesis.
Other than that, I think this order is the "correct" one.
Now, I haven't listened to Daleks Among Us in forever, but this got me thinking that maybe that could go after the Davros-emperor is blown up on the death-wheel in Nemesis. It would be:
Remembrance of the Daleks -> Terror Firma -> Nemesis of the Daleks -> Daleks Among Us
Do we know if the emperor from Defender of the Daleks is indeed Dalek Prime, or is that just based on his casing? What do we know about that guy? And is the story set during the Last Great Time War?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The Doctor hoping Davros died at the Shoreditch Incident seems like one of the things that make more sense if you assume that the Doctor was mistaken in Nemesis of the Daleks, that the Nemesis Emperor was in fact the Dalek Prime unbeknownst to him, and that he realised his mistake off-screen. But that's all rather speculative. The Doctor lies, time is rewritten, yadayada — hell, the Doctor might even be using a metaphorical sense of "dying", treating Davros's apparent degeneration into an amnesiac Emperor as seen in Nemesis of the Dales as the Kaled scientist having functionally died. I think we're good with saying it's Davros in Nemesis, but the Dalek Prime in Emperor!.
As concerns the Emperor in Defender of the Daleks, he is pretty explicitly the Golden Emperor, or at the very least an Emperor from before the Time War: upon meeting him, the Tenth Doctor explicitly goes "The Emperor of the Daleks!" (emphasis mine) and complains that of all the individuals a time paradox could resurrect, it had to be this guy. (Though that's not strictly part of the narrative, the "character profile" on the first page of the comic book also identifies the Emperor as a returning enemy who has squared off with the Doctor before.) With him looking the way he does, I think it's beyond any reasonable doubt the Golden Emperor/Dalek Prime.
The story is not set during the Last Great Time War — it is set in the "present" of the Tenth Doctor era, but in temporally-anomalous circumstances whose nature has yet to be elaborated upon. The Doctor identifies the existence of the Prime's entire Empire (which includes a reconstructed Dalek City identical to the one in Series 9) as "a paradox", and the Daleks, to his surprise and confusion, don't remember ever having fought in a Time War against the Time Lords, instead believing themselves to have been at war with the Hond for ages.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh dear, the new evidence for area we hadn't even conidered doesn't stop coming in, does it? I am told (though I haven't listened to it yet) that AUDIO: Restoration of the Daleks gives a more definitive origin story to the Parting of the Way Dalek Emperor than he had thus far gotten, which depicts his rise to power in the form seen in TV: The Parting of the Ways as having consisted of the Dalek Time Strategist resurrecting "the Emperor of the Daleks", the original, through a complex temporal process.
…So what I'm saying is, unless I have been tragically misinformed, we might want to merge Dalek Emperor (The Parting of the Ways) into the united Dalek Prime page, too!
- Snorki McBolderbast
Aah, interesting. Assuming that it was in fact the Dalek Prime who was the emperor in Emperor of the Daleks!, then that would be the death he'll be resurrected from in Restoration of the Daleks, right? Have we seen him dying in any other story? (Apparently he survived Evil of the Daleks).
His appearance in War of the Daleks still doesn't fit with anything.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, no, presumably all he needs to have been killed by, to have to be resurrected now, is the Valeyard when he annihilated all Daleks save for the Time Strategist Daleks in AUDIO: The War Valeyard. I say we still go with his Emperor! death not being definitive/being a matter of different accounts.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I've listened to Restoration of the Daleks now, it's definitely saying the Parting of the Ways Emperor is the Emperor, the original article — resurrected. Davros (or, rather, a duplicate with memories from a bunch of timelines, but that's not important) readily recognises him as his old rival for position of progenitor of the Daleks: these are his words moments after hearing the Emperor's broadcast announcing his resurrection to the world:
Not that creature! That obscenity! They are not his children!!…
(…)And here he is describing the Emperor to Bliss:
The Emperor usurped my power… he's the reason my children abandoned me! Centuries of Dalek against Dalek! A waste of potential.
I think we can safely say that's the Dalek Prime against whom Davros fought the Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War, and who had these debates with him about who the true Creator of the Daleks was in War of the Daleks, right there.
Incidentally, it's very meta and would be nigh-impossible to cover on the Wiki in its intended way, but I think the following insane boast by the remembering-all-realities-at-once Davros, delivered to the Emperor, is in fact a reference to the retcons about whether the Emperor in Nemesis was Davros or the Prime:
I remember all realities! In some of them, you… and I… (cackle)… are the same! Nyahahahahahah!
- 72.211.204.187
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: I think it more or less would, although Emperor of the Daleks! does seem to have been written with the intent that it would retcon the earlier story, what with its Emperor (who is clearly not Davros, and is most probably the Dalek Prime) being drawn to look exactly like the Nemesis one. That's not necessarily an intent we have to listen to, though. I see no problem with merging Emperor Dalek (Nemesis of the Daleks) itself into Davros while excising the content based on Emperor of the Daleks! and funneling it into Dalek Prime.
So where do you put stories like Juggernauts, Davros Mission and Curse of Davros, before or after Emperor of the Daleks?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Perhaps I've missed something, but why do we seem to be wanting to merge all of the pages with Dalek Prime instead of Dalek Emperor?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Dalek Emperor is a page about a title — which, even discounting other Kaled-mutant Dalek Emperors whom we have yet no reason to suspect are the same individual, like the one from Dalek Attack, has still been held by one indisputably different individual: Davros.
Dalek Prime, on the other hand, and discounting Big Finish's recent, "incorrect" use of a 'Prime Dalek' rank, is not a title, but rather the specific designation of the First Dalek Ever whom all the sources documented above suggest later became the Emperor of TV21 and The Evil of the Daleks.
tl;dr, the Dalek Prime is a specific Dalek, and that Dalek is the same individual as a bunch of Dalek Emperors. But "Dalek Emperor" is a general-purpose title and that's what that namespace should be used for.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Having read through this thread, I agree that we have pretty conclusive evidence about Prime = Emperor. My only question is whether or not Nicholas Briggs's intentions and an invalid DWM illustration are evidence enough for the Dalek Empire Emperor to be the Dalek Prime, especially given his pretty conclusive death.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, who else would he be? Emperor of the Daleks who's not Davros, sounding like that, concurrent with the Seventh and Eighth Doctor — that sounds very much like the Dalek Prime in the post-Shoreditch Incident era. And indeed, his death is a feature, not a bug: sounds like it's the missing piece of the puzzle we were looking for earlier, namely the death of the Emperor during the Eighth Doctor era that he's resurrected from in AUDIO: Restoration of the Daleks!
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Actually, yeah, that could make perfect sense. I had my chronology all mixed up. Theory:Timeline - Daleks has already placed Dalek Empire as the last appearance of the Dalek Emperor before Time War 4.
- 72.211.204.187
Do we consider the Emperor from Audio: We are the Daleks the same as the Dalek Prime. Also doesn't Audio: Desperate Measures depict the Time War Emperor but takes place before Audio: Restoration of the Daleks
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I suppose the Emperor dies in Dalek Empire, somehow comes back for Gallifrey: Time War, gets wiped out with the rest of the Daleks and is then resurrected with a god complex in Restoration of the Daleks.
- 72.211.204.187
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: I suppose the Emperor dies in Dalek Empire, somehow comes back for Gallifrey: Time War, gets wiped out with the rest of the Daleks and is then resurrected with a god complex in Restoration of the Daleks.
He already has god complex in Gallifrey Time War calling the Daleks his children even then.
- 72.211.204.187
Does the Emperor from The Daleks audios merge with Susan Mendez and become like a weird hybrid creature or something. Granted one could argue that the Dalek Prime has just had a wacky life. So nothing disproves the point that the Prime is the Golden Emperor, Dalek Emperor (Daleks) and the The Time War Emperor.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Not quite. The Dalek Empire Emperor's mind enters Suz's and dies when Suz merges with another Dalek and becomes the Dalek Supreme. The Great Catastrophe destroys all Daleks in that galaxy. It seems pretty final.
- Snorki McBolderbast
A Tardis contributor wrote: So where do you put stories like Juggernauts, Davros Mission and Curse of Davros, before or after Emperor of the Daleks?
It would be something like: Revelation > Juggernauts > Emperor (part 1) > Up Above the Gods > Emperor (the rest of it) > The Curse of Davros > Remembrance.
Emperor of the Daleks, The Davros Mission, and the framing story of I, Davros all feature Davros' trial after the Necros incident, and none of them are compatible with each other.
The other day I thought, if Dalek Prime truly dies in Emperor of the Daleks!, and if Davros truly becomes the emperor in the post-Terror Firma stories, then Davros might very well be emperor in the Dalek Empire series. Now, I haven't listened to Dalek Empire in years, so I can't tell if that actually works. For what it's worth, it seems consistent with the Theory:Timeline-page, timeline-wise.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, I think we have to remember two things:
- This thread doesn't have to create a complete, linear timeline of all the Emperor Dalek stories. In fact, it would be against policy for it to do so. If some things don't fit, some things don't fit. Such as Davros having three trials or the Prime Emperor dying twice. So long as we know the authors of the conflicting stories didn't intend to be consistent with each other and that no insight can be gleaned from what does or does not appear to match up, plot holes are just that.
- Accordingly, we have to accept one key point, which is that (as documented on Imperial-Renegade Dalek Civil War) there are incompatible accounts of who won the Imperial-Renegade Civil War which necessarily mean we have at least two entirely incompatible accounts of Dalek history leading out of Remembrance and up to the LGTW.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Like you said, Dalek Emperor is a title and there's no evidence that all of them, such as the Dalek Attack Emperor, are the Dalek Prime. I'm not sure there's any evidence that the Dalek Empire one is either.
- 72.211.204.187
Do we consider the Dalek Emperor from "We are the Daleks" the same as Prime is there enough evidence for that? Or should he have his own page.
Also I too once thought that either Davros was the Emperor from Dalek Empire or heck even the Emperor from The Parting of the Ways, and if not taking Peel's book into account Evil Emperor as well. However i do like the idea he is Nemisis Emperor who died.
Oh how I would love to know what happened to Davros after Terror Firma.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I am unfamiliar with We Are The Daleks, so I sadly cannot answer there.
There's certainly no reason whatsoever for the Wiki to even acknowledge the possibility that the Parting of the Ways and Evil of the Daleks Emperors: neither was ever intended to be Davros, it would make no sense timeline-wise for them to be Davros, they don't look or sound like Davros, and, not to forget, we have valid sources identifying them as the Dalek Prime instead of Davros. (Or at the very least as Daleks distinct from Davros.)
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Shouldn't Dalek Prime and Dalek Emperor (The Genocide Machine) be unmerged until my points above are addressed? They were merged without the discussion reaching any conclusion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:257478
User:Shambala108 recently closed Thread:224324, about the First Doctor: Volume Two trailer, with a straight application of T:VS. As such, fair enough.
But as had quickly become apparent in that thread, the overwhelming sentiment was that the recent wave of fully narrative, non-fourth-wall-breaking trailers by Big Finish and the BBC made the relevant paragraph of T:VS no longer useful policy. It was originally meant to stop people from adding info from "Next Time" trailers to the Wiki before the episodes being trailed were properly released, but clearly wasn't written with full independent stories in mind; the various TV Prequels are functionally identical to the "trailers" under discussion (heck, some of them are even less advertisey, as some, like Ace Returns!, aren't even leading up to a specific story, they just happen to be the trailer for a physical rerelease of preexisting material), and have always been valid; if people are starting to use "trailer" for things identical to the "prequels" and which it would clearly be a net benefit for us to cover as valid, T:VS should be rewritten to reflect this.
That discussion was happening at Thread:224324, but more out of convenience than anything else; it wasn't the original stated topic of the thread per se, hence its closing as far as said original topic as such was concerned. But it's an important discussion, so here is a thread on which to discuss is all explicitly and above-board.
Although I've restated the gist of the argument above, I invite everyone interested in participating and who wasn't already posting on the First Doctor thread to read through said thread.
The stories under direct discussion per this policy are:
- WC: Transmission from Mars (sort of)
- AUDIO: Volume Two trailer
- WC: Jo Grant Returns
- WC: Ace Returns!
TV: Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars was also originally ruled invalid on the basis of "it's an ad, sort of, so it doesn't count". However, there also potential Rule 4 concerns, so even if (as I hope) this thread is closed in favor of changing Trailer policy, it will require a new debate of its own. Similarly, TV: Meet the Thirteenth Doctor was invalid on arrival because it's essentially a trailer for Series 11, and may warrant reevaluation if narrative trailers are valid. (EDIT: See later messages for a couple more trailers already covered on this Wiki but which could potentially be revalidated.)
I feel like COMIC: Dr Who and the Turgids should also be given some consideration if we're going to be reevaluating stories which have full narrative and were intended to be set in the DWU, but were released as part of an advertisement process. However, it wasn't a part of the previous discussions and is slightly different from them in that where all four stories above are trailers for other stories or for the rerelase of stories, it was an advertisement for the release of a merchandise item.
P.S.: I think this belongs in Board:The Panopticon rather than in Board:Inclusion Debates because Inclusion Debates is more about running stories by the Four Little Rules as they exist, whereas this is an effort to change policy rather than decide how best to apply it. I could be wrong.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The emergence of these new type of trailers does warrant a change in policy. They're obviously intended to be canon (used as a term of how the BBC views them). The BBC wouldn't have made them otherwise.
- LegoK9
I'm incredibly disappointed to see the past two discussions closed. Rule 4 says: "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination."
The community was in favor of narrative trailers being made valid in the two thread. I'm sure Shambala108's decision was not made out of malice, but I did not see any attempts to rebuttal the arguments made by the community for them being valid. (I believe P.S. (webcast) was ruled invalid as a deleted scene/unmade story. I don't see what makes it analogous to these narrative trailers) There is nothing in T:VS that explicitly says trailers that are also unique stories are invalid:
- "Trailers — even the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the episode they preview airs. And if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count."
- "A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product. Also, you can't say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents"
This only acknowledges spoilers, deleted scene policy, and idents that aren't stories. None of this concerns narrative trailers. Transmission From Mars is the most important thing here as it shows a precedent for advertisement webcasts being considered valid. I definitely support amending T:VS to rule webcast trailers (trailer doesn't even feel like the right world. They are effectively mini-episodes) as valid.
Titan Comics advertised their other Doctor Who comics in every issue, but we don't rule the comic story invalid because the issue contains advertising.
On the otherhand, The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer) for series 1 breaks the fourth wall so it is invalid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: The emergence of these new type of trailers does warrant a change in policy. They're obviously intended to be canon (used as a term of how the BBC views them). The BBC wouldn't have made them otherwise.
Current policy says trailers aren't stories and therefore fail the Four Little Rules. Shambala just closed three threads on the basis of the text of that policy. So the text of that policy should be changed, even if I agree with you the change would remain in the spirit the policy was originally written in.
(Also, what the BBC considers "canon" and what we consider "valid" doesn't always overlap; they obviously intend for the content of non-narrative fiction, i.e. the details about River Song's World in The Brilliant Book, to be as DWU as anything. Yet since Tardis long ago decided it would only use narratives as sources, we cannot.)
- Bwburke94
- Scrooge MacDuck
I assume because in both cases, everyone really wanted it to be valid but this went against straightforward Wiki policy. If that's so, it's a fair point, but irrelevant to this discussion where we're trying to change policy.
- Bwburke94
There were people who wanted policy to change to support P.S., just as there are people who want policy to change to support narrative trailers. It just so happens that P.S. never got a proper follow-up.
Returning to the discussion of narrative trailers themselves, I agree that the section of T:VS in question was originally intended for "next time" trailers and the like, not for the cases we're dealing with today.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm not quite sure… I've seen people argue to keep Dr Who and the Turgids invalid with the reasoning that even if it looks like a DWU story, the characters' behavior isn't "honestly" depicted because commercial concerns now prime over the concerns of telling a proper Doctor Who stories.
It goes without saying that I am unconvinced by this argument. Outside of passion projects like Faction Paradox, writers are almost never at liberty to just write the events they honestly think would take place in the Doctor Who universe, free of commercial concerns. Making a series (or book, or audio drama, or video game, etc.) that will sell, and not only sell for its own sake, but do well by the Doctor Who brand with which it has been entrusted, is always going to be a prime concern on writers' minds.
And heck, if stories written the way they were so that toy replicas of the things in them can then be sold should be ruled invalid… then goodbye Victory of the Daleks, by all accounts.
But refute it though I might, it is definitely a very real opposition to be reckoned with in this thread; there is genuine disagreement here, not just a policy not written to take narrative trailers into account. (Though there is that too.)
- Shambala108
You guys are overthinking the analogy I used when I closed Thread:255994. I even stated before I posted it: "For those who are interested in wiki history..."
But I will carefully explain what I meant:
With P.S., despite community consensus for inclusion, it was decided that since it's a deleted scene, and we don't consider deleted scenes to be valid, P.S. was ruled invalid.
Similarly,
With these trailers, despite community consensus for inclusion, it was decided that since it's a trailer, and we don't consider trailers to be valid, these trailers were ruled invalid.
- Bwburke94
Of course, the purpose of this discussion is to overturn what many of us see as a flaw in wiki policy.
We have community consensus to include these trailers, if we ever come to a point where trailers could be considered valid; right now, the stories are invalid because we haven't come to that point.
I'll use Ace Returns, the most agreed upon otherwise-valid trailer, as the basis for my argument.
- Why are all trailers automatically invalid?
- Which of our four little rules does Ace Returns break, and why?
- Revanvolatrelundar
Ace Returns only breaks policy in my eyes because it was released as a trailer. The short itself is wholly a narrative, and the recaps of what the blu-ray release is collecting are shown through Ace's memories.
Just a little tweak to the policy would allow for trailers such as this with authorial intent to be included on the wiki. This, and a few other such trailers, are something more than just a trailer. We're doing the wiki a disservice by not including them.
- NateBumber
Chipping in my brief support for this policy change. It's pretty clear that the original reasons for not including trailers simply don't apply to this new wave of narrative teasers, which (as Scrooge pointed out) are much more analogous to the TV prequels we enjoyed for many years.
In my eyes, putting the rules aside for a moment, the only possible reason someone might think Ace Returns! can't be covered as a narrative is the fact that around the 2:09 mark it transitions into third-wall-breaking information addressed to us in the real world. But we already cover The Name of the Doctor, with its third-wall-breaking text-on-screen at the end. (One could argue that text makes Name of the Doctor one long trailer for The Day of the Doctor. But I won't do that lol) So one way or another, there's precedent for ignoring such information and accepting the narrative as valid.
Looking back at Thread:224324 and Thread:255994 -- and I know not to make any judgments about consensus, so that's not what I'm doing -- not a single person was actually against the validity of Volume Two trailer and Ace Returns!. But both were closed in the negative because of the broad wording of T:VS. So cheers for making this thread, and -- while this isn't me calling for rapid closure or anything like that -- I (personally) hope to see it resolved quickly.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I completely agree with NateBumber.
- Danochy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading T:VS, it seems to me that trailers are not explicitly excluded by policy, but their mention is more a clarification of of the real policy, which is the four little rules.
According to the page, trailers violate rules 1 (Only stories count) 3 (A story must be officially released to be valid). While stories being discussed on this page can be referred to as trailers, they don't violate rules 1 and 3, therefore their exclusion based on the fact they're trailers is not based on the policy itself.
So what this thread is really about, at least in my view, is correcting T:VS so that trailers which are completely unique from what they promote, are separated from trailers which violate rules 1 and 3 (e.g. next-time trailers)
- Bwburke94
That's essentially what's going on here. The four rules themselves don't exclude trailers; it's a badly-worded supplement to those rules that does so. So we can change the policy without changing the four rules.
- SteamMoose
With these trailers, despite community consensus for inclusion, it was decided that since it's a trailer, and we don't consider trailers to be valid, these trailers were ruled invalid.
Is it really, though? Watching "Jo Grant Returns" again, it appears to be more like a short film released with the trailer, rather than part of it. We can see the Youtube video as containing both a short (Jo Grant Returns) and a trailer for the boxset.
This way, "Jo Grant Returns" should not be considered a trailer at all, and therefore might be valid. And I guess the same could be said about "Ace Returns".
(I'm sorry if my english is bad, I tried to do my best but I still make a few mistakes sometimes).
- Revanvolatrelundar
But then you still have Volume Two trailer, which is a framing device for the stories in The First Doctor: Volume Two, and contextualises where the Player came from, and his motivations in The Plague of Dreams.
This trailer is a story in itself, and is essential to the understanding of The Plague of Dreams. If this story had been given a title, instead of just being called a trailer, then we'd include it no questions asked. The only thing getting in the way here is our policies, which is why we should make the tiniest of changes so this kind of occurence doesn't get blocked in the future.
- Bwburke94
My proposal is as follows: "No trailer, even if narrative, can be valid unless the material it advertises has been released."
This maintains the ban on non-narrative "next-time" trailers, while allowing Ace Returns and its ilk to be valid immediately. (Under my proposal, the Volume Two trailer would have become valid once The First Doctor: Volume Two was released.)
- Borisashton
Just me being pedantic but that proposal would mean we would have to wait for the release of The Collection: Season 26 for Ace Returns! to be valid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Even that seems acceptable to me. But if we want to craft something that will allow in Ace Returns! immediately but avoid spoiling future story releases, we only need to tweak User:Bwburke94's wording so that it says that if a narrative trailer advertises the future release of new stories, it will only be valid once those stories have been released.
- Bwburke94
I was judging Ace Returns as advertising Season 26 proper, but you're correct in saying the wording should be cleared up to cover that.
- Revanvolatrelundar
We're not trying to make all trailers valid, though, as some use scenes that don't end up in the final product or are altered to avoid spoilers and misdirect.
The wording needs to be around narrative trailers being the exception when it comes to trailers being covered on the wiki.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Aye.
- LegoK9
Regarding COMIC: Dr Who and the Turgids [6], I think we can keep it invalid while making narrative trailers valid. The former can be seen as breaking rule 4: "If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed."
This comic ad was not intended to be in the DWU in the same way Prime Computer advertisement [7] was not in the DWU, despite also including the Fourth Doctor and Romana.
On the other had, these narrative webcast trailers are much more intended to be part of the DWU as they actively engage with existing DWU stories.
- Transmission from Mars ties into The Triumph of Sutekh
- Volume Two trailer natrually ties into the story of The First Doctor: Volume Two.
- Jo Grant Returns is a continuation of Jo Grant and Clifford Jones' lives.
- Ace Returns! is a continuation of Ace's life.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, sure, we can keep Dr Who and the Turgids invalid. I just thought it was one of the things we could revisit if we put an end to the reign of the "a thing that exists to advertise another thing cannot be valid" dogma.
I think the difference with the Prime Computer advertisements is that the PCAs break ludicrously from usual Doctor Who ruleset: the TARDIS interior is completely different, the Doctor gets married to Romana. Whereas Turgids doesn't actually do anything a regular Doctor Who comic couldn't imaginably have done at the same time; note that unlike the Prime Computer in the PCAs, which is just that, a Prime Computer that the Doctor for whatever reason thinks is advanced technology, the TARDIS Tuner employed by the Doctor within the fictional Turgids story is a fictional item "exclusive to Time Lords", which only just happens to resemble the merchandise item from the real world. Not too different a situation from Ace in Ace Returns! conveniently experiencing flashbacks to the very stories whose DVD release is being advertised, though I'll admit it is a step further.
We're drifting, though.
On the other hand, I have found another work whose status could be altered if trailers are valid: Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars, which, IIRC correctly, was ruled invalid because it was at the end of the day an ad, if only a very vague one advertising "the BBC" in general.
- LegoK9
Even if we allow narrative trailers, Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars would probably fail to pass rule 4. It wasn't meant to be part of the DWU.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Prove it. (Or, actually, don't, not here, this isn't the right thread for us to do so; it's just an inclusion debate we'll have to open if/when the proposal to allow narrative trailers is successful. But I, for my part, don't think it's any less obviously DWU than Party Animals: in both case, a ludicrous amount of crossover characters whose licenses are all owned by the producing company appear at a party together, with the in-universe explanation that time travel is involved (Maruthea in one case, the TARDIS itself in the other).
- Revanvolatrelundar
Perhaps it's best leaving Sprout Boy to another discussion, provided this one proves successful. :)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah, I said the same thing. I just wanted to mention it, so that all cards are on the table as far as "what stories could this policy affect?" goes. But for edge cases like Sprout Boys, there will definitely need to be some separate debates once the main rules are ironed out.
- Bwburke94
As this discussion is directly tied to the inclusion debates for Ace Returns and the Volume Two trailer, those two stories (and Jo Grant Returns) could reasonably become valid without a second discussion, if this proposal were to pass.
Sprout Boy had its debate in 2015, so a "Sprout Boy Revisited" discussion would make a lot of sense. Though the original was indeed closed solely on the basis of Sprout Boy being an advertisement, its status under Rule 4 was never determined.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Do we have any suggestions of how we could write the inclusion of narrative trailers into the valid sources policy?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Trailers with self-consistent narratives, especially if they consist of newly-recorded material, are acknowledged to be stories like any other, and therefore pass Rule 1. Whether a narrative trailer passes the other three little rules is to be determined in precisely the same way that one would do it with any other story; note that floating text does not qualify as a Rule-4-defying fourth-wall-break, so long as nothing in the narrative itself acknowledges it.
Seems straightforward enough.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I like it. What are other people's thoughts?
- Scrooge MacDuck
At any rate, I've been taking a look at Category:Teasers and trailers for what other trailers that should be reevaluated if narrative trailers are indeed made valid. The vast majority are non-narrative, and what few aren't are usually fourth-wall-breaking as all hell, but I have found these four:
- TV: Meet the Thirteenth Doctor: No more fourth-wall-breaking than the end of The Name of the Doctor — the Doctor just stands still weirdly long for the final frame as “Introducing X as the Doctor” text appears. It consists entirely of newly-shot footage and while its storyline as such may be simple, it's no more bare-bones than Prequel (The Wedding of River Song).
- HOMEVID: Revisitations 2: Described on the page as "a new narrative created by using old footage from these stories", which is about right. Not fourth-wall-breaking as such, but it does state that the entire Doctor Who universe as depicted in the various episodes it advertises is contained in a miniscope. Is this too iconoclastic to be taken seriously? I mean, Happy Deathday does pretty unambiguously suggest The Five Doctors was actually a video game played by Izzy Sinclair, and The Land of Happy Endings that all the TV Comics stories took place in the Eighth Doctor's dreams…
- TV: 25th Anniversary: Like Ace Returns, it's bookended by new in-universe McCoy/Aldred footage with "flashbacks" consisting of clips from various episodes sandwiched in the middle. There may be Rule 4 issues, though (the Doctor says it's been "25 years since he first visited Earth"; I think there's room for that to simply mean the TARDIS has landed in 1988, but some people may not agree).
- TV: Season 17: Identical in format to the two Doctor Who YouTube Channel trailers that sparked this whole discussion: a self-contained, original-material-consisting little minisode with Tom Baker as the Fourth Doctor with a more conventional trailer tacked on at the end. This one I've seen and, again, I find it to be precisely in the same boat as Jo Grant Returns.
Again, these are all things that would warrant individual debates, not things I'm saying would definitely be valid if this thread's proposal is accepted. Nor is this thread the right place to already have the debates. But it's good to know all the stories that may be affected by the decision.
- Bwburke94
With Meet the Thirteenth Doctor in particular, I considered arguing for its validity at the time, but was blocked by the existing trailers rule.
(It would have caused too many problems anyway, because Twelve hadn't regenerated yet.)
- RingoRoadagain
Another narrative trailer that i'm surprised has not been brought up yet is Friend from the Future. Moffat even stated that he wrote The Pilot in a way so that it could include this trailer inside the story. (see Thread:214342 for more info)
The very famous 50 Years probably needs to be mentionned too.
Personally i'm all for it as long as the story is released and the trailer is not just a montage of scenes from it.
Just to be sure we still consider that Big Finish trailers and their exclusive content such as the War Doctor or the Clocksmith's TARDISes should not count?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Friend from the Future isn't really a trailer, though — and inasmuch as it is one, it is a trailer of the "footage from a future episode, some of which is edited differently in the final product" variety. Personally I wouldn't have minded a valid FftF, but it's a whole other, and very thorny, kettle of fish. (…Sorry about the mixed metaphor there, those must be some damn creepy fish.)
Also, famous and amazing though 50 Years may be, it is by no means a story, it's just a bunch of flashy images of Doctor Who’s history strung together. And you're right, neither are any of the CGI Big Finish trailers I've laid eyes upon, which likewise show you some pretty images but don't try to make them cohere into in-universe narratives.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, and I think we've just got another one in: WC: What is inside the TARDIS?, which just came out on the Big Finish YouTube channel, an animated short featuring a Ravenous. Unlike previous animated Big Finish trailer, this one's just a continuous and wholly-original scene, not a collection of videoclips with some clips from the audio story playing over it.
(If anyone's worried, no, I'm not breaking T:SPOIL by mentioning it; Ravenous 4, the thing it's a trailer for, was released yesterday.)
- RingoRoadagain
To help find concerned articles, i'm going to create the Category:Narrative teasers and trailers on which i'll put any non clip show ones. (unless someone has a problem with it, i'll try and do it during the week-end)
- Shambala108
Please don't create anything like that until this thread has been resolved thanks.
- RingoRoadagain
Respectfuly, I honestly don't see the problem. I mentioned it here because i thought it could be a useful navigation tool for the debate.
That label would not have any impact on whether the narrative pieces are valid or not: in any case it is a real world category that would be independent from the decisison that would be reached by this thread.
I probably am missing a subtlety but do you still believe i should not?
- Danochy
I do like the way you've written the potential policy change, Scrooge. However, the way T:VS is written is that it shows what doesn't count, rather than what does. Currently it has a long list of the types of media which isn't valid, and lists the rule(s) (1-4) that they break.
What we need to do here would be to change the row concerning "trailers" to "non-narrative trailers", and then alter it to explain why specifically non-narrative trailers aren't valid. (with perhaps a note on narrative trailers as well, what defines one, and why/that they're valid)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Good point. In that case… let me see. The wording is currently:
Trailers:
Trailers — even the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the episode they preview airs. And if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count.
Examples:
A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product. Also, you can't say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents
Rules offended:
1, 3I propose we change it to:
Most trailers:
Trailers — even the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the wider narrative they preview is released.
Furthermore, because they're not stories, trailers consisting of a series of clips of the story being advertised are invalid, and if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count.
However, trailers which craft their own self-contained narrative that simply ties into the work being advertised do pass Rule 1 and can therefore be valid stories, though usual Rule 4 concerns apply if they break the fourth wall.
Examples:
A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product. So they're invalid. Nor can we say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents; they're clearly meant as unserious bits of fluff, not as actual narratives taking place in the DWU. On the other hand, something like Jo Grant Returns, which advertises a story by presenting a short sequel to it, is perfectly valid.
Rules offended:
1, 3, 4The wording could use ironing out here or there, but does this basically look good?
Mind you, this is getting quite long for a mere entry in a table. I wonder if it mightn't be better to have "Trailers" as their own subsection of T:VS, so we can properly explain things like the T:SPOIL concerns separately from all the "once we're allowed to cover a trailer, when is it valid?" business, and offer a clearer breakdown of which trailers are vs. aren't valid.
- Bwburke94
That looks good to me.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yes, that looks good!
- Danochy
Yeah, it looks pretty good! It is quite long, but I'd say it's necessary to fully explain what is and isn't invalid. Aesthetically speaking, I'd say it fits in the table alright. (as you can see in the example I made in my sandbox) As for adding a new section, I don't think that'd be strictly necessary, since we already have this page for describing what specifically is valid.
- Schreibenheimer
Thanks for that sandbox example. It does look much smaller when formatted like that.
- Bwburke94
Though it's worth noting that "Most trailers" shouldn't be boldfaced.
- Schreibenheimer
Now that "Most trailers" is unbolded, does anyone else have any objections/suggestions in regard to the wording? Or do we have anyone who objects to this change in general?
This discussion adds nothing to what has already been discussed before. Thread:130675 was open for almost a year, between 2013 and 2014, and clear consensus was reached that advertisements, including those that have in-universe characters within them, are not valid sources, by virtue of not being stories.
I quote:
- CzechOut wrote: There is such a thing as being in-character but non-narrative. In-character advertisement is a common ploy of marketing, as I've demonstrated above with a number of industry and academic reports.
- What you haven't explained is how we can allow this, but disallow the dozens of in-character advertisements otherwise associated with Doctor Who. You're arguing for this one thing and I'm worried about the precedent that this is setting. It's better to get rid of one thing that may be marginal, if it helps us weed out things that are clearly over the line, than it is to keep the thing that's debatable and thereby cast doubt on things that should be easily eliminated.
This discussion brings nothing new to the table. It's already established, from that 2013/2014 discussion, that in-character advertisements are distinct from narrative stories. We have policy from that which dictates that all such advertisements are not valid sources, because a clear-cut rule was deemed necessary. This reasoning is in fact woven into the text of T:VS itself.
I am hence closing this thread, on the basis that this has been shown to be an advertisement, and advertisements are not valid as sources on this wiki. Thank you, everyone, for participating.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:257975
Over the past decade, we've been blessed with a plethora of new audio series from Big Finish. This has given us a chance to fine-tune our system of titling pages for audio series, which started out clearly listing the publisher (for instance, the recently-retired Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series), then shifted to the Title (audio series) format, which has been further fine-tuned and worked into law by our resident dab term king, User:Amorkuz.
Only a few relics remain of the old, dabless system. One of them is Big Finish Torchwood series. Another is all of our prose series pages.
Unlike with audios, we haven't been given as good a chance to evolve our protocol for book series. But using what we've learned in the case of audio series, and swapping the medium from "audio" to "prose", I think we can take a bold leap forward into the beautiful future.
Case in point: Virgin New Adventures. That formatting seems kind of weird, doesn't it? New Adventures is the name of the series; none of the (many) cover logos ever included "Virgin" as part of the title. So it should really be Virgin New Adventures. Try writing out that formatting every time! And lord help the poor soul who then clicks on the word "Virgin" expecting to see Virgin Books.
In contrast: New Adventures (prose series). Easily pipe-tricked into New Adventures; easily placed into the very-sensible Virgin Books New Adventures; and (most importantly) faithful to the actual usage of the term in official branding.
And to pre-empt the SEO critique that has foiled my proposals in the past: this will actually help! If a not we was trying to find a page about the Eighth Doctor book series, is it more likely that they'd google "Eighth Doctor Adventure books", "Eighth Doctor book series", or "BBC Books Eighth Doctor Adventures"? I'm guessing one of the former two. In fact, I guarantee that virtually no one is searching for the last option. (There's only one Eighth Doctor book series.) Now, bearing in mind that Google includes synonyms by weighting searches, would "BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures" or "Eighth Doctor Adventures (prose series)" be a better fit for that search?
As it happens, some form of this idea has already been implemented: for instance, at Dr. Men (series). The infobox on the page describes the series as a "book series", so it's apparent that a lack of precedent is the only reason the dab term isn't more specific. I say we make the precedent, and make our wiki clearer in the process.
- Scrooge MacDuck
While I support a "(prose series)" dab term, I don't think the proposal to rename Virgin New Adventures as New Adventures (prose series) or anything like that is in any way a good idea. Yes, that's technically not what they're called, but everyone calls them the VNAs, including, I'm sure, a lot of licensed reference material like Doctor Who Magazine. There is a precedent for going with the retrospectively-agreed-upon title rather than time of release when it comes to series: The Dalek Chronicles was only ever called that in retrospect, none of the actual comics ever bore that name as their logo (the series was actually known as The Daleks, but you can plainly see why fandom generated a more distinctive name than that).
Also, concerning the main policy proposal, you say "(prose series)" in the title of the thread but your example reads New Adventures (novel series) and you also mention the term "book series". So which is it to be? "(novel series)" doesn't look very good to me because we also want to be able to cover series of short stories collections, and it's best to have as few dab terms as possible for bot purposes IIRC. But between "prose series" and "book series", it's a purely aesthetic matter. "Prose series" has the advantage of fitting with the PROSE prefix, but "book series" has the advantage of actually sounding like a thing humans say. (I'd favor the latter, if you can't tell.)
- NateBumber
The Dalek Chronicles isn't called that because that was "fan consensus", it's called that because they were officially renamed as such in the 1994 re-release. "VNAs" is such a common acronym because of this wiki, not the other way around; for years and years beforehand, people simply called them "the NAs", as you can see by a cursory search of RADW or contemporary behind-the-scenes commentary. Marking them as a prose series is sufficient to disambiguate from the "New Adventures of _" audio series. Personally, for the sake of accuracy, I'd prefer we use the official names for page titles, and leave unofficial names as redirects noted on the page.
Thanks for pointing out my anomalous mention of the (novel series) dab term; that was a leftover from an earlier draft, which I ultimately rejected for many of the same reasons, and I've edited my post to fix the mistake. I don't think "book series" is appropriate, since it's exclusionary to prose that isn't published in a book. But I'm open to the amendment.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Whatever the old conventions, most everyone on the Internet these days knows them as Virgin New Adventures, not New Adventures. Wikipedia calls them that, for one thing.
What's more, while within this Wiki it's true "New Adventures (prose series)" would do the trick, you also gave some thought to Google search optimization in your opening post, and here's the thing: since looking for "New Adventures Books" wouldn't get you anywhere, I'd wager anyone googling the VNAs will be typing Virgin New Adventures sooner than New Adventures. Typing "New Adventures" or "New Adventures Books" will obviously yield tons of irrelevant results.
Yes, we only get to call The Dalek Chronicles that because it was officialized in the 1994 reprint (whereas we, say, don't get to refer to Doctor Who (TV story) as The TV Movie or The Enemy Within). But aren't there any official reference materials that call the VNAs that, which could justify our use of it? Surely there must be.
As for "(prose series)" vs. "(book series)", I hadn't considered we might want to use the dab term for 'series' of short stories not published in books but rather magazines. Are there any such pages on the Wiki? Could be. "Prose series" still sounds like what a Dalek would say but oh well.
- NateBumber
What about googling "doctor who new adventures"? That already returns our page as one of the top results. (Keep in mind that our page was originally called Doctor Who - The New Adventures, only being renamed to the current title in 2007 to disambiguate from other Doctor Who "New Adventures" series, of which we have seen more and more in recent years. The dab term is just an alternate way to fix that problem.)
But I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of this one example. If we want to leave exceptions, that's another conversation. But I don't think there would be any harm in implementing this proposal on the vast, vast majority of prose series pages (eg Short Trips (series) or the aforementioned BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures).
I don't know if there are any prose series with non-book releases, but given recent events, it seems wise to take that step toward future-proofing.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Why should it need to be an exception? I am totally down for Virgin New Adventures (prose series).
- NateBumber
Another page that would benefit from this change: Target Missing Episodes, which -- per the long-standing rename template -- would be better titled The Missing Episodes (prose series).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:258232
Following the restoration of CyberNomad, I hereby request that CyberTelosian and CyberNeomorph be restored as those terms are also used in PROSE: Killing Ground.
The Nomads had travelled out into the galaxy from Planet Fourteen, but they found themselves in a vicious and protracted war with Voga, the famed planet of gold. They lost and were presumed wiped out until, three centuries later, a small, isolated group reappeared and tried to take their revenge on the Vogans. You also put forward a hypothesis that another such group might have reopened the Telosian tombs and helped to forge the new race - the Neomorphs — which proliferated during the twenty-sixth century.
Additionally I suggested that CyberMondasian restored at least temporarily, as information found there may potentially be useful for the existing CyberMondan page. Perhaps it may then be redirected to CyberMondan.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Actually, a key fact of the matter is that because no Wiki editor currently owns them, there has not yet been an inclusion debate for the The ArcHive Tapes audio series, which reinstates all of the David Banks Doctor Who: Cybermen info. Circumstantial evidence seems to point towards validity (it seems no different from The Dalek Conquests: what is basically summaries of classic Dalek or Cybermen material bridged together with new tidbit is presented with an in-universe framing as an audio story), but we just don't know.
They are valid until proven otherwise, though, and for the reasons I stated would probably come out valid from a proper debate whenever we have one, so that's one more reason to not shun the Banks terms quite so thoroughly. (Maybe someday I'll cough up the cash to buy The ArcHive Tapes and we can get his ball rolling properly, but for now it's hard enough reforming the way we do Dalek History on this Wiki without also taking on the burden of the Cybermen.)
- Shambala108
Just gonna point out that User:Scrooge MacDuck's comments are opinion only, as not only is he not an admin but also he apparently has not experienced the story(ies) he cites. Therefore his comments "They are valid until proven otherwise" and the like are just his opinion.
- MrThermomanPreacher
ArcHive Tapes aside, surely Killing Ground is sufficient reference enough?
- MrThermomanPreacher
Update: I have listened to The ArcHive Tapes and can confirm that they are indeed much the same thing as The Dalek Conquests. Basically, an account of classic Cyberman history pieced together in-universe by an ArcHivist (David Banks).
- Borisashton
This thread isn't about The ArcHive Tapes. As pointed out above, Killing Ground is enough to restore these pages unless policy has changed so that we don't now create pages for all nouns.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Shambala108 wrote: Therefore his comments "They are valid until proven otherwise" and the like are just his opinion.
I fail to see how that was my opinion, though the fact that "I think they would probably come out as valid in a proper debate" definitely is. It is as a matter of fact the case that The ArcHive Tapes do not currently bear an {{Invalid}} tag.
At any rate, I agree with User:Borisashton's reminder that Killing Ground should be enough for the pages to be restored. I only meant that before we set about writing such pages, it might be useful to officialise the Tapes’s validity, since they contain much of the information which we would want to put on said pages.
- Borisashton
Thread:260946 now exists so it seems this thread can now be closed and the pages restored.
- MrThermomanPreacher
Repeating my request for the aforementioned restorations. As seen in the linked thread above, The ArcHive Tapes have long since been verified as valid sources and I see this as the perfect time to use them as a resource to expand our coverage on Cyber-history. Just to confirm, the requested pages for restoration are CyberTelosian, CyberNeomorph and CyberMondasian, the latter should be useful for the existing CyberMondan page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:259163
Current wiki policy for comic images is that when a black and white comics is colourised, only the original black and white image is allowed. This is a reasonable enough policy, as some DWM comics have been colourised up to three times, leading to situations where Meeps and Kalichuras have different colours in different colourizations.
However, this ideal is not used equally on the wiki:
- The behind the scenes for Magpie Electricals cites TV: The Power of the Daleks as one its appearances, but it was once in the main article. [8]
This is quite confusing (especially to visitors here[9]), as these details not from the original broadcast of these stories. And we need a standardized policy so everything is covered clearly and accurately.
We already cover Target novelisation separately as they have differences from the television stories. We have separate pages for Shada (TV story) and Shada (novelisation) with the Fourth Doctor and Shada (webcast) and Shada (audio story) for the Eight Doctor.
So I propose that either episodes with GCI additions or animated reconstructions be dubbed HOMEVID: Kinda (home video) or we do something new like RECON: The Power of the Daleks (TV story).
After all, Tardis:Neutral point of view says we must give all media equal weight.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm leaning towards separate pages, but would be okay with either solutions. We'd need a better prefix than RECON, though, in the event that we go with that, because that obviously wouldn't cover CGI replacements and we'd want to keep the number of new prefixes as low as possible. EDIT? ALT for "alteration"/"alternative version"?
Also, you open with the matter of the comics; would you suggest a similar scheme of things for colorized reprints? And/or for similar "altered reprints": it seems to me that the instances of stories being reprinted with the Doctor's faced changed to a more recent incarnation would also be relevant here. I don't quite know what that would look like (especially when there are several colorizations around), but it definitely seems to me like "what color is Beep the Meep? in one printing it's X, in another it's Y" is more or less the same problem as "what was on that screen on the base on Vulcan? in the live-action episode it's X, in the animated recon it's Y".
- NateBumber
I'm just going to drop a link to Thread:259152, since there's a lot of relevant discussion there. I'm in favor of this proposal.
Edit: Fixed the link. Thanks User:Shambala108!
- Shambala108
NateBumber, you've linked back to this thread, did you mean to link to something else?
- Shambala108
For the record, the forum thread cited by User:NateBumber has now been corrected to the intended one.
- Schreibenheimer
I feel like separate pages for CGI additions may be a little much. Where do we draw the line? Does the fact that the colors are less washed out on every airing of "Father's Day" aside from the original and the very first DVD copies merit separate pages for the two different versions?
If the only animations we had were for entire stories, I'd probably be inclined to agree that they should have their own pages, but it feels weird to me to make separate pages for animations of stories from which we were only missing some episodes, and it would likewise feel strange to have pages for the "full" animations but not the partial ones.
In my mind, I think everything can stay on one page, but the animations, at least, deserve to have their own section on the relevant pages.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Do you agree that there should be a separate prefix for citing the animations, though? So you could have, say:
Magpie Electricals existed on Vulcan. (RECON: The Power of the Daleks)
With the source, in the page code, looking like this:
([[RECON]]: ''[[The Power of the Daleks (TV story)#Animated version|The Power of the Daleks]]'')
Best of both worlds: no confusing page splits, but we get a way to source information original to the recons.
- Schreibenheimer
It seems to make sense in practice. Is there any precedent for having a standard prefix for a specific recurring article section?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'll revive this thread to note the opening of the different, but connected, Thread:268687, where we are debating whether, and how best, to cover information originating in dubs and translations. The validity of that information is a different kettle of fish to information from recons, but however we decide to cite recons, we'd likely want to use a similar scheme for dubs, and vice-versa.
- RingoRoadagain
I agree that some sort of distinction should be made. With the animation of 'Faceless Ones' for instance, we could state on 'the master' page that he first appeard there, years before 'terror of the autons' which would be confusing to everyone.
I am not sure what prefix would suit best but I think we could just create redirect pages to the animation version of them.
eg PREFIX: "The Macra Terror (animation)"
would redirect to "The Macra Terror (TV Story)#Animated version"
And like novelisations and other adaptations we only mention those recons only when they differ from/add to the source material.
I think HOMEVID could be enough for the moment but I believe we should create a new prefix in case a future recon debut on TV instead of the usual 'direct to video' format. RECON I am unsure about since it could apply to the LooseCannon recreations for instance.
- RingoRoadagain
just remembered that we have a template for stories that have been readapted with significant changes.
"Template:WhichDoctor"
You can find it in comic stories like The Wanderers (comic story) were the entire 3rd dr stories was redrawn with the 4th one.
That's why I belive we precedent that it is not necessary to split pages.
Maybe we can rename and extend this template for adaptation changes into the same medium as the one it originated from at large (eg video to video) instead of just comic to comic?
- SOTO
Popping in to direct everyone to three related threads which already reached definitive conclusions:
- Thread:211198: Special Editions and Movie versions, which ruled that separate editions of existing TV stories do not get their own pages, and are instead covered in Story notes (much like reprinted comic stories)
- Thread:149385: Different versions of The Five Doctors, which ruled that "Both [versions of The Five Doctors] are valid. We deal with it as we do with any other conflicting information, one account suggests X, another account suggests Y."
- Thread:259152: Mission to the Unknown (re-re-opened), also linked above, which ruled that the 2019 remount of Mission to the Unknown, an entirely new production of the lost episode, is both valid and covered on its own page, as a webcast.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:259980
I have two matters that I think need to be discussed and amended/confirmed, both concerning images from audio dramas in infoboxes. (Apologies if this post feels rushed - I wrote a more comprehensive one that vanished when I pressed "post".)
1. Currently, audio incarnations of Time Lords have no presence in the infoboxes of Time Lords originating from the TV series - e.g. Garden and Hound's incarnations of the Monk, Redmond's Rani, Warrington and Hardiman's Rassilons. This is because of Tardis:Images and perspective, which states that images from audio stories' covers should not be used if there are TV or comic images available.
I would argue that this does not preclude the use of audio-only incarnations in infoboxes as they are different incarnations, to which there are no TV or comic alternatives. Is there a valid reason that an image of Rassilon from a 1998 comic should be in his infobox but not one of Warrington, who appeared in six audio stories?
2. The same policy also means that, should a comic image exist of an audio character, that one must be used. I argue that this should be changed as audio covers are likely to be of better quality, be more recognisable as the character and would be expected by a visitor. If a character is primarily audio, then a comic image should not be automatically ruled superior to an image (likely of superior quality) from an audio story cover.
- OncomingStorm12th
I absolutely agree on both of your points. I assume the discussion comes from the following segment of Tardis:Images and perspective (and, to be more precise, how we're enforcing it):
For in-universe articles, images must come from an in-universe source, such as a screenshot of a televised episode, or a scan of a comic strip. Novel or audio covers may also be potential sources for in-universe imagery, but only when no other source has an image to offer.
I get that, currently, we're enforcing it literally. If there's any trace of a comic/TV/webcast representation of a subject, we automatically discard any representation of audio/novel covers. But let's be honest. Do we really want to "throw away" dozens of covers depicting Liv Chenka because a "manifestation" of her appears in a (somewhat visually crowded) single panel in a comic story?
Must we ignore 'all covers that feature Evelyn Smythe because one single webcast features her? (I'm absolutely ok with the infobox image coming from there, though, because there's plenty of screentime for us to find a suitable image, as it's currently present).
Are we really to stop ourselves showing the Eighth Doctor alongside Charlotte Pollard, Lucie Miller, Molly O'Sullivan, Liv Chenka, Helen Sinclair, Bliss, et al, even though they never have (and probably never will) have full appearances outside of the audio format?
My understanding is that this segment guides us towards trying to use audio and novel covers on the infobox of, for example, any Doctor and their TV companions. And that's very understandable. After all, we'll have at least a few dozen episodes with each of them to choose images from, so why use a promotional picture?
But the nature of audio and novel characters (and specific incarnations of Time Lords) are entirely different from those of TV and comic characters. I can't see any advantage of forcing ourselves to use, for example, file:Lucie Vortex Butterflies.jpg (the only comic depiction of (a manifestation of) Lucie Miller, currently 282px wide (while policy states that images should be 420px) when we have several covers where we can get images like file:LucieSistersOfTheFlame.jpg or file:LucieBeastOfOrlok.png, both of which are over 420px and make the character much more recognisable to any reader.
- RingoRoadagain
I agree that the Time Lord templates should be updated. (I would also add Drax, the Dreyfus Master, Hughes Master and Titian Comics Master to this pile)
If I remember correctly it's mostly because the template:docpic used in the Infobox is very unstable that nobody really tried to update them?
2. I would also agree with this proposal
- Borisashton
I was about to post a reply to this but saw OncomingStorm12th had beaten me to it. I absolutely agree; that line is way, way too vague. As it stands we consider that if an individual (with different faces) has appearances not on covers then the audio-exclusive incarnations are out of bounds. The precedent this could set would affect hundreds of pages on the wiki and in a negative way in most instances by hindering our ability to portray audio events.
- SOTO
I don't think the actual intent was to exclude those audio-only incarnations. As far as I'm concerned, they're mostly out-of-date simply for not having been updated yet, because, as RingoRoadagain points out, those templates are a pain and a half with each new edition to make at all presentable.
I agree that audio-only characters (or audio-and-prose-only with no decent illustrations) should by represented by their audio cover appearances. A case like Evelyn Smythe is fine because she has a whole story's worth of screenshots to choose from. But a mere cameo in another medium, if it gives us no usable images (per T:GTI), should not in my opinion come before the audio images we have at our disposal. Benny has loads of comics and prose behind her, and thus is not an audio-only character, so I don't think the above would apply to her infobox.
But even in the case of Benny, I've always read the last ditch image rule far more broadly, at least for characters with extensive histories and long pages. Just as an audio cover image might be the only source for a specific incarnation of the Monk, even if we have images of other incarnations, we might have pictures from the comics to represent Benny — and one of those should remain in the infobox — but we might not have pictures of Benny from certain points in her life without turning to audio.
That said, as we use these images as secondary sources, if they conflict explicitly with in-narrative information I don't think we should use those audio cover images.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I definitely don't think that the intention of the policy was to exclude audio-only incarnations, but it was interpreted this way by User:Shambala108 who cited it when removing Template:TheMonkpic from the Monk's page.
- SOTO
In the case of the Monk, no other source does have an image to offer for those incarnations.
- RingoRoadagain
SOTO wrote: In the case of the Monk, no other source does have an image to offer for those incarnations.
I am confused, do you mean his audio cover incarnation images should be featured in the article or not?
- SOTO
To rephrase: there are no sources, beyond the audio covers, which offer an image for those incarnations of the Monk. And so "no other source has an image to offer", in terms of representing those incarnations.
- Borisashton
This issue also extends to the main body of the article. Take for example, File:Eighth Doctor Fugitives.jpg on the Eighth Doctor article. For the purposes of the policy this image could be interpreted as "the Eighth Doctor with his companion" in which case the image would be disallowed as there are other sources that illustrate this. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as "the Eighth Doctor and Molly O'Sullivan run from the Daleks in 1972". According to this version, the image would be allowed on the article.
I believe policy should dictate an interpretation far closer to the second option so we can avoid cases like excluding incarnations of Time Lords only appearing on covers.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Does anyone disagree?
- Schreibenheimer
I mean, if what's been stated above is accurate, Shambala108 interpreted the current policy on the Monk's page differently than SOTO did in this thread, so we should probably wait for one of them or another mod to settle that difference.
- Danochy
1. I agree that audio-only characters include individual incarnations of Time Lords, and I agree that pictures of covers should be used to illustrate sections where no other option is available (for example, only a picture from Dark Eyes could illustrate that section of 8's biography.
2. I agree that the pictures of Lucie Miller and Liv Chenka from COMIC: Vortex Butterflies, which you made the infobox pictures of their respective pages to prove your point, should not be used as infobox images. Firstly, they are not even the actual characters, just manifestations (mind you, I haven't read it). Secondly, we should be able to use common sense to determine that it is better to use a high quality audio cover image over a low quality picture from another medium.
We are trying to be informative on this wiki, and that means using the best selection of images to illustrate our pages. I realise I'm basically reiterating what's already been said here, but I really think we should restart this discussion. Who knows how many people have visited Liv Chenka and Lucie Miller since the infobox images were changed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:260004
(Note: At Talk:Meta-fiction universe several users have discussed a bit of this and I was going to add since I have read some of the stories involved, but User:Shambala108 suggested a forum thread be made, so I created this one.)
There are several stories where the Doctor travels to a universe in which his adventures are fictional. (These being, as far as I know, TV Action!, The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who, All Our Christmases, and a story which refers to it, Deadline. Currently, all of these parallel universes are treated as one on the page meta-fiction universe, yet the characters who exist in both have separate pages (e.g. Tom Baker (TV Action!) and Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who)). Having read the two comic stories, I can say there is nothing in either to suggest they take place in the same parallel universe. While I have not read/heard the latter two stories, from what I can tell they clearly don’t take place in the same universe as the others because in this one, someone travelled back in time and replaced Doctor Who with a show called Juliet Bravo. Right now the page Parallel universe (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) redirects to meta-fiction universe, and there isn’t even a redirect or a page for those in the other stories. Because there is no connection between all of these stories (as far as I know), I propose we create separate pages for the respective universes.
- Borisashton
Hasn't this already been discussed in a forum thread? I'll see if I can find it.
- Chubby Potato
Ah, you’re right, it’s Thread:238065. That was marked as resolved but I don’t see a resolution in it. There is an explanation, but not a solution. It seems this discussion was nearly exactly a year ago, and now it’s resurfaced on the talk page
- NateBumber
I think User:TheChampionOfTime's response in that thread is the key: if the page is just slightly rewritten to "be less assertive that all the stories were set in the same universe and be more on the concept of such a universe," as attested in those stories and Wildthyme Beyond!, the issue will resolve itself. Any takers?
- Chubby Potato
Now that I understand that, I think a good idea may be to keep the page and use it for a description of what a meta-fiction universe is, with examples and links to new pages about each specific meta-fiction universe. Even if we did make it more clear on the page that there’s no evidence the universes are the same, if we did not have separate pages, I could see some problems arising due to how it would be handled on other pages. The pages about characters (like the Tom Baker example) would both link to the meta-fiction universe and may imply there are two versions of Tom Baker from one universe; also it would mean they both would be under the same universe category.
TL;DR my new proposal is to keep the page and have it be about what a meta-fictional universe is and how they’ve been in DWU stories, while we still have individual pages for each specific alternate universe.
- Borisashton
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:261762
Hi, as you have possibly noticed, there have been confirmations of the show's far off future, which you can see in the Radio Times link on the Series 12 (Doctor Who 2005) page, or my latest entry at Howling:The Howling. I recently asked User:Shambala108 on whether there was any policy rule against creating a page concerning something that far off in the future of the programme, and Shambala108 just didn't know about any rule into that matter. So I was wondering whether anyone else, regular user or admin, has anything they would like to say to shine a light on the topic.
- Borisashton
From a purely timescale perspective, we already have pages on audio anthologies due out in 2023 if that helps.
- Danniesen
Thanks. But does this rule concern the entire spectrum of the franchise as a whole, or does it only concern audio?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:262425
Currently, all Torchwood audio stories are placed within one joint template: {{TorchwoodAudio}}. While there's technically nothing wrong with that, there are now simply too many ranges and "sub-ranges" within it.
My proposal is that we split it into four templates:
- one for all BBC Audio stories
- one for BF's "monthly range" and special releases
- one for Torchwood One
- one for Torchwood: The Story Continues
The stories in each of these ranges are as disjoint as, say BBC Doctor Who audio stories, Main Range, Fourth Doctor Adventures (audio series) and The War Doctor (audio series).
I've created these split navboxes on my sandbox to help exemplify my point.
- NateBumber
Fully in support of this - although I hypothesize that Torchwood: The Story Continues would be best served by being combined with Template:TWTV.
- OncomingStorm12th
Hmm, I don't opose to it, but this might be controversial. In any capacity, I think a thread about how to handle it overall is overdue. BF marketed it from day one as Series 5 / Series 6 of Torchwood and Russell T Davies oversaw it's production as well as the BBC, but don't fully cover it as so.
But as I said, this issue warrants its own discussion separatelly from this one, imo.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:262449
Continuing a discussion that started on Talk:Iberians
I do believe that we should keep the "s" at the end of articles like Gepids or Ostrogoths
The main factor for me is the distinction between many individuals vs a collective group that is one singular civilisation. I definitely agree that an article like "Dalek" should be singular because we can point to one individual Dalek as a member of the species.
However, there is a difference in the Huns, Iberians or Burgundians as a civilisation vs all individual Huns, Iberians or Burgundians put together. With e.g. "Dalek", the page is about the species. Pages on these civilisations and ethnic groups are more comparable to a page like "Dalek Empire."
For a point of comparison, let's consider geographic features like Canary Islands or Catskill Mountains. You can have one island that is part of the Canaries, but several islands or mountains come together to create a bigger whole - one singular island chain called the "Canary Islands" and one singular mountain range called the "Catskill Mountains." Similarly, lots of individual people make one collective group -- one singular culture/ethnicity that can be called "the Iberians", "the Huns" or "the Burgundians."
So we can have:
- 1 Iberian (individuals)
- 2 Iberians (individuals)
- 1 civilisation that is referred to as "the Iberians."
This article, and other articles like the Huns and Burgundians, would be about the last option.
While it can't be an "official, legal" name as these are about ancient groups of people which no longer exist, I'd say there is a strong precedent of using the term like this. Wikipedia may be a go-to example, but you can find a lot of encyclopaedias or history group using "the Huns" to refer to one, singular civilisation, rather than multiple civilisations or the actions of multiple individuals in that group. So there is a strong precedent of this distinction.
- Scrooge MacDuck
This sounds absolutely right to me. I'm not sure about the Burgundian example (isn't the nation just Burgundy?…) but it's just not right for the page about the Huns to be at "Hun".
- Kassilon
It's not about the medieval / modern Burgundy, but about the nomadic Germanic tribe called Burgundians from the ancient age. So I still think they should be Burgundians as they're like the Huns or Goths in that sense.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, okay. Just my ignorance there, or rather, the fact that in my native language the inhabitants of Burgundy ("Bourguignons") and the Burgundians of which you were speaking ("Burgondes") have different names, so once I had recognized one it didn't occur to me to match the name with another. Never mind.
My agreement still stands, anyway.
- NateBumber
I disagree with this proposal and I think we should stick with the singular names. There's a simple practical reason: thanks to the wiki's amazing formatting, the following two lines render the same way, but the singular page title is easier to type:
- He was a [[Hun]] and a member of the [[Hun]]s.
- He was a [[Huns|Hun]] and a member of the [[Huns]].
For the same reason, I've long held that The Remote (named for the plural form of a human group/organisation) should be renamed Remote (the singular form), just because it's so annoying to type [[The Remote|Remote]] every time I want to say someone was "a Remote soldier".
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nate, The Remote has as a matter of fact been moved to Remote since last you checked, it would seem.
At any rate, you have a point.
- NateBumber
Oh! And all the way back in July! Thanks User:Doug86!
Well, uhh, the example still stands xD
|- |(269055) |20191206194838-13482153/20200323162002-28349479 |Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-13482153-20191206194838/@comment-28349479-20200323162002 |2863239 |2020-03-23 T16:20:02Z |28349479 |NateBumber |611
No reason to change current existing policy.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:262789
So I think I have discovered (or more accurately, noticed) a problem with Tardis:Spoiler policy. This problem started when the wiki started creating pages for Big Finish anthologies and other prose anthologies that had not yet been released. Then, the wiki started allowing the covers of these stories to be added to their pages instead of the ones from Category:Placeholder covers.
It seems this change was not reflected in Tardis:Spoiler policy and I'll explain why. All images added to pages appear at thumbnail level in Special:WikiActivity which is not allowed to contain spoilers as per policy.
As a matter of precaution, I will explain an example at Howling:Problems with T:SPOIL as spoilers are not allowed on this post. Please note it contains spoilers for an upcoming Big Finish anthology, but only spoilers that can be read on Special:WikiActivity.
- Shambala108
Back on July 19, 2018 User:CzechOut removed the following from Tardis:Spoiler policy:
- This necessarily means that you can't put spoilers into other namespaces and then call them in the allowed spaces. In other words, you can't upload a picture or video destined for the upcoming series page, because this places the spoiler in the file namespace, where spoilers are not allowed. Uploading files also puts them onto every page through the "Recently Uploaded Files" module in the right rail. In a very real sense, uploading a spoilery image is the worst possible offence of this policy, because it adds the spoiler to almost every page on the wiki. Likewise, you can't add a spoiler to a template, or create a category with a spoiler within it, because spoilers aren't allowed in those namespaces either.
His reasoning in the edit summary was as such: "rule is outdated; no longer a Recently Uploaded Images module on every page"
I think this is a mistake, as you correctly point out. Images show up on the Special:WikiActivity page, which many of us use. I will post a message for CzechOut linking to this thread so he can comment.
- Borisashton
I've just remembered a minor exception to this rule that I've previously seen. In May 2018, CzechOut added the then-yet to be released Series 11 (Doctor Who 2005) to the disambiguation page Series 11. The edit gave the spoilerific information that the series would premiere later in the year. The edit summary was "+ the modern series 11, which is really the one most people are likely looking for".
This is ample precedent for "common sense" violations of the policy, such as those that give vague release dates or even just acknowledge the existence of the product.
- Borisashton
Realistically, these sorts of "spoilers" won't harm anyone and are details that people need to actually experience the material. To watch an episode of Doctor Who you need to first know it exists and know it has aired. Our spoiler policy was intended to protect against major castings in the show, not the knowledge that a piece of media releasing in December could give it a chance of being Christmas-related and certainly not the knowledge that it exists at all.
- Danniesen
I must heavily agree that there is a lot of confusing contradiction regarding the Spoiler policy to the point of most Wikia editors have no idea what is allowed to be added of future instalments and what is not.
To name just one example, other than the audio anthology conundrum, there is the rule against creating pages for unbroadcast episodes, however the policy also states that these pages can be allowed to be made, but will be locked for editing to other users than admins.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I would like to point out a major tech update: unless things have changed since the announcement, the Unified Content Platform onto which FANDOM is going to move us whether we like it or not: it, uh…
…well, there's no nice way to say this…
…it doesn't have Special:WikiActivity.
Yeah, I don't like it either. But we're going to have to make do with Special:RecentChanges. And there's the thing, RecentChanges does not display thumbnails of images that have been added to pages, it simply records in text that the image file has been added. As such, I see no reason to change our policy on spoilered series page to allow for a feature of WikiActivity that will be (for better or for worse) lost to us within a few months.
To answer User:Danniesen's post above, in the second paragraph, that was a victim of an interrupted project that was supposed to update the info and make it easier to read. Tardis:Spoiler policy has been cleaned up a bit so it now doesn't say anything about creating story pages before release.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:263513
Recently I have seen "References" sections being cut down to eliminate "plot points". Considering this, would it not be easier for the "References" section to be but a simple list of every page and potential page refered to in a story, just as how it is done on Memory Alpha?
- OncomingStorm12th
I don't know the rules on Memory Alpha for creating pages, but well, here we allow pages for every noun that appears on a story. Is it really usefull to just turn our "references" section into a massive list of (seemingly) random nouns with no context?
I understand that references is for more "trivial" stuff, such as (using The Pilot as an example) "The TARDIS has a macaroon dispenser."
"Macaroon dispenser" is something that appears/is mentioned during the episode, so it warrants a page (and thus a link), but it's not really relevant to the plot, so it doesn't need to be on the plot section, differently from, say, "Heather points out a mysterious puddle on the concrete that ought not to be there, as it hasn't rained in a week", which is plot-relevant, so it does belongs on the "plot" section, rather than being put on "references".
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree with OS12th: turning "Reference" sections into mere lists of link with no context might discourage the mistaken adding of plot points to the "Reference" sections, but it would do so in a "killing the patient will put his disease to an end" sort of way. What use is a long list of words to the readers, I ask you?
- Borisashton
I got the impression these plot points were being removed in cases where the References section was becoming a substitute for the Plot section instead of accompanying them. I imagine this problem will mostly be solved if we can get more plots filled out.
In any case I agree the proposition in the OP would be unhelpful to readers.
- SOTO
I'd swear we discussed this exact proposition in the past, but I can't seem to find the forum/thread.
- SOTO
In any case, my position, which seems also to be the thinking behind the removal of content you've noted, is that extensive details regarding an item or topic ought to be given on the page for the thing itself, which the note in references serves to link to (as well as to, briefly, link that thing back into the story in question). And in the same vein, a reference point should not be giving extensive detail about major actions taking place in the story, as that is the domain of the plot section, really.
But I also oppose letting go of full sentences in reference sections. I see little value in having a simple list on story pages, merely telling readers "hamburgers, 1208, Gorgonzola, U-boat, beam synthesiser".
What I see as the great merit of having a references section is getting to cover (and place in context, in the briefest of terms) those stray little nuggets of information, like an historical event the Doctor name-drops having participated in, or, say, a local alien delicacy, an interesting book which a character is seen reading, a piece of technology with little relevance to the overall story. We wouldn't want to bog down the Plot section of The Day of the Doctor, which has so many crucial elements to cover, with the title of the particular book Eleven is reading when Clara arrives, or with an extensive list of every companion who is seen photographed, because these things do not move the plot forward. And yet dumping links, I think, does little justice to any of it. It certainly offers no context just to provide the list of all those companions, because on loading those pages, their likeness showing up in a photograph is likely to be the last thing you'll see if you go searching.
- Shambala108
I do have the answer for this topic, including various forum threads, but I'll have to get back to it later tonight as I don't have the time right now.
First, I know a people have different ideas of what this wiki should be, but basically any wiki is designed so that users will click on page after page. That is why we only include brief mentions of items in the References section, to encourage people to click on the pages (as User:SOTO points out).
Second, if something occurs in the plot, and is important to the plot, it will be in the plot section. If it's somewhere else on the page (Plot, Characters, Continuity), it doesn't need to be placed in References. Some of our story pages (especially TV episodes) are long enough already without information being duplicated throughout the page.
And as User:Borisashton points out, some of the removed info (and I'm usually the one doing that) is info that already is or should be included in the plot section. I get that it's hard to write plot summaries (since I've written over 400 myself), but anything that drives the plot should not be put in References.
I realize this doesn't quite answer User:MrThermomanPreacher's original question, but long lists of "random nouns" is not what we want. For one thing, the ease of adding items would encourage users to add items that are already on the page. Putting items in a sentence (say, "The Doctor mentions Stevie Wonder.") gives a tiny bit of context and makes the individual entries more interesting.
Sorry for the long post, but defining the References section on story pages is something that I have been working on for quite a while.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:263895
As far as I am aware, there isn't a standard bad term for a documentary series. In fact, as of the time of writing, I can find the follwing being used:
- The Making of The Trial of a Time Lord (documentary)
- Doctor Who: Series 10 (documentaries)
- Doctor Who Live (series)
- Behind the Sofa (The Collection)
- Doctor Who at the BBC (audio series)
What I propose is that we use (documentary series) as a dab term for all of these, and all pages that might require such a dab term.
There is also Doctor Who and the Daleks (featurettes), but not everything covered there is a documentary, so I'm not 100% sure it fits the criteria above.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Sounds basically good to me. I agree that Doctor Who and the Daleks shouldn't be dabbed as a "(documentary series)".
Any exceptions or questions can be dealt with on the individual article talk pages.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:264328
Considering that pages now exist covering subjects not just from invalid sources but non-narrative sources, namely recently added content from the Dalek annuals (e.g. Dalek Task Force), I request that the long deleted pages derived from DWBIT Dalek Wars be restored. By reviewing the deletion log I have identified the following:
- Whit-Arkker
- Vampire God
- V. J. Ellison
- Stanzari solar system
- Space Station X-R
- Senkus Sha
- Second Dalek Empire
- Rianken
- Raxas
- R'ar'Han'e
- R K Datoo
- Plutonia 7
- Petra Dank
- Perrincott
- Ornikronon
- Ook Rowann
- O.M. Burdett
- Nowhere
- Nosfera II
- Mire Colossus
- Mejas system
- Megana-Eros
- M J Barzey
- Hellmouth
- Temple of Haskavarr
- Haskavarr
- Graelliscy
- Exissa Canoomidid
- Empetnik
- Efrosini Skatesis
- Hanro system
- Nidilla
- Robert Keyte
- Dirimion 7
- Devokos
- Querkus
- Death tree
- Dak-Snoom Ice Belt
- Cornelius Filkins
- Chiroptera
- Canis Major Dwarf galaxy
- Cadoni 4
- Benjamin K. Hooper
- Armagedos
- Albert Jupp
- Alyx Pol-13
- Intergalactic Mining Corporation
- Jacobean Cahill
- Great War of the Rim Empires
- Jack Lawrence
- TheCoud'veBeenKing
I've actually been thinking about these lately. Couldn't these stories be considered in-universe after all? All of them from the third one on provide their in-universe "source" in the form of a diary entry, work of history, newspaper story and even a Dalek transmission. The text accompanying the visuals is a clear effort at a short story, often with a fictionalised author who has witnessed or studied the described events. I'd argue it's similar to, say, The Turing Test, which has its narrative framed as three people recording their own testimony on tape.
Instead of being referenced in articles as they originally were, as in (DWBIT - Dalek Wars #5) for example, could they not be given their own articles in the form of - just to pluck a few examples - Invasion Earth: 2164 (short story), Pirates from the Sky! (short story) and The Sagarro Desert Storm (short story), and have their information included much more smoothly in articles like so: (PROSE: Floating Fortress)?
- Scrooge MacDuck
It is my understanding that current Wiki policy is that unnamed things in invalid sources don't get pages, but I've never encountered anything about named items, characters and concepts not getting pages, if there is something substantial enough to say about them (and clearly there is).
If you want to argue otherwise, please either show me the actual policy page stating so, or start an actual Panopticon debate asking to make it so; but cutting back the scope of what this Wiki covers by as much as you're proposing is not something I'm willing to just nod along to on the basis of vague notions.
Regardless of whether we have an inclusion debate for Battles in Time (I don't believe there ever was one to begin with?), I don't know where you're getting the idea that we oughtn't have pages about named stuff from invalid stories from. Category:Non-DWU material is a very well-stocked category indeed. And rightly so. We're, I maintain, a far richer Wiki for having pages like Gigantus, Shalka or Brainmos, and I really see no good reason why we shouldn't; why should our fannish ideas on what we can accept as part of the DWU or not make the Wiki less thorough in its coverage of licensed Doctor Who-related material?
- MrThermomanPreacher
Now that the Dalek Wars stories have been created in the NOTVALID space, could the pages I have listed be restored?
|- |264823 |20200111162705-1678571/20200117234848-1432718 |Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1678571-20200111162705/@comment-1432718-20200117234848 |2834811 |2020-01-17 T23:48:48Z |1432718 |Shambala108 |374
|- |264825 |20200111162705-1678571/20200118005942-4000564 |Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1678571-20200111162705/@comment-4000564-20200118005942 |2834826 |2020-01-18 T00:59:42Z |4000564 |User:TheCoud'veBeenKing |417
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:264489
User:Shambala108 recently posted the following on Thread:264470:
Some of our character pages, specifically any version of the Doctor, any companion or any oft-appearing character, have very long pages. Character pages are supposed to be brief summaries of the character, as well as other items spelled out at Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles (keep in mind this is a very old page and therefore uses some out-of-date language). What character pages are not is long paragraphs of plot summary for every story a character appears in.
The way a wiki works is a user reads a page, and if they're interested in more, they click on the links. Character pages should just have a very brief (maybe 2-3 sentences) description of a story, and if a reader wants more, they click on the story to get the plot.
There is an argument that some stories deserve more of a description because they're more important, but that does violate Tardis:Neutral point of view. So the project here is to clean up the longer character pages by culling some of the info for the stories cited.
Now here's the thing… where in policy does it say that? And even if it does, I'm not sure this is the optimal thing to do on the Wiki.
I am sympathetic to the argument that Wikis are supposed to work by clicking from one page to another to get more information, and that it makes no sense for the same information to be repeated on both pages. The only thing is that as a Wiki reader, I, for one, find myself wanting to character biographies much more often than plot summaries. If I want to know a story's plot linearly, I'll just read/watch/listen to the damn thing. The specificity of a Wiki such as ours is that it has pages like, well, the pages about incarnations of the Doctor, where all in-universe information is gathered in one place in in-universe chronological order. As documented by Tardis:We're Wikipedia's evil twin, the in-universe is the focus of this Wiki; plot summaries are nice to have, of course, but they're still more the area of Wikipedia.
So don't we have this the wrong way around? Wouldn't it be more interesting and useful to reduce plot summaries and gather most of the data in the characters' "biography" sections, rather than the opposite as Shambala suggests?
I beg to differ on giving longer paragraphs to some stories than others being a violation of Tardis:Neutral point of view. If one story only says "an unknown incarnation of the the Doctor visited an unnamed Planet to buy some baguettes" while another says "the Seventeenth Doctor visited the Planet Skaro to meet with Davros, alongside their companions Alice and Bob, and witnessed the tragic death of Alice's mother before making the drastic choice to surrender their TARDIS to Davros in exchange for Bob's mother's life"… well, I'd say that the violation of Tardis:Neutral point of view would rather be in putting all of the information from the first story on the The Doctor page, but only a fraction of the information from the second story.
It's not a matter of how "important" a story is (I fully agree a TV story should get no more coverage than a short story per se), but rather of how much a given story has to say.
Bear in mind, as well, that a story can often give disjointed nuggets of information that are tremendously important to a character's biography, but not, in and on their own, plot-relevant. If a story set on Gallifrey mentions, out of order, a ton of details about the Doctor's education at the Academy, for instance, then even if we see fit to mention some of these details in the plot summary of the story, they'll only be there in the order that they come up. Surely it is the whole point of having in-universe character biographies that they would be a place to put all that information in one easily-digestible paragraph, in order. Even if that paragraph amounts to more than "two or three sentences".
Note that I do bear in mind Tardis:You are bound by current policy and invite others to do the same. If what Shambala108 wrote on the "To-do list" thread does reflect policy, then we must continue to follow that policy for now… but then the point of this thread becomes to change that policy, which I think can only be to the benefit of this community and of the encyclopedia it is designed to build.
- NateBumber
I broadly agree, but I also broadly agree with Shambala108’s policy.
I recently did a ~3.4k word rewrite of Ada Lovelace to add info from Spyfall and The Book of the War, thoroughly de-stub-ifying the page. As a result, there are 15 sentences citing The Book of the War, 9 citing Spyfall, and 21 citing The Enchantress of Numbers (which previously encompassed the entirety of the page). While Ada is certainly not an “oft-appearing character”, if the 2-3 sentence policy was strictly followed, her page would be gutted and imo re-stub-ified. Which would be very non-ideal.
(By the way, if anyone wants to pull a screen grab from Spyfall to put in Ada’s infobox, I would really appreciate it!)
On the other hand, I understand that it is absolutely imperative for our encyclopedia to summarize material. For instance, if we described every single action taken by Yasmin Khan in every episode ... well, bad example maybe, but on Clara Oswald you would much prefer to see
- While investigating Rigsy’s mysterious tattoo, Clara and the Twelfth Doctor visited Trap Street, London, where Mayor Me explained it was a Chronolock linked to a Quantum Shade ...
rather than
- After returning to the TARDIS after an adventure in the second most beautiful garden in all of time and space, Clara received a call from Rigsy, (TV: Face the Raven) whom she had previously met while facing the Boneless. (TV: Flatline) He explained to her that a mysterious tattoo had appeared on the back of his neck, and while Clara initially told him that she couldn’t help him fix a bad mistake, her curiousity was piqued when he mentioned that it was counting down to zero. They visited him and, after being surprised to meet his fiancée Jen and his newborn daughter Lucy, heard Rigsy’s description of his problem: he had no memory of the last 24 hours, and Clara noticed that his phone had also been wiped. The trio took to the TARDIS to scan the city for a trap street, leading them to discover ...
I believe this is the distinction which Shambala108 is pointing to, and in that case, I agree completely. I must admit that I have not combed through the entirety of any [Number]th Doctor pages, but if any examples exist of such exhaustive summary, they certainly must be expunged.
That said, it’s also undeniable that the hard “2-3 sentences” limit is not always advisable. Two to three sentences would not be appropriate to describe everything we learn about Ada Lovelace in The Book of the War. For this reason, while I do think the message of “leave the detailed summary for the story page” is necessary and important to emphasize, I think it should be left as a heuristic rather than a quantified hard limit.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Honestly, I would see nothing wrong with the second option for Clara Oswald, but fair enough.
Do you agree, at any rate, with my point regarding "backstory nuggets"?
- NateBumber
Sure, I agree about "backstory nuggets"!
- Chubby Potato
I've often gone between story plots and character pages in search of information. I think a character page should describe the character's involvement in the story's plot, and a story page's plot section should cover the broader plot as a whole.
- Mentuhotep I
"(By the way, if anyone wants to pull a screen grab from Spyfall to put in Ada’s infobox, I would really appreciate it!)"
Done I guess? Dunno if its good though. (Still pretty new to the picture stuff)
- NateBumber
Mentuhotep I wrote:
"(By the way, if anyone wants to pull a screen grab from Spyfall to put in Ada’s infobox, I would really appreciate it!)"
Done I guess? Dunno if its good though. (Still pretty new to the picture stuff)
Well I think it's perfect, thank you!!!
- Mentuhotep I
NateBumber wrote: Well I think it's perfect, thank you!!!
still got removed though :/
I will, however, address a few of the comments/questions posted here.
- User:Scrooge MacDuck said, "The only thing is that as a Wiki reader, I, for one, find myself wanting to character biographies much more often than plot summaries." Well, with all due respect, you are not the only user of this wiki. Other users have other preferences. Most wiki visitors never edit here, and long-loading pages are one of the surest ways to scare them away.
- User:Scrooge MacDuck said, "As documented by Tardis:We're Wikipedia's evil twin, the in-universe is the focus of this Wiki; plot summaries are nice to have, of course, but they're still more the area of Wikipedia." Unless I'm missing something really obvious, there is no such statement on that policy page.
- User:Scrooge MacDuck said, "I beg to differ on giving longer paragraphs to some stories than others being a violation of Tardis:Neutral point of view." You can't have it both ways; you can't ask for the policy and then say you don't think it applies.
- User:NateBumber said, "That said, it’s also undeniable that the hard “2-3 sentences” limit is not always advisable. Two to three sentences would not be appropriate to describe everything we learn about Ada Lovelace in The Book of the War." As you should note in the to-do list I started, I only asked for the very long pages to get this treatment. I'm not suggesting that we clean every character page on the wiki.
- User:Chubby Potato said, "I think a character page should describe the character's involvement in the story's plot, and a story page's plot section should cover the broader plot as a whole." Yes, that's what is intended. That doesn't mean the character's involvement needs to be extremely detailed. It was decided a while back that plot summaries can be written with great detail.
And incidentally, User:NateBumber, your example of Clara is a very good one to illustrate the difference between the two approaches.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:265055
Admin nomination:User:OncomingStorm12th
First, some history. Some time back, another user nominated OncomingStorm12th, who felt at that time he wasn't ready to be an admin.
He is now ready to be considered. If you have any comments per OncomingStorm12th's nomination, please head to Tardis:User rights nominations#OncomingStorm12th and post there.
Please do not make any posts here.
If you're not sure how it works, you can read through some of the older nominations at Tardis:User rights nominations/Archive.
After about a week, per the usual procedure, this nomination will be closed.
-
|-
|265110
|20200122013435-1432718/20200123201651-44554135
|Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1432718-20200122013435/@comment-44554135-20200123201651
|2837059
|2020-01-23 T20:16:51Z
|44554135
|The doctor of who?cirkd
|rik|
|4
- GarfielfStuff
Good for him
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:265682
I noticed that in the companion templates Mags (companion of the Seventh Doctor) is listed as original to audio, while Grace is listed as original to television. Both characters were introduced on television and later became companions on another medium, audio and comics respectively. I do not know whether that happens with other characters, but I believe we need a standard here. Mags should be listed as original to television because that is what she is.
- BananaClownMan
Grace was introduced as a companion for the TV movie, while Mags was reintroduced as a companion for an audio trilogy.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yeah — User:DenisLuiz, you are entitled as a fan to your apparent opinion that Grace's role in The TV Movie proper does not qualify her as a companion; but we on the Wiki more or less go with the consensus that she was.
- DenisLuiz
The intent here is not to discuss whether they are or not companions, they certainly are. But in the movie per se she declines the offer to become a companion. But if the point is what User:BananaClownMan said, I understand and agree with the reason.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:265726
I’ve never understood why the respective pages for each incarnation of the Doctor have never had “legacy” sections like those for other characters do? I even once attempted to add one only for it to be removed. So why can’t each Doctor’s page have sections that cover what each Doctor’s existence left behind?
For example: the painting of Queen Elizabeth I and the Tenth Doctor (The Day of the Doctor), the portraits of the different Doctor’s painted by Andy Warhol (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), the Twelfth Doctor’s belief that Clara is going out with Adrian Davies because of his similarities to the Eleventh Doctor (The Caretaker).
Perhaps we should eliminate the legacy sections from the other character articles and better integrate the information into the body of the article.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:265904
Well, OK, that title was kinda clickbait. I don’t know if it really is inconsistent of if there’s a logical rationale I just don’t get, I’m asking more out of curiosity than anything, but I’m confused with how we handled ‘real world’ stories, ie. those that discuss Doctor Who in the context of it being fictional.
There are clear cases, of course. Stories such as TV Action! and The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who are explicitly set in another universe to the ‘prime’ Whoniverse, and are clearly set in the same one as each other, so the ‘Doctor Who’ in those is this one.
Stories such as Remembrance of the Daleks and In the Forest of the Night mention Doctor Who in the context of there being an SF TV series with that name, and are clearly set in ‘our’ universe (although personally I prefer the theory that the Remembrance announcer said ‘Doctor- I’m sorry I’ll read that again, Professor X’, purely because it’s funnier, and I have a complex head canon to get around all other stories that mention the series and appear to be set in the Prime Universe, but that doesn’t really matter to this discussion because I know this wiki don’t mess with ‘canon’ - although tbh I fail to see how our ‘validity’ policy isn’t just a ‘reskinned’ canon policy, but that’s a debate for another time and I’m rambling), so the ‘Doctor Who’ in those stories is clearly this one.
But, beyond that, you’ve lost me. Deadline as set in as set in the metafiction ‘verse, even though it doesn’t explicitly state such and features no characters from the ‘prime’ Whoniverse outside of Martin’s imagination. I notice at one point it was counted as invalid, before that one Benny box set canonised (or rather, validated) the Unbounds, and at another as its own universe, before eventually being merged with the metaverse by means of a certain short trip I’ll get to in due course.
Stories such as An Adventure in Space and Time, The Sixth Doctor is on Trial AGAIN!, The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot, Verity, etc. are all tagged as completely invalid, seeming to suggest that a story being set in the ‘real world’, so to speak, automatically disqualifies it, which the articles I have adumbrated above clearly disprove. In fact, the latter of these is even listed on the metafiction universe page, but the story’s article itself remains tagged as invalid. And I’m sure one of the four used to link to ‘metafiction universe’ under ‘main setting’, unless I’m thinking of something else, which is very possible, as I have a goldfish memory.
We count The Thief of Sherwood as valid and set in the ‘prime’ Whoniverse, rather than the meta verse, which would make more sense to me given that it leads directly into Planet of Giants, which is known to have ‘actually’ (I put ‘actually’ in quotation mars because SPOILERS Doctor Who ain’t real, I mean actually-in-universe) happened to the Doctor.
We count All Our Christmases as set in the metaverse, with seemingly the only rationale that it displays Who as a TV show, which could also apply to the Remembrance version.
Also, with stories that break the fourth wall, of which there are too many to list, we seem to just kinda cannily gloss over that entirely.
There are probably more examples I just can’t think of right now, but in general I’m confused as the what is the deciding factor in us counting ‘real word’ stories, that ‘break the fourth wall’, ‘outside looking in’, whatever you want to call it, as being counted as part of the metafiction universe, set in the prime Doctor Who universe, in which exists a TV show/franchise based on the Doctor’s adventures, discounted and labelled ‘invalid’, or simply ignored entirely. Again, I’m not trying to ‘expose’ anything, I’m just asking. I’m not saying there is no rationale, I’m just asking what it is because it looks rather arbitrary to my quite possibly untrained eye.
Or, perhaps, all of these references are jokes and everyone working on these articles, including me, is taking it all seriously. But, hey, we’re Doctor Who fans, it’s what we do best :).
(NOTE SO I DON’T GET BANNED: that last paragraph was NOT intended as an attack on Doctor Who fans, just a playful comment, hence my inclusion of myself in that.)
TL;DR: Some Doctor Who stories are about a show called Doctor Who. This wiki sets some of those a parallel universe where the Doctor’s life is a TV show, some of them in the main Doctor Who universe where there’s a TV show based on the Doctor’s life, and rejects some entirely. What’s up with that?
- Borisashton
I am currently in the middle of revamping these pages to be more faithful to the original source material. I will write out a proper summary of what I intend to do when I have time but basically The Doctor in popular culture and mythology is to become a kind of "hub" page that briefly explains and has links to the different series.
This is important as Doctor (series) clearly exists in a different account to Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) so the latter should not contain references to the former. It's also worthy of note that the Doctor is probably a copyright-free figure in the DWU due to his lengendary and mythical significance, hence that sort of coverage on the pop culture page as well.
I'll also link to Thread:260004, the currently open debate on how to handle the Meta-fiction universe.
- Mpozd.spb
I might not understand you correctly, but if you ask why is there a "real world" label in all articles about Doctor Who stories, then it's simply because these stories are filmed/written/recorded in our world. Such thing as "In the Forest of the Night" is not present in DWU (or at least is not mentioned), but the events that it shows ARE a part of DWU. This label doesn't mean that the story is "set in the real world", but that the story itself is not a part of DWU
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:266436
I do not understand the logic of making pages about anything from ht real world which is tangentially referenced in a piece of Doctor Who media. Could someone explain this please?
- Danniesen
That's how Wikias work. That's the best explanation I can give you.
- 223p
From what I've seen of other wiki's, they tend to keep closer to their actual subject. I'm talking more about stuff like, say, The Gruffalo page. Do we really need a page on this when we could just make a note of it in References?
- Danniesen
Some Wikias tend to be more informative than others. Sometimes it also has to do with users' willingness to work on their respective Wikias.
- Scrooge MacDuck
We don't strictly speaking need it, it's true. You could have a viable Doctor Who wiki that does not have a page about grapes, certainly. But the fact is that this is how the Wiki decided to do things when it began, and while entirely superfluous, such pages sure are a fun read, I feel; it may be of little practical use to be able to double-check the context of every time someone ate grapes in the Doctor Who universe, but it's pretty neat that there is a place on the Internet where you can. The pages don't do any harm, and it'd be pretty sad to stop now.
- Danniesen
And I think that if we didn't do this, the Wikia would pretty much just die out. I've seen a great deal of Wikias that has basically died out over time because they don't make pages that aren't strictly 100% necessary to the subject.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I wouldn't go that far. We wouldn't interest very many people if only main characters from TV got pages, or something. But toaster is not essential to the survival of the Wiki, it's just a neat little thing.
- Danniesen
It's not exactly what I meant. I meant that if nothing new happened on here, the Wikia would pretty much gather dust 'cause there would be nothing to write about if everything had been said and done and it didn't evolve.
- 223p
I just think our energy would be better spent on working on the articles we already have, such as the many Plot-less Big Finish articles.
- Danniesen
That is ALSO true. Users on here are really lazy about writing the story-articles so they are complete. And that's not a jab at any particular users, but just a note to people to work a little more on those articles. NOT just the TV-story articles. Many of the game-stories, comic-stories, audio-stories etc. really need attention.
- Scrooge MacDuck
To be honest, as someone who is usually quite uninterested in writing plot summaries, I kinda want to flip the question that started this conversation: do we… need detailed plot summaries? If people want to know every little thing that happens in a story, in the order they're presented on in the story, surely they just ought to go read/listen/watch/
smellthat story. The Wiki's strength rather lies in spreading all that information to the in-universe pages. A lot of Wikis do just fine without detailed plot summaries and just have more-or-less-detailed synopses.'course, this is all idle musing. The reason we're going to keep having plot summaries is the same reason we're going to keep having pages about grapes and bicycles and what-have-you: we've put a lot of work into having them already, there are consequently a lot of them around, they don't do any harm by being there… so all in all it'd be silly to stop now.
- Shambala108
Admin note: on this wiki, we don't tell other users what they should work on. And we don't call other users, even in a general way, "lazy".
Plot summaries are not easy to write - I know, I've written over 400. And novels and audio stories are even harder to write than short stories or comic stories. And I should stress this: we don't allow copying from other sites per Tardis:Plagiarism.
To address the original question and the comments that follow:
User:223p is correct that other wikis don't write articles about every noun. But it was decided long ago that there is no such thing as notability on this wiki. There are a couple of guidelines, however. We only make pages for nouns. Sometimes a verb or adjectival form of a noun will exist as a redirect, but we don't make pages for any other parts of speech. Also, we don't usually make pages for extremely ubiquitous and general words unless there is something relevant to add to the wiki. We don't want our articles to be just lists of appearances in episodes.
- Shambala108
User:Scrooge MacDuck's comment was posted while I was still writing mine, so I didn't see it. It was also decided long ago that plot summaries can and should be quite detailed. This has the benefit of making it unnecessary to spell out so much plot detail on character pages, some of which have gotten quite long.
And this comment doesn't quite fit reality: "The Wiki's strength rather lies in spreading all that information to the in-universe pages." When it comes to editors on the wiki, yeah, maybe that's true, but the very large majority of visitors to the wiki never edit anything and really only mostly care about the current and previous seasons of Doctor Who. Plot summaries are just as important as any other part of the wiki.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I admitted myself, I am not actually arguing against detailed plot summaries; I am saying that if we were starting the Wiki just now I'd be of the opinion that we don't need them. But they're there, and that's that, and I respect that.
Not entirely sure what the majority readers not editing pages, and caring about current Doctor Who more than anything else, has to do with this matter, though. I'm not saying readers are more likely to check out Soldeed than Can You Hear Me? here, I am hypothesizing that all else being equal, they are more likely to check out the Biography section of Yasmin Khan (or Zellin, or Thirteenth Doctor) than either.
The summary of things in the order they happen in the story is not something that someone who has just watched the ruddy thing would need, I should imagine. The use of a Wiki is to have hub pages about characters and concept, which readers (whether they edit or not!) can check to see what they just watched put in the wider context of the Doctor Who universe.
Again, just musing about theoretical importance here, not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't edit.
- Danniesen
It should be noted that if we were to remove stuff from the earliest stories' articles, it might not be that easy to re-create it again, especially the missing stories, as we don't actually have sources to back most of it up, only the articles' word for it. And plot summaries might be just as difficult to re-create for the missing stories, were we ever to decide to get rid of "plot" sections altogether.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh yeah, no, again, I'm not saying we should remove plot summaries at all. I'm saying they're maybe not the heart and soul of the Wiki (nor indeed Wikis in general). But that's not to say they aren't valuable in their own way, let alone that we should delete the ones we do have. (Though the information wouldn't be lost, mind you, it'd just be in the page's history.)
- Danniesen
Not saying you are saying it. I just made note of something. :)
- Danniesen
I know, it'd be in the page's history, I meant it as if years had passed it might get lost in edits, or alternatively if the page history didn't exist.
We wanted this wiki to be the equivalent of Wikipedia inside the Doctor Who universe. So everything that existed in-universe could have its own page.
Also we can't rely on the real world as being relevant to in-universe (T:NO RW) as it often doesn't align with Doctor Who universe.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:267157
Hi, I am conducting research on user activity on fandom wikia. I am trying to get responses from as many people from the fandom community as possible so is there a way to spread this survey as much as possible. The survey is quick and completely confidential and it would be extremely helpful if you could take the time to fill it out through the attached link below.
https://forms.gle/roCGKYfavnrVDjDZ6
Thank you so much!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:267362
I thought I would create a discussion thread for us to discuss what changes need to be made and what should not be changed now that we have seen what The Timeless Children did to the big and still expanding universe of Doctor Who. Because we can't deny that it was massive and had many plot twists and turns, not only to the Doctor, but to the whole of Time Lord society itself and indeed Gallifrey. Here you can put any and everything related to The Timeless Children and what you think should be re-worked on the Wikia as a result of everything we were given and told in this story. Anything at all. Because I think this story just about changed everything we knew about Doctor Who.
- TheOneTrueJack
I'll start with an obvious one, although it's only tangentially related. Now that the Jo Martin Doctor has been 100% confirmed as a previous incarnation, she should be added fully to the "incarnations of the Doctor" box. Probably under More Ambiguous, although I would personally make a case for her under Widely Accepted. We should also come up with a proper moniker for her. Although we could wait until an official source does that.
- Danniesen
Here's another one. Should the Doctor's species have the same amount of "appearances" as Time Lords, the Doctor, etc., or should we just stick to the Series 12 appearances?
- TheOneTrueJack
I've added The Doctor to the Non-Gallifreyan Time Lords section of Time Lords. That feels right as they are not a native of the planet.
- Danniesen
I've got another: Should the Docpic template include the various incarnations of the Timeless Child as well as the Morbius faces and Martin's Doctor, or should we stick to the First Doctor-onwards? And should "The Doctor's species"'s infobox include this template too, or should it contain a picture of the child and if so should that be made a template too to show the different incarnations seen?
- Danniesen
TheOneTrueJack wrote: I've added The Doctor to the Non-Gallifreyan Time Lords section of Time Lords. That feels right as they are not a native of the planet.
That seems be undebatable truth. Time Lord is a rank, not a species. And being another species does not prevent the Doctor being a Time Lord. And Tecteun DID create Time Lord society with the Timeless Child as a part of this society. Some Gallifreyans are not Time Lord either.
- Scrooge MacDuck
TheOneTrueJack wrote: I'll start with an obvious one, although it's only tangentially related. Now that the Jo Martin Doctor has been 100% confirmed as a previous incarnation,
But she hasn't, has she? When the Doctor asks the Matrix projection of Ruth to confirm that she's one of the pre-Hartnell selves Ruth is evasive and eventually says she doesn't have the answers. Is it most likely she's a pre-Hartnell incarnation? Yeah, sure. But it's far from "100% confirmed".
I definitely think that what we need is a navbox with all incarnations of the Doctor, separate from the smaller "Doctors" palette under the infobox, which can't very well accommodate everyone — whereas such a navbox could also include future Doctors like the Curator, Muldwych, the Father of Time and such without issue.
I don't see why we would now put the Morbius faces in the infobox; they're long-since recognized as incarnations of the Doctor by the Wiki, and no one added them to Doctorpic. Masterpic doesn't have every Master either, it's worth pointing out.
- TheOneTrueJack
Scrooge MacDuck wrote:
TheOneTrueJack wrote: I'll start with an obvious one, although it's only tangentially related. Now that the Jo Martin Doctor has been 100% confirmed as a previous incarnation,
But she hasn't, has she? When the Doctor asks the Matrix projection of Ruth to confirm that she's one of the pre-Hartnell selves Ruth is evasive and eventually says she doesn't have the answers. Is it most likely she's a pre-Hartnell incarnation? Yeah, sure. But it's far from "100% confirmed".
I definitely think that what we need is a navbox with all incarnations of the Doctor, separate from the smaller "Doctors" palette under the infobox, which can't very well accommodate everyone — whereas such a navbox could also include future Doctors like the Curator, Muldwych, the Father of Time and such without issue.
I don't see why we would now put the Morbius faces in the infobox; they're long-since recognized as incarnations of the Doctor by the Wiki, and no one added them to Doctorpic. Masterpic doesn't have every Master either, it's worth pointing out.
That's actually fair. In that case I will say she's been confirmed enough that I feel her inclusion is now warranted. Short of showing every regenration and incarnation befor Hartnell there's no real way to 100% conform it anyway.
Although I guess it is possible the show could show her being turned into the Hartnell incarnation at some point, assuming she is even his direct predecessor, which she very well may not be.
I agree that the Morbius Doctors and the Timeless Child incarnations should be kept out of the infobox. However, I think the Jo Martin Doctor should be included alongside the other 14. She has the title, the Tardis, she travels in Time and Space, etc. She's very much a traditional incarnation of the Doctor, just one whose place in the timeline is unclear. But since the episode leans towards pre-Hartnell, that's where I would put her.
If the War Doctor can be considered a main incarnation, then I see no reason why the Jo Martin Doctor shouldn't be.
- Danniesen
Also please remember not to overload this thread with quoting. We do not want the same as Thirteen did to the Matrix to happen here.
- Danniesen
Can Shobogan and Shobogan (species) not be considered the same with the Shobogans being cast out by the later Time Lord society because they knew too much about the true original history.
- Tangerineduel
I think we need to work out what this thread is going to discuss. It's admirable of Danniesen to think to start this as somewhere to put everything, but as noted above we're already getting a little off track.
I think anything that may need to be merged together like the Shobogan and Shobogan (species) or Timeless Child's species and The Doctor's species needs a merge tag on one or a separate discussion thread. (There's likely others)
As some of these discussion topics are design/layout, while others are information based I think we're going to be overwhelmed on a single thread.
This thread can maybe be where we group everything together, but I fear if we try to have everything on this thread we're going to get caught up and lost quite quickly.
- Danniesen
Put very simple, I created this thread because this episode isn't just as straight-forward as most others are. There is a lot mind-blowing twisting of what we knew and might need more deep discussion.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Tangerineduel wrote: I think anything that may need to be merged together like the Shobogan and Shobogan (species) or Timeless Child's species and The Doctor's species needs a merge tag on one or a separate discussion thread. (There's likely others)
Hard disagree on both counts. Shobogans as defined in preexisting EU media and the species that Chibnall decided to call "Shobogans" are completely different things, save for both existing on Gallifrey in completely different periods of history. Trying to cover them both on the same page would just be confusing. The pre-Timeless-Child Shobogans, the species, have less to do with the subgroup of Outsiders than the humanoid Daleks have to do with the Daleks as we know them — and yet these already get different pages. Shobogans-as-ancient-species and Shobogans-as-unruly-modern-day-faction are two different DWU concepts sharing a name.
And The Doctor's species has nothing whatsoever to do with Timeless Child's species. The latter is the page about the unnamed species featured in The Timeless Children, whereas the former is a hub page to discuss all the conflicting accounts of the Doctor's species at more length than we could on the already-gargantuan The Doctor page — it's along the lines of The Doctor's age and The Doctor's early life like that. The specific species covered at "Timeless Child's species" is one of the competing species listed at The Doctor's species, to put it more simply.
- HarveyWallbanger
Chibnall would have not used the term "Shobogan" if he didn't mean to refer to the original one, intending "native Gallifreyan who isn't a Time Lord", that fits both for the original Tectun and the group of outsiders - that is, Gallifreyans that are not in the Citadel, are not Time Lords, are out of the Elite.
About everything else, I think each incarnation of the Doctor before-the-First known so far deserves even a tiny page (even each of the "Morbius" ones) and a tiny space in the incarnation template, under a specific section.
- Scrooge MacDuck
HarveyWallbanger wrote: tending "native Gallifreyan who isn't a Time Lord", that fits both for the original Tectun and the group of outsiders - that is, Gallifreyans that are not in the Citadel, are not Time Lords, are out of the Elite.
I don't even know what you're talking about. Just… just read through Shobogan again. The very first reference to Shobogans ever (in The Deadly Assassin) shows them to be active within the Citadel, and they are later defined as "New Age Academy dropouts". They cannot be the same thing as the original Shobogans presented by Chibnall, because they're not a distinct people/strain, but rather the result of unserious Time Lord students dropping out of the Academy before they graduate.
Or at least, some accounts definitely hold that they're something else than a species, and that was the consensus until Chibnall rolled around. Being that do not, cannot, should not privilege a random story over another simply because one is recent and glossy and televised, I think the split is the best way forward.
- Danniesen
But the thing is as Doctor Who expands, so does what we know and what is and isn't. Just because something once were some way, does not mean that this can't change. The Shobogans in The Deadly Assassin can just as easily have been this new species of Shobogans. Knowledge change as the show changes.
- Danniesen
The Doctor was not named a Time Lord until The War Games, should that then also mean that he did not become a Time Lord until that specific story? The Time Warrior was the first story to name the Doctor's planet Gallifrey, does that mean that until that specific story the planet had no name? No. Because knowledge changes as the show is expanding.
- Danniesen
I'm not gonna sit here and say that these two are the same and that's just the way it is. All I'm gonna say is that these two Shobogan-types could be the same.
- Danniesen
Can someone find the uncredited actors to portray the various incarnations of the Timeless Child and the uncredited actor who portrayed the second incarnation of Tecteun following her success of regeneration into his second body?
- MissRatbat
TheOneTrueJack wrote: I'll start with an obvious one, although it's only tangentially related. Now that the Jo Martin Doctor has been 100% confirmed as a previous incarnation, she should be added fully to the "incarnations of the Doctor" box. Probably under More Ambiguous, although I would personally make a case for her under Widely Accepted. We should also come up with a proper moniker for her. Although we could wait until an official source does that.
Even if she's not confirmed as a previous incarnation, she seems a safe enough bet as an incarnation that I agree she's ripe for the 'More Ambiguous' part of that box.
Calling her 'Ruth' or 'Ruth Clayton' in that box is proably a fair combination of recognisability, on-screen accuracy and straightforwardness.
- Danniesen
I agree with that. I would also like to add that the Timeless Child and the Morbius Doctors should belong there as well.
- Wihec61774
Hypothetically, what if there are more twists and explanations that ultimately ends up with "Nevermind, The Doctor isn't a Timeless Child from another dimension."?
Realistically it'd be nonsensical for the writer to do that, but there are still some unknown redacted information after all. And in-universe I could see the Master making up everything as a lie to screw with the Doctor.
- Danniesen
Could be. But we don't deal in what-ifs on this wiki. We only cover factualities.
- Wihec61774
Sure. Just thought that someone has to at least mention that possibility. Hopefully you guys won't have to revert everything about this a few seasons later. :p
- Danniesen
There will not come any reverting even if this is changed later though. This Wikia operate on the principles of everything has equal weight on here. At most it'll be "according to one account [bla bla bla]" "according to another account [bla bla bla]". That's how we work with the stories on each page if there are contradictions.
- Shambala108
As an admin I gotta step in here and correct a few misconceptions. User:Wihec61774 is correct that we ought to take our time when it comes to making major changes. When the War Doctor was added, we took our time to see just what this character meant to our wiki and the DWU, instead of just up and changing all the Doctor numbers.
And we can and do revert things if necessary on this wiki. That's what editing is. Sometimes we have to change things based on new info, and sometimes we have to revert things based on new info.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion, but please, experienced editors who are not admins, refrain from making definitive statements that may or may not be true. Let the admins specify policy thanks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Danniesen wrote: The Doctor was not named a Time Lord until The War Games, should that then also mean that he did not become a Time Lord until that specific story? The Time Warrior was the first story to name the Doctor's planet Gallifrey, does that mean that until that specific story the planet had no name? No. Because knowledge changes as the show is expanding.
This is incorrect. There are, in fact, pre-The War Games sources where the Doctor is a human, and these stories remain valid.
- Danniesen
We can put one thing in the clear. As of The Timeless Children, the 8 Morbius Doctors can be put into canon, and considering The Brain of Morbius into it, we can put these as the immediate Hartnell predecessors, given that the mind battle showed the faces in order from Baker and backwards. Meaning that other faces that are pre-Hartnell, are also pre-Morbius Doctors.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Wrong. As you can see at The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius), several accounts of pre-Hartnell Doctors show the Second Doctor (or beyond!) as knowing perfectly well that these regenerations existed, so it doesn't fit into the Timeless Child framework. As with turtles — it's alternative accounts all the way down, my friend.
(And please avoid the term "canon". The Brain of Morbius was always valid, and beyond that simple fact, we do not concern ourselves with building a self-consistent "canon".)
- Danniesen
Please do not tell me how the Wikia works. I know perfectly well how it works. I used the terms canon because I didn't know right there what other term to use. I'd also advice not to just attempt coming off as better-knowing. Especially since what you just said literally does not debunk anything I said. The Brain of Morbius puts it in that the Morbius Doctors are immediately pre-Hartnell, whereas Ruth is not placed any specific place in the timeline.
- Danniesen
No one said all pre-Hartnell versions of the character were the Timeless Child, just that they weren't "the Doctor".
- Danniesen
What I'm trying to get across is not an attempt to undermine you, but simply that you should avoid sounding like a "Trump", if that makes sense. Don't just say others are wrong all the time. I've noticed you tend to do that lately.
No ill intent is meant.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ack, sorry. I am sort of snappish these days because for obvious reasons, people who go "the Timeless Child has been on television now, which overwrites the Other and all that nonsense, Chibnall is the One True Canon", even unconsciously, rub me the wrong way — and there have been a lot such people cropping up on the Internet since last Sunday. Sorry to sort of project that on you if you're not one of that lot.
And to be clearer, what I was disputing was more that The Timeless Children should have any impact in particular on how we cover the Morbius Doctors, not that the Morbius Doctors could reasonably reckoned to be immediately pre-Hartnell. I'm not sure what you mean by “no one said all pre-Hartnell versions of the character were the Timeless Child, just that they weren't "the Doctor"”, either. What evidence do you have of that? I mean, our page is currently called The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius), which rather implies that as far as we know those regenerations did call themselves Doctor.
- Danniesen
It's all fine. Just a heads up.
What I meant was that the character has been known by many names over the years. Yes, of course, we don't know if they knew themselves as Doctors as well. I guess why I said it is because of a combination of Hartnell's Doctor calling himself the First Doctor and the fact that "Morbius Doctors" is an agreed upon term throughout all of fandom and not an official name. I don't think anything states officially that these 8 versions knew themselves as *the Doctor'.
- Shambala108
Note to everyone: I said this once already, but please note, nothing has been decided here, so please stop making blanket statements that "such and such is the way things are supposed to be now". User:Scrooge MacDuck is correct in asserting that Tardis:Neutral point of view means that we consider every (valid) source equal when it comes to writing articles.
An aside into history: this wiki was founded before new-Who started airing, and the folks who founded it decided to accept prose/comic/audio stories as well as television. It seems weird to new users at first that we don't consider the television series the only and/or most important "canon", but that's the way the wiki has been for sixteen years.
And a very important note: please keep personal attacks off this thread (and off the wiki in general). Violations of Tardis:No personal attacks could result in this thread being closed, as has happened recently with other threads.
- TheOneTrueJack
So, most of the new information seems to have been incorporated appropriately. Some minor things being worked out, but nothing major. Are there any big issues that need discussion?
I would still like to have a a proper discussion about whether the Jo Martin Doctor (The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon))should be added to the Doctor's infobox. Or would people prefer to wait until we get definitive answers on her place in the timeline? Because that could be a while, but I am confident in guessing that series 13 will give that answer.
I've also added images of each incarnation of the Timeless Child to Talk:Timeless Child. There was discusion about if that page should have a shifting infobox image like The Doctor and The Master. The images aren't great, but may be the best option available considering how briefly they are on screen.
- Danniesen
Images had already been uploaded a week ago though...
- MystExplorer
I just want to point that the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor articles refer to them as the "final incarnation of the Doctor's original regeneration cycle" and "first incarnation of a new cycle" respectively. Since it turns out that isn't the case, should they be reworded?
- Danniesen
No. Because the others aren't "The Doctor" per se. Ruth's Doctor we don't know when in the timeline she fits (yet) and the Morbius Doctors' article is named "The Doctor" because that is the name we chose based on fandom not knowing what else to know them as as no official source has yet stated these iterations of the character are "the Doctor". The rest are known as "the Timeless Child" because at this point they hadn't settled on the name "the Doctor". Therefore, the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctors are still last and first of their respective cycles and by extension, as far as we know, the regenerative cycle of the character when they are known as "the Doctor".
- Scrooge MacDuck
Furthermore, maybe a legal quibble, but the Timeless Child pre-mindwipe had infinite lives, infinite regenerations. Does this count as a "regeneration cycle" per se? If not, then the 12-shot regeneration cycle that begins with Hartnell and was clearly failing with Smith is the Doctor's first regeneration cycle as such even if some of the pre-Hartnell Timeless Children already called themselves the Doctor.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If it's of interest, I have created a mockup on [a sandbox userpage] of how an updated version of Template:Doctors might look.
I have:
- Added in "Timeless Child", "The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon)" and "The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)" to "More ambiguous" (for fairly obvious reasons)
- Removed Dream Lord (to avoid things getting too crowded; I suspect he was added at a time when it was assumed that Moffat would bring him back eventually, but since the Dream Lord stayed a one-off baddie, if a memorable one, then with T:NPOV in place to point out that TV doesn't get special treatment, why should he be on there while Father of Time or Silver Doctor aren't?)
- Added in the Battlefield Doctor, (again because per T:NPOV then if the Jo Martin Doctor gets in then so should he, having had more appearances than her)
Here are the results:
- HarveyWallbanger
Thank you for your work.
I don't see how the Valeyard or the Meta-Crisis could stand side-to-side to the "Fugitive" and the "Morbius" ones. I would have done an "undated" for Timeless Child, etc... and keeping the Watcher, the Valeyard and the Meta-Crisis as "More ambiguous".
- Danniesen
I would keep the list as it currently is, but add a third section to it called "Others" that has some of the even stranger ones in it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@HarveyWallbanger:
That's a fair observation, but note that by some accounts (and original authorial intent as well) the Valeyard is just a future, undated Doctor, not a manifestation/clone like the Watcher or the Meta-Crisis. T:NPOV would then force us to list him in both places, which is awkward.
"Undated" is also not the best title because even if we do get specific numberings on the pre-Hartnell Doctors of the Timeless Child breed… well, the problem will remain that they, as a whole, are one big old "According to one account" in terms of whether they even exist. The problem isn't (just) that they're undated, but that a number of perfectly valid accounts say they don't exist.
@Danniesen:
What do you mean by "the even stranger ones"? I am of the opinion that what we need, separate from Template:Doctors, is a more exhaustive navbox to go at the end of articles. I do wish we could have a template with the Silver Doctor, the Father of Time and the the Cabinet Doctor, but that doesn't really belong right below the infobox of one of our most-viewed pages. The navbox is really its own proposal, though, and only marginally connected to The Timeless Children, so let's save it for its own thread.
- NateBumber
Scrooge, that Sandbox looks perfect. My only request would be that the top section be balanced so 1-8 is in the first row and War-13 is in the second. I understand that the intention is for the partition to represent the Doctor’s in-universe regeneration cycle — and maybe that will be useful in a far-future revision once we get to the 17th Doctor — but the info box is already obviously out-of-universe because it cares about out-of-universe stuff like appearances when it comes to the “More ambiguous” section, so there’s no need to pretend the top is in-universe. Would anyone contest this?
- Scrooge MacDuck
My long-standing but idiosyncratic gut-feeling that the TV Movie is part of NuWho more than it is part of Classic Who notwithstanding, this sounds like a good enough idea. The result, so that cards are on the table, is this: Looking at it now, it has its pros and cons. The white spaces on either side are a little distracting, though no more than the second line being nearly empty in the old version. I dunno.
- Toqgers
I'm with HarveyWallbanger, that categorizing the "fugitive," Timeless Children and maaaaybe Morbius Doctors as "ambiguous" is inaccurate and mis-leading to readers. The only sources we have on the Timeless Children and Jo Martin's Doctor are clear in their contention that they are incarnations of the individual who currently calls themselves the Doctor and to label them as ambiguous is confusing to readers. Something like "Other incarnations" could work. It's neutral enough that it indicates they're presented as incarnations of the same person, but doesn't assume anything further. Just spitballing here. The Valeyard is good under "More ambiguous" because several competing expanations about his true nature is, well, ambiguous.
And not to complicate things further, but I'd also like to re-visit the idea of adding The Other. A navbox isn't really about what incarnations/aspects of the Doctor we think are most "legitimate," it's to help readers easy access other pages relevant to the topic they're reading about. So our key questions should be "What incarnations' pages are visited most?" and "What incarnations will best help readers understand who the Doctor is/has been/will be?" So reasons similar to why we've removed the Dream Lord, I think it would benefit readers to add the Other.
- Scrooge MacDuck
With you on adding "The Other", but then where does The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius) go? Since we don't know if those are faces of the Other, faces of the Timeless Child, or faces from a version of events were Hartnell just wasn't the first of his regeneration cycle, they seem like they belong under "more ambiguous" to me.
And I feel it's worthy to point out that we only have the Master's word that the Timeless Child is the Doctor. The Master says that for once he isn't lying, but "the Master said that [X]" is still a pretty big asterisk.
So while I can see why the Fugitive and Muldwych might belong in an "Other incarnations" section, I do think the Morbius boys and the Timeless Children belong in "Ambiguous".
- Toqgers
It was a bit of a "search your feelings you know it to be true" type moment. Taken alone the Master's not really a trustworthy source, but combined with what the Remnant told her in The Ghost Monument, the glimpses of her memories in Spyfall and Can You Hear Me? and the sequences in the Matrix the The Timeless Children that show the Doctor struggling with then starting to accept the revelations, I don't think it's ambiguous.
As far as the Morbius Doctors go, to me, showing their faces interspersed with those of her other past selves was a clear indication they're past incarnations, but if others feel differently, it's probably best to leave them as ambigious let people come to their own conclusions.
But maybe of inventing a third heading, we could retitle the second one so that it can accurately encompass everything?
- UtherSRG
There's a bit of discussion already on template_talk:Doctors with a couple of other possible updates to the template, such as mine: User:UtherSRG/Template:Doctors.
- Toqgers
Yeah I saw that and gave some input too! A forum thread is probably a better platform to discuss it and figure out a consensus, since it affects some of the most visited pages. Go ahead and share your thoughts here if you'd like! Any input on the stuff that's been discussed here but not on that talk page would be super helpful.
- Danniesen
I think I'm trying to propose it roughly like this:
I excluded a few Doctors, either due to being unlicenced versions, being fictional versions or based on assumptions that they are too similar to other known versions...
What do you think?
- HarveyWallbanger
Danniesen, I like it but 1) I think the Curator is "non-specific" 2) I would take away incarnations from alternate timelines or parallel universes, to ease the template.
My favourite version so far is the one by UtherSRG, even if I'm afraid it doesn't fit the policy "everything is canon" of this wiki.
- Danniesen
True about the Curator. That was an oversight.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's way too much IMO, and precisely why I think we might need a navbox that doesn't go immediately after the infobox but rather at the end of the page. Besides which, your version lumps in future incarnations and parallel universe versions in one section, which is less than ideal.
@Toqgers, I do insist that the Morbius Doctors could just as easily be the Other as they could be the Timeless Child; both would make them past versions of the pre-Hartnell Doctor. And again, there is the issue of some sources presenting a version of events where Hartnell wasn't the first regeneration and knew it, sans "regressed me back into a child" shenanigan, which seems like yet another account to me.
@UtherSRG, I like the term "Splinter entities", but yeah, Danniesen is correct that with all the various accounts of who the Valeyard is in place, it's not really T:NPOV-compliant. Also, "future incarnatiosn" seems to go against our end-of-universe perspective.
Conversely, I don't think there remains any reasonable doubt, at this point, that the Curator is anything other than a far-future incarnation. He doesn't belong in "Ambiguous" anymore.
Keeping a separation in three, I propose:
This seems a lot more manageable.
- Danniesen
But now you exclude several versions of "the Doctor" (including exclusion of the Curator completely). And it should be said that everything has equal weight on the Wikia, something you yourself so kindly have reminded me of over and over again when I have given my thoughts on several other topics.
- Danniesen
I stick to the version I proposed (minor alterations gladly invited, though),
- Scrooge MacDuck
I didn't mean to exclude the Curator and have now edited him back in.
The necessity of a template giving all Doctors is yet another good reason to also have the navbox, but there is a practical concern to how large and all-encompassing we can make Template:Doctors before it becomes too unwieldy for use. Certainly it doesn't break T:NPOV to not include parallel versions and copies, just choosing to stick to characters whom some sources say are part of the Doctor's regeneration history (a criterion by which the Watcher, the Valeyard and the Meta-Crisis Doctor belong on there, but not e.g. the Dream Lord).
As for whether to include all the other proper incarnations, even the short-lived unnamed ones, a good precedent might be the decision for Template:Masterpic to include some non-TV Masters to make it clear that TV isn't all there is, but not every single incarnation ever. Template:Doctors doesn't claim to be exhaustive (we could make that clearer by linking to "More incarnations" at the end of the "Other incarnations" section?), but rather a handy out-of-universe navigation tool. Respecting T:NPOV here, I think, per the Masterpic precedent, just means not giving special treatment to Doctors from one specific medium; but it doesn't necessarily bind us to using all incarnations.
I am, anyway, unsure, @Danniesen, of why you put Muldwych, "14" and so on in "Other incarnations" rather than "non-specific placement". In what way are they different from Jo Martin?
Here's what I'd have in mind:
- Danniesen
I'd be okay with linking to "incarnations of the Doctor". :)
- NateBumber
This looks perfect to me: short enough to get the point across and fit comfortably on a page; long enough to include all of the "greatest hits" that the not we might turn to the Infobox to find; well-balanced, for the aesthetic touch; and the "More..." link is a particularly excellent idea that should neatly satisfy Danniesen's concerns. My only quibble is with the extraneous •s, but that's just an aesthetic touch! Would not mind seeing this implemented somewhat immediately.
- HarveyWallbanger
I have read the discussion about "Morbius" but I still don't get why they shouldn't be in "Other selves…", because the accounts agree to say they are incarnations before the First Doctor, don't they?
Aside this, I could still approve the latest version!
- Danniesen
I will argue that Dream Lord should still be mentioned. Though a psychic dream manifestation, the Eleventh Doctor confirmed that he was him.
- NateBumber
Danniesen wrote: I will argue that Dream Lord should still be mentioned. Though a psychic dream manifestation, the Eleventh Doctor confirmed that he was him.
Well, the infobox is specifically for “incarnations of the Doctor”, not “manifestations of the Doctor.” In Scrooge’s draft, all of the listed names are related to each other via regeneration. If the Dream Lord had merged with the Eleventh Doctor during Time of the Doctor, my answer would be different! But as it stands I don’t think the Dream Lord belongs.
- LegoK9
A few tweaks:
- No dots (•) at the beginning and end. Only one dot between 8 and War.
- I know Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor redirects, but it feels cleaner with the direct link: Meta-Crisis.
- Merlin/Muldwych/Dokien is tricky. This incarnation is most well known to fans as "Merlin" because they were mentioned by that alias in an actual episode. Muldwych was a different future Doctor reconned to be the Merlin incarnation at an older age. It would make more sense to Merlin because a) that was the first/original name given to this incarnation and b) it was the first (known) alias this incarnation used in their life.
- More... goes to The Doctor#Unclear incarnations, not a category.
- UtherSRG
You have a dot after 8, but not before War. You have a dot after "Fuitive" and before Merlin. That's inconsistent. Also a dot after The Watcher and a dot before The Valeyard.
- SOTO
No need to beat down what's put out when the intent is clear.
(Personally, I stand by the division between 11 and 12, rather than 8 and War. It will fill out, in time, and would be sure not to get unwieldy, requiring no future judgment calls on where to cut it next.)
(I also think a line break is a good substitute on its own for a .. • [what are those symbols actually called?], or at least it's always seemed cleaner to me that way.)
EDIT: They're called bullets/bullet points. Of course they are. The world makes sense now. :P
- Scrooge MacDuck
I broadly agree on most of those changes, but…
LegoK9 wrote:
- More... goes to The Doctor#Unclear incarnations, not a category.
…why? Unlike the category, that section of the The Doctor pages does not include all the copies and splinters which we might want to see included in the :Template:Doctors template were size not an issue.
- LegoK9
OK, fixed that.
- UtherSRG
SOTO wrote:
No need to beat down what's put out when the intent is clear.Just trying to be helpful. That inconsistency could easily be overlooked if we all said, "Yes, let's do that."
SOTO wrote:
(Personally, I stand by the division between 11 and 12, rather than 8 and War. It will fill out, in time, and would be sure not to get unwieldy, requiring no future judgment calls on where to cut it next.)I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, we have the demarcation of a "cycle of regeneration" (something which may no longer apply to the Doctor). On the other, we have two rows that are of nearly equaly visual lengths.
If we stick with not splitting between 11 & 12, then we should work to maintain the visual balance as the Doctor regenerates and we update the template accordingly. If regeneration cycles do end up being applicable to the Doctor, then I'm more inclined to return to the split between 11 & 12.
- TheOneTrueJack
Added back in the Dream Lord to more ambigous. Is there a reason he was removed in these propossed revisions? While I personally do question their inclusion, I thought the consensus swung the other way?
Either way, I think expanding the infobox to three categories is the right way to go. There are clearly several incarnations which are way more difinitive than others, some only lacking a clear placement on the timeline.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I removed him in my proposal because of T:NPOV. Just because he was in a popular TV episode shouldn't make the Dream Lord "count" any more than Popplewick, the Father of Time or any number of versions of the Doctor with an ambiguous relationship to the real deal and who only appeared once.
I think the Dream Lord was originally added because he was "current" and there was an unspoken expectation that he would come back at some point during Moffat's tenure. But he didn't, and now, much as I might personally love Toby Jones's performance, he is little more than a footnote. He's the only Doctor in your proposal above not to have appeared/factored in several stories, and we want to make the template less crowded, not more. So lon gas we have the link in "More…" to a category which contains him, I don't think he really belongs.
- Xx-connor-xX
I didn't realise that this was being discussed.
I definitely think that the Timeless Child, the Fugitive and Morbius Doctors should go on the infobox (with the upmost urgency). I don't think the "More" bit in the other-selves section looks appealing, and it leads to a category which includes the more ambiguous incarnations. Can the "More Ambiguous" title not be linked to the category itself rather than have the need for "More"?
I would also be in agreement to removing the Dream Lord, he was just a physical manifestation - not an incarnation of its own, it would be like having the Ganger Doctor on the list.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The category to which we link doesn't just include "more ambiguous" incarnations, but also a flurry of incarnations who are definitively the Doctor, but have no set place in the timeline and too few stories to their name to justify having them linked to from every other Doctor page. There is nothing ambiguous about The Doctor (An Army of Shadows) or The Doctor (Contents).
- Xx-connor-xX
I think that the category "Incarnations of the Doctor" should be for those confirmed outright with respective placements (First through to Thirteen, including War, only). I think there should then be another category for "Unplaced incarnations of the Doctor" for the incarnations that have been confirmed to be the Doctor but have yet to be placed in his history (Timeless Child, Fugitive, Morbius Doctors, Curator). Then there should be a third category for "Ambiguous incarnations of the Doctor" for the rest. Then all these categories should be linked under "The Doctor" subcategory.
- Shambala108
Just here to point out that Thread:223085 applies as always.
- Xx-connor-xX
Using Scrooge's last offering before "More" was added, I've tried to see if I can link separate categories to the titles - here's hoping I've done it right.
EDIT: Nope, I haven't managed to link them to the proposed category pages.
- UtherSRG
Too many bullets. Remove the bullets at the start and end of the three lists.
- TheOneTrueJack
Okay, some revisions.
Tidied up the bullet points.
Moved the Morbius Doctors to "Other selves and unplaced incarnations".
Didn't include 14th Doctor. Having a numbered incarnation under "Other selves and unplaced incarnations" is just messy.
Moved More… to the bottom of the infobox, as I feel that just looks better and makes more sense.
- Xx-connor-xX
I take it that those “revisions” completely ignored my offering (as you made a point of moving the Morbius Doctors into the unplaced section despite me having already done that).
I have several issues with it; first the Morbius Doctors should be before Fugitive as they appeared before the Ruth incarnation (and were shown between the Timeless Children and Ruth). Secondly, the Relic Doctor is highly ambiguous, this Doctor supposedly died during the “War in Heaven” and appeared in several Faction Paradox stories. Which is contradictory to other stories. Others had very good points for the Dream Lord’s removal.
Also, I intentionally put 12 and 13 on a separate line (as is currently the case) as they begin a new regeneration cycle.
- TheOneTrueJack
Oops, I'm sorry you're right, I totally missed that. Didn't mean anything by it, just slipped past me. I think you're right about the Morbius Doctors.
People up thread made a good case for having division between 1-8 & War-13. Not only does it keep both rows better balanced, but it cleanly separates Classic and New Who without having them be in seperate categories or anything. The problem with having the rows represent regeneration cycles is that it seems the show might be moving past the concept of regeneration cycles for the Doctor going forward. Although we won't really know if that's the case for a long time, if we ever do.
As for the Relic Doctor, all I'll say is that his existence contradicting other stories is not in and of itself a reason for exclusion. Under T:NPOV, Alien Bodies is considered a valid source as any other. So that I think warrants the Relic Doctor's inclusion in the second category.
Sorry again, I'll try better in future to take note of all edits/contributions made.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Is there a reason why you two are completely disregarding our earlier progresses? And I still don't know what you all have against the "More…" link, which seemed a good compromise betwee T:NPOV and practical concerns.
For one thing, the Morbius Doctors definitely belong in "More ambiguous," what with the possibility that they're faces of the Other, not of the Doctor.
And the fact that Faction Paradox contradicts other stories is neither here nor there; that's not what "More ambiguous" means. (Also, please tell me in what Faction Paradox stories the 'Relic' Doctor appeared? I mean, Alien Bodies is "a Faction Paradox story" in that the Faction is in it, but it's not part of the series as such. Which series does not have the license to use the Doctor.)
- DenisLuiz
I think the Shalka should be treated as an ambiguous Doctor too, since he was treated as an official incarnation by the BBC before the revival.
- Xx-connor-xX
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Is there a reason why you two are completely disregarding our earlier progresses?
I don't think I've disregarded anybody's work, just disagreed with it. The Other has no confirmed connection to the Morbius Doctors, yet the Morbius Doctors appear between the Timeless Children and Ruth in the finale.
As for the "Relic" Doctor, he died during the "War in Heaven" which is primarily a Faction Paradox story (which may or may not be set in a parallel universe). Nevertheless, this story was released long before the new serious and contradicts it to such a point that the Doctor in it isn't just an "unplaced incarnation" but a completely ambiguous entity.
Also, the "More" bit is unappealing - but if there's no way to link the heading to a category it'll have to do.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Scream of the Shalka is most specifically not considered a valid source by this Wiki at present. If new evidence is found, we could reopen that debate, but the last discussion on the matter found that although he was treated as an official incarnation by the BBC during production (and to a lesser extent advertising campaign), they already knew by the time they released it that the Shalka Doc would no longer "count".
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Xx-connor-xX:
Glad you agree with me on the link to More…. I'm not wholly against the idea of linking from a header, but I don't think it would do much good to split the "Incarnations of the Doctor" category itself like you're proposing, so it doesn't seem very practical.
Per T:NPOV, the fact that something is heavily contradicted by the New Series has precisely no relevance whatsoever. The Timeless Child story is no truer or falser than Lungbarrow or indeed The Equations of Dr Who. And in the same spirit, the War in Heaven didn't happen any more or less than the Last Great Time War, and the 'Relic' Doctor is every bit as "real" as the War Doctor.
I don't think the order in which the faces of the Doctors appear in the "busting the Matrix" sequence is anything definitive: the Thirteenth Doctor has yet to regain her memories of being the Timeless Child, or indeed of being Ruth, so how would she know what order they came in? At best, the order represents her current best guess. At worst, it's just the order in which they happened to spring to her mind in that very chaotic moment. I mean, The Timeless Children very pointedly refuses to confirm whether Ruth really came before Hartnell. The Doctor asks the Matrix projection, and the Matrix projection can't tell her one way or another.
It still could very well be that the Ruth Doctor is Season 6B, and while the implication is there, neither is there anything to tell us definitively that the Morbius Doctors are faces of the Timeless Child as opposed to faces of the Other or just prior regenerations of Hartnell whose existence the Doctor hadn't ever forgotten.
- Xx-connor-xX
I definitely think that the "Incarnations of the Doctor" category needs to be split between the widely accepted, unplaced and ambiguous. It is overcrowded as it is, the main incarnations should be separated from the rest with much urgency.
As I stated there's nothing yet linking the Morbius Doctors to the Other, but there is a set placement given for them in the current show. If the Timeless Children are considered to be unplaced incarnations of the Doctor, and the Fugitive incarnation is also, then the Morbius Doctors (who were strategically placed between them) should be too. There is also no evidence whatsoever to the Season 6B fan theory.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But neither is there any solid evidence that Ruth is pre-Hartnell, is what I'm saying. For all we know she could still be from the future, or from a parallel universe, or any other things. Yes, Chibnall ruled out a parallel universe in interviews, but interviews are not valid sources.
Similarly, all we know about The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius) is that they were Doctors before Hartnell. The Thirteenth Doctor called up their images to mind while blowing up the Matrix, but that's hardly evidence that they're part of the Timeless Child story. Since there are accounts where the Second Doctor knows full well about the lives he had before being the First Doctor, it is for example perfectly possible that after the Timeless Child's memories were erased, their first life as the Doctor was not Hartnell, but rather the first of the Morbius Doctors. Who knows? And the connection with The Other is simply this: one account says the Doctor had lives before Hartnell (the Morbius Docs). Another account, which coincidentally reminds the veiwer of the existence of the Morbius Docs but doesn't discuss them as such, has one scenario of the Hartnell Doc being a preexisting Time Lords with their memory erased (namely the Timeless Child). But another, conflicting account has a completely different version of the "Hartnell Doctor was an amnesiac reincarnation of a preexisting Time Lord" shtick (namely the Other). Both of these later accounts, plus the one where the Morbius Doctors are just the Doctor with no amnesia involved, are equally valid in relation to The Brain of Morbius.
…Oh, and since we do have Template:Doctors, I fail to see the point in having a tiny category for just the thirteen "main" incarnations of the Doctor. What use would that serve? Who'd want to visit such a page when the template already gives them all the links they need? I can see value in splitting "regenerations, unplaced or otherwise" from "clones and Watchers and stuff". But I don't see why The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) shouldn't sit in the same category as Sixth Doctor.
- Xx-connor-xX
The Morbius Doctors were placed strategically between the Timeless Children and the Ruth incarnation. As you said, that was possibly the Doctor's attempt at ordering the faces in her vision (although, it makes no sense as to why she would choose that order) but that is complete speculation. We have to go with what we saw on screen, and what we saw was a systematic order - if we are to include the Timeless Children and Ruth as unplaced incarnations then we must place the Morbius Doctors too. The Other has nothing to do with that as of yet.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The placement is suggestive, but again, this is all framed as a bunch of visions with which the Doctor bombards the Matrix. If there is no in-universe reason for the Doctor to know the correct order, why on Earth should we take that order as read? A few minutes earlier in The Timeless Children, it is emphasised that the Thirteenth Doctor still isn't sure where Ruth fits in. It's not speculation to say the Doctor has no real idea in what place she should put Ruth. And if we can't take Ruth's place in the line-up seriously, then by the same token, we can't take the Morbius Doctor's place seriously either.
- Xx-connor-xX
I did not say that it was the official order, but enough to know that they were unplaced incarnations - a set above "ambiguous" as they were confirmed to be the Doctor. There has been no reference to "the Other" anywhere in the show, or concrete confirmation that he had anything to do with the Morbius Doctors.
- Scrooge MacDuck
There is every confirmation that the Other has to do with "who the Doctor was right before he was Hartnell". The fact that the Other hasn't been (directly) referenced on-screen, again, is neither here nor there. T:NPOV. A story being more recent and more high-profile means nothing.
Heck, I don't want to press the point too much, but in-universe, we still only have the Master (the Master's) word that the Timeless Child really is the Doctor. Next to that, "the Morbius faces appear in-between the Child and the Classic Doctors in a jumbled vision the Doctor uses to break the Matrix", IMO, doesn't even register as the kind of evidence we base our coverage upon.
Heck, the order the faces appear in, in that sequence, it can't even be the real order, can it? It goes "classic Doctors in reverse, then Timeless Children, then Morbius Docs, then Ruth", which can't possibly be correct in any kind of chronological order. Some Morbius faces also show up during the Fourth Doctor's bit of the slideshow because of the Brain of Morbius association (once more showing that the Thirteenth Doctor's memory of the Morbius faces, thus far, is only based on the Mindbending Contest and she's just as much in the dark as the viewer about how it all fits).
- Xx-connor-xX
Either the Morbius Doctors are in "unplaced" or neither them or the Timeless Children are, they're in exactly the same boat - and a completely different boat from "the Other".
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well look, if push comes to shove, I'd rather like to put the Timeless Child link in the "More ambiguous" section myself! Again, from a strictly in-universe point of view, we only have the Master's word that the Timeless Child became the Doctor.
But conversely, if you're going to want to lean on the obvious out-of-universe intent that the Doctor is the Timeless Child, then you should also lean on the obvious intent of placing that Brain of Morbius quote in the intro of Lungbarrow, namely that the Other is very strongly suggested to have been the Morbius Doctors.
(The quote "You can't… not that far back… not even I" from the Brain of Morbius novelisation, while nothing definitive, also seems to suggest the Other more than the Timeless Child, since it frames the Morbius Doctors as a past that the Doctor is aware of, but wants to suppress, rather than a past which has been forcibly suppressed and which the Doctor leaps at the chance of rediscovering the moment she learns a hint of it.)
- Xx-connor-xX
Not to be rude, but the Master (an in-universe character)'s word is better than yours. If you are to throw doubt on what the Master says because "he may be lying", when no reference to that ever came up in the show, what is to stop me from discrediting every last detail as a character "could be lying"?
If push comes to shove the Timeless Children will also have to end up in the ambiguous section, they and the Morbius Doctors were intentionally placed among a montage of confirmed Doctors. While the Other exists in complete obscurity.
- NateBumber
Given the preponderance of stories which show that Hartnell's incarnation is the first, the Relic Doctor is no more "contradictory to other stories" or "highly ambiguous" than the Morbius Doctors and the Timeless Child.
The point of the "More ambiguous" section is to list major manifestations of the Doctor which are linked to the Doctor but not clearly connected via regeneration: accounts differ as to The Other's relationship with the Doctor, but most agree it was via reincarnation; different stories disagree on whether the Morbius faces belong to the Other, the Timeless Children, or the Doctor himself; and the Watcher, Valeyard, and Meta-crisis are each best understood as "spin-offs" from the Doctor's regenerations. The Relic simply does not belong in this category, whereas the Morbius faces most definitely do.
And as has been discussed at length upthread, while it might make sense one day to break the list of widely accepted incarnations along regeneration cycle lines, the distinction between Classic and New incarnations is significantly more useful to the not we and, frankly, it just looks better.
I still think LegoK9's offering at Thread:267362#64 is the one to beat (not least because he uses the •s correctly).
- NateBumber
Xx-connor-xX wrote: If push comes to shove the Timeless Children will also have to end up in the ambiguous section, they and the Morbius Doctors were intentionally placed among a montage of confirmed Doctors. While the Other exists in complete obscurity.
This would violate T:NPOV.
- Xx-connor-xX
This would violate T:NPOV.
How exactly would this violate that anymore so than letting the Timeless Child remain on the unplaced section and the Morbius Doctors not?
- Xx-connor-xX
Also, currently the Curator resides in the "more ambiguous" part of the template. Therefore, reserving that section for "spin-offs" of the Doctor (which the Morbius Doctors aren't) is your own idea and not something I agree with.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It's not "spin-offs" per se, but rather characters who might be spinoffs (or something) rather than regenerations. The Curator is a future Doctor somehow, but the mechanics themselves aren't known; could be at some point the Doctor ascends to being an Eternal or whatever. If we ever have something to confirm that the Curator is most definitely the Doctor (rather than a future-spinoff) and that he came into being as a regeneration, we'll move him.
- NateBumber
I'd love to explain.
First off, there is no "unplaced section". There is an "Other selves & unplaced incarnations" section. As you can see in Thread:267362#64, this is reserved for incarnations of the Doctor who we know are linked via regeneration, and per The Timeless Children, of course the Timeless Child falls in this category.
In contrast, the "More ambiguous" section covers Doctors who are not clearly linked via regeneration: for instance, the Other was reincarnated into the Doctor, and the Watcher, Valeyard, and Meta-crisis are each best understood as "spin-offs".
The question of where The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius) belongs therefore comes down to, "How are the Morbius faces related to the Doctor?"
- The Virgin New Adventures, particularly Cold Fusion and Lungbarrow, indeed confirm that the Doctor's previous faces seen during the mindbending contest belong to the Other, and are therefore related via reincarnation.
- On the other hand, The Brain of Morbius and Something at the Door (among other stories) confirm that the faces belong to the Doctor's previous regenerations.
Because of Tardis:Neutral point of view, we must treat these contradictory accounts as equally true, meaning that the relationship of the faces to the Doctor is not clearly regeneration related and can only be accurately described as "More ambiguous". So yes, to pick the TV show's explanation over the novels' would naturally violate T:NPOV.
- Xx-connor-xX
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: It's not "spin-offs" per se, but rather characters who might be spinoffs (or something) rather than regenerations. The Curator is a future Doctor somehow, but the mechanics themselves aren't known; could be at some point the Doctor ascends to being an Eternal or whatever. If we ever have something to confirm that the Curator is most definitely the Doctor (rather than a future-spinoff) and that he came into being as a regeneration, we'll move him.
You've just explained why the Curator is in the "more ambiguous" section, yet... in all your suggested templates he is in the "unplaced" section?
- Xx-connor-xX
- The Virgin New Adventures, particularly Cold Fusion and Lungbarrow, indeed confirm that the Doctor's previous faces seen during the mindbending contest belong to the Other, and are therefore related via reincarnation.
I don't believe there was ever any confirmation. Can you provide this? The Morbius Doctors states that; "this would suggest that the faces in the mindbending contest belonged to this founder rather than the Doctor himself, though this was only hinted and not explicitly stated in the novel as its foreword is Morbius' quote from the mindbending contest."
Other than that there was only writer Lance Parkin's intention that the Other was the Douglas Camfield Doctor. However, this was not depicted in the book and therefore not confirmed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Re: the Curator: ah, sorry. But you're the one who confused me with "Also, currently the Curator resides in the "more ambiguous" part of the template." Obviously, in the current template, the one that is still found in the main namespace right now, there is no "Unplaced" section so everything goes into "More ambiguous". Any talk of differentiating between "Unplaced" and "Ambiguous" sections concerns all the proposals where we do split it into such sections.
- TheOneTrueJack
Just on the subject of incarnations of the Doctor being linked by regeneration, I feel it should be noted that we currently don't know if the pre-Hartnell Doctors became the First Doctor through regeneration or not. The Timeless Children states that the Doctor's childhood was real, so therefor not a memory implant or lie or anything like that.
So it's possible that the Doctor regenerated into a child at some point and had their mind wiped (or the other way around, it doesn't really matter). But it is equally possible that they were turned into the First Doctor by some other means.
I'm just saying it might be a good idea to hold of on using regeneration itself as a measure of placement, at least until more of the Timeless Child storyline is revealed. There's a gap in the narrative at the moment, and it could very well turn out that there is a non-regeneration transition separating pre and post Hartnell incarnations.
- Xx-connor-xX
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Re: the Curator: ah, sorry. But you're the one who confused me with
I did not mean to confuse. However, Nate tried to categorically tell me the parameters of the two proposed sections ("Unplaced incarnations") and "More ambiguous") despite the fact that these two sections haven't been discussed. I do not agree that "More ambiguous" should only be for "spin-offs" of the Doctor, they should be for any incarnation that is not confirmed outright to be related to the "Widely accepted" versions.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That sounds reasonable, though "related" is maybe an awkward phrase, in that the Meta-Crisis Doctor, for example, is definitely "related" to one of the "widely-accepted" Doctors, just not as a straightforward regeneration of him.
But again, if we're playing that game, the Timeless Children are from being "confirmed outright" to be directly related to the Doctor. Even if we taken the Master at his word (and again, this seems like a very odd thing to do), there is also User:TheOneTrueJack's point that we don't know by what mechanism the last incarnation of the endlessly-regenerating Timeless Child was turned back into an amnesiac First Doctor. If it turns out to be a mechanism comparable to how the Other turned into the First Doctor, what then?
- Xx-connor-xX
I think we pass that bridge when we get there, but right now the Timeless Children and the Morbius Doctors should be treated exactly the same in my opinion. I would still personally but them both in the unplaced section rather than the ambiguous one, as they were shown in a montage with all the other confirmed Doctors.
- NateBumber
Xx-connor-xX wrote:
I don't believe there was ever any confirmation. Can you provide this? The Morbius Doctors states that [snip] Other than that there was only writer Lance Parkin's intention that the Other was the Douglas Camfield Doctor. However, this was not depicted in the book and therefore not confirmed.Well, it's worth saying that, regardless of what our wiki says, the wiki is not a valid source for the wiki. (There's an actual policy that says this somewhere, but I can't recall it off the top of my head... Could anyone help me out here?) In any case, I've recently re-read the relevant stories, and while Cold Fusion itself is indeed a bit ambiguous, when taken together with Lungbarrow, where the "Doctor rescuing Susan" scene is depicted from the opposite point of view, it's very clear that Patience's husband (who is depicted as the Douglas Camfield Doctor just as clearly as any Short Trips story depicts the Third or Fifth Doctors) is the Other. This is what I meant by citing the Virgin New Adventures as a whole rather than either of the stories specifically.
Xx-connor-xX wrote:
Also, currently the Curator resides in the "more ambiguous" part of the template. Therefore, reserving that section for "spin-offs" of the Doctor (which the Morbius Doctors aren't) is your own idea and not something I agree with.Yes, the Curator currently resides in the "More ambiguous" section of Template:Doctors because there currently is no "Other selves & unplaced incarnations" section, lol. I'm just summarizing what was decided about those sections earlier in this thread (circa Thread:267362#47), with clarifications on the specific language. But you seem to be misunderstanding me: I twice cited the spin-offs as merely one example of the sort of thing that fits in the "More ambiguous" section. We definitely agree that neither the Morbius Doctors nor the Other are "spin-offs"!
- Xx-connor-xX
If it was confirmed outright in the books surely you’ll be updating the pages?
- NateBumber
Yea, when I get around to it. It's a serious undertaking and frankly not on top of my to-do list. It'll take substantial effort: the current situation is quite tangled, since references to the First Doctor having previous regenerations are currently on The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius), when really they should be on The Doctor's early life or at least very heavily "according to one account"-ified; I haven't puzzled out the best solution yet. And merging Patience's husband into the Morbius page is going to take admin intervention. But one way or another, it's certainly on the books!
- Borisashton
NateBumber wrote: The wiki is not a valid source for the wiki. (There's an actual policy that says this somewhere, but I can't recall it off the top of my head... Could anyone help me out here?)
You've answered your own question there, Nate! That quote is right there at T:VS, albeit at what I expect is the least-read section at T:RW SOURCES.
- Shambala108
Repeating myself from earlier:
Just here to point out that Thread:223085 applies as always.
- Bpste1
I've read through this thread and there seems to be a recurring issue of the 'Timeless Children' incarnations being just as valid as they are invalid, due to this wiki holding other mediums to the same standard of 'canon' as the TV Show. This may be a controversial suggestion, but I feel like there should be (i presume yet another) conversation on the validity on extra-canon work. Perhaps implementing a George Lucas style canon (the canon for star wars pre-Disney). In a perfect world I would like to make sure that games and comics and novels are on the same level of canon - but Doctor Who's canon is messy enough on the show - let alone when you take expanded universe material into account.
In regards to the template discussion, I prefer having 1-11 and 12-13 on separate lines, rather than the Classic/New Who divide. I agree with having a 'unplaced incarnations' sections as well as a 'more ambiguous' one. Should we have one for 'future incarnations' such as the curator and even possibly the valeyard. I know that time isn't linear in doctor who, but there has always been a narrative interest in 'future' doctors.
- 72.194.244.165
I mean, since Doctor Who has no canon (aside from The Adventure Games and Infinity :>), by definition everything is extra-canon. The Star Wars canon system was created by Lucas Licensing. The BBC has done no such thing for Doctor Who, so any attempt to do so would not be correct, as canon is about authority. "Validity" simply refers to what sources are allowed to be used in the body of an article from an in universe perspective, so it would be wholly meaningless to adopt a stratified approach to validity.
- NoNotTheMemes
I think for "Other selves & unplaced incarnations" it would be best to place them by release order rather than presumed incarnation order. This way there isn't any quibbling about the "Fugitive" Doctor being ahead of the "Morbius" incarnations.
Another option that I had in mind was:
- TheOneTrueJack
Ordering "Other Selves and Unplaced Incarnations"by appearance order is a good idea as that would eliminate a lot of pointless debates. The same should probably be done for "More Ambiguous".
As for the second option, I wonder of having four categories might be a bit excessive? If not then I would say that "Early Lives" should go under "Widely Accepted". The core Doctors should always be first, imo.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Just jumping in here, there's a few things that I want to make my voice heard on. I've read the thread and correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be two types of groups here: Those who want to focus on the new and those who want to lean more to the established. Both approaches are perfectly valid, but make sure to leave bias at the door. Remember, we have 50+ spinoffs and like hundreds of Doctor Who stories, the continuity is always going to be shifting and overlapping.
Secondly, I do like the second infobox template that Memes showed. But, I'd also like to propose a bit of a radical change: Dump the incarnations infobox entirely, and use this instead.
The Incarnations of the DoctorEarly Lives Widely Accepted Later Lives Ambiguous Alternate Timelines This is just a placebo, of course, and there's a lot more Doctors we'd need on this thing. But in this format, we could include all of them and not have to have an argument over an infobox.
- Epsilon the Eternal
In my opinion, I wouldn't change really anything major until the Timeless Child arc has concluded, otherwise more revelations from the show could render edits here useless.
- Shambala108
Ok I don't watch this stuff so I have to ask (without getting spoilery): is this arc not yet concluded? Is it expected to continue when the next season finally arrives?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Actually, the arc itself seems to be mostly concluded, although there are a few questions left. It seems to be the Smith pattern: A series arc that concludes, but leaves some questions for the inevitable finale.
Back to the point, what is everyone's opinion on the template? Keep in mind it's just a temporary placeholder for now, not a complete guide.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: Just jumping in here, there's a few things that I want to make my voice heard on. I've read the thread and correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be two types of groups here: Those who want to focus on the new and those who want to lean more to the established. Both approaches are perfectly valid, but make sure to leave bias at the door. Remember, we have 50+ spinoffs and like hundreds of Doctor Who stories, the continuity is always going to be shifting and overlapping.
Secondly, I do like the second infobox template that Memes showed. But, I'd also like to propose a bit of a radical change: Dump the incarnations infobox entirely, and use this instead.
The Incarnations of the DoctorEarly Lives Widely Accepted Later Lives Ambiguous Alternate Timelines This is just a placebo, of course, and there's a lot more Doctors we'd need on this thing. But in this format, we could include all of them and not have to have an argument over an infobox.
This one? I personally quite like it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Let's get naming conventions right: the "Doctors" thing as currently in use is not, strictly speaking, an infobox. It's more of a navbox, although more properly, it is what you are proposing which best fits the definition of "navbox". (The "Doctors" template, as we know it, is a weird, one-of-a-kind hybrid of a navigation template.)
At any rate, there was more than one proposal of a navbox with all the Doctors before, and I believe one was shot down because of concerns that it would render Special:WhatLinksHere much harder to use for the relevant pages — e.g. trying to find every page which has something to do with The Doctor (Party Animals) would rather spuriously direct people to pages like The Relic (Alien Bodies). Besides, a navbox such as you are proposing can only be put at the end of an article. It might possibly supplement the "Doctors" template located below the infobox, but it serves quite a different purpose; the small, discreet Doctors navigation box below the infobox is a much handier tool for quick navigation by casual readers.
Anyway, @User:Epsilon the Eternal, we can't exactly hold off on doing this forever because two or five seasons from now we might hear more about Tecteun. The sources which do exist give us a dozen or so new Doctors to reckon with, and we have to deal with it now, even if we have to change things again later.
For myself, I think the WhatLinksHere concerns are perhaps a bit overstated, and wouldn't say no to a complete navbox, but only in addition to a revamped version of Template:Doctors similar to what has been proposed above.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd be fine with keeping the Doctors Template as long as the navbox was given the go-ahead. One can just show a simplified version, and the navbox can have the complete collection.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
And it wouldn't have to be on every page that mentions the Doctor, just the character pages for the Doctors.
- Najawin
Isn't it rather gauche to kudos yourself? :>
Regardless, I think it's clear that Epsilon was referring to the broader meta-arc, that began in S11 and will ostensibly continue into S13.
As for the navbox, I very much prefer the other template NoNotTheMemes suggested, and so would prefer a navbox based on it.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Yeah, I accidentally clicked the kudos button on my own reply. Fixed now.
- Najawin
Now I don't feel bad about kudos'ing it.
- TheOneTrueJack
For both the navbox and second infobox suggested by User:NoNotTheMemes my only note in terms of content is that I don't like the Early Lives section. Because that to me implies versions of the character from before they were the Doctor, which doesn't apply to "Morbius" or "Fugitive". Especially "Fugitive".
Plus, I still think Jo Martin can be safely included under Widley Accepted at this point in time. Although there is still the issue that her place within the timeline is not confirmed yet.
Also in terms of visuals and cluttering a page, the infobox just seems neater than an infobox. It contains the same information but it's smaller and fits in better.
My vote would still be for the first infobox suggested by User:NoNotTheMemes. Three sections, clear headings, sweet and to the point.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, here's the final version of the nav box I suggested.
Does anyone have any objections or suggestions?
- Epsilon the Eternal
I really like that. It makes finding the different incarnations really easy.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree, if this thread can overturn the policy about not having a complete Doctors navbox then I'm all in favour of something like this. That being said, we might want to add a row for "spin-offs, clones, etc." for e.g. the Meta-Crisis Doctor: he's not ambiguous, as such, is he? This template also appears to be missing the Dream Lord.
But while nice to have, this doesn't replace the smaller navbox below the infobox.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Oh, no, I'm not trying to replace it. It's clear at this point that I can't. It's more for people who want a complete navigation box of incarnations.
- SOTO
Would this navbox only be placed on the page for the Doctor? This would bypass the WLH problem, which I stand by being an issue.
(Just speaking of the template on its own merits, I think the Fugitive Doctor should be under Ambiguous, or perhaps a different section, Unplaced, as we don't know where she falls at this point in the series, and the "early lives" in this template seem to all be pre-Hartnell.)
EDIT: Also, only the first word of each heading should be capitalised, barring proper nouns.
- SOTO
Unnumbered could be a child navbox within Unplaced, even, at least until those two become one to one. Though there might be a different name for that section, as the Later lives, for instance, are also unnumbered. Perhaps just Unplaced.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
SOTO wrote: Would this navbox only be placed on the page for the Doctor? This would bypass the WLH problem, which I stand by being an issue.
(Just speaking of the template on its own merits, I think the Fugitive Doctor should be under Ambiguous, or perhaps a different section, Unplaced, as we don't know where she falls at this point in the series, and the "early lives" in this template seem to all be pre-Hartnell.)
EDIT: Also, only the first word of each heading should be capitalised, barring proper nouns.
I'm not sure what you mean by WLH? But no, my intention was to have this go on every incarnation's page. (Which shouldn't be too hard, I can do it myself if you'd like)
EDIT: Also, here's the infobox revised a bit.
The Incarnations of the DoctorEarly lives Widely accepted Later lives Ambiguous Unplaced The Doctor (An Army of Shadows) • The Doctor (Contents) • The Doctor (From Eternity) • The Doctor (Madame Vastra) • The Doctor (Party Animals) • The Doctor (Reunion) • The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) • The Doctor (The Blue Angel) • The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) • The Doctor (The Colour of Monsters) • The Doctor (The Dalek Factor) • The Doctor (The Five O'Clock Shadow) • The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) • The Doctor (The Tomorrow Windows) • The Doctor (Time, Love and TARDIS) • The Doctor (We are the Daleks!) • The Doctor 1 (Rose) • The Doctor 2 (Rose)Alternate timelines The Doctor (Auld Mortality) • The Doctor (False Negative) • The Doctor (Full Fathom Five) • The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil) • The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors) • The Doctor (Who's Who? Earth) • Burner Doctor • Eighth Doctor (cyborg) • Eighth Doctor (Grace Holloway's husband) • Eighth Doctor (Mirror Edinburgh) • Eighth Doctor (Obverse) • New Doctor (Full Fathom Five) • Previous Doctor (Exile) • The Doctor (Exile) • "Shadow World" Doctor • Second Doctor (Inferno Earth) • The Leader • Doc Gallifrey • The Herald • Lord of the Manor • Quiquaequod • Johann Schmidt • Joe Smith • Theta Sigma • Tardis Tails • Theta Sigma (Forever) - SOTO
It's not the implementation which is the issue. WLH stands for What Links Here. It's a special page that allows editors to access a list of all pages that link to some article. This would become a fairly useless tool for Doctor pages if, by way of the template, every single Doctor page links to every other one, especially when it comes to more obscure incarnations.
And when it comes down to it, the category tree under category:The Doctor serves this function well already, without obscuring WLH results.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure how it breaks the WLH? Like, sure, it'll be longer, but the info will still be there.
- Najawin
It means that The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon) will have a link to The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) even though narratively there's no connection between the two.
- Najawin
But the info will be obscured with noise. The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon) has no narrative connection to The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light), though The Doctor (Fugitive of the Judoon) DOES have a narrative connection to Thirteenth Doctor.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
They do have a narrative connection, though. They're all incarnations of the Doctor. Yes, it's flimsy, but there's lots of stuff that's flimsy that we do. For instance, does Captain John Hart have a narrative connection to James I, by your definition? No. But they do under my definition: Both were monarchs of England at one point. And look: They both have the Monarch template.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Basically, what I'm proposing isn't too far from current policy.
- Najawin
These aren't narrative connections. They're based around facts/properties/roles about/within the world, not the narrative structures that occur within the world.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But the navboxes aren't for narrative connections. They're for facts/properties/roles in the DWU. Like, there's no narrative connection between Grace Holloway and Susan Foreman. By your logic, there should be no navbox that connects them. But there is: Companions of the Eighth Doctor. Again, all this isn't new: It's been policy for a while. Incarnations of the Doctor should be no different.
- Najawin
The navboxes aren't. But the wiki is to some extent based around narratives (see: rule 1 of Tardis:Valid sources). So by default WLH is, in my interpretation of SOTO's argument, based around narrative connections as well.
(Note here that I'm not the one who raised this argument nor do I necessarily buy it, so perhaps SOTO should clarify what exactly they take to be the issue. I'm just trying to head off at the pass the most obvious problems in responses to them.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Najawin wrote: The navboxes aren't. But the wiki is to some extent based around narratives (see: rule 1 of Tardis:Valid sources).
Yes, I've read it. But the thing is, it doesn't apply to the Navboxes, because that's not what they're for. Quite honestly, if the issue is cluttering, then why is this one the navbox that is taken issue with, as opposed to the numerous navboxes created during the lifespan of this wiki?
- Najawin
No clue? It's SOTO's argument, not mine. I'm just trying to deal with the most basic objections, like the fact that it actually does add noise to WLH (whether or not we want that is a different matter entirely).
- TheDarkBomber
Why is "Fugitive" placed under the "Early Lives" group? We don't know whether or not the Fugitive Doctor is pre-Hartnell.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
It's practically certain given that the Fugitive Doctor is on the run from the Time Lords (led by Gat, who wears Division uniform), has no knowledge of the sonic screwdriver or the Thirteenth Doctor and was introduced with the whole Timeless Child saga.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I wouldn't say so. It's more likely than not, but The Timeless Children itself pointedly does not quite confirm that the Jo Martin Doctor was directly part of the pre-Hartnell Timeless Child's lives. The Thirteenth Doctor asks the Matrix projection of the Fugitive Doctor if that's the ticket, and she essentially goes “Search me, I only just got here”.
It remains a distinct possibility that the Fugitive Doctor is a Season 6B (or otherwise post-Hartnell) incarnation at a point when the Division tried to get their hooks back into their runaway agent. Is it the most likely possibility? No. But it's a possibility that is very consciously left open by the episode, and we should respect that.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
The Incarnations of the Doctor
Early lives Widely accepted Later lives Ambiguous Unplaced The Doctor (An Army of Shadows) • The Doctor (Contents) • The Doctor (From Eternity) • The Doctor (Madame Vastra) • The Doctor (Party Animals) • The Doctor (Reunion) • The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) • The Doctor (The Blue Angel) • The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) • The Doctor (The Colour of Monsters) • The Doctor (The Dalek Factor) • The Doctor (The Five O'Clock Shadow) • The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) • The Doctor (The Tomorrow Windows) • The Doctor (Time, Love and TARDIS) • The Doctor (We are the Daleks!) • The Doctor 1 (Rose) • The Doctor 2 (Rose) • "Fugitive"Alternate timelines The Doctor (Auld Mortality) • The Doctor (False Negative) • The Doctor (Full Fathom Five) • The Doctor (Sympathy for the Devil) • The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors) • The Doctor (Who's Who? Earth) • Burner Doctor • Eighth Doctor (cyborg) • Eighth Doctor (Grace Holloway's husband) • Eighth Doctor (Mirror Edinburgh) • Eighth Doctor (Obverse) • New Doctor (Full Fathom Five) • Previous Doctor (Exile) • The Doctor (Exile) • "Shadow World" Doctor • Second Doctor (Inferno Earth) • The Leader • Doc Gallifrey • The Herald • Lord of the Manor • Quiquaequod • Johann Schmidt • Joe Smith • Theta Sigma • Tardis Tails • Theta Sigma (Forever)Here's the placement of Jo's Doctor in the unplaced section, does this work? Also, SOTO, could you explain your reasoning please?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
It's not "for certain" certain, but I'd say it's sure enough for us to run with. Given that the Eleventh Doctor died on Trenzalore due to not having any more regenerations (as mentioned in The Name of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor) it seems like speculating a little too much to really consider her a 6B incarnation when Eleventh was the last of the Doctor's first regeneration cycle.
Obviously Chibnall could probably find some way of doing that, though.
- TheDarkBomber
Yes, that works.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:267557
Is there to get the word out that all three of the fam's pages need to be updated from the events of Series 12? Also, the majority of Series 12's episodes need plot summaries. I can try to improve them as best I can, but like I've stated before, I'm not in a position to give a detailed summary.
And there is really no reason to push for updates from current seasons. Some of the pages with stub/update tags have needed filling out for years; generally it doesn't take long for current seasons to be filled out. In fact, pages from the current season don't even get the stub/update tags because it's understood that these recent pages will soon be filled out.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:268102
I don't know anything about this topic, but a discussion on User:Danniesen's talk page is being moved here for general input. I'm posting the conversation thus far:
Timeless species in Doctor infoboxes[[edit] | [edit source]]
Hey there Danniesen, I noticed you added a link to Timeless Child's species in the "species" variable for the infobox on each incarnation of the Doctor. I'm wondering whether you think all the species variables should be changed to a link to The Doctor's species instead, maybe in a way similar to the current |alias = [[The Doctor's aliases#First Doctor|'''''see list''''']] paradigm? This would tie in with some other thoughts I've had about an "Infobox Incarnation" template. Let me know what you think. – N8 (☎/👁️) 14:48, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we should change the link to "The Doctor's species". The reason being that that particular article sums up something very vague that says (paraphrasing) "the Doctor could be various different species, we don't know for sure", whereas the "Timeless Child's species" is one specific species that cannot be debated, we just don't know very much about it other than the regenerative ability. --DCLM ☎ 15:01, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't follow. The whole point of the page The Doctor's species, Danniesen, is that whether the Doctor is a member of the Timeless Child's species (or of any other given species) very much is debatable based on various conflicting sources. No two ways about it, Lungbarrow or Doctor Who and the Daleks, just to name a few, are not consistent with the Doctor having originally been of the Timeles species and then abandoned at the Boundary for a Shobogan to find. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:08, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- That's the whole point of multiple species points in "individual infoboxes". So that we can add multiple "species" points. --DCLM ☎ 15:11, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but since we do have The Doctor's species to handle this special case where it's not (only) that the character is a hybrid of several species, but that we have a wealth of conflicting accounts, isn't it simpler and more elegant to link to that? Especially as this allows us to standardize all Doctor pages. Because I mean, can we say that The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) is of the Timeless Child's species, per se? The precedent of "just because Missy says 'every dead human' has been turned into a Cyberman doesn't mean we put Amy Pond in Category:Individual Cybermen" suggests we can only say that incarnations of the Doctor acknowledged by The Timeless Children itself are Timeless. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:17, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why I only put it on those specific TV-appearing versions of The Doctor. And I gotta ask the question, if the Doctor's species was various/variable long before The Timeless Children, why have we only created the page AFTER that episode? --DCLM ☎ 15:21, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Because the Wiki isn't perfect and we're only human. But The Doctor's species's creation was part of an effort that's been going on for some weeks now and also included the creation of The Doctor's early life. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:24, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Butting in here, first of all User:Danniesen your last question is irrelevant. User:Scrooge MacDuck answered it better than I could. Second, I'm moving this discussion to the forums since it covers multiple pages and you could get more input that way. Shambala108 ☎ 15:28, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Because the Wiki isn't perfect and we're only human. But The Doctor's species's creation was part of an effort that's been going on for some weeks now and also included the creation of The Doctor's early life. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:24, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why I only put it on those specific TV-appearing versions of The Doctor. And I gotta ask the question, if the Doctor's species was various/variable long before The Timeless Children, why have we only created the page AFTER that episode? --DCLM ☎ 15:21, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but since we do have The Doctor's species to handle this special case where it's not (only) that the character is a hybrid of several species, but that we have a wealth of conflicting accounts, isn't it simpler and more elegant to link to that? Especially as this allows us to standardize all Doctor pages. Because I mean, can we say that The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) is of the Timeless Child's species, per se? The precedent of "just because Missy says 'every dead human' has been turned into a Cyberman doesn't mean we put Amy Pond in Category:Individual Cybermen" suggests we can only say that incarnations of the Doctor acknowledged by The Timeless Children itself are Timeless. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:17, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- That's the whole point of multiple species points in "individual infoboxes". So that we can add multiple "species" points. --DCLM ☎ 15:11, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't follow. The whole point of the page The Doctor's species, Danniesen, is that whether the Doctor is a member of the Timeless Child's species (or of any other given species) very much is debatable based on various conflicting sources. No two ways about it, Lungbarrow or Doctor Who and the Daleks, just to name a few, are not consistent with the Doctor having originally been of the Timeles species and then abandoned at the Boundary for a Shobogan to find. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:08, March 11, 2020 (UTC)
- Danniesen
Let me just quickly say here that Scrooge MacDuck misunderstood my first reply. I did not indicate that the Doctor was a specific species nor claiming that one story was superior to another. I stated that the Timeless Child's species page covers 1 specific species, and the Doctor's species page covers multiple accounts. That's why I said Timeless Child's species wasn't debatable.
- NateBumber
I think that the intro to The Doctor's species should be edited to say not just that it's ambiguous, but mention what the options are, eg via the following:
- The vast majority of sources agree that the Doctor is a Gallifreyan and a Time Lord, (TV: The War Games, et al.) but a few suggest that they have different origins, including being fully or partially human, (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Daleks, TV: Doctor Who, et al.) being the Timeless Child from an unknown species, (TV: The Timeless Children) or several other origins. (PROSE: The Death of Art, Sometime Never..., et al.)
I'd make the edit myself, but I don't want to violate T:BOUND. Danniesen, would this rewording ameliorate some of your concerns?
- Danniesen
Oh, I wasn't concerned about the writing on that article at all. I was merely about the infoboxes on the various Doctors' pages. I'd let an admin make that decision. Not because I do not care, of course, because obviously I do.
However, we should avoid the term "unknown". We ought to use a term that is vague but not completely undescriptive.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Re: the "unknown" wording: this is its own discussion to some extent, but I think that in this specific case it actually is descriptive. We shouldn't say that anything not spelled out to the viewer was "unknown", it's true; but that the Timeless Child's species was unknown in the universe, with nothing to identify it in all the tests Tecteun performed, is in fact one of the salient in-universe features of that species within the DWU. The fact that the Timeless Child's species is an "unknown species" is as relevant as the fact that the Doctor's name was "unknown".
- NateBumber
I don't think that The Doctor's species is any more debatable than the Timeless Child's species (or the "Timeless species") just because it covers multiple accounts. After all, The Doctor's mother summarizes multiple accounts about the Doctor's mother being a human named Penelope, a Time Lord who appeared as an unnamed Woman, or a fake memory because the Doctor actually came from a machine. But that doesn't stop "The Doctor's mother" from being listed in the infobox on The Doctor.
What does disqualify something from being in an infobox is it not being mentioned on the page itself. For instance, if we set the Fifth Doctor's job3 variable to "Fisherman", but there was no reference to the Fifth Doctor being a fisherman on the page, that would be a misuse. Infoboxes are meant to summarize information on the page, and as it stands, there is zero reference to the Timeless Child or its species on the Fifth Doctor's page. (Nor is there any mention on the wiki of anything called the "Timeless species" at all.) But it's mentioned in his infobox.
Think about it from the perspective of the not-we. If someone is looking at Fifth Doctor and see his species is "Timeless species", then click on the link and read about a Thirteenth Doctor story, they'll just end up confused. The variable should instead link to the hub that discusses all the different accounts side-by-side so readers can get a fuller understanding.
- NateBumber
Danniesen, thank you for clarifying that this thread concerns infoboxes specifically, rather than The Doctor's species as a page; with this clarification about T:BOUND, I've gone ahead and made the edit I was talking about.
Looking at all this, I'm frankly uncertain whether we need a "species" variable on individual incarnation pages at all. We already only list the Doctor's mother, father, grandparents, etc on The Doctor rather than on every incarnation page. Should we treat "species" and "place of origin" in the same way?
(Every incarnation of the Doctor has Gallifrey listed as their "place of origin". Does this make sense? Given that the Eighth Doctor came to be in a morgue refrigerator, how can his place of origin be "Gallifrey" by any stretch of the imagination?)
For a long time I've been thinking about a Template:Infobox Incarnation which would replace all the origin-related variables (species, ancestors, etc) with a big link to the overall character page (in this case, The Doctor) as well as "prev" and "next" variables like we have for stories. I have zero experience with infoboxes, but maybe it's time I figure it out!
- Danniesen
I honestly think this discussion itself would qualify as one of the many reasons why I created the "The Timeless Children" thread. Thinking back to that thread, this was one of the many changes I thought we needed proper discussion on.
- Danniesen
On a complete sidenote about the name of the "unknown species" on this Wikia, while obviously the species article must be named "Timeless Child's species", I myself made up the term "Timeless species" because I felt it was easier to say. What do you guys think?
- SOTO
The way we've tended to deal with this sort of thing in the past is to affix, say, "human" as a second species only to those incarnations of the Doctor who asserted this was the case, or to whom it specifically applies, in-story. If really all stories featuring the Sixth Doctor either say he's a Time Lord, or don't make any assertions at all about his species, then a "Timeless species" really has no business on his page.
Beyond that, though, I would call into question whether or not the Timeless Child's species even belongs on the Thirteenth Doctor's page, though not for the same reason. We really don't know what the Time Lords did to the person who would become the Doctor in the time before they became Hartnell. Until or unless the Thirteenth Doctor actually says she no longer she believes she is, at present, a Time Lord, we don't really have any evidence that by now, the Doctor is biologically distinct from her fellow Gallifreyans. All we know is that, in this account of the Doctor's origins, their original species was something other than Time Lord. So it might belong on the Doctor's page, it certainly belongs on the Timeless Child's page, but I'm not so certain we yet have enough evidence to make the same assertion about even the current Doctor.
(As a side note, though, the Eighth Doctor does call Gallifrey home in the TVM. And the Sixth Doctor asserts, as the Tenth Doctor later would: "I am known as the Doctor. I'm also a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborous." We do have accounts of various incarnations telling us they are "from" Gallifrey, and even in the Timeless Child reading of events, the Doctor's identity as the Doctor did still begin on Gallifrey. My take is that the variable is more concerned with where a character comes from, than where their body originated.)
- Danniesen
To add to the matter, even though we should still list Time Lord in the species sections, Time Lord technically isn't a species, but a rank you get. The Time Lords simply asserted to refer to themselves as Time Lords as a species because it is a 1000 times easier than the alternative.
- SOTO
Stories differ on the meaning and even existence of the Time Lord–Gallifreyan divide.
- Danniesen
What stories conclude that Time Lord is a species different from Gallifreyan? I don't know them then.
- Borisashton
- Danniesen
I've always thought about those times as metaphorical, not actually a different thing.
- NateBumber
Different stories have different interpretations. Not really our place as wiki editors to try and reconcile accounts, via metaphor or otherwise.
- NateBumber
Can we move forward with placing The Doctor's species in the species variable for infoboxes on the Doctor's incarnations?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:268891
Well today has been the day of the first live watchalong of a Doctor Who story, namely The Day of the Doctor as planned up by Emily Cook from Doctor Who Magazine, part of the Who at Home event due to the 2020 worldwide outbreak of COVID-19.
This special watchalong was noted on the Day story page, mainly due to it being the beginning of this expanding event. As of now, this event expands to Rose on the 26th of March (15th anniversary) and The Eleventh Hour on the 3rd of April (10th anniversary).
My question is simply this: Should we cover these live re-watch watchalong events on these and coming watchalong-event stories' pages or should we keep it within the limits of the Day and Who at Home pages?
- Shambala108
Why can't they be added to both? Once they've actually happened of course.
- Danniesen
That was my question. Do we add these watchalongs to the episodes in question?
- Shambala108
How about waiting till they actually happen.
- Danniesen
Sigh. I meant WHEN they happen.
- Danniesen
I thought this much was obvious. Apparently not. XD
- Shambala108
It might be obvious to you, and it might be obvious to me, but it's not always obvious to a new user. And, as I've explained multiple times before, these boards attract a lot of new users who are looking for general DW discussion. Therefore, I make sure that everything is understood by anyone who reads a post, not just the tiny handful of people posting on it.
- Danniesen
Right. I thought YOU were clueless about what I was talking about.
And it was mostly directed towards the admins/experienced users.
I do get that new users won't have the faintest idea what it's all about. lol.
- SOTO
What sort of coverage do you have in mind? Is this a brief bullet point in each page's "Story notes"?
- Danniesen
Idk. I covered the bit in the lead section of Day's story page, but I don't know if that should be the case for every story this event covers. Also, on the Day page I added all the valid information surrounding this watchalong event, but I feel it's a bit on the nose if we mention everything on all the story pages we cover about the event.
- Toqgers
The write up you've done on Day of the Doctor's page looks really nice. Future events might not need as much detail, just because they don't have the background of being the inception of these events—a mention that the concept started with Day and details specific to the future events that emerge might be sufficient. I guess it just depends on how things play out.
- Danniesen
Yeah. That's what I meant. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:269243
Should we really include those little Blogs of Doom stories in canon articles? They are admittedly funny, but they read like a parody, not like an actual story. Same goes for the series in the back of Titan Comics where Rose is a cat.
- Danniesen
All official stories are created as pages. Whether they are meant as parodies or not. Steven Moffat's The Curse of Fatal Death is a spoof/parody too.
- Scrooge MacDuck
This Wiki doesn't recognise the concept of canon. As long as a story was licensed and that we have no evidence that it wasn't intended to be set in the Doctor Who universe, we cover it as valid.There was a lengthy debate long ago about the backup Titan comics — and for the record, it's not that "Rose is a cat", it's just that the Doctor adopts a cat and names her for Rose Tyler. But long story short, it was found that the author did mean for them to "count"; she created comedies set in the Doctor Who universe, not parodies spoofing it.
Pictured: the Doctor's pet Rose-the-cat, not his former companion and love interest Rose Tyler. And yep, we consider it a valid fact that the Doctor once owned this cat. So?As for the Blogs of Doom, some of them do include comedic elements, but no more than many of those Titan backup strips, and I see no evidence that they're meant to be parodical. Maybe a couple of them are (which ones?), but Ian the Elf, for example, is written in exactly the same register as all material involving the Elves in Last Christmas. And I simply cannot see how you could read the first, Jorj, as any kind of parody. It's got a few funny lines (what modern DW story doesn't?), but it ends with the main character abandoned alone on a dying ship, hoping against hope the Cybermen won't kill him. Talk about a comedy.
And they're certainly not advertised as parodies, being instead defined as "sneak peeks into the secret diaries of characters in the Doctor's orbit", which seems pretty clear intent that they take place in the DWU.
I can completely understand why someone more used to the more "serious" strain of Doctor Who stories like Torchwood or the VNAs might be surprised that we cover all of these things, but being funny has never been evidence, on its own, that a story doesn't 'count'. (Good God, but if that was so, half of Steven Moffat's writing credits would be invalid!)
So if you find a quote from Jonathan Morris (or, in a pinch, an editor of Doctor Who Magazine) saying that the Blogs of Doom short stories aren't supposed to be set in the Doctor Who universe, you can start an inclusion debate for those specific stories in Board:Inclusion debates. But I really don't think it's in accord with What We Do Here to exclude them, or the Titan comics we specifically validated in another, well-argued debate, for occasionally tipping over into being a bit silly.
(Mark, mind, that all the above is the informed opinion of a user who has a lot of experience with the Wiki's policies by now — not an official decision from an admin. But I'm pretty sure I've got it right here.)
- Danniesen
To that last bit Scrooge, I personally am pretty tired that we as regular users have to point out this is my opinion. It really diminishes us as users on here that this needs pointing out, because it screams loudly that we as non-admins can't speak up on something like this.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I don't have a problem with them being pages, it's how they were put in that was my original issue. But the thing is, there's a difference between a story making fun of a part of the universe's tropes and a parody designed to comedically depict an important element.
I know I sound like a grumpy guy, and I get why you included them. The Rose the cat not being Rose Tyler herself was something I did miss, so thank you for the clarification. And I did forget the first one's ending, so thank you for that.
And I don't mean to invalidate anyone's opinions. I've had my fair share of that, so I'm genuinely sorry if I sounded like that. I hope that both Danniesen and Scrooge MacDuck can forgive me.
Maybe my main issue is just the Veil one, because I just like imagining the Veil as the monster shown in the trilogy. But that's probably not enough for a case,I'll admit.
- Danniesen
To your 3rd segment of that comment: it wasn't directed at you. Just a general frustration over the fact that we as non-admins have to point out that these are our opinions.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Ah, I see. Sorry, I'm not good at decoding conversations. As a non-admin, solidarity with that.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:269300
How anyone can get the answers to these rubbish clues I have no idea, but if anyone can help it would be most appreciated.
1 across - contagion that latches on to plastic - ?r????n
3 down - endured by the third doctor - ???L?
- Danochy
- Satkins42
Thanks
If Praxeus is correct and I’m sure it is that means the n is an s and so 4 down - Adam had surgery that froze this, is now - s?ck And what the hell that is I have know idea.
- Borisashton
Sick.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:269687
Thought it might be prudent if this wiki dealt with multi-episode new series stories in the same way we dealt with the Hartnell era. Ie, we don't have articles for every individual episode of The Daleks or Marco Polo for instance, even though on the face of it, those individual episodes are the same as the new series multi-parters.
- BananaClownMan
I think the way those are done is because of the DVDs and novelisations putting them under one title, while the New Series keeps them independent.
- Scrooge MacDuck
More to the point, there are endless (and I mean endless) debates, on the Wiki and elsewhere, over which BBC Wales stories form a two- or three-parters, and which are just narratively connected because of a series arc. Just from last season, there are already disagreements on the Internet over whether there's a three-part finale (The Haunting of Villa Diodati/Ascension of the Cybermen/The Timeless Children) or a two-part finale consisting of just Ascension and Timeless Children.
Plus, what would we even title those lumped-in pages? Hartnell-era serials have agreed-upon collective titles, even though they were not all used on broadcast. But there is no consensus on what to call most New Series multi-parters, even ones that are universally agreed to be multi-parters. Aliens of London/World War Three, say. What's the collective title for that? Colloquially we say things like "the Series 9 finale" or "the Slitheen two-parter" or "the Monk Trilogy", but we can't call a Wiki page that.
Tl;dr, I completely get the impulse to want to lump in multi-part NuWho stories, but it really isn't practical, I think.
- ToyStoryFan123
I think it's more from a production standpoint than a narrative one.
For instance, Aliens of London & World War Three and The Zygon Invasion & The Zygon Inversion were produced as one story, but The Woman Who Lived & The Girl Who Died and Heaven Sent & Hell Bent were produced as two individual stories.
But yes, I do understand the names would be an issue. But even within the Hartnell era there are ambiguities with the titles.
Is it Inside the Spaceship or The Edge of Destruction? 100,000 BC or An Unearthly Child?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, but you see, while you think multi-parters are defined from a production standpoint, that's only your opinion. And that is really the clincher. Some people think multi-parters are defined by narrative ties, others by hard-and-gritty production facts, and yet others by whether the BBC called them multi-parters.
True, there is debate on some Hartnell-era stories (another big one is The Dead Planet vs. The Daleks), but there are at least commonly-used collective titles that can be found on official sources such as VHS/DVD/Blu-ray releases, so it's not hard to pick one of those and stick with it. Whereas there isn't any kind of received wisdom on what to call NuWho two-parters, save possibly the Angels two-parter of Series 5 being popularly known as The Crash of the Byzantium.
- TheDarkBomber
Officially, story #001 is called An Unearthly Child, as listed by the BBC website. 100,000 BC seems to be just a nickname for the story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It's not as simple as that. What the BBC calls them today isn't necessarily what they used to call it back in the 1960's. For example, An Unearthly Child was also advertised in Radio Times (IIRC) as The Tribe of Gum.
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, this has been debated to death. Even production ties aren't clear; different members of the production had differing opinions on whether the Series 3 finale was a two-parter or a three-parter.
Honestly, I would propose a move in the opposite direction: we stop grouping any multi-part stories from NuWho together except for those that share a title. Stop indicating what some interpret as multi-part stories on the Series pages and list (almost) each episode separately.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:269689
There's been a lot of discussion on the talk page of The Master on whether or not split it into incarnations, just like the Doctor, Romana, and the Eleven. The reasons are that the page got hard to navigate, obnoxiously big, heavy and confusing. That is my suggestion on what to do if we split it: We cannot number most of the incarnations. Even with the information we get in Prose: Girl Power, depending on how you interpret it, Missy may end up as either the 18th or 19th incarnation.
The only three incarnations we can number are:
- The First Master: Audio: Destination War states that the Dreyfus incarnation was the first to use the name Master. Whether he is or not the first incarnation is unknown, but he is the First Master.
- The Thirteenth Master: As clearly stated in TV: The Deadly Assassin and Audio: The Two Masters, Breeves/ Pratt incarnation is the Thirteenth and a separate incarnation from Delgado. Whether he is the Thirteenth to use the name Master is also unknown, but for convenience let's call him that since it is definitely the number of the incarnation.
- The Fourteenth Master: At the end of Audio: Day of the Master, the Breeves incarnation regenerates into the McQueen incarnation.
Other things we know:
- Regenerations we have seen: Delgado into an unknown incarnation, Breeves into McQueen, Titan Child War Master into the War Master, the War Master into Saxon, and the events that lead Saxon into Missy.
- The Spymaster is a post-Time-War Master and certainly somewhere after Missy.
- Delgado is somewhere between Dreyfus and Breeves.
- Every Master between Breeves and McQueen is a stolen body with the Breeves incarnation inside and not a full-blown incarnation, as stated in Audio: Dust Breeding and Audio: Day of the Master. Those include, among others, Ainley, Tipple, and Roberts.
- The Tzun Regeneration didn't work, the master was reverted to the Ainley body.
Things we don't know:
- Since we haven't seen the McQueen incarnation regenerate into the Titan Child Master, so we cannot number the incarnations after him too.
- All the incarnation between Dreyfus and Breeves, with the exception of Delgado.
- If the War Chief is the Master. The accounts contradict each other.
So, to organize the Master pages I suggest the following template structure:
- Widely accepted:
- First regeneration cycle:
- 1: Dreyfus and supposed earlier incarnations, such as the kid from the Sound of Drums;
- Unknown: Unknown incarnations of the first cycle;
- UNIT enemy: Delgado;
- 13: Pratt/ Breeves when not possessing a body, includes John Smith persona, etc;
- Bodies of the Thirteenth Master:
- Tremas: Ainley, includes the Tzun incarnation since that didn't work out;
- Dalek prisoner: Tipple and supposed other bodies between Ainley and Roberts;
- Bruce: Roberts;
- Other: Other bodies in the body-hopping period after Roberts;
- Second regeneration cycle:
- 14: McQueen;
- Titan: Child War Master;
- War Master: Jacobi;
- Saxon: Simm;
- Missy: Gomez
- Spymaster: Dhawan;
- First regeneration cycle:
- More ambiguous:
- The War Chief
- Others that I may not remember.
- Xx-connor-xX
Perhaps a compromise would be to have the main Master page cover regenerations First through Thirteen (including the body-swapping entity he eventually became). All the newer incarnations; McQueen, Jacobi, Simm, Gomez and Dhawan have enough material - and placement in the timelines - to warrant their own pages (and are badly affected due to being lumped in with the Master's page as a whole).
- Shambala108
A lot of this was covered under the original discussion to merge the Master pages into one. Please make sure to read the discussions at talk:The Master (you will have to look through the archives) as well as the discussions at Forum:Panopticon archives, specifically Forum:The Master and Forum:The Master - 1 article.
- DenisLuiz
Shambala108 wrote: A lot of this was covered under the original discussion to merge the Master pages into one. Please make sure to read the discussions at talk:The Master (you will have to look through the archives) as well as the discussions at Forum:Panopticon archives, specifically Forum:The Master and Forum:The Master - 1 article.
Yes. That was brought up in the recent discussions Talk: Master page. I created this topic here in the forumns because it was required there multiple times.
- Scrooge MacDuck
A lot to unpack here. I think everyone would do well to read through Thread:181963, where we discussed a lot of similar ground in the process of trying to fix the Template:Master_stories navbox; a readthrough will, for example, demonstrate that no, there is no real "commonly-accepted" answer on whether Roger Delgado's Master and Geoffrey Beevers's Master are the same regeneration. And there is at least one source that terms Ainley a "regeneration" from Pratt/Beevers, albeit an unconventional form of regeneration.
All in all, I support the proposal of splitting the Master again, especially if, as User:Shambala108 suggested on other talk pages and threads, we want to cut down on unwieldily-long pages out of concern for mobile users.
But I think trying to be so scrupulous over which Masters are "regenerations" and which Masters are "bodies" is not the way to go about it.
Let's look at Doctor pages: we have the Meta-Crisis Doctor and the Valeyard and the Watcher and the Dream Lord and even bleedin' Popplewick. It doesn't matter that none of these guys were created by conventional regenerations in the Gallifreyan glowy-stuff-pours-out sense of the term. They're played by different actors, and treated as different versions of the Doctor, so we have different pages.
I think the only way to split the Master again and keep our sanity would be to do the same. Every new body gets a page, whether or not it's a stolen body. The Master (Doctor Who) for Roberts, The Master (The Fallen) for the "Preacher" Master, and so on and so forth.
The thing is that the impossibility of figuring out the exact order and mechanics of the Master's body-hopping is a point in favour of splitting the page. Trying to cover the Master's life as a linear biography on The Master is getting harder with every passing month, especially with all the multi-Master stories Big Finish has been putting out.
("Multi-Master stories", I might add, which star Roberts and Beevers as different versions of the Master as part of that gimmick; in-universe there may be no regeneration, but even Big Finish, they who push the "all the Wilderness Years Masters are Beevers stealing bodies" idea so hard, acknowledge that those are for all intents and purposes idfferent Masters.)
Whereas if we have a new The Master (Story X) page for every body of the Master, we no longer have to try to figure out a way to linearly account for every potential post-Survival fate of the Ainley Master. We can have The Master (First Frontier) for the Tzun Master, and Old Master (Doctor Who) for Gordon Tipple's ambiguous Master, and so on and so forth!
…Oh, your original post mentions the War Chief. I think there is room for a discussion reevaluating his relationship to the Master, now that novelisations have been made fully valid rather than subaltern to original works. Because there are novelisations which identify the Master and the War Chief pretty strongly; there is plenty enough justification for us drawing the links the in-universe sections by now, not just the BTS sections.
But that is a rather different discussion from whether to split up The Master in the first place, and I think it should be the subject of its own thread.
- DenisLuiz
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: I think the only way to split the Master again and keep our sanity would be to do the same. Every new body gets a page, whether or not it's a stolen body. The Master (Doctor Who) for Roberts, The Master (The Fallen) for the "Preacher" Master, and so on and so forth.
In my mind that is precisely what I am suggesting, I just tried to separate in a cohesive way based on what we know, considering the timeline.
And on whether delgado and breeves are the same, we don't need to worry. For example, there are two accounts on the events that lead to the sixth doctor regeneration, and two on the events of the eight doctor regeneration, and one of them completely disregards the War Doctor. We just need to show both accounts, but that does not mean we present the War Doctor as an ambiguous incarnation, since most of the accounts agree that he is the one to follow the eighth. Same with Delgado, we have at least three audios and a comic strip separating the characters.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, I think we're more in agreement than I thought. It's just that you spent rather a lot of time in that opening post trying to straight out "which incarnations we can number" and things like that, which seemed rather besides the point. But I may well have misunderstood your intentions.
(I would argue with the terminology you use in your proposal, by the way. If we're going to be counting the various stolen bodies as Masters in their own right, and I'm glad that you agree that we should, then why call them "bodies of the Thirteenth Master"? Even beyond the fact that Legacy of the Daleks suggests that the Master may not have been on his last regeneration at all when he got mutilated, simply being mutilated in a way that prevented regeneration, there is also the fact that there is no reason the Ainley Master or Bruce Masters couldn't 'count' in the numbering. If regenerations can fail to count, then body-hopping that lasts long enough could count in turn.)
- DenisLuiz
I think calling them "bodies of the Thirteenth Master" is more convenient because they always revert to the original form as stated in Day of the Master. That would prevent us to count Breeves multiple times, since it is the Breeves body that regenerates into the McQueen body. That is a practical reason.
- Scrooge MacDuck
This is, again, a pretty minor issue. I think we're broadly in agreement. Certainly I think one (or at worst two) pages for Beevers' various Masters will do. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the nomenclature as such. We can have a page about Beevers' Master, and acknowledge that Bruce & Co. are bodies he stole, without calling them "bodies of the Thirteenth Master" specifically, surely? And again there is the issue that it's not quite certain that Beeevrs is #13, even if that is the received fan wisdom.
- Shambala108
Thread:223085 please.
- DenisLuiz
I am thinking on something like this. If I am not mistaken there are at least three sources that call Breeves the 13th Master, and the only that do not is heavily contradicted, so I think it is safe to call him the 13, and Mcqueen the 14. But we can also easily call 13 as the Burned Master or something and 14 the Bald Master or something. No big deal.
- BananaClownMan
You can use my sandbox pages as a bases if you want. I say bases because my idea of an incarnation is radically different to everyone else’s, but all are just as valid. I would leave a link, but I’m on my phone, so just type it in the seaarch bar and you should find one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm fine with Beevers being called the Thirteenth Master if you insist, but would like us to call MacQueen the Bald Master, if only because of the sources which call Ainley's Master a regeneration of one kind or another. At any rate, that sandbox doesn't look too bad at all, but how do you fit in the Basil Rathbone Master from the Virgin New Adventures, who was the first incarnation in a completely different post-Ainley regeneration cycle than Macqueen? And let's not forget the Gordon Tipple Master.
The behind-the-scenes intent was that he was not Ainley (let alone Beevers), and what little we do see of him on-screen doesn't look very much like either; per T:NPOV we can't, in this situation, side with "he's definitely another body of the 13th Master" over his being the aforementioned Tzun Master or a regeneration thereof, especially with the VNAs going to the lengths they did to feed directly into the TV Movie.
Additionally, I would argue that the "ghost in the machine" Master from the later EDAs, the one intended to eventually become the Shalka Master, should also get his own page, possibly in the "More ambiguous" section since he's a sort of offshoot of the 'main' Master's lifecycle.
I would suggest something like this:
- 197.86.143.126
Surely there are already split Masters pages? Whoa re Stream (The Hollows of Time), The War King, Man with the Rosette, Magnus (Flashback), The Master (Scream of the Shalka), The Master (Sympathy for the Devil), The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death)? And that's not even including The War Chief.
Of course, there are very contradictory things in-narrative here.
- If Koschei and the Troughton Doctor hadn't seen each other in 200 years in The Dark Path (novel), how does the Constable Goody Master fit in?
- Big Finish have made it abundantly clear that the "Tremas" Master, the "Bruce" Master, the Preacher Master(and others such as Richard and Don Maestro) are all just Geoffrey Beevers, using other bodies as "meat suits". Thus, everyone from The Deadly Assassin (TV story) through Ravenous 4 is the sane incarnation. Actually, this incarnation appears before The Deadly Assassin in, if I recall correctly, The Two Masters (audio story). How then does the Master regenerate in First Frontier (novel) into the "Basil Rathbone Master"? Even if that Master starts to decay, it wouldn't be into Beevers.
- The earliest Master, chronologically, is William Hughes in The Sound of Drums (TV story)/Last of the Time Lords (TV story). Is this the same incarnation as Goody? I don't think so for a nanosecond. For one, the Doctor is an elderly frail First Doctor, whereas the Master is in a younger body, showing he has regenerated. This fits in with Flashback (comic story), where Magnus is said to have regenerated while still on Gallifrey, not from death, but because he didn't want an "old body".
- Legacy of the Daleks (novel) clearly established that Roger Delgadoand Peter Pratt are the same incarnation of the Master. More recently, The Two Masters (audio story) appears to state that they're not. And Doorway to Hell (comic story) seems to take the new, revisionist, Big Finish position.
- Now, would Tremas and Bruce count as their own incarnations? They're clearly just stolen bodies, but Anthony Ainley and Eric Roberts each gave their own take on the character.
- Where, if at all, would the Magistrate/War King fit in?
- Thefartydoctor
I'm currently at a loss as to why the numbered Renegade known as the Nine, the Eleven, the Twelve (etc) is split up and yet has their own cover page too. Time Lords, in my honest opinion, should have one page no matter how many long it becomes. As you've no doubt said in this debate, the incarnations are debated too. What comes after the Trakenite Master? The Tzun Master? The Master from Dust Breeding? Or are they both the same body? Furthermore, I'm a fan who accepts the Twelfth Doctor comic that shows Delgado regenerating into the Master seen in The Deadly Assassin, but I prefer to accept the novel that states that Susan shot a weapon into Delgado's face turning him into the aforementioned Master. This would make Deglado, Pratt and Beevers the same Master. Yet the comic strip suggests something completely different.
As you've recommended above, quite wisely, we could avoid numbers and just place 'potential' Masters into a fancy table. Personally, I just think it's a waste of time and resources when there are much more important things for us to focus on right now. Just an opinion.
- Thefartydoctor
Evidently, the acception goes for the Doctor, as they are the central character in this Wiki and in the franchise.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no way should all time lords have a single page. that would be unreadable. and when there's enough evidence to separately identity each incarnation then they should definitely be split.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Lots of very wrong things to unpack in the post by the anonymous user, though I recognise that it was made in good faith and certainly didn't half-try. I'm going to give an ordered, structured reply to the various points raised.
The issue of timelines[[edit] | [edit source]]
The thing about this proposal to split the Master is that we do not try to unify the chronology. T:NPOV and T:NO FANFIC, taken together, prohibit us from speculation on how Legacy of the Daleks fits with Doorway to Hell, how the various early versions of the Master fit together, etc.
This is in fact one of the biggest reasons to have separate pages for the various versions of the Master. Our current unified The Master page has to jump through all kinds of weird hoops to do things like put later accounts of the Anthony Ainley Master after his regeneration into the Basil Rathbone incarnation in First Frontier. It's inviting speculation.
Thus, the good thing about splitting the Master page would be that we can just have a page about the Ainley Master, a page about the Delgad Master, a page about the Rathbone Master, and so on, without having to write a unified timeline of in which order they go, and how one turns into the other.
About "incarnations"[[edit] | [edit source]]
Similarly, there is no consensus on what is an "incarnation" of the Master. Etymologically, an "incarnation" is just a body in which the mind incarnates; by that logic, the Eric Roberts Master should count as an "incarnation", even if in this case, the Master's mind didn't gain control of this new body through conventional Time Lord regeneration. Big Finish themselves, for all that they push the idea that all the Wilderness Years Master eventually revert into Geoffrey Beevers, have used the term "incarnation" when speaking about the Roberts Master in promotional material, and created "multi-Master stories" where the Roberts Master is one of the incarnations present, in his own right.
Additionally, there are even a few sources which term Ainley a "regeneration", depicting what happened to him at the end of The Keeper of Traken as being a parasitical and abnormal regeneration, but a regeneration nonetheless. The Master, for example. The Velvet Dark, meanwhile, ends with the Master, who had lost his Ainley body after The Five Doctors as punishment by the Time Lords, stealing regeneration energy from his own past selves to regenerate himself back into that very form.
Once again, we can't agree on just when the Master is in a borrowed body and when it's a regeneration. Even without going into The Eight Doctors where he's just Ainley, we don't know, for example, whether the Gordon Tipple Master was a regeneration of the Basil Rathbone Master, or an unrelated attempt to extend his life — the Seventh Doctor's reminiscence that this version was born by "extending his life by adding alien biomass to himself" could be a reference to First Frontier, or it could not be. We. Don't. Know.
Therefore, the proposal is that every version of the Master gets a page, regardless of whether they were formed by regeneration or something else.
War Chiefs, Streams, ambiguities[[edit] | [edit source]]
You mention Stream (The Hollows of Time), the Man with the Rosette, Magnus, the War Chief, and "Constable Goody" (I assume you mean Constable Pavo). All of those characters are pages about individuals who were more or less strongly implied to be the Master, and whom we know from behind-the-scenes sources to have been intended to be the Master, but without any hard confirmation in valid sources.
They have separate pages because we do not, as far as in-universe pages are concerned, acknowledge that they are the Master. This will not change whether or not we go forwards with the splitting plan. There was talk on Thread:181963 that novelisations now being completely valid might warrant reopening the War Chief discussion in particular, but that would definitely be its own discussion.
That being said, the split would arguably help this Wiki conform with the full extent of T:NPOV in this matter; if there is one The Master page and all these potential-but-ambiguous incarnations remain separate, we're not preserving the ambiguities of the source, we're decisively telling the reader "this is not the Master as far as we're concerned". This would be greatly lessened, to the benefit of our coverage of these stories, if all Masters had individual pages. Provided we relitigate the War Chief case, it would also allow us to say "According to some accounts, the War Chief was an incarnation of the Master, while in other accounts, they were two distinct Time Lords who grew up together", which, if it is supported by the various sources, would be an exceedingly difficult situation to write about in the current setup.
As for the War King, we would not consider him the Master even if we did usually allow implication, because the stories in which he appears weren't licensed to use the Master. If a story licensed to use both "the War King" and "the Master" confirms them to be the same individual, we'll return to the subject; a solution akin to Great House/Time Lords could be worked out, I suppose. But not before. Again, it's not really relevant to this problem.
Alternate Masters[[edit] | [edit source]]
Finally, you mention the Magistrate, the Unbound Master, the Shalka Master and the Fatal Death Master as Masters who already have their own pages.
Now, the thing is, the Magistrate is only implied to be the Master, so that takes care of that one.
Furthermore, two of those currently have separate coverage because this Wiki doesn't recognise their stories to take place in the DWU. If Scream of the Shalka isn't set in the Doctor Who universe, then obviously, the biography of its "the Master" should not be covered on the page of his DWU counterpart save in BTS sections. The same reasoning holds for the Curse of Fatal Death Master, notwithstanding the ongoing inclusion debate for Curse of Fatal Death. You did not mention the Winning Designs Master but that's also why he gets a page.
In a similar yet distinct reasoning, that leaves Mark Gatiss's “Unbound” Master, who has a page of his own because he's a different individual from the prime timeline's Master, even if their biographies started out very similar. He's a counterpart of the Master, not a person whom the original Master is at one point his life. Big difference.
- Scrooge MacDuck
(I typed the above message before User:Thefartydoctor and User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 weighed in, for the record.
But really, my answer to @Thefartydoctor's point is contained in the "About incarnations" section of the post in question. Essentially, there's no rule saying pages about individual versions of Time Lords must be about separate regenerations in particular, so why not cover stolen bodies on their own pages?
And the fact that there are accounts and timeline-shenanigans is actually an argument in favor of a split, because it's easier to give individual offshoots their own pages than try to crowbar them into the linear ==Biography== section of The Master.)
- Thefartydoctor
Personally, I'd feel very unprofessional lumbering all of the stolen incarnations onto one page. They're different bodies with different personalities. That's like lumbering the Eight and the Nine just because they shared a story. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, in my honest opinion.
If the Master were a lot simpler... if someone from Doctor Who sat down and made a timeline of the Master (which will evidently never happen), then I'd be all for giving them separate articles. As of now, the Master's timeline is too debated to be given that treatment. As with the Tzun Master and the Dust Breeding Master, either of those could come first.
Dust Breeding states that the Trakenite Master got his human body ripped away by the Warp Core. The Tzun gifted the Trakenite Master with brand new regens. Furthermore, in the 1996 novelisation of the Film, it suggests that the Tipple Master is directly after the Trakenite Master. Yet, they could be argued as the same incarnation. It's not clear enough to warrant separate pages.
Just my opinion. The nature of an encyclopaedia is that we make articles on things that we're 100% certain of. When it comes to the Master's timeline, some of it is speculation. Dust Breeding is placed after the Tzun Master in the Theory Timeline only because of production bias and nothing more.
- Scrooge MacDuck
No one is arguing for lumping the various stolen bodies together. The exact opposite, in fact. I've been arguing that every single "stolen body" Master should have his own page, from Ainley's Master to the Preacher to "Don Maestro". The difficulty of constructing a non-speculative timeline is as pungent when trying to write the Biography section of the unified "The Master" page as it would be trying to write "The Master (body-surfing)" or whatever we'd call it. But it goes away if all the Masters have separate pages and we don't try especially hard to give a "correct chronological order" for all of them.
For the record, The Eight Doctors outright says that the Master played by Gordon Tipple in the film was in fact Anthony Ainley's Master immediately post-Survival. However, The Novel of the Film says otherwise, not to mention the TV Movie itself, where the brief glimpse of Tipple and his eyes don't really look like Ainley at all, and (by implication) First Frontier and all other stories about Ainley losing his Tremas body somehow. It is no harder to cover "maybe X Master got tried by the Daleks, or maybe Y Master did" than to cover "maybe the Eighth Doctor ended the Time War, maybe it was the War Doctor".
Incidentally, the many good reasons we split the pages about incarnations of the Eleven are to be found at Thread:199315.
- Thefartydoctor
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Essentially, there's no rule saying pages about individual versions of Time Lords must be about separate regenerations in particular, so why not cover stolen bodies on their own pages?
I evidently must have misread this then. No worries. How would you handle this potential separate yet no separate Master? Would you have Tzun Master, Master (Dust Breeding) and Tipple Master (ignore rubbish name) but then mention the possibility of them being the same Master? I can see what you're getting at and understand what you're trying to do. It's admirable and I understand these speculative timelines aren't a great idea. But that just moves speculation elsewhere, right?
How would tackle the whole "these Masters aren't necessarily the same guy... but they also could be the same guy"? haha
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, the same way we always handle these sorts of conflicts. There would be separate pages for the Tzun Master ("The Master (First Frontier)") and the Old Master ("Old Master"/"Old Master (Doctor Who"), per the end credits of the TV Movie, to separate from Roberts who'd get "The Master (Doctor Who)"), and without being explicit about this, we'd put, at the end of the biography of the First Frontier Master, something like:
When receiving a psychic call from a Master who was placed on trial by the Daleks, the Seventh Doctor reminisced that this "saturnine-looking" bearded man had recently extended his life using alien biomass, (PROSE: The Novel of the Film) much as this Master had done. (PROSE: First Frontier)
And leave it at that.
If we can have Template:WhichDoctor, we can have a sentence explaining that maybe it was the Ainley Master who got executed instead of the Tipple Master and/or Rathbone Master, y'know? This doesn't feel like an insurmountable problem, let alone one that requires speculation to solve.
- Thefartydoctor
My brain is currently fried from the Monk short story debate atm so I'm going to leave this debate alone for fear I make a mistake or misunderstand an opinion. I'm sure this'll get solved in the best way possible. We're great when we put our heads together.
- BananaClownMan
We could use The Master templates and the subsections on appearence as a basis for separate articles;
- Template:Ainley = The Master (Tremas)
- Template:Delgado = The Master (UNIT enemy)
- Template:Dhawan = The Master (Spy)
- Template:Dreyfus = The Master (Renegade)
- Template:Frontier = The Master (Tzun)
- Template:Gomez = The Master (Missy) / Missy (The Master)
- Template:Jacobi = The Master (Time War)
- Template:Macqueen = The Master (Bald)
- Template:Pratt = The Master (Decayed)
- Template:Simm = The Master (Harold Saxon)
Template:Tipple, Template:Roberts and Template:Fallen are currently all in the same subsection, so they could theoretically be covered on "The Master (Body-jumping)", or Tipple could have a short page called "The Master (Trial)" to separate him from the Deathworm Morphant.
Then, should the pages be separated, all that would be needed was for someone with the power to to go and redirect the templates to the pages.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd support this as a first step, provided it doesn't preclude a separate thread or talk-page discussion about splitting the "body-jumping" incarnations further.
I really can't abide those names, though. Why break T:DAB like that? Why not have The Master (Terror of the Autons), The Master (The Keeper of Traken), etc.? Those names look weird and amateurish to me, when they really don't need to.
If anyone's worried about legibility to new users, I doubt someone who doesn't know Ainley's Master debuted in The Keeper of Traken would, on the other hand, know that the Ainley Master came to be when he stole the body of Tremas. I mean c'mon.
- BananaClownMan
We could use the Conjecture tab at the top of the page to explain why these names are being used. Otherwise we might end up with "The Master (Utopia)" for the War Master and the Saxon Master or "The Master (Doctor Who)" for the Bruce Master and the Old Master.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Those two objections are already taken care of. Thanks to Big Finish, Jacobi can be at War Master, and the end credits of the TV movie give us Old Master for Tipple to distinguish him from Roberts.
- Thefartydoctor
And is the War Child the same incarnation as the War Master? I have read the comic but genuinely can't remember whether the War Child regenerated into the War Master or whether it's a grown up War Master?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The "War Child" regenerates into the War Master on-panel.
- Borisashton
I think using the existing Master templates as points to split-off is an excellent idea. As I see it, this thread is for approving the general idea of the Master page being split and using the templates gives us a method of doing so already written into wiki policy at Tardis:The Master.
Having said that, this thread shouldn't be the end of the discussion. Further splits may still be necessary, but they will be far easier to handle once the page has already been split and restructured to some extent.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That may well be for the best.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i do think it is wise to use Template:Master stories to determine which separate pages we create. the undetermined incarnations, and mention of parallel / non-DWU incarnations can be mentioned on the main Master page.
- Thefartydoctor
Having actually taken my first look at Template:Master stories, I actually really like this. I'm all for this.
- Borisashton
I'd prefer to use Tardis:The Master for the most part because that is an official wiki policy which can only be altered by admins. The template can be edited by anybody who disagrees with it.
- Thefartydoctor
Couldn't we just lock the Template page like we did temporarily with the Lockdown! article?
- Scrooge MacDuck
(…Or it could be, usually, but it's worth noting that with Thread:181963 going on, T:BOUND prevents major overhauls to that template.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Update: somebody created the thread about the War Chief that I said we might want to create.
- As the original discussions showed, and as this discussion shows, there is no easy way to name individual Master pages. Indeed, that's one of the reasons the pages were merged in the first place. There's so much disagreement among writers and fans about which Master is which, which ones are the same, what should their individual names be. I'm not going to reiterate the original arguments, but if you're interested, please focus on User:CzechOut's comments at Forum:The Master and Forum:The Master - 1 article and the general policy at Tardis:The Master.
- Obviously splitting these pages would mean a great deal of work. It's not a major factor in the decision, but it certainly doesn't help.
- And finally, one of the main reasons this split was proposed was because The Master page is extremely long and unwieldy. There is a policy-mandated solution to this, as stated at Thread:264489: clean up the page and trim each story section to just a couple of sentences per story. Currently The Master is the longest page on the wiki (as seen at Special:Longpages); a major cleanup will bring it further down the list.
As always, Tardis:You are bound by current policy, Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point and Thread:264489 apply. And since subtlety hasn't worked up to now, let me state outright: do not bombard my talk page with complaints about this decision.
Thanks to everyone who put in the work and participated in this thread.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:270965
Steven Moffat revealed on twitter he based the Veil on a dream his son told him about.
"My son, Joshua, told me about a dream he had: there was tiny slug-like creature somewhere in the world. It was very far away and very slow, but it was inching closer to him all the time, and when it finally arrived he knew it would kill him. The origin of Veil. #hellofabird"
I'm a bit confused since that sounds exactly like a premise told on the Rooster Teeth Podcast, which came out more than a year earlier. The Podcast came out on Aug 26, 2014, the idea was made into an animated short that came out on October 1st, 2014.
The Doctor Who episode aired on November 28th, 2015 (no idea when it was written though)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:271132
I'd like to create a set of categories for individuals under the LGBTQ+ spectrum. I am aware that previously, this was not part of the policy, but I am proposing instead of one massive category, we do a division. I've provided examples below. Plus given that we do categories on religion and the such, I think this wouldn't be out of place.
Category:Gay Male individuals
Category:Lesbian individuals
Category:Bisexual individuals
Category:Trans individuals
Category:Omnisexual individuals
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I disagree with this. Would Liz Shaw be categorised as a bisexual because of her relationship with Patsy Haggard in one PROBE film? Who's to say she identifies as bisexual and hasn't realised she's a lesbian? Similarly, would Ianto be categorised as bisexual even though he says "it's not men, it's just him [Jack]"?
I don't think it's workable.
- Shambala108
@ User:Jack "BtR" Saxon, yes, that's part of the reason why those categories were deleted years ago. When I get a chance, I'll post here links to the previous forum posts on this issue to help everyone in their arguments pro and con.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I agree, it's not clear in a lot of cases, but keep in mind, we have other media to rely on other than the TV series. If Liz Shaw had male partners in a book or an audio, that would show her to be bisexual, unless a statement said otherwise.
And Ianto does identify as bisexual in The Twilight Streets, keep in mind.
- 86.187.225.50
Uh.. guys? I know this has nothing to do with this thread specifically, but it concerns the entire wiki as far as I'm concerned and I don't know where else to put this. I keep trying to get to Garfield wiki and for some reason it's redirecting here. On my end, at least. I don't even watch Doctor Who!
- Shambala108
try clicking on this:
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Back to the main topic, there will definitely be times where we disagree, in which we could probably deal with on a one on one basis. But, I don't see how most who fall under the category are ambiguous: Characters like Jack and Bill are very obviously queer, and most of the side characters are too.
- OncomingStorm12th
Specially because sexuality has sometimes been written very differently in the DWU when compared to the real world (and even in the real world, it's quite hard to apply a nice little label to others), it not simple or right to say that, for example, River Song is bisexual, because she can be pansexual, or yet another term that's purely in-universe. But we know for sure that she's not heterosexual, so [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]] would clearly apply to her, even if [[Category:Bisexual individuals]] or [[Category:Pansexual individuals]] don't.
I'm of the opinion that, unless we get a direct quote of character X identifying character Y as (or, better yet, when we can, narration or character Y outright saying they're) "gay", "bisexual", "lesbian" or any other labels, that they're simply put under a category like [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]] (which would then house all the other, more specific categories).
A similar treatment could and should, of course, apply to gender identities (with the base category being something like [[Category:Non-cisgender individuals]], which would then "house" [[Category:Transgender individuals]], [[Category:Non-binary individuals]], and others that could apply) - disclaimer: I'm not the most qualified person to decide on this terminology, and categorisation, being cisgender, so if there is a better alternative, please do let me (us) know.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Specially because sexuality has sometimes been written very differently in the DWU when compared to the real world (and even in the real world, it's quite hard to apply a nice little label to others), it not simple or right to say that, for example, River Song is bisexual, because she can be pansexual, or yet another term that's purely in-universe. But we know for sure that she's not heterosexual, so [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]] would clearly apply to her, even if [[Category:Bisexual individuals]] or [[Category:Pansexual individuals]] don't.
I'm of the opinion that, unless we get a direct quote of character X identifying character Y as (or, better yet, when we can, narration or character Y outright saying they're) "gay", "bisexual", "lesbian" or any other labels, that they're simply put under a category like [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]] (which would then house all the other, more specific categories).
A similar treatment could and should, of course, apply to gender identities (with the base category being something like [[Category:Non-cisgender individuals]], which would then "house" [[Category:Transgender individuals]], [[Category:Non-binary individuals]], and others that could apply) - disclaimer: I'm not the most qualified person to decide on this terminology, and categorisation, being cisgender, so if there is a better alternative, please do let me (us) know.
I'd be fine with that as well, I'd just like to see the categories be put in some form. Your version is also more streamlined and probably better than mine. Although I disagree with the "they must state their identity to be placed in a more specific category part". For example, Angstrom never states her identity, but we can clearly see she is a lesbian due to her actions and things she states.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But, I am also hetero and cis, so if anyone in the community has a better plan, I echo OncomingStorm12th's call.
- SOTO
Actually, Thread:248287 overruled that past decision not to have LGBTQ+ categories. It really just remains to find the best approach for characters.
This approach cannot work, though. We don't always have the luxury of knowing the specifics of a character's sexuality, or indeed how they identify. We cannot presume that a character is gay rather than bisexual, or bisexual rather than pansexual, based on a single instance of attraction. (And even with orientation established, plenty of queer women do not use the word lesbian to describe themselves, even setting aside the implications of applying such terms to historical figures. I wouldn't use the term in the body of Bill Potts' article unless she uses it herself, so it makes little sense to follow different standards for categories. It's an identity term, and does not simply describe an orientation.)
To my mind, either we find a source for LGBTQ+ as an acronym, decide that various constraints mean we have little choice but to apply it to in-universe characters anyway, or we go down an easier route: category:Non-heterosexual individuals. (This obviously does not speak for gender.) Anyone with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual (ie. who's attracted to people of their own gender, to more than one gender, or who states that they're asexual, etc.) goes in this category.
This frees us from making presumptions about characters. No need to work out which existing label, if any, Ianto Jones' sexuality fits into: he is not attracted only to members of a gender other than his own. That makes him something other than heterosexual, and more often than not, "something other than straight" is all we're given.
EDIT: Ah, OncomingStorm12th brought up the very same point at #8 while I was typing up my bit. My apologies.
- SOTO
As for gender, I really don't know. We do have three properly confirmed trans characters (even if one of them is the worst possible representation), so a category is possible. But I'd recommend "trans humans" over trans individuals, just to make sure we don't start applying it to non-human characters who come from species (or cultures) that don't have gender, or don't have binary gender, or that don't assign gender... or whose genders are prone to changing along with much of their identities on a regular basis, as with Time Lords.
I do privately collect a list of characters that are anything other than cis and/or other than strictly binary, but I can't see a way of making that work as a policy-approved category. Some things are better covered in an article, and Gender is an article that can go into these in-story nuances (and in the BTS, even well-sourced OOU considerations) without these problems.
- SOTO
Ah, OncomingStorm12th brought up the very same point at #8 while I was typing up my bit. My apologies.
- SOTO
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: For example, Angstrom never states her identity, but we can clearly see she is a lesbian due to her actions and things she states.
Not really, though. Having a wife does not preclude her having any number of identities and orientations. I agree with you on the way she's coded, but that doesn't amount to the same thing.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
SOTO wrote:
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: For example, Angstrom never states her identity, but we can clearly see she is a lesbian due to her actions and things she states.
Not really, though. Having a wife does not preclude her having any number of identities and orientations. I agree with you on the way she's coded, but that doesn't amount to the same thing.
I see. In that case, I throw my support behind you and OncomingStorm12, for the Category:Non-heterosexual. individuals and Category-Non-cisgender humans
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Thank you in particular, Soto. I hope I wasn't overstepping my place.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
If there's no objections to the idea of the category, would it be okay to create it?
- Shambala108
No, nothing has been finalized here and no admin has closed the thread.
- Shambala108
Well, I have spent quite a bit of time searching for the previous forum decisions on this topic, but I can't find them in either Board:The Matrix Archives or Forum:Panopticon archives, which is too bad because they had some valid concerns with how to approach this type of category.
If there is anyone else out there who remembers these threads, can you remember the titles? Maybe I've overlooked them somehow thanks.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I'm still very much against it. Take Clara, for example. She says that Jane Austen was a great kisser but I think it's very contentious to categorise her as non-heterosexual. Craig Owen and David Warner's character from Cold War (his name escapes me) both seem open to kissing the Doctor but, again, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't heterosexual.
Sexuality just isn't clear enough for us to properly and effectively categorise characters by it and invites speculation.
- Danochy
As SOTO said, the categories would only be applied if a character in question is explicitly identified with a sexuality/gender identity, as anything else would indeed be speculation. (Also what if other characters explicitly identify another character with a sexuality/gender identity? That's something else be sure about if this goes ahead)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: I'm still very much against it. Take Clara, for example. She says that Jane Austen was a great kisser but I think it's very contentious to categorise her as non-heterosexual. Craig Owen and David Warner's character from Cold War (his name escapes me) both seem open to kissing the Doctor but, again, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't heterosexual.
Sexuality just isn't clear enough for us to properly and effectively categorise characters by it and invites speculation.
Keep in mind, right now we're discussing SOTO's plan, not my original. In this case, we only need the specific categories if we are 100% sure, and can use Category:Non-Heterosexual individuals for those who can't easily be classified.
Also, you're forgetting Face the Raven, where Clara states about Austin, "I love her. Take that how you'd like." Now yes, that's not explicit, but combined with her kissing Austin, it's probably enough to classify her in that category.
- 92.40.174.222
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote:
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: I'm still very much against it. Take Clara, for example. She says that Jane Austen was a great kisser but I think it's very contentious to categorise her as non-heterosexual. Craig Owen and David Warner's character from Cold War (his name escapes me) both seem open to kissing the Doctor but, again, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't heterosexual.
Sexuality just isn't clear enough for us to properly and effectively categorise characters by it and invites speculation.
Keep in mind, right now we're discussing SOTO's plan, not my original. In this case, we only need the specific categories if we are 100% sure, and can use Category:Non-Heterosexual individuals for those who can't easily be classified.
Also, you're forgetting Face the Raven, where Clara states about Austin, "I love her. Take that how you'd like." Now yes, that's not explicit, but combined with her kissing Austin, it's probably enough to classify her in that category.
Actually there was a Big Finish story that retconned this, saying she was disguised as a boy at the time and only kissed her to keep up appearances, even taking great pains to make clear that there was no romance or sexual tension whatsoever in their relationship. I really, really hate that they did that, but alas we are T:BOUND.
- 92.40.174.222
Personally I don’t count the story as canon, but, as I say, T:BOUND, so I doesn’t matter what I think because this wiki counts it as canon. Sorry, I mean valid. But there’s another thing. I think it’s kinda silly how we have a ‘validity policy’ instead of a ‘canon policy’ but it effectively is just a Rose by any other name kinda dealie, but I still play along because I know I don’t have to like it to be T:BOUND. So yeah Clara’s het. It sucks, just like all post-2012 BF, but it’s still canon. Or, valid, whatever.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
92.40.174.222 wrote: Personally I don’t count the story as canon, but, as I say, T:BOUND, so I doesn’t matter what I think because this wiki counts it as canon. Sorry, I mean valid. But there’s another thing. I think it’s kinda silly how we have a ‘validity policy’ instead of a ‘canon policy’ but it effectively is just a Rose by any other name kinda dealie, but I still play along because I know I don’t have to like it to be T:BOUND. So yeah Clara’s het. It sucks, just like all post-2012 BF, but it’s still canon. Or, valid, whatever.
Keep in mind, it's according to one account. It doesn't fit in with what she says in other stories, so we can just put that as an "According to [insert story here]".
Also, I still don't see how that wouldn't allow for the categories to be created.
- 92.40.175.122
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote:
92.40.174.222 wrote: Personally I don’t count the story as canon, but, as I say, T:BOUND, so I doesn’t matter what I think because this wiki counts it as canon. Sorry, I mean valid. But there’s another thing. I think it’s kinda silly how we have a ‘validity policy’ instead of a ‘canon policy’ but it effectively is just a Rose by any other name kinda dealie, but I still play along because I know I don’t have to like it to be T:BOUND. So yeah Clara’s het. It sucks, just like all post-2012 BF, but it’s still canon. Or, valid, whatever.
Keep in mind, it's according to one account. It doesn't fit in with what she says in other stories, so we can just put that as an "According to [insert story here]".
Also, I still don't see how that wouldn't allow for the categories to be created.
But the accounts don’t technically disagree. It’s just that it’s assumed to have been now revealed that her line about the kiss was somewhat out of context. They disagree on intention of course (Big Finish is noticeably the most Conservative producer of Who fiction), but not in actual in-universe evidence.
- Scrooge MacDuck
What Big Finish fortunately did not retcon is Clara strongly considering going on a date with Kate Stewart in the Day of the Doctor novelisation before it turns out the Kate she's been flirting with is actually the Zygon duplicate. Also, Big Finish may have retconned the circumstances of the kiss, but the "I love her, take that how you like" line isn't changed one way or another.
I think there's room for a Category:Non-heterosexual individuals and I think we have sufficient evidence to place Clara within it, whatever the reason for one specific time she kissed a woman. I agree with the concerns about the feasibility of more precise categories, though — I feel as though the need for them is reduced greatly by the real-world-focused Queer representation in Doctor Who, where we are allowed to report the behind-the-scenes statement and authorial intents in a way that makes the job a lot easier.
- 92.40.175.123
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: What Big Finish fortunately did not retcon is Clara strongly considering going on a date with Kate Stewart in the Day of the Doctor novelisation before it turns out the Kate she's been flirting with is actually the Zygon duplicate.
Also, Big Finish may have retconned the circumstances of the kiss, but the "I love her, take that how you like" line isn't changed one way or another.
That’s fair enough then, and would surely qualify her for the category.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: What Big Finish fortunately did not retcon is Clara strongly considering going on a date with Kate Stewart in the Day of the Doctor novelisation before it turns out the Kate she's been flirting with is actually the Zygon duplicate.
Also, Big Finish may have retconned the circumstances of the kiss, but the "I love her, take that how you like" line isn't changed one way or another.
Yes, exactly. Thank you Scrooge MacDuck. And even if it didn't exist, it shouldn't hamper the creation of the Categories.
- Shambala108
Thread:223085, people.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Understood.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But back to the main point, is there anything else that we haven't covered?
- Shambala108
There's still a lot to consider. I personally have a bunch of things to add but don't have time right now.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Shambala108, I took it upon myself to read through Thread:248287 again, and found that this post contains a redlink to a now-deleted thread in the Old Forums, entitled Forum:LGBT categories in-universe and real world - Prop delete. It was deleted in 2019 by User:CzechOut with the rationale that it's "clearly superseded by Thread:248287". While true, I must say this seems an odd reason to delete an old, already-archived thread; but either way, could this be one of the "previous forum decisions on this topic" which you said earlier you weren't able to find at Forum:Panopticon archives?
- Shambala108
Thanks for that. Yes, it is weird that an old thread was deleted, especially by User:CzechOut who, frankly, does not contribute to the wiki anymore.
It's too bad, because it had quite a few guidelines that we would find useful for this topic. At any rate, I'll try to remember the important things to keep in mind and post them here.
- Shambala108
Ok, I've done one better and restored the post. Please make sure to read through Forum:LGBT categories in-universe and real world - Prop delete to see why we originally considered that this type of category violated policy and how we could potentially deal with any of these issues.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, so a few thoughts on the thread. First things first, the proposal I put forward in the first comment is not the proposal we're currently discussing. SOTO and OncomingStorm12 have suggested Category:Non-Heterosexual individuals and Category:Non-cisgender individuals, which should eliminate the need for confusion.
Secondly, while the acronym may be new, people of varied sexuality and gender identity have been around for ages. If it's the acronym that's giving you worry, if this is from an "end of the universe" perspective than the above should also take care of that.
Finally, the topic is notable because it's something that informs people's identities, which to my understanding, is what categories are for, such as Category:French Aristocrats. I mean, at the end of the universe, the term French Aristocrats wouldn't really matter, wouldn't it? Yet we still have it.
- OncomingStorm12th
All due respect to User:Tangerineduel and User:CzechOut, but there's a few points I quite disagree, and I'll think it's fair to say that other will do the same. Namely:
- "Beyond the 20th and before the 20th it's never really made an issue of, DW universe wise."
- Well, The Eaters of Light was of course not out back when the discussion happened, but there we have a scene of Bill Potts discussing sexuality with a 2nd century Roman soldier, who is by any means anything but heterosexual. Even if he did not use the language for "bisexual" or "pansexual", he is still very much not "heteresexual".
- Even if we were to assume that it is only "made an issue of" during the 20th and 21st centuries - then what? I'm pretty sure that are several topics that were only "made an issue of" during certain periods of time and we still cover and have categories for. In fact, by their own post, it was at one point "made an issue of", which should be more than enough for us to cover it.
- "If the concept of LGBT existed in the DW universe we'd have a page for it, and we don't, cause it's really not something that's given a lot of thought as a defined concept."
- Well, this has since been proven false, largely. We now have pages (or coverage on other pages) for gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, queer, queer representation in Doctor Who, and even publications on the matter: Queers Dig Time Lords.
- "No letter in "LGBT" actually describes Jack Harkness or Jason Kane."
- Which, even if true, they'd still fall under the proposed [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]]
- "They're just very sexually active."
- That's... not even remotely what being LGBT is about, so it really should have no weight on whether categories are created or deleted
- "The other thing that worries me a lot about the LGBT category is its potential misapplication. If we put it on the page of someone who isn't actually LGBT, that's libellous."
- Which only means we must, as we do for every piece of information on this wiki, require sources for statements on articles.
- "Beyond the 20th and before the 20th it's never really made an issue of, DW universe wise."
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@UserOncomingStorm12th Agreed.
- Toqgers
Category:Non-heterosexual individuals works well enough. I would support that. A bit clunky, but decent catch-alls are hard to come by in this regard, even outside of the DWU.
Sub-categories for more specific identities could definitely be helpful for readers of the wiki, because there are explicitly gay, bisexual, etc characters, but it's tricky to say where we draw the line, since even characters of the same sexuality can be expressed in a lot of different ways. Take Peter Summerfield ("gay", PROSE: Big Bang Generation), Alan Turing ("homosexual", PROSE: The Turing Test), Bill Potts (interested only in women, TV: The Pilot, described as gay by Pearl Mackie, Steven Moffat, etc), Vitus (interested only in men, TV: The Eaters of Light), Jenny Winterleaf ("butch dyke", PROSE: Verdigris), just for a few examples.
As far as characters who are trans or otherwise not cis, a focus on humans like SOTO suggests is wise. At least to start. Conflating certain alien or inorganic characters that don't fit into a particular binary gender with trans people has potential to be speculative and even offensive. And Time Lord gender is a whole other can of worms (though I can't pretend I don't identify quite a bit with the Doctor in this regard :P)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Toqgers Also agreed.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
So in summary, our proposition is to add Category:Non-heterosexual individuals and Category:Trans humans or Category:Non-cisgender humans, as suggested by OncomingStorm12th and SOTO. OncomingStorm also responded to points made from the previous deletion and why they are not currently valid.
Does anyone have anything to add?
- Shambala108
This thread isn't even a week old, so there's no rush to finish it. Better to get it right, even if it takes a while, than hurry through only to have to cleanup/delete things later.
There are category rules that apply here. I'm not going to post them here, so I strongly recommend everyone read them.
- Tardis:Category naming conventions
- Tardis:What categories are not - especially the last point on the page
- Tardis:Don't over-categorise
- Tardis:Category page descriptions
Any suggestions that fail these rules will not be implemented.
In addition, we do not allow speculation on this wiki. When it comes to these (or really any) categories, we can't just assume or speculate that someone belongs in the category. It must be stated in some way in the story.
Keep all these points in mind during this discussion.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Shambala108 Sorry, I wasn't trying to rush it, just summarizing so the newcomers don't get confused.
Okay, so regarding your last comment, that is the reason why we're proposing to do Category:Non-heterosexual individuals and Category:Non-cisgender humans or Category:Trans humans. That way, instead of my original, more difficult to prove concept, we can pretty easily prove by wiki policies that someone is or isn't a candidate for the categories.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, as part of our mission to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia, I believe the creation of these categories will allow us to remain relevant and up to date.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Just some more evidence to keep the debate alive: Multiple other wikis have similar categories, although in a different format that I am proposing.
https://rent.fandom.com/wiki/Category:LGBTQ%2B_Characters (admittedly, I added this one, but unlike the RentMusical wiki, which I also edit, this one has an admin that is active and could've deleted them) https://riordan.fandom.com/wiki/Category:LGBT_Characters https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Category:LGBT_YouTubers
Now yes, I know that TARDIS is its own category of wiki and what we do doesn't always match up with other wikis, but the Riordan and Youtube wiki are decently popular. It's no secret that we've been taking a beating from the Doctor Who fandom recently. Perhaps adding these categories could bring more views to the site.
- Toqgers
It's good to see most here seem on the same page in that at least on the matter that some type of categorisation in this regard is both helpful to readers and supported by DWU sources. It's a start :P
The how is an entirely different matter.
Thoughts on sub-categories for sexuality? Should we have them, and if so with what scope? Is it sufficient for a male character to explicitly stated he's only interested in men, knowing that is the definition of gay as stated in the DWU (Seeing I being one source for that), or must they be described with that specific word?
What of going the way of Category:Jargon, slang and colloquialisms and putting multiple roughly synonymous descriptors under one category (like gay and homosexual)?
What of Time Lord sexuality? Should someone like Trave, who has a husband during one of their male incarnations, be included?
I'd like to suggest, regardless of the specific route ultimately taken, that these category pages include a description that outlines the parameters under which a page can be included. Maybe something that also refers readers to the page Queer representation in Doctor Who for more information on the topic, particularly stuff that was discussed by those involved in production but not explicitly stated in a story. I'm thinking something along the lines of the description to Category:The Doctor's romances, that gives examples of what pages don't quite fit the bill for the category.
- Najawin
I'm against subcategories. For two main reasons. One is that it's difficult to pin down people within a subcategory using only valid sources. If we see that Bill Potts is into women on screen, this could classify her as either bisexual or a lesbian. We really need out of universe information to decide. (Even the in universe comment she made isn't definitive, as I know of one prominent League of Legends personality who identifies as bi but would often say he's gay just to save time because he's into men 90% of the time. Sexuality is complicated, so to attempt to force things into stricter categories outside of "non-heterosexual" and "non-cisgender" I think is misguided.)
The second is that it leads to "category bloat" and other issues with categorization. Consider Captain Jack. He's "omnisexual", yes? By definition that would make him pansexual and bisexual as well. And I agree that Ianto as "non-heterosexual" works fine. But Ianto as a more specific categorization? Far less clear. If we add in more specific categories, it will encourage people who don't understand this nuance to go in and add Ianto to a more specific categorization anyhow. Or make other changes where the lines are blurry, erasing that complexity that exists. "Heterosexual" vs "non-heterosexual" is probably workable. In fact, I think it's important as far as representation goes (though I long for the day when it's not). Anything more than that is forcing black and white out of grey.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yeah, if we're going to do these categories, just doing Non-Heterosexual individuals and Non-Cisgender individuals would probably be a lot simpler and more streamlined than my original proposal.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
One question: What exactly is the current argument against the category creation? The end of the universe argument doesn't really make sense, as proven by @OncomingStorm12th. Also, we have Category:French Aristocrats, which surely has even less relevance at the end of the universe than the categories we are proposing, but yet still stands.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
as a member of the LGBT community I cannot believe how backward this is. why do gay people need tagged like animals just because of their sexuality?
- Najawin
Tagging to promote and highlight diversity, to show people in historically marginalized groups that there are people like them in the show and it's inclusive = tagging like animals ???
Next you'll be telling me that Queer representation in Doctor Who is a page that shouldn't exist.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no i wont, i agree with that page's existence. but not this, there is no reason that i can think of where LGBT folk should be treated differently than their straight counterparts when it comes to sexuality. a lot of LGBT people dont even agree with labels - so stamping one on them is pretty insensitive!
- Najawin
Well let's be clear on what the current proposal is here. The current proposal is two categories, "non heterosexual" and "non cisgender". While LGBT+ people do at times reject labels (hence the usage of "queer" as a catchall), these categories are defined in terms of what they're not, namely, not the dominate paradigm for sexuality and gender. So even as someone rejects labels, the mere act of rejecting a label would force them into these categories. So your objection here just misunderstands the current proposal.
As for treating them differently than their straight counterparts, I'll note that's just the world we live in. Obviously we all long for a world in which that's no longer the case. But we don't live in that world yet. We live in a world where prejudice still exists, and it's important to prop up diversity where it exists.
Moffat's comments on color blind casting are illustrative here. He attempted to have open casting calls regardless of race earlier in his tenure and just got super white casts. So finally he got fed up with it and actually wrote a black companion and had people specifically only look for black actresses to fill the role. If we ignore the systemic issues that still exist, it just perpetuates them. We have to work to rectify them before we get to the place where we can treat everyone the same.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we will never move forward when LGBT need tagging that theyre nonconforming. that is my final stance on the matter, a hard no.
- Najawin
Well I'm certainly glad that you feel confident that you can rebut an argument, along with pointing out that you misunderstood the current proposal, with an assertion.
Moving on, @Never I think the idea would be that "aristocrats" would be understood as a category from the "end of the universe" perspective - from a philosophical point of view if nothing else, though perhaps "French" might not be. But that gets to a very weird issue about handling nationalities in categories generally. LGBT+ would not, as it would just be so bizarre, as they've evolved past that. I don't think this works. But that's probably the idea.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i would like you to stop accusing me of "misunderstanding" the proposals. the "non heterosexual" and "non cisgender" came up much later and were not part of the original proposal, they are not set in stone but just another proposal. and i also do not agree with them - and i felt that you went wildly off-topic in your last comment talking about a large range of things that had nothing to do with tagging these pages.
- Shambala108
Warning to User:Najawin and User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 to stop the verbal sparring. Keep to the point and stop arguing about personalities.
- Najawin
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: Yeah, if we're going to do these categories, just doing Non-Heterosexual individuals and Non-Cisgender individuals would probably be a lot simpler and more streamlined than my original proposal.
So the original proposal was rejected by its author in favor of the one I mentioned as "the current proposal", the one you didn't address and hence were "misunderstanding", in my comment, that I attempted to clarify.
I very clearly did not go off topic in my comment, given that I said "[a]s for treating them differently than their straight counterparts", something you brought up, and then in the next section said "Moffat's comments on color blind casting are illustrative here", using this section as evidence for the broader point I was making. So this is on topic.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
saying something is "probably" simpler is not rejecting the original proposal.
- Najawin
I merely cited the most recent comment. Thread:271132#42 makes it explicit. If you read the thread it's quite clear that we've largely moved to the proposal I pointed out.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
and anyway, the biggest issue with "non heterosexual" and "non cisgender" is the Doctor
originally female, and then having multiple male incarnations as well as female, all male incarnations would need to be labelled "non cisgender" as they do not correspond with their birth gender. this completely ruins the argument of this move being done to promote diversity as the category will be full of at least thirteen characters who were all portrayed a cis males.
then we have "non heterosexual". would that include the Thirteenth Doctor - who has never been shown to have any relations with the same sex, just because of their previous incarnation's dalliances with women?
- Najawin
This has already been addressed in this thread. Indeed, in the specific comment I linked you to. These categories would only be applicable to humans or post humans. Time Lords would not fall under this category anymore than Zygons would anymore than The Beast would.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: These categories would only be applicable to humans or post humans.
you seem to be under the impression that the previous propositions are set in stone rather than to be discussed and adapted...?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
also, i just read the entire thread again (although i have yet to read the previous discussions) and can see no mention of the Doctor being discussed?
- Najawin
Well, you presented your prior comment as if it was an objection to the categories that were currently proposed, as opposed to some categories that might be proposed in the future. I apologize if I misread that.
As for the latter, you're more than welcome to propose these categories be expanded to other species. But I suspect that the arguments you presented regarding the Doctor and the arguments other people have made in the thread regarding alien gender and sexuality would make such a thing unlikely, meaning we're probably going to stick to keeping the categories only being applicable to humans and post humans in the proposal.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote:
SOTO wrote:
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: For example, Angstrom never states her identity, but we can clearly see she is a lesbian due to her actions and things she states.
Not really, though. Having a wife does not preclude her having any number of identities and orientations. I agree with you on the way she's coded, but that doesn't amount to the same thing.
I see. In that case, I throw my support behind you and OncomingStorm12, for the Category:Non-heterosexual. individuals and Category-Non-cisgender humans
Just for posterity, here's where I abandoned my original plan, and started these current categories, as suggested by SOTO.
@Najawin, the problem with the argument that the antis were using originally is that it's not just limited to a certain century. Cweji and Jack exist, after all.
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, if you'd like, we can add Category:Heterosexual individuals or Category:Cis individuals (although that would probably encompass like 95% of the characters)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
one major LGBT character River Song isnt even human so wouldnt be eligible for the "non hetrosexual" list.
- Najawin
@Never I agree, I think there's a weird tension in how this wiki asks us to write articles, I was just trying to explain it as best I understood it.
- Najawin
River's post human. She's how a human would evolve if it went down the evolutionary line that Gallifreyans took to turn into Time Lords.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin I know, I was just explaining how the rules would work and stuff with this Category.
Also, in my opinion, the Doctor wouldn't be a part of the Non-cis category, because of their alien biology, BUT they could be part of the Non-het, because it's been established that the Doctor has had a robotic boyfriend (The Time of the Doctor), kissed Jack (The Parting of Ways), etc. And just because one Doctor didn't, they're the same person, so the actions of one are inherently the actions of all of them. If I remember correctly, Najawin was mentioning the aliens because of the fact that certain species can change genders are part of their biology and would be harmful to be put in the same category with trans people. BUT, actions outside their biology (such as sexuality) would still count, therefore River Song and the Doctor can be included in the Non-het category.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
River is not considered to be human, post or not, by this Wikia. see: her infobox.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@DiSoRiEnTeD1 See my previous post.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
do robot genders work the same as human? most likely not and therefore the Eleventh Doctor having a "robot boyfriend" wouldnt place him in the non-hetrosexual category. likewise, Jack kissed Nine not the other way around - and straight males can kiss their friends without it being gay.
- Najawin
Okay. Species: Proto-Time Lord. Hmm. Categories. Human-descended species. It's also a species that literally includes River and her clones and nobody else. So if we go back to River's page, let's look at some of her categories, and what do we see? Human archaeologists, Human assassins, Human students, etc etc etc. Also some Time Lord categories, but that shouldn't upset us, because Ace has some of those too. Suffice it to say the wiki considers it muddy.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
some accounts list the Doctor as part human too. so, very similar situation to River.
- Borisashton
Some sources list the Doctor as completely human as well.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
and therefore my point still stands, any "non cisgender" category will be full of thirteen characters who were always portrayed to be cis male (fourteen as i guess the meta-crisis would be included too - and thats not even before we delve into the more obscure ones). so much for diversity representation.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@DiSoRiEnTeD1 Again, see my point. I've already agreed that aliens cannot qualify for the non-cis category, because for some species, it is part of their biology and would be offensive to include with geniune trans people.
- Najawin
Not really a similar situation. It's "River is a unique entity within the world of Doctor Who how do we classify her" vs "there are literally conflicting accounts of the Doctor's origins and Unnatural History (novel) tells us all of them are simultaneously true."
Obviously the only way to solve this is to ask one of our Faction Paradox writers if River is alive in The City of the Saved. :> (Though that then opens up Grandfather Halfling I guess.)
But we can just cordon off the problems here to saying "well the versions of the Doctor said to be human/half human have this category applied to them, etc etc". And I see no reason to think that we'd apply a non cisgender tag to any iteration of the Doctor. Since regeneration into a new body is not at all similar to transitioning, and it does a disservice to both the show and to trans individuals to compare them.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
cis gender has nothing to do with transitioning.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yes, exactly. Thank you Najawin.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: I've already agreed that aliens cannot qualify for the non-cis category, because for some species
and as i have said, many sources list the Doctor as half-human (and Borisashton says some list him as fully human). are you to cherry pick which sources you want to believe?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 You, Najawin, and I are in agreement: The Doctor should not and should never be part of the Non-Cis category. I do not dispute that.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
excuse me i am not in agreement with that.
for one, i do not agree with the category at all. all i am saying is that if the category existed we would be unable to exclude the Doctor - and therefore the "diversity representation" wouldnt exist within the category as it would be full of characters always portrayed as cis males.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Why wouldn't we be able to exclude the Doctor? Right now, we are trying to make new policy. Part of that policy can be the rightful exclusion of an alien from a category dedicated to trans people.
What I think that everyone is trying to say with all the half human and such is that we don't exclude the Doctor from the NON-HETEROSEXUAL category, since quite a few incarnations are not completely straight. We don't need to put all the incarnations, just the main Doctor page and the ones that do (even though they're all the same person, I do agree we shouldn't put all of them, for fear of crowding the category.)
- Najawin
Well, yes, being noncis isn't inherent tied to transitioning. But generally if we'd apply the tag of non cis gender to the Doctor, we'd do so because we view regeneration into a new gender to be equivalent to transitioning. Which we don't. Instead 10 is cis while he's male and 13 is cis while she's female. Or cis-ish. Time Lord gender seems complicated from what we've seen. We really don't have the right conceptual machinery to talk about it, except to say it's definitely not the sort of thing we're talking about here. Things She Thought While Falling (short story) makes things deeply confusing to talk about, just from a few lines.
And @Never, I actually think we should remove aliens from the non Het category as well. Since if they change sex it obviously becomes impossible to pin down what "heterosexual" means. Post humans might be able to stay in it, though the Manfolk worry me.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you have just been told that some sources list the Doctor as half-human and some list him as FULLY human. this means that he cannot be excluded without us deeming one source more valid than another.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd quibble with the notion that the Doctors played by male actors were "always portrayed as cis", though certainly that was the usual assumption.
There have been the occasional hints that the Doctor (or Time Lords in general) didn't really have a gender as humans understand it, just a physical form that looked more male than female by human standards in terms of sex. The Fifth Doctor being able to open the box in Kinda comes to mind, though that has other explanations. And of course, though this is post-cross-gender-regeneration, the Thirteenth Doctor describes herself at one point in The Good Doctor as not really being a woman or a man.
Still, I broadly agree that there is no cause to put any page about the Doctor yet recorded in a "Non-cis individuals" category due to the fact that gender, however specific Doctors identify in any given incarnation, is different for Time Lords than it is for humans. You do have a couple of valid stories saying that the First and Second Doctors were human beings, but, of course, none of these 1960's children's comics (bless their corny hearts) have any support whatsoever for the notion of the Doctor being something else than a man.
I'll go further and cover a hypothetical not yet brought up: let's say that someday, as a big new story arc, the Doctor (or another Time Lord) is shown regenerating into a body which appears to be male, only to realise this isn't who they want to be inside and go through a "human-like" transition, described in the language of trans humans. Well, I think even in such a high-profile case, we'd be well-served with plentiful coverage on the Transgender page without needing the category, so there.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
being cisgender is identifying with the gender and personal identity that corresponds with their birth sex. therefore, the Thirteenth Doctor IS cisgender as she was born female (The Timeless Child) but none of the male Doctors are.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin I'm not quite on board with excluding aliens completely. I will agree that if the aliens biology is inherently non-het, than they don't go in the category. But when it's not part of their biology and is a unique identity, such as Angstrom, then they should go in.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: being cisgender is identifying with the gender and personal identity that corresponds with their birth sex. therefore, the Thirteenth Doctor IS cisgender as she was born female (The Timeless Child) but none of the male Doctors are.
We do agree with you on this. None of us want Time Lords in the trans category.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you cant cherry pick or the thing doesnt work.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Never once again, the Doctor was human is some sources.
and if Time Lords are excluded so is one of the major LGBT characters - River Song.
- Najawin
@DiSoRiEnTeD1 this is just incorrect. We can say that during that particular source's events he was fully human or half human, during the events of 12's era he was a Time Lord, and currently she's the Timeless Child. This is what Unnatural History (novel) teaches us. Every single Doctor Who story is true. They're just true at different times because their timeline is so messed up by time travel.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Can you please elaborate on what I am "cherry picking"? I don't want any Time Lords or any like species to overtake the trans category, because that would be massively disrespectful. That includes the Doctor, the Master, the General, all of them. No Time Lords.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, River Song is excluded from the Trans category, by our current line of thinking, not the Non-Hetero category, because being bisexual is not something that all of her species can be, unlike the Time Lords, who can all regenerate.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Never you would still want to include major LGBT character River Song though?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yes, but not in the Trans Category, because that would be disrespectful. Just in the Non-Hetero category, because she is bisexual.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Never
being bisexual is something that all of our species CAN be if we truly wanted...? *last question was posed before i saw this*
- Scrooge MacDuck
@NeverForget: I feel as though we could very well get away with having different standards for sexual/romantic orientations, and for gender identities.
@DiSoRiEnTD1: For very good reasons, the Timeless Child isn't conclusive evidence at all. But also, while arguably the Doctor might have been born female, if we're talking about the Thirteenth Doctor as a distinct entity with her own page, wasn't she "born" (out of the Twelfth Doctor's ashes) in a female body? …Also, another issue with your reasoning is that even if we buy that the Timeless Child wasn't just a lie cooked up by the Spy Master, andeven if we disregard the other conflicting origins which are equally valid… we don't know the Child found by Tecteun underneath the gateway had been born this way. Her regeneration after falling off the cliff is "the first regeneration of any person on the planet of Gallifrey", but it's not necessarily the Child's first regeneration in general.
…Also, I just noticed something very interesting to boot: the first Child might be played by a female child actor, but are we even sure what pronoun they used? Looking at the Master's dialogue again over the scenes of the “first Timeless Child”, it seems like Chibnall very pointedly avoids any gendered pronouns. Maybe the first Timeless Child went by they/them, or he/him, or something else entirely — why should our standards for "these clothes and features denote a girl" apply to this utterly alien being who is speculated have been thrown through from another universe?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: Yes, but not in the Trans Category, because that would be disrespectful. Just in the Non-Hetero category, because she is bisexual.
ive never suggested River be in the "trans" category - can we please stop calling it that, "non cisgender" does not equal trans. she has always been the same gender - her birth one.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@DiSoRiEnTeD What I was saying was that being bisexual is not something inherent in whatever River's species is, unlike the Time Lords, whose regeneration is inherent. Not everyone is bi, so it's not a characteristic of the entire species, which would have them rightfully excluded from the category but an identity that SOME of them have. That allows for River to be included.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
What would exclude River from being placed in the Non-Heterosexual category, in your opinion?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think we need to take this one category at a time as people are getting confused.
- Najawin
Just so we can stop the River discourse, should we ask Nate about whether he thinks River would be "human enough" that she would qualify on all of our proposals discussed so far?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Najawin wrote: Just so we can stop the River discourse, should we ask Nate about whether he thinks River would be "human enough" that she would qualify on all of our proposals discussed so far?
Forgive my ignorance, but who's Nate?
- Scrooge MacDuck
(If it's of interest to anyone, here's a more complete collection of evidence for seemingly-male incarnations of the Doctor, even in the Classic Series, to not consider themselves what you'd call cis in a modern human context.
Note that this is sort of a jumble of pre-Corsair evidence for cross-gender regeneration and the "Sixth Doctor doesn't think the term 'man' really applies to him" shenanigans of interest to us in this case. Sort for yourselves.
Particularly literal, this quote from The Scarlet Empress:
)The Doctor isn't your average man, at all. I don't think he even has a gender.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, so more on track. Does anyone have any objections to the Categories themselves being created? If so, why?
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Never: Nate, I presume, is Nate Bumber, who holds the distinction of being both a Faction Paradox writer (and therefore authoritative about the City of the Saved) and an active user of this very Wiki whom it would be easy to contact. But the idea doesn't really hold water, if only because random offhand quotes do not a valid source make, even if Nate were somehow to temporarily acquire the license to state anything in particular about River.
@dIsOrIeNted: the whole reason we're calling the category "Non-cisgender individuals" is that it's not the same thing as being trans. Being trans is a specific identity with specific baggage in the 21st century, and if a story set in the future introduces, say, a human character who uses ze/hir pronouns, it's hard to be sure just from that evidence that this person would recognise hirself in the label "trans", whereas it's fairly clear ze wouldn't consider hirself "cis".
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i was told by Najawin that i had misread this thread, although i didnt think i had, and that both of these categories "non hetrosexual" and "non cisgender" were intended to be for human-only. but now im being told that this isnt the case and it is only the cisgender category that would be restricted to human-only?
what is the reasoning behind this? how can we assume that trans people would be more offended to have non-humans listed in their category than other LGBT people?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i oppose the categories in their entirety. we already have an article on queer representation and so i dont see why we would also need every LGBT character to be tagged with their sexuality.
- Najawin
@Scrooge The discussion is not "what sorts of properties does River have", but "what exactly does human and post human mean". I'm not looking for a valid source for the wiki that we can then use to cite in articles, but instead someone telling us "yeah, the thing you're worried about for defining a category you don't need to be worried about". So it's more "guy who knows a lot about faction paradox" than "writer for faction paradox", though the latter implies the former.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Ohhhhh, that Nate. Ah, I see.
So, for people (and admins) that are just joining us, here's what we have so far
The Categories[[edit] | [edit source]]
Right now, we are currently debating two categories that are different from my originals: Category:Non-heterosexual individuals and Category:Non cisgender individuals. They will include people that fit under those two categories.
Time Lords and the Doctor[[edit] | [edit source]]
As far as I'm aware, none of us want the Time Lords or any incarnation of the Doctor to be placed into the Non-cis category, due to the fact that regeneration is part of their biology, they are played by cis actors, and the such. (Although, as an allegory for non-cis individuals, Scrooge has found us an excellent document)
However, we are currently debating if individual Time Lords, aliens, and Doctors should be allowed in the Non-het category, since their sexuality is not something that everyone in their species has.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
what does River have to do with Faction Paradox? i didnt realise she was a part of that series at all.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: i was told by Najawin that i had misread this thread, although i didnt think i had, and that both of these categories "non hetrosexual" and "non cisgender" were intended to be for human-only. but now im being told that this isnt the case and it is only the cisgender category that would be restricted to human-only?
what is the reasoning behind this? how can we assume that trans people would be more offended to have non-humans listed in their category than other LGBT people?
It's not just as simple as "No Aliens". If there is an alien that is not cis, and their non-cisness is NOT part of their biology, they would be included. Similarly, if there was an alien race that had the same sexuality for the entire race and it was part of their biology, they would be excluded.
- Najawin
She's not. But "post human" is defined there. So if we want to use it to delineate a category as being more general than just humans, we sort of should know precisely what it means.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
River isnt post human, shes human + Time Lord (later Proto-Time Lord in the Big Finish series).
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
We can worry about River later. Although I still don't see why her being proto-Time Lord excludes her from the Non-Heterosexual category.
- Najawin
Well that would be what we'd be trying to find out. But I'll note that Of the City of the Saved... (novel) explicitly has half human half Time Lord count as post human and The Smallest Spark (short story) has someone who's 0.0037% human count. So I would highly doubt that River wouldn't count. But since there was so much discourse I figured I'd bring up the option of consulting an expert.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
possibly going off-topic, but has Jack Harkness ever been confirmed to be human? i cant actually remember any reference, but i am likely to be proven wrong.
- Najawin
He's definitely of human descent, see: The Doctor Dances (TV story). Whether or not he's human or post human I'm not sure.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Do we have any new voices that can add to the debate?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
More evidence: Consider today's edits by the IP user. People do want these categories back, and the more people that come on, the more that will attempt to create it. If we put these back, we can do it in the orderly manner it requires, which will satisfy our community and keep the admins from having to clean up.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I don't agree with having a category for articles based on sexuality. If we do create one, there would be the question of why not categorising articles based on skin colour or ethnicity?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
one IP user going against the rules and creating LGBT categories is not new evidence
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
On the surface, perhaps not. But think: This was a new user, and the first thing they did was create the categories. That clearly shows a level of want for them in the community.
- Najawin
We have categories for religion, which, in practice for this wiki, does serve as a subset of ethnic categories. Or at least Venn diagram esque.
- Borisashton
I don't claim to speak with any authority on this topic which is why I have avoided it thus far. However, I was reminded of the reasons for deletion outlined on Category talk:Posthumous releases, specifically "we would require citation of death for every person whose 'posthumous release' falls in this category". We now have List of posthumous releases which allows us to source the death dates for members of the category as suggested.
They are very different situations but I wonder if list/overview pages for individuals who identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum might be a good compromise. It would have the functionality of a category in that it would give a list of all the relevant characters but it would also allow for specific sourcing of stories (that might be missed if one added just the category) and allow for expansive further discussion of the topic in sections such as "Behind the scenes".
As I said, I speak with no authority on the matter but I just had a sudden burst of inspiration of a potential way in which both sides of the debate can be appeased.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Religion and ethnicity are almost completely unrelated.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Borisashton wrote: I don't claim to speak with any authority on this topic which is why I have avoided it thus far. However, I was reminded of the reasons for deletion outlined on Category talk:Posthumous releases, specifically "we would require citation of death for every person whose 'posthumous release' falls in this category". We now have List of posthumous releases which allows us to source the death dates for members of the category as suggested.
They are very different situations but I wonder if list/overview pages for individuals who identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum might be a good compromise. It would have the functionality of a category in that it would give a list of all the relevant characters but it would also allow for specific sourcing of stories (that might be missed if one added just the category) and allow for expansive further discussion of the topic in sections such as "Behind the scenes".
As I said, I speak with no authority on the matter but I just had a sudden burst of inspiration of a potential way in which both sides of the debate can be appeased.
Interesting. That might work, but in a slightly different way. I tried once to create a list on the Queer representation in Doctor Who page itself, but it was rejected. Would that be what you're thinking of?
- Najawin
Interestingly, you'll find that I said "for this wiki". The minority religions, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, and Hindu are all entirely populated with characters who have ethnicities you'd expect given the stereotypes surrounding these religions. Judaism is an ethnicity unto itself, as are the historical religions of the Aztecs and the Mayans. You have some cults and some off world religions, and then Christians, which are predominately white.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
To clarify, my preference would be to have both, but the suggestion is a pretty good one.
- Thefartydoctor
Actually his point makes perfect sense. I've also tried to avoid this thread for similar reasons. If we take a random character, call him Terry. Terry in one episode refers to himself as bisexual, and thus gains the bisexual category. Another episode refers to him as pansexual. A novel written by a series writer refers to him as omnisexual. A novel set in the far future of his timestream makes him gay. How do we categorise this character? All of the above? And let's say we give this character the 'LGBTQ+ character' category... what about characters that have never stated their sexual identity?
As someone who is in the LGBTQ+ myself, I just don't think all these categories are necessary. A list of those characters who self-identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ would suffice. I am of the opinion that referencing any sexual and gender identities on this wiki is so important for representation, and also because we are an encyclopaedia, meaning we should including everything that presents itself to us.
Also, I hate to be a downer, but IPs can be manipulated. The unknown editor who was an IP address could have been anyone. That's just my opinion on that small matter.
- Thefartydoctor
You may call me silly for using Terry as the example, but the exact same thing happened to Anji in the novels. There was no consensus as to what ethnicity she was. She ended up being multiple on this Wiki.
I wouldn't know where to start if we tried to categorise Anji Kapoor's wiki page regarding her ethnicity.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Thefartydoctor Keep in mind, we aren't doing my original anymore. We're currently discussing Category:Non-Heterosexual characters and Category:Non-Cisgender characters, as put forth by SOTO.
- Borisashton
@Never Was any reason given for the list being removed?
Anyway, it would be very similar to that page in that it would be properly paragraphed and sourced to provide a (hopefully) more tasteful approach to a nuanced situation than the black-and-white of categorisation/non-categorisation that I think some people have taken offence to.
- Najawin
I mean, we just ignore the characters that have never indicated sexual preference. Also, I'm not sure self identification matters. Clara, for instance, never explicitly self identified as Bi. In the show itself it was ambiguous though strongly hinted at. In the books it was pretty much confirmed but she, again, never explicitly said she was Bi. Indication of sexual preference should be the standard, not self identification, and multiple categories has already agreed to be unworkable for similar reasons to what you outlined.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Borisashton wrote: @Never Was any reason given for the list being removed?
Anyway, it would be very similar to that page in that it would be properly paragraphed and sourced to provide a (hopefully) more tasteful approach to a nuanced situation than the black-and-white of categorisation/non-categorisation that I think some people have taken offence to.
It referenced the No-List policy, which is fair, given that as far as I'm aware, another user made a whole page as a list before I started editing.
- Thefartydoctor
What about people out there who may have had experiences with the same gender but maintain their identity as straight. I have friends like that. Does their identity get ignored and their sexual activity given preference? Your identity is yours and yours alone haha. I'm bringing this up because we need to treat this very carefully to avoid causing offense.
- Thefartydoctor
Also, I'm sure Clara kissed a robot Jane Austen in the audios. It was revealed not to be the real Jane Austen... where do we sit on that? xD
- Shambala108
Actually the religion categories are overdue for a cleanup, per Thread:133428, so no need to bring those categories up for comparison.
- Najawin
I think we all said Ianto would qualify? But maybe we should revisit that discussion.
Also, I have nothing nice to say about Big Finish's straighwashing, but she also was super Bi in The Day of the Doctor (novelisation) and Clara and the TARDIS (home video).
- Thefartydoctor
"It's not men, just Jack."
Does Ianto identify as bisexual? That's how Ianto explains his sexuality to his sister. It's not that simple. To me, Ianto is explaining a straight guy who has a sexual crush/relationship with a guy. I have friends like that.
- Thefartydoctor
Najawin wrote: Also, I have nothing nice to say about Big Finish's straighwashing, but she also was super Bi in The Day of the Doctor (novelisation) and Clara and the TARDIS (home video).
Not only does Big Finish have a license, it gets monitored by the BBC and the Doctor Who team. There's plenty of opportunities to put a stop to that script and any intentions it may or may not have had.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Thefartydoctor I agree, it's not at all cut and dry. It's a hard and sensitive topic to discuss and not at all easy. It doesn't have to be categories; I'd be willing to have Borisashton's suggestion. Just as long as we have a comprehensive 'list' of characters.
Also, in response to both you and Najawin's queries, look towards the beginning of the thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
gay people can later realise that theyre completely straight, so would this character be in the non-hetrosexual category still?
too many ifs and buts for this to be viable.
- Najawin
Big Finish was during the Moffat era consistently the most conservative portion of the DWU, both aesthetically and politically. And I doubt Moffat was reading all of their scripts. Anyhow, she's clearly Bi in other media, so I don't see the issue.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm just going to conclude my point and leave this thread because it's hitting a nerve haha. I always tell people to step back and take a breather, so that's what I'll do. But here's my take:
The biggest takeaway from this is that self-identity is key. It's not what we think of Ianto or Clara, it's what they think of themselves. We said the exact same thing in the companions debate. I don't label myself at all, but if you were to ask my friends, they would label me all sorts of different things. I'd probably fall into at least three categories. Would I end up on your 'list' or whatever? I don't know. Because I don't identify as any of those things. I don't identify as pansexual, bisexual, omnisexual... but I probably share the traits of those categories.
Take what you like from this comment but I take offense from people determining my sexuality for me. I don't want to read an article claiming "so-and-so's a member of the LGBTQ+" when in actuality, they don't indentify or relate to that movement. That's all I'll say. I hope you all find a conclusion that you're all happy with. :)
- Shambala108
@User:Najawin (and everyone else), please leave Big Finish's political stances out of this discussion. It's off-topic and a good way to start an argument on an already long thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Borisashton's list idea works better for me. i still see the category idea as tagging a label onto all "nonconforming" people (some who may be against labels entirely). but a list would work better to explain characters individually and not just lump them all together.
- Najawin
Well that's why we're not using the LGBTQ+ term. The point I was making earlier, as opposed to any specific point about Ianto, was what was said here.
SOTO wrote: This frees us from making presumptions about characters. No need to work out which existing label, if any, Ianto Jones' sexuality fits into: he is not attracted only to members of a gender other than his own. That makes him something other than heterosexual, and more often than not, "something other than straight" is all we're given.
We don't need to say anyone is anything other than heterosexual. Bicurious falls into this category.
And fair enough Shambala. My point is more that I don't think it was an intention of Moffat's to say something with that audio script that I doubt he even saw. Given that he went back and was very explicit in The Day of the Doctor (novelisation) about her sexuality.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
still lumping anything other than straight into a single category is wrong.
- Borisashton
I think I will also leave the thread here as I don't really feel qualified to contribute more than I have. The final thing I will say on the matter is that an article over a category would be able to provide full coverage of conflicting and ambiguous sources including exact quotes in regard to individuals identifying themselves as well as real world quotes from the cast/crew.
Do with my proposal what you will.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, so I want to clear up some things. I'm not trying to force anyone into any category, that's why I threw my original into the bin. Again, I'm willing to accept Borishaston's proposal. I just want something to highlight the characters.
And DiSoRiEnTeD1, on your comment on, "lumping anything other than straight into a single category is wrong", I'd have to disagree. You previously mentioned that people can realize that they are hetero later in life. Who's to say that a person couldn't realise they were gay or trans later in life?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
a person can obviously realise they could turn gay / trans later in life, that happens a lot. but i dont understand your point?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: still lumping anything other than straight into a single category is wrong.
This is what I'm referring to. Like, as has been said, sexuality is fluid. If we can't do categories for queer characters, since they might change, shouldn't it be the same for the straights? I just don't see why by your reasoning, one can be grouped, but the other can't.
Also, I'm not either, but I kinda don't like the word "turn". Realise, yes, but turn implies it's a choice, which it is not.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"If we can't do categories for queer characters, since they might change, shouldn't it be the same for the straights?"
but we dont have categories for straights?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yes, but you said earlier that they were the only group that could be categorized. I'm just wondering why you said that.
- Najawin
Er, I don't think DiSoRiEnTeD1 was saying that straight people could be categorized, but rather that non straight people couldn't, or rather, shouldn't.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
yea, what @Najawin said... i never said what you claim.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: still lumping anything other than straight into a single category is wrong.
This is what I'm referring to. Granted, I could've misread it, but what were you intending to say in this? Not trying to be pushy, just curious.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, if you type "TARDIS wiki" into twitter, you'll see that a lot of people were not happy when the wiki originally deleted these categories.
- Najawin
To be fair, there's some user on twitter who's irrationally angry that Dimensions in Time (TV story) isn't considered valid. Obviously the two aren't comparable, but twitter is hardly a great place to look for feedback.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Hey, no need to knock someone for their opinion. Besides, that's actually the point. Twitter is raw. People post their feelings there, and the fact that the original category deletion was controversial shows that people do want these categories.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Never you are proposing any character other than straight be lumped into one category, and I think that’s wrong. Hence “ lumping anything other than straight into a single category is wrong“.
- Najawin
Let's be clear here, for any given predicate, we can always define a predicate that's the negation of said predicate. So if there's a category of "heterosexual people", by definition there's a category of "things that are not heterosexual people". Intersect that with the set of all people and you have "non heterosexual people". Just by definition. This should not be in dispute that we can actually do this, so long as we agree that "heterosexual people" actually makes sense as a well defined concept. (Which some people do not)
The questions it then raises are "is this analytically useful" and "is this socially/politically/(whatever you want to call this) useful".
It seems nontrivial that from a purely analytical point of view that a heterosexual/non heterosexual distinction is analytically useful. That is to say, ignoring our social conditions, are these categories relevant? It's not immediately clear. That's not to say that analytically these categories hinder us, they aren't actively harmful, they're just not helpful.
So let's consider the second issue. Is it socially useful to make a distinction between heterosexual and non heterosexual people? Yes, it seems so. I think we're largely in agreement on that fact, that for representation it's useful. Some people might disagree, I'm taking it as given for my next point.
So the next issue is, among the category of non heterosexual people, is it either analytically or socially useful to further slice up this category? And this is where the tension lies. Because there are both arguments for and against it being socially useful to further slice up this category from the social angle - for instance, people not identifying as any part of the LGBTQ+ movement but being non heterosexual, vs DiSoRiEnTeD1 insisting over and over that it's wrong to lump everyone together.
And while there are social arguments for and against, the analytic arguments are basically universally against. As opposed to before, where the heterosexual vs non heterosexual distinction just maybe wasn't interesting to talk about from an analytical perspective, now we have actual problems, where it's basically impossible to define clear categories, as opposed to being able to and just not seeing the point. We get mired in ambiguity and contradiction, which is the exact opposite of analytic utility.
Now, any point here can be more or less important to you depending on personal preference. But I think this is an accurate summary of the issues we're facing. Assuming both that we agree that defining "heterosexual" as a coherent category can be actually done and that we agree, as a worst possible option. that the category for representation isn't an inherently bad idea, just that perhaps implementation might make it unviable.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Coming back after a break, does anyone have any new ideas to add to the table?
- Danochy
I don't have anything to say on the philosophising going on above. I will, however, comment on the claim that categories should be based on in-universe definitions. I'm not sure on the policy, but we have categories like Category:Canids and Category:Equus which are clearly not based on in-universe terms, and (also, the pages in those categories are grouped based on real world phylogeny, but that's a topic for another thread). So whether we actually need a term given in-universe is not necessarily a given.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, addressing some of the concerns expressed in the thread, there's definitely the need to take in to account the fact that people don't always conform to labels. That's what the categories Cateogry:Non-heterosexual individuals and Category:Non-cisgender individuals would be for. A broad spectrum that still allows us to promote representation.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also the category Category:Non-cisgender individuals
- Schreibenheimer
I support the idea of the two categories as OncomingStorm proposed. I do see some benefits of an article that could provide more context to complicated cases but fear it would end up needing to be too detailed to be functional.
In terms of the non-het category, since works of fiction rarely take the time to have every character identify their own orientation, I do not believe that Farty's position of requiring self-identification is realistic. I think it would better serve our desired purpose of showing representation to include any character who clearly shows non-hetero attraction unless they are clearly shown later to be rejecting that attraction as having been something like "a phase".
In regard to Disoriented's distaste for this idea, I think it's important to remember that we are discussing fictional characters and not real people. We certainly do not live in a world where a list could exist of everyone's orientations without it leading to persecution, but, as these characters are fictional, they cannot be harmed by this list existing, and the list can be used to show the representation displayed throughout many parts of the Whoniverse.
My only other thought is that it's probably for the best if we don't include any characters in either category that can naturally change their sex, as the entire concept of the sexes is then altered. It just becomes too debatable, in my opinion.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Schreibenheimer Exactly.
(Also, the category is actually supposed to be non-cisgender humans, I just misremembered it. My bad)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:271657
I’ve woken up from my naps now and our front page currently says this
>If you're going to watch the 2018 series of Doctor Who, you need to be prepared to make some new friends. Because this year, the adventure of travel in time and space is all about the value of friendship. Here's who's on board for the journey:
..and ‘2018’ series still links to series 11 and we still have pictures of the fam who left at the end of Timeless.
Bit outdated, no?
- Shambala108
Usually User:CzechOut takes care of the front page, but he rarely comes here anymore. He's the one with the technical ability to put fancy things on the page.
That being said, what are everyone's ideas? Let's go ahead and start updating the front page.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'm no admin and I have no idea how the hell the front page was coded, but I'd say put in Series 12's tagline "Space: For all" somewhere. Keep the fam, they're still technically the current companions in the public's eye, although that probably will not always be the case.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
And maybe put in the Series 12 trailer, in place of Series 11.
I did once find on the internet a promo poster that had Team TARDIS, Sacha's Master, Jack, and the Fugitive Doctor on it, but I can't find it any more. Maybe use that too?
- Shambala108
Oh and by the way, let's try to keep thread titles short and to the point. No one can tell what a thread is about if the title is just trying to be clever.
- NightmareofEden
Shambala108 wrote: Oh and by the way, let's try to keep thread titles short and to the point. No one can tell what a thread is about if the title is just trying to be clever.
(Cyber voice) Clever... clever.... clever...
- CzechOut
I actually come here every day, but the original poster is right to point out that the main page is due for a refresh. Unfortunately, the short lead time between the announcement of series 12 and its actual transmission left me with little time to actually perform a S12 update.
We're obviously in for a longer wait time than usual for S13, so I'm happy to entertain thoughts on what might be an appropriate refresh. I'm guessing there will be an interim refresh just to prep for the holiday special, but we really have no clear idea how long it will be until S13, given that production is likely to be impacted by COVID-19.
Please do add your thoughts here for this long interregnum. :)
- 72.194.244.165
Given how Chibnall has stressed the move towards a more American-style writers room (though not quite as extreme), having 'YOUR NEW CREW' be a redirect link, and instead putting writers below it instead of people like the makeup designer might be a choice. Ultimately it might come down to personal preference, but I've always noticed that the Who community has placed more emphasis on writers than other parts of the production staff, so would most likely be more interested in them.
Similarly, given the defunct nature of SJA and K9, perhaps they should be removed from the front page? Torchwood at least still has audio plays still coming out it seems. Those spaces could be used by links for audio dramas and novels instead, and you could repurpose the Torchwood space to be "television spin-offs" more broadly, consisting of those three and Class.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Here's the image I was talking about earlier, a while back.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Honestly, maybe a bold suggestion, but I'd like to ditch the Series-specific homepage altogether and create something that doesn't have a sell-by date, and serves as a more general exploration of Doctor Who across the years and medias. A gallery/list similar to the "Your new friends" one with the 13 Doctors (I'm undecided whether we should make that 15 to include Ruth and War, or even 16 to fit in Cushing), that sort of thing.
There could of course still be a part of the page that's about the current series, but we're not supposed to play favourites, and while the focus on a specific dozen of stories is understandable, it doesn't really do justice to the wealth of what we cover on the Wiki. The homepage of a Wiki one of whose fundamental policies is "TV isn't more important than the rest" should serve to introduce, and even celebrate, that notion to new readers, instead of acting like a news-page about the current popular TV season.
- Shambala108
The funny thing about that is that the front page used to be much more oriented towards the tv series, and the current front page is an attempt to be more of what you're suggesting. I'll try to find the thread where those concerns came up and post it later.
- Najawin
Never, that image isn't loading on my end, I'm not sure if that's an issue for just me or others in this thread.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
It's also seems to be my end too. It shows up for me, but it won't load when I click on it? Did one of the admins delete it?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin It was a picture of Jodie, Jo, the fam, Jack, and Sacha's Master, basically promo posters shown after Series 12.
- Najawin
Perhaps finding a link to it hosted elsewhere would be better?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Give me a bit and I'll try to find it.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, so the closest I found was a guy posting this: https://twitter.com/CFJohnston17/status/1234606579737145345. It's not fanart though; I've seen another one post the same thing and here's Sacha instagramming his: https://www.instagram.com/p/B9PToy8H7Iw/
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
https://www.blogtorwho.com/doctor-who-series-12-iconic-images-for-the-series-launch/
And here are the fam's.
- Shambala108
After searching through over a thousand forum threads, I found this one Thread:119168. It was a lot older than I remembered, but we did simplify the front page from what it had been previously.
And FYI, every image uploaded to this wiki must have a license. Any image without a license gets deleted. Everyone should be familiar with our image policies; the main ones are located at Tardis:Image use policy and Tardis:Guide to images.
- Shambala108
And three more threads from the old forums:
- Scrooge MacDuck
Very interesting — but although the first thread you linked flirts with the idea, it is principally about making the homepage be less about current releases in general, rather than less about the TV series. The T:NPOV concerns I voiced are closely related, but distinct from, the matter of not forcing ourselves to showcase recent releases in particular.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd personally go with maybe the first half with current stuff, and the second half more non current. I'd also really like it if we could promote spinoffs and such that aren't usually well known. Iris, P.R.O.B.E, Faction Paradox, and the like.
- Najawin
I feel like if done strictly under those guidelines it probably violates T:NPOV. If you look at the suggestion above about promoting audios and books though (as opposed to Torchwood and SJA), I think within the "book" category FP and Iris will likely be prominent enough to get more attention than they do currently.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Oh, no, those were just suggestions for stuff that the average person probably hasn't heard about.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, does Czech still come here or has he retired from the wiki? It'd be nice to get his input if he's the main guy who codes it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:CzechOut is still very much a part of the Wiki, though he is not as active as he once was. This is definitely one of the things I think he'll be wanting to weigh on.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Just to add: If we're updating the main page, could we also update the top bar? I feel that if we put some of our policies under the "explore" tab, we could have less for the admins to clean up.
- Najawin
If we're talking about the top bar, I think some of the selections in the "characters" tab are utterly confusing. Or "real people" having Gareth Roberts under the writers drop down but neither Moffat nor Davies.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yes, that crossed my mind as well. Also, given what Roberts has said since, it's not the best PR for the wiki.
- Najawin
I guess we could argue that they're under the "producer" tab, but then Chibnall should be moved there as well.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If we're also going to talk about the top navigation tool, the same non-T:NPOV-compliance is in evidence. It borders on the absurd that the "Writers" widget cites only screenwriter,s as opposed to, well, writers — writers of prose. If, as seems wise, we ditch Roberts, surely we can squeeze in Kate Orman, or Paul Cornell, or Paul Magrs, or something. And with respects to the whole comic-book branch, surely we can also add an "Artists" tab to the drop-down menu, work in the likes of Ron Turner?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Cornell seems like a good choice, especially, since he's written for quite a few mediums. The ones off the top of my head I can recall are Prose, Novelisation, TV, and Comic, if I'm remembering correctly.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, could someone contact Czech? His last edit was back in May and hasn't seemed to respond to any talk page messages after that.
- Najawin
So Scrooge mentioned the Unified Content Platform in Thread:262789, which I googled. It took me to community central, and the latest edits in the sidebar were all his. So he's definitely around, I assume just busy because the real world stuff.
Edit: I note that the reason Never wanted to contact Czech was resolved a while back and I wasn't aware, but it's still relevant to this thread, so I'm leaving the comment.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Just poking back to suggest another change: On the "TV" tab, The Sarah Jane Adventures sub-tab is the only one that doesn't contain a "Main episode list". For consistency, I think we should add it.
One thing to understand about the main page is that it doesn't actually live in the main namespace — simply: it's not an article — and it is thus exempt from T:NPOV, in the same way that there is no equal media balance of images in the File namespace or templates in the Template namespace. There is also a point at which you can actually overburden the main page with links, and thus give Google crawlers too many links to look at. So choices do have to be made to put the main page somewhere between "we've gotta be TV-only" and "we can't forget short stories from Decalog 5: Wonders".
The main page is also a place that one of our sponsors, BBCA, take an interest in. And the current design is something we ran by them, which logically supports that aspect of Doctor Who in which they have more than a passing interest — the televised Jodie Whittaker era.
Finally, there is a technical consideration which is important to understand. The underlying code of the namespace means that the left column will naturally be more prominent than the right column. So although the current design actually does have modules featuring audio, comics and a (highlighted) statement that the DWU exists in multiple media, one's eyes will naturally be drawn to the much wider left column. In other words, there is inherent "visual unfairness" in the Fandom structure which can't be avoided.
All that said, your suggestions have been great, and I'll try to spin up as many of them as is practicable.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:272040
Hello, everyone. I know this is a minor topic and I don't know if it's been addressed before, but I'm a fan of the Space Security Service, so it matters to me. (And we're in lockdown, so...)
So far, we have these three pages:
- Agent Seven
- Mark Seven
- [[Mark Seven (The Destroyers)]]
"Agent Seven" and "Mark Seven (The Destroyers)" are supposed to be android agents of the Space Security Service, an anti-Dalek force. "Mark Seven" is an android agent of the Anti-Dalek Force.
All created by Terry Nation or related to it.
In my humble opinion, all these three characters should be covered in one single page, reporting different and even conflicting accounts, following our main policies. (Does Romana III ring a bell?)
Since we are talking about an android, there are no reasons it couldn't have been upgraded/modified or be present in different time periods (if any).
P.S. Like always, I'm not an English native speaker, so excuse me if I'm not clear enough.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree with you on the specific Mark Seven thing, I think. But don't go citing Romana III as a precedent one way or another, because the thread is still open — nor does what consensus there is appear to be in favour of covering both Romana IIIs on the same page, as it happens.
- HarveyWallbanger
Ok, bad reference and bad example, the Romana case if far more complicated. Let's stay on Mark Seven.
Thanks for your support.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:272817
This discussion began in Thread:272784, but it began to divert attention away from the main topic of the thread, so has been moved here.
Due to the airing of The Zygon Isolation (webcast), we find ourselves in a rather interesting position. This webcast shows us a variety of icons on the right hand side of the screen throughout, and later pulls up a web browser. In doing so, it seemingly introduces three "meta" elements into the webcast, Big Finish, DWM, and Tardis|Fandom. Now, the webcast is currently valid, and most people currently seem to be happy with that, apparent fourth wall breaking is not inherently a bad thing. But it does raise some questions.
First and foremost, do we even acknowledge these things outside of "behind the scenes" sections? Strictly speaking, T:NO RW tells us that we shouldn't, the "Big Finish" icon in the webcast could mean anything. But currently the article for the webcast does assume that this refers to the Big Finish we're aware of. Moreover, it assumes it refers to an out of universe Big Finish in how it links.
Which leads to the second question, if we acknowledge these things, do we acknowledge them as fully fledged in universe articles, or just mention them in the articles they appear in and move on? At this point the articles will be little more than stubs, and by the strict text of T:NO RW we just say "this is a thing that exists and showed up on Osgood's computer. Behind the scenes: It actually refers to this out of universe thing."
Third question, should we change current policy and stop playing coy and admit that when we see a reference to something related to the show out of universe, like Big Finish from within universe, it's meant to be the Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) equivalent? That way we can actually talk coherently about these things and not just express complete shock and confusion that Osgood has a DWM icon on her desktop when we all know what it means.
Fourth question, given that this wiki has now been shown to exist in universe, how should that be handled? Should there be a page for this wiki? What should this page be like? If the page about this wiki appears in universe, should we have a policy in place to stop things from breaking down into some form of horribly confusing labyrinth of self reference? Does this even matter or will we cross this bridge when we come to it? Or should we just avoid the discussion entirely because all we saw is a website that said "Tardis|Fandom"?
- Danochy
I don't believe there's anything preventing the creation of such pages, as long as the information on them comes entirely from within universe. In saying that, it's not ideal to have Big Finish and DWM as in-universe pages rather than redirects to Big Finish Productions and Doctor Who Magazine as they presently are. There is precedent for having "In the DWU" headings on non-DWU pages when the content presented there is not an overwhelming amount of content (as is the case with BBC), so I'd go for that option, if it were up to me.
- Borisashton
I don't see any reason why we can't create the pages. In fact, the mention of DWM isn't a problem because we already have Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood) as a place to put this new info. Again, this is nothing new. Why diverge from our most basic policy for page creation of covering all nouns now?
- Najawin
Does The Zygon Isolation (webcast) tell us that the icon used refers to Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood)? By a strict reading of T:NO RW we just can't make this connection based on what we're presented. Obviously it is. I'm all in favor for making these new pages and handling it in the normal way, and I'd prefer a much looser reading of T:NO RW than I'm pointing out here. But there's quite a lot of ambiguity being thrown at us at once. (And once again I'd love someone with a more conservative mindset to weigh in so I'm not forced to play devil's advocate.)
- Danochy
The problem is that, as per T:DAB, the in-universe article should be undabbed, while the out-of-universe articles should be dabbed. Unless there's something I've missed...
- Scrooge MacDuck
While this is true, Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) and other such pages have existed as dabbed for ages. If the information is minor enough that it can be stored on a "In the DWU" section on the real world page, fair enough, but that is clearly not the case with the in-universe Doctor Who for one — and are we really going to dab the real-world Doctor Who page? Is that even feasible at this point, with all the links pointing to it?
Additionally, we don't actually have a real-world-focused page about our own Wiki. Perhaps we should, actually, inasmuch as we are a licensed Doctor Who product, just about, or at the very least our home page is.
Also, a note I made on the other thread which has yet to be repeated here: if a page like Tardis (The Zygon Isolation) materialises to refer to the website seen in the webcast, that'll require some sort of edit/exception to T:TARDIS, won't it?
And @Najawin, I think your concerns about whether we can conflate "Doctor Who Magazine" and "DWM" on a single in-universe pages without breaking T:NO RW are interesting but I think that might be taking it a smidge too far. We also assume any mention of "the BBC" are to be documented in the "In the DWU" section of British Broadcasting Corporation, as opposed to, say, referring to the Bed and Breakfast Corps. Same thing here, I think.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Borisashton wrote: I don't see any reason why we can't create the pages. In fact, the mention of DWM isn't a problem because we already have Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood) as a place to put this new info. Again, this is nothing new. Why diverge from our most basic policy for page creation of covering all nouns now?
Wait, that article in Short Trips: Past Tense was intended to be in-universe? I thought it was a "what if?" scenario, as opposed to an in-universe publication.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It's always a bit of both, with these things. That's how meta-fiction works. But of course, the page Doctor Who (The Thief of Sherwood) is already set to be renamed; it's about all accounts of the Doctor Who TV series existing within the Doctor's universe, not just The Thief of Sherwood specifically. There several other such accounts without the slight ambiguity in Thief.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Recently, the webcast "The Castellan Has Returned and Brought a Message from Gallifrey" was deemed invalid due to the Castellan referencing the "tweetalong", without in-universe explanation. Surely the same case coukd be said for this webcast, as it frequently, and without reason, shatters the fourth wall.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You're on the wrong thread for questions about the story's validity. This is the inclusion debate. But the supposed "frequent and unexplained fourth wall breaks" have already been brought up there, and largely refuted, though the thread has yet to be definitively concluded by an admin ruling.
Also, The Castellan… was created as invalid because of the much more blatant and unexplained lapse in in-universe logic. But it's not a hard precedent, I think, because there's never been a proper inclusion debate with an admin decision. (And I don't think there should be one yet until User:SOTO's concerns about the thing's copyright status as expressed on the talk page are alleviated.)
- Najawin
Well, someone has gone ahead and made Tardis (The Zygon Isolation).
- SOTO
We generally follow the rule that is a real world person or element — let's say Tom Baker — with great out-of-universe significance to the franchise also appears in the DWU, we dab like Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), applying the primary topic override. So long as both are the same thing or person, anyhow, with the real world element being the originator of all in-story references.
In any case, a name like Tardis requires disambiguation because this is already an alternative rendering for the Doctor's TARDIS and TARDISes generally. As for DWM, an early DWM logo is clearly visible as the icon. I can't quite make out the third word on my phone, but the first two are quite plainly "Doctor Who".
- Chubby Potato
I don’t mean to change the subject too far, but SOTO, do I gather correctly that you are saying: in the case of things from the real world which are based on real-world counterparts that also have their own page, it makes more sense to dab the DWU counterpart instead? Should this be added to T:DAB? I do agree; despite dab terms generally being applied to real world things, it certainly would be confusing, even if it is technically true, to have Doctor Who be the page for the Doctor Who (N-Space), and the page for the real world series being called "Doctor Who (franchise)" or something like that. Your Tom Baker example also works quite well; while "Tom Baker (actor)" is true, people searching for Tom Baker likely aren't looking for the in-universe equivalent (although this isn’t the best example because there already are multiple DWU Tom Bakers). But then we run into T:EVIL TWIN issues...
As for the actual topic at hand, I don't think it's a problem to have a page that says something like "Osgood had a Big Finish app on her computer" and in a BTS section says "this is a reference to Big Finish Productions". Remember, as it says on Tardis:Stub, a stub isn't just a short article; it's one that is short because it is lacking in information that still can be added. We have plenty of short articles with nothing more that can be added from an in-universe perspective— to pick an example I recently created, the Pisces-Cetus Supercluster Complex. There's a little bit of information we can give from an in-universe source, and then the BTS section essentially says "this is a real thing by the way, there's the Wikipedia link if you want to know more". Similarly, about connecting this to other in-universe things, T:NO RW says just because we as the audience know that this is referencing Big Finish Productions and in all probability it is a company that produces audios, we can't say this for sure without in-universe evidence.
Personally I don't think it's a bad idea to split these pages (ex. The LEGO Group as a real world company and LEGO as referenced in-universe works well); in my opinion it is kind of silly to have the page for the British Broadcasting Corporation, the company responsible for this entire franchise, just a Behind the scenes section of the in-universe BBC. But looking at that, there's also the reverse situation at BBC One, a real world article with a minor "In the DWU" section. And it also depends on the topic— for example, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a page for an in-universe play, yet it is mostly comprised of real world details explaining the connection with Doctor Who. But as important as those connections are, I'm not sure the real world series deserves its own page. Ultimately I suppose we should just be consistent.
- Najawin
Since we're discussing modifying T:DAB and Tardis:TARDIS, I'd also ask whether it's appropriate to modify T:NO RW in a relatively minor way for the sake of the proposed articles. Sometime like "if you are discussing something in N-space that when in the real world refers to something related to the making of the show itself, you can assume the bare minimum required to talk cogently about it in regards to Doctor Who (N-Space)". (if there's a way to get that less convoluted)
So for instance, because we saw "Big Finish", and we know that Big Finish refers to a producer of audio dramas IRL, we can say "Big Finish (N-Space) was an app on Osgood's computer, known for making audio dramas related to Doctor Who (N-Space)."
Since this is clearly the authorial intent, my worry is just wording this in a way to both make it understandable and not let in anything and everything.
- SOTO
That would go under real world creep. This sort of context can be given in the Behind the scenes section at no loss to the article.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@SOTO: I mean, User:Najawin was advocating slightly changing our policy in regards to "real world creep". I don't necessarily support the change, because as you said, it seems like BTS sections can do the job well enough. But pointing out that what Najawin is suggesting is against the current policy isn't really here nor there, I would think, if the proposal is to rewrite the current policy.
- Chubby Potato
My point is that yes, while that may be the authorial intent and is rather obvious, it is still speculation to assume that they are "known for making audio dramas related to Doctor Who (N-space)", and that should go in the Behind the scenes section.
This whole thing about how we handle references is actually an issue I've pondered before though, and it seems it's not exactly consistent. I wrote a lengthy paragraph on this, but I've condensed it instead:
I guess we need to establish rules for the following, or a rule that says we do so on a case by case basis. Here's how I see the answer to the question "can we say something definitely is what it references?"
- References to the real world based on inferences from the real world.
- No, we go by in-universe info only. Example: Big Finish (The Zygon Isolation) should say only what we know from observations, and the inferences as to what it is in the BTS section. Look at the notice on any "from the real world" category.
- References to the real world based on other in-universe info.
- Yes, we go by in-universe info. Example: The Prime Minister in Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen is implied to be Margaret Thatcher, and it fits with other stories' descriptions of her, so there's no need for Prime Minister (Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen). (I've also mentioned this at Thread: 141930, and I suppose I've answered my own question, unless someone disagrees.)
- References to in-universe topics not explicit due to licencing:
- This one is inconsistent. Examples: The "northern bloke with big ears" in The Kingmaker links to the obvious Ninth Doctor, but The Mistress (The Choice) has her own page despite fitting Romana II's description and being played by Lalla Ward. So we should decide on things like that.
- References to in-universe topics not explicit due not to licencing, but to stylistic choices:
- Depends on what we're given, but generally yes. Example: The Juror's Story features many incarnations of the Doctor all under pseudonyms, but it's clear who is whom.
- References to the real world based on inferences from the real world.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Chubby Potato wrote: This one is inconsistent. Examples: The "northern bloke with big ears" in The Kingmaker links to the obvious Ninth Doctor, but The Mistress (The Choice) has her own page despite fitting Romana II's description and being played by Lalla Ward. So we should decide on things like that.
The difference, I think, is that the Mistress has a significant part in her stories, whereas the Northern Bloke is just a brief nod. We know by the Margaret Thatcher principle that it should logically be the Ninth Doctor, and it wouldn't mean The Kingmaker would be in breach of copyright in a legally-enforceable level if it were because tiny one-line references aren't prosecutable.
So we get to say "a bloke with big ears was glimpsed (AUDIO: The Kingmaker)", though not mentioning the Ninth Doctor by name in that particular sentence.
Similarly, I haven't actually listened to them myself, but if at any point in the Adventures in a Pocket Universe, K9 was to reference his old time-traveling master in a single line, we'd be able to link to the Doctor "underneath," because other sources tell us that in the events to which K9 is referring in a non-prosecutable way, it was the Doctor who filled the part he is describing. But if a character who'd warrant paragraphs of ==Biography to himself appeared in the series as "the Time-Travel Master", then that wouldn't work anymore.
A lot has been said on this topic over the years (on this thread, for example) and I think it's a pretty well-honed system. It would only harm the Wiki, IMO, to start over and try and make a one-rule-fits-all on this matter.
…With all that said, this doesn't especially seem to fall within the purview of this thread IMO?
- Najawin
I realize that's how this is currently handled. My concern is just that it leads to the utterly absurd interpretation I've pointed out above. Where the icon labeled "DWM" doesn't necessarily redirect to Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood) (which might need to be renamed depending on how this thread goes) because we can only make out "Doctor Who" despite it obviously being an old Doctor Who Magazine logo and it obviously being a reference to Doctor Who Magazine. So strictly speaking there should be a new page for Doctor Who M (The Zygon Isolation) or something.
Given the nature of Doctor Who (N-Space), and how its entire purpose is to be a cheeky self referential nod, I don't think it's inappropriate to assume the bare minimum of similarities between production between our show and the N-space equivalent to talk coherently about the N-space entities related to production of the show when they come up. Doing more, and saying "Well, Big Finish (N-Space) was founded on so and so date", yeah, I'd be against that. But to just say what it's supposed to be, which is the entire point of the joke, as it were, I don't see how that can be inappropriate (from an ideal ruleset, I mean).
- Scrooge MacDuck
I am fairly sure I remember seeing an admin statement somewhere that T:NO RW has limits when it comes to the basest of common knowledge about what real-world things are called — e.g., we don't need to have a specific source defining the word "toaster" to make a page about toasters if we've got one appearing onscreen and being used to toast bred; we don't need to name the page bread-heating implement (The Time Meddler) or what-have-you.
It seems like the same reasoning might apply to well-known Doctor Who things, and Doctor Who things only, inasmuch as the target audience of The Zygon Isolation is, I think, going to be assumed to know what Big Finish is to the same level as The Poison Sky assumes a basic familiarity with the concept of cars.
- Najawin
I'd be perfectly fine with that being added in to T:NO RW as the wording for what I'm proposing, it's simpler, more general in a sense, and doesn't seem to allow anything problematic in. But it doesn't seem like SOTO was agreeing that the current rules, as written, support this reading.
- Chubby Potato
Scrooge, I do recall that thread, and I found it: Thread:238917. This is a useful thread for this discussion.
By the way, I suppose my latter two examples are a bit tangential, but I wanted to clarify the types of references. For the sake of this thread, we should only consider the real world ones, but I thought looking at how we see the other types could help clarify.
Personally, I agree with CzechOut in his statements on that thread, and what is currently there at T:NO RW. We want to cover topics just how they are seen in the DWU, and the ambiguous real world connections have a place, just that they should stay in Behind the scenes sections. Just because it's in that section doesn't make it less important, it's just not clarified in-universe.
- SOTO
What I advocate is exactly what that thread goes over. So thanks for pulling that one out.
Identification can be based on simple dictionary definitions, or the kind of baseline understanding that's taken for granted in a story's construction — particularly when it's a class of things that you're identifying, like a table or an iPhone or a pair of glasses. (That is, so long as the commonplace isn't identified within the narrative as something else.)
But when it comes to what you actually put in the lead, or elsewhere in the article, you stick very closely to what the sources say. Because this is a wiki, it's a simple necessity to name each article something, so it's sometimes necessary to use the real-world name and then note in the BTS that it's not from the story. And that is not the same thing as assuming the DWU version of the real world thing has the same qualities or history.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Would a variation on that rule allow us to cover mentions of "DWM" on Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood)?
- Najawin
Let's clarify something here. If we see an opaque blender, a character put things into it, and then take something out, how should we write that article?
Blender[[edit] | [edit source]]
SOTO put ice, milk, and fruit into a blender and blended them together to make a smoothie in The No Real World Conundrum.
Or:
Blender[[edit] | [edit source]]
SOTO put ice, milk, and fruit into a blender and then removed a smoothie in The No Real World Conundrum.
Behind the Scenes[[edit] | [edit source]]
The blender was used to blend the ingredients to make a smoothie.
Strictly speaking if I know enough about real world entities to write titles but not enough to write articles about them, it should be the latter. I don't know that blenders act by blending things, so if I can't actually see the blender doing that, as it's opaque, it could be doing anything, for all I know. The toaster issue mentioned above returns with a vengeance, just in a slightly different form. We've suddenly lost all forms of object permanence if there's any change of state.
There's just a massive ambiguity here as to how much information is too much, and by the strict wording of T:NO RW things should be very different than they currently are.
- Chubby Potato
SOTO's guideline of a simple dictionary definition works here: blender is defined as “ a person or thing that mixes things together, in particular an electric mixing machine used in food preparation for liquefying, chopping, or pureeing.”
By definition a blender blends things. Firstly, as CzechOut said in that thread,ae can identify it as a blender by looking at it unless we're told otherwise. Even if it doesn't look like the average blender, the fact that it results in a blended smoothie confirms that it is one because of the definition.
- Najawin
As stated, "identification can be based on simple dictionary definitions", "but when it comes to what you actually put in the lead, or elsewhere in the article, you stick very closely to what the sources say".
The principle of calling something a "blender" is only true because we need to call every article something. To say that it does the same thing as a blender IRL is a textbook example of a violation of T:NO RW.
Indeed, this is similar to what is said in Thread:238917. "If you look at the article Vegetable, the Doctor specifically defines the word in the story, so that definition is part of the article." "There's a big difference between creating an article and writing it. The writing of it should observe T:NO RW in that details not given about an thing in the story shouldn't be added to that article."
When it was pointed out that there was an article that didn't follow this guideline, as it actually had the definition which wasn't listed in universe, the response was that the article was wrong and it just needed to be edited, but there are only so many active users.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Slightly off-topic, but I have recently read the Thief of Sherwood, and to me, the Doctor Who Magazine shown is clearly not in the DWU. It's a story within a story, and the "inner" story is the one which takes place in the DWU. The magazine style is just a unique frame to present the narrative.
I personally feel that a massive misconception has happened, and it's hindering the progression of this discussion.
The "inner" story is later confirmed to take place within the DWU, as a later story in Short Trips: Past Tense, "The Time I Almost Destroyed the World Looking for a Dress", confirms that the First Doctor, Ian, Barbara, and Susan have the adventure with Robin Hood, but absolutely zero mention is made of Doctor Who Magazine. It's been taken out of context, and completely mis-understood.
The "inner" story is cleverly told through make believe articles and the like, but it was never the intention to say that Doctor Who Magazine is within the DWU.
- Shambala108
Speaking as the person who wrote the plot summary for The Thief of Sherwood (short story) and That Time I Nearly Destroyed the World Whilst Looking for a Dress (short story) and created several pages associated with both stories, I agree with User:Epsilon the Eternal. There is no DWM in the narrative, it's just an attempt to tell a story in a clever and unique way, like many Short Trips (series) stories.
- Najawin
So then the first actual reference to a Doctor Who Magazine for Doctor Who (N-Space) (taking into account authorial intent) is The Zygon Isolation?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I've had similar thoughts in the past about The Thief of Sherwood — but the fact is that there is an "outer story" as well as an "inner story". The whole business about X writing an imaginary novelisation of the imaginary TV story and so on — that is licensed Doctor Who fiction in its own right, and surely should be chronicled somewhere, even if it's not acknowledged to be part of N-Space. It's quite a conundrum.
I daresay it might even deserve its own thread! Can it be that the "outer story" is straight-up {{invalid}}, while the "inner story" self-evidently remains valid? How would we go about covering that on the actual "The Thief of Sherwood (short story)" page?
The thing is, we already know that some bits of Doctor Who (N-Space) perfectly match events in the Doctor's real adventures, somehow. This is front-and-center in the ending of The Zygon Isolation, of course. And Afterword, in Decalog 3: Consequences, gives us a perfectly good explanation of how that might be the case, namely that the Doctor themselves periodically does something complex and timey-wimey to retcon all of their past interference in a planet's history into popular fiction on that planet, so that further meddlings slip under the radar.
Some of what was being written about The Thief of Sherwood’s outer story didn't seem to quite take that approach, but it seems perfectly viable (if slightly counterintuitive) to cover both the outer and inner story as being valid within the DWU — that is to say, it is valid fact that the First Doctor met Robin Hood and dressed up as the apothecary and so on; and it is valid fact that there existed a TV story on the in-universe BBC which chronicled those events.
To treat it, in essence, as we might do the novel All-Consuming Fire, which is largely the text of a slightly-fictionalised account of the Doctor's adventures with Sherlock Holmes, presented as a "lost" Arthur Conan Doyle story — where we cover the events described therein as a valid story, and we also acknowledge the frame story of the Doctor and Benny reading Doyle's book once they get a copy of it.
Granted, we don't have he luxury, in The Thief of Sherwood, of seeing the Doctor perusing the fictional Doctor Who Magazine issue or whatever. But once we've got other valid stories acknowledging that such things existed, if not in N-Space, then at the very least in a valid parallel universe like the meta-fiction universe… it's not too much of a leap, is it? And far easier than to have half a story be invalid somehow.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It occurs to me that the way we cover Deadline might be an interesting precedent to support a solution where the "inner story" is treated as valid for the N-Space Doctor, but we're not forced to call the "outer story" invalid, instead sealing it away as an alternative reality which we can treat as essentially an alternate timeline of the meta-fiction universe(s) — again, like we do for the world of Deadline.
In both cases, we were presented, within what is explicitly a Doctor Who story, with what is clearly meant to scan as "an alternative timeline branching from the real world". So it should be possible to say that e.g. William Russell (The Thief of Sherwood) belonged to, I dunno, The Outlaws’s World, or something like that — a reality that's valid but separate from the Doctor's universe just like the meta-fiction universe.
This isn't usually how we would cover such a story, if it wasn't for the fact that there's an inner-story buried within that is clearly DWU and taking placed in N-Space. But I think it might be the sanest way forward.
- SOTO
That makes sense. It's a natural result of affirming the main story's validity that the fictional tale around this serial-that-never-was should be given some kind of coverage. I don't think there's any real evidence it's meant to be the Doctor's universe, as we don't have a DWU character interacting with that world, or even cognisant of its existence. But it's not the real world, either. Something like we did for Deadline, which put us in a similar predicament when we decided it would be valid, seems like a good solution.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Sounds like a good plan.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nothing like going off to ask for confirmation of authorial intent. I exchanged some PMs with Jonathan Morris himself on Twitter (nice guy!), and voilà; a three-part Twitter thread clarifying his authorial intent.
To whom it may concern. My Doctor Who story The Thief of Sherwood is set in a fictional version of our universe, not the Doctor Who universe.
But if people want to think it is set in a parallel Doctor Who universe where Doctor Who is fictional then I have no objection!
(I mean the framing narrative.)
Doctor Who could meet the author of The Thief of Sherwood, Godfrey Porter, and then discuss it with the members of the Time Team.Key points:
- He agrees that there is a "framing narrative", the one featuring Godfrey Porter and all that; it's not just a fun presentation.
- He intended for the world of Godfrey Porter to be an alternate timeline to ours, but putting that in Wiki terms, is okay with acknowledging that alternate timeline as one of the many worlds to which the Doctor could theoretically travel.
Ergo, it seems like my proposal, as endorsed by User:SOTO and User:Epsilon the Eternal, was pretty much bang-on. It's nice when these things have a happy ending like that.
- Najawin
Well that clears up whether DWM in The Zygon Isolation needs to be affiliated with Doctor Who Magazine (The Thief of Sherwood). Though it now raises the question of what to call the title for the page for it, but that can be addressed later.
I still think the "opaque blender" style concerns exist though.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:273221
So, recently, I've been traversing the wiki and noticed quite an upswing in vandalism in certain pages. Namely, Series 13, which I helped clear out the vandalism, Chris Chibnall's page, and Jodie Whittaker, among others relating to the modern era.
If I'm remembering correctly, we protected Steven Moffat's page for a little while to deter the trolls. Given the current world situation and the probable fact that Doctor Who probably won't be on air for a while, I propose we protect these pages, at least until something new comes along.
The pages I'm proposing we protect, at least for a little while, are:
Thirteenth Doctor
Jodie Whittaker
Chris Chibnall
Mandip Gill
Tosin Cole
Series 13
The Timeless Children
- TheDarkBomber
I don't think that those pages should be edit protected unless they are undergoing targeted mass vandalism, in which case it would be necessary. Those pages still have the potential for improvement and expansion. Thirteenth Doctor stories could be released at any time in the form of prose or webcasts, as has been done during lockdown. Chris Chibnall has even written some of these, and there's nothing to say he won't write more. As for Series 13, more updates could or could not come.
TL;DR some of these pages could need updating at any time, and all of them should be open to all to allow any improvements to be made, if necessary.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It was my understanding that the idea was to protect them from anonymous edits, rather than lock them from editing altogether.
- TheDarkBomber
Ah, so semi-protection? That's fine.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yeah, semi-protection was what I was going for. And the pages are being targeted. Just take a look at the Thirteenth Doctor's page and the Timeless Children history.
- TheDarkBomber
By targeted I meant a lot at a specific time.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:273268
A bit of a situation is emerging at Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown!. Namely, User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 believes that the COVID-19-era releases not strictly part of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! watchalong event should not be listed in the #Associated_releases tab.
As near as I can tell, this includes Things She Thought While Falling, Message from the Doctor, Incoming Message, Press Play, Breaking Isolation, The Terror of the Umpty Ums, United we stand, 2m apart, The Shadow Passes, The Simple Things and How The Monk Got His Habit. (Also The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey!, but there is a strong possibility that page will be deleted altogether, so it's not super-relevant.)
I personally believe that this would be wholly detrimental to the Wiki. The list is called "Associated releases", not "Doctor Who: Lockdown-branded stories". Lockdown! basically invented the format of these things, and the public consciousness as well as authorial intent is clearly that these are facets of the same phenomenon. Note how Paul Cornell's loose "Shadow trilogy" begins with The Shadow Passes (not Lockdown-branded) to continue with two explicitly Lockdown! stories, Shadow of a Doubt and The Shadow in the Mirror.
It was decided at Talk:COVID-19 not to keep a RW page about the broader COVID-19 phenomenon. Fair enough, but that leaves us with no better place to list the lockdown-era releases than Doctor Who: Lockdown! at the moment. And it is a list that most people coming to the Wiki will expect to find somewhere here. Currently we house the "list of licensed web-original Doctor Who produced during lockdown" on the page Doctor Who: Lockdown!, which is pretty intuitive but not exactly true to what the specific, italicised Lockdown! event is. Is there a better way?
So… if DiSoRiEnTeD1 thinks the current setup is detrimental — what else could we do?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i dont understand how youve chosen all those stories, they seem to have been picked at random by you... and some of them were promoted by emily cook as part of the event; the shadow passes being one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Those are all the stories which were not tied to a specific tweetalong. If Doctor Who: Lockdown! is the series of tweetalongs rather than the broader "DW people releasing short, licensed web releases to keep fans entertained during lockdown" thing, that seemed a sensible way to split the table should we decide to limit it to stories that directly tied into Lockdown!, the italicized event, rather than simply being part of "Doctor Who lockdown".
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Those are all the stories which were not tied to a specific tweetalong.
what does that matter?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't know, you are the one who started this discussion. Which stories do you think don't belong in the table?!…
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
any story not promoted / organised by emily cook, the sole organiser of the event.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Meaning? I went through the trouble of compiling the actual list to show what we would need to change on the Wiki if we followed your proposal, based on the criteria I thought we should use. If your criteria are different, please use them to provide the "correct" list.
But trimming the list on Doctor Who: Lockdown! is the easy bit. What this thread is about is figuring out if there's a better place to put the full list of lockdown-era releases, and if so, where. If there isn't, I see no reason not to continue with the current policy of covering all licensed lockdown-releases as "Associated releases" on Doctor Who: Lockdown!. If you think it's confusing to readers (and you're the first reader to report confusion), we can add in a clearer notice that not all the associated stories were part of Emily Cook's corner of the lockdown-era online Doctor Who scene.
But readers will want to find a complete guide to "all that free official DW content from COVID-19" somewhere on the Wiki.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i am only interested in removing the non-lockdown events from the lockdown pages, as they do not belong. i will leave it up to others to decide where they go. and i will compile a list of all the stories emily cook promoted for lockdown.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Woah. Look here, you can't get to make an arbitrary change to a page and leave it up to other people to clean up the mess you create in the process. If you don't have a clear proposal of how to move forward for the Wiki as a whole, what even is the point of your participating in this discussion? The reason I brought this to Board:The Panopticon is that it affects the Wiki as a whole, not just this one page that you're concerned about. The topic of the thread is "could we clean up the mess this trimming of the list would created, and if so, how?".
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the only mess is non-lockdown work being shoved onto a page where it does not belong. it is extremely misleading to have any of this work be attributed to emily cook and her team and needs removed immediately.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It would be extremely misleading to "have any of this work be attributed to Emily Cook and her team" but we're… not doing that, though? Nowhere on Doctor Who: Lockdown! does it state Cook had anything to do with United we stand or the other non-strictly-Lockdown! stories. We're just pointing out that after Cook paved the way for a whole plethora of official Doctor Who WEB content, other licensed releases imitated hers, hanging on to the coattails of Lockdown!.
As I said, if you're worried that this doesn't come across clearly enough, we need only add a more explicit written notice before the table, defining what we mean by "associated releases".
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
lockdown is entirely organised by emily cook. she, nor lockdown, has any association with several of these stories that the page is claiming she has.
- Scrooge MacDuck
If you're just going to repeat these weird unsubstantiated claims I don't see how this conversation can progress to any sort of consensus on what needs to be done.
This is a quote from the lead of the page:
Doctor Who: Lockdown! was only the hub[disputed statement] of several varyingly-official watchalong projects on Twitter at the time. (…) Nor were the tweetalongs the only occasion for the release of new webcast Doctor Who content, with Russell T Davies or even the BBC itself releasing new webcasts not connected with a particular watchalong in an effort to spread awareness of various facets of the crisis.
And here is the sentence directly before the table:
Several new short stories and webcasts were released to tie into the watchalongs, or the COVID-19 pandemic in general, some of them on a dedicated Doctor Who: Lockdown YouTube channel.
You may quibble whether a list of stories "tying into (…) the COVID-19 pandemic in general" belongs on the page at all, though only if you have a viable alternative. But no one paying attention could read through our page and form the impression that we were claiming Emily Cook had anything to do with United we stand, 2m apart or Incoming Message.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have nothing better to do, so i will go through emily cook's entire twitter page and see which stories she promoted as part of the lockdown. this has always been her event and if it isnt promoted / organised by her, it isnt a part of it.
How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
The Zygon Isolation (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[14]]
Pompadour (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[15]]
Dalek alternative script extract (short story) - promoted by emily cook [[16]]
Sven and the Scarf (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[17]]
The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) - not promoted by emily cook
The Shadow in the Mirror (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[18]]
Shadow of a Doubt (audio story) - promoted by emily cook [[19]]
The Simple Things (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[20]]
The Shadow Passes (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
Rory's Story (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[21]]
The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[22]]
United we stand, 2m apart (webcast) - not promoted by emily cook
The Terror of the Umpty Ums (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
Breaking Isolation (comic story) - not promoted by emily cook
Press Play (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
Incoming Message (webcast) - not promoted by emily cook
Revenge of the Nestene (short story) - promoted by emily cook [[23]]
Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) - unclear
Message from the Doctor (webcast) - not promoted by emily cook
Things She Thought While Falling (short story) - not promoted by emily cook
Strax Saves the Day (webcast) - promoted by emily cook [[24]]
so scrooge is entirely right that the stories not part of the Lockdown event were; Things She Thought While Falling, Message from the Doctor, Incoming Message, Press Play, Breaking Isolation, The Terror of the Umpty Ums, United we stand, 2m apart, The Shadow Passes, The Simple Things and How The Monk Got His Habit.
there's also Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) which I can't find any evidence of emily promoting or having any involvement in organising.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Would it be an acceptable middle ground for you if we did two tables — one with all the actual Lockdown! stories, and one for "other releases along the same time"? That would banish any lingering worries about readers mistakenly believing the non-Lockdown! one had anything to do with Emily Cook.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have a solution. it seems like the bbc jumped on board with the lockdown event and began posting their own stories in connection to this series (this is where russel's time war story orignated other than on his socials). therefore i propose that the bbc stories are given a list of their own; Things She Thought While Falling [[25]] Doctor Who and the Time War [[26]] Press Play [[27]] The Terror Of The Umpty Ums [[28]] The Shadow Passes [[29]] and The Simple Things [[30]]
that just leaves Message from the Doctor, Incoming Message, Breaking Isolation, United we stand, 2m apart and How The Monk Got His Habit to rehouse.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
yes scrooge, that seems like the best idea. two tables for emily cook / bbc produced lockdown stories. if you look at each of the bbc produced story on the bbc site they are listed as "next" and "previouly" so a list of their own would be best.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the two lists as i see them should be;
list one - main lockdown releases;
Strax Saves the Day > Revenge of the Nestene > The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond > Rory's Story > Farewell, Sarah Jane > Shadow of a Doubt > The Shadow in the Mirror > Sven and the Scarf > Dalek alternative script extract > Pompadour > The Zygon Isolation
list two - bbc lockdown releases;
Things She Thought While Falling > Doctor Who and the Time War > Press Play > The Terror of the Umpty Ums > The Shadow Passes > The Simple Things
in the infobox on the page for these releases the "next" / "previous" should be changed to the next and previous in their invidual lists
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's not bad, but I feel as though we could probably throw in United we stand, 2m apart and Message from the Doctor, which are both BBC products even if they're not part of the navigation system of the BBC website. Not counting the probably-merged Breaking Isolation, that'd leave just Incoming Message and How The Monk Got His Habit floating around.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
if we were to keep united and message on the page i really do think that it would have to be on a third list of their own. these should not affect the navigational order of emily cook / bbc stories. and to be hnest these are not really stories at all - although they are in universe, they are more like promotional material (bit like how Friend from the Future (TV story) doesn't affect navigational lists of series 10 episodes).
incoming message i have no idea what to do with, and monk really does need an admin's say if it is even valid.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I mean, they are stories, just short ones. They're stories to about the same extent as Tardisodes, or Prequel (The Wedding of River Song), though with more fourth-wall-breaking in the case of United we stand. In fact, there's an ongoing inclusion debate for Message from the Doctor in particular.
(The reason Friend from the Future is invalid is actually that it was decided that it was, weirdly, a deleted scene from The Pilot, of sorts; details of the editing were changed when footage was incorporated into the finished product of The Pilot. But minisodes and prequels can veryu much be valid stories. And even when you've got stories too promotional to be valid stories, that doesn't stop them being stories, e.g. Jo Grant Returns.)
I'm not sure why we shouldn't put them on the "BBC" list; they are by the BBC, after all, especially United we stand, which we know from the last DWM was commissioned by the BBC rather than pitched to them by Chris Chibnall.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i still think a third list would be better. the bbc has a navigational order and it wouldnt make sense to disrupt tht.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, but conveniently, the second and last of the two BBC webcasts (Message from the Doctor) was released on the same day as Things She Thought While Falling. So we could just lead with the two webcasts, then place Things after Message, and consequently not have the webcasts split up the navigation order of the short stories.
- Sabovia
I think it's simpler if we keep all COVID-19 releases under the Doctor Who: Lockdown banner, as Scrooge MacDuck rightfully points out, people will be looking for "all those free Doctor Who stories released during the Coronavirus lockdown".
As far as I'm concerned, all these stories are apart of the Doctor Who Lockdown event because they were released during the COVID-19 lockdown. I don't think Emily Cook's involvement should be the deciding factor here.
- Snivystorm
I agree with @Sabovia. While Emily Cook can be said to have started these Lockdown releases, that does not mean the releases require her endorsement to be considered part of the Lockdown event. Fractioning the stories beyond two tables would become rather excessive would it not?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Sabovia wrote: I think it's simpler if we keep all COVID-19 releases under the Doctor Who: Lockdown banner, as Scrooge MacDuck rightfully points out, people will be looking for "all those free Doctor Who stories released during the Coronavirus lockdown".
As far as I'm concerned, all these stories are apart of the Doctor Who Lockdown event because they were released during the COVID-19 lockdown. I don't think Emily Cook's involvement should be the deciding factor here.
lockdown is an event formed by emily cook so her involvement is a major deciding factor, the only reason the bbc releases deserve a mention is due to their close involvement with her lockdown event.
not every release during the pandemic is part of this. otherwise where would you draw the line? big finish are still releasing stories during covid - are they part on lockdown??
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Snivystorm wrote: While Emily Cook can be said to have started these Lockdown releases, that does not mean the releases require her endorsement to be considered part of the Lockdown event.
it really does. this is her event. she organises all of the official content. the bbc releases are not organised by her, but are closly associated with the lockdown event.
- Snivystorm
If that were the case, then all the stories above that were not endorsed by her would not be counted at all, even when said stories are valid and attach themselves to the Lockdown event. The page itself foccusses on the event, not Emily Cook as a person. Your point would fit well if the matter concerned an article on Cook herself, but since the Lockdown article encompasses all to do with the event itself, then that means the page goes beyond Cook. Event > Creator or Moment > Individual so to speak.
Put simply: the article includes all stories as part of the Lockdown event rather than solely stories Cook endorsed/helped make for the Lockdown.
Way I see it, there only need be two tables: one with all the stories Cook endorses and another containing all stories separate from Cook's own endorsements.
- Najawin
I think we'll find, if given a second to reflect, that the idea that Emily Cook organizes all of the official content is self defeating. Emily Cook works for Doctor Who Magazine, not the BBC proper. In order for these tweetalongs to work for US audiences, given the nonexistence of the iplayer, Amazon has been making certain episodes available for the day of the tweetalong so that people in the US could participate. Doctor Who Magazine does not have the rights to these episodes, and so cannot actually request that they do this. Hence Cook must be coordinating the tweetalongs with the BBC.
Given this fact, that the BBC and Cook are coordinating, are we to believe that the stories don't have at least tacit endorsement?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
emily cook oversees all of the official content created for the lockdown event, and she has said several tims on twitter that these original stories are the only part of the event that are licensed / endorsed by the bbc.
the bbc themelves tried to do their own watchalongs off te back of the lockdown event but they were unsuccessful and so started creatig their own content to release alongside the lockdown. these are not part of the main lockdown event but are still valid, due to being released by the bbc, and as some stories like the Shadow Passes has connections to the lockdown event stories they can be seen as associated releases.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i would be content with two tables;
first: lockdown releases;
Strax Saves the Day > Revenge of the Nestene > The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond > Rory's Story > Farewell, Sarah Jane > Shadow of a Doubt > The Shadow in the Mirror > Sven and the Scarf > Dalek alternative script extract > Pompadour > The Zygon Isolation > The Descendants of Pompeii
second: associated releases;
Things She Thought While Falling > Message from the Doctor > Doctor Who and the Time War > Incoming Message > Press Play > The Terror of the Umpty Ums > United we stand, 2m apart > The Shadow Passes > The Simple Things
then theres The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast), How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) and Breaking Isolation (comic story) which are al currntly having their validity checked (especially Monk's Habit as emily cook came out to say that it wasnt an official release of any kind and just an abandoned story mentioned by peter harness).
- Najawin
But this just doesn't respond to what I said. Saying the original stories are the only parts of the event being endorsed by the BBC is equivalent to saying that the tweets from participants are not endorsed by the BBC. It does not mean that the tweetalong itself was not coordinated with the BBC (even if they're not officially endorsing it, those two things are distinct). Indeed, the existence of officially licensed stories in coordination with the tweetalongs only serves to underline my point.
As for your claim that there were BBC watchalongs, I think reading the Lockdown article would put that claim to bed on its own. Various other entities aside from the BBC did their own. The BBC itself hasn't done one. Unless we're doing the whole "The Radio Times is a BBC puppet" angle.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
please do not be so dismissive. the bbc (well bbc america) did try to do their own watchalong [[31]] but this was incredibly unsuccessful.
- Sabovia
Emily Cook is a Doctor Who Magazine staff member, she has no legal ownership over anything related to Doctor Who. The only reason why these Doctor Who Lockdown originals are considered "valid" here is not because of her involvement, but because they have been released by the official license holders, namely by the BBC or writers such as Russell T Davies or Steven Moffat. Emily Cook's involvement isn't and shouldn't be a deciding factor.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have never said that emily cook has legal ownership. but she is the one that created the lockdown event and is organising all of its official content and releases, so anything not to do with her is not part of the main lockdown event. the bbc stories are associated with the event, because they saw the publicity emily's event was gaining and decided to share their own releases alongside it. these releases deserve to be kept separate from the main lcokdown event.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think some people are under the impression emily is working on behalf of DWM. she is not, she organised the watchalong herself as a fan and was able to use her contacts to get some representatives to tweet along and some creators to publish work for it. the bbc were obviously happy with the publicity and chris chibnall has been signing off on all of the official releases (paul cornell has said this himself). the only issue here is separating the main lockdown event material (that emily has organised as it is HER EVENT) from the associated releases of the bbc.
- Sabovia
You're arguing that certain releases shouldn't be covered under the "Doctor Who: Lockdown!" banner due to Emily Cook's involvement or lack therefor, however I'm arguing from how this wiki determines what is and isn't a valid story, and Emily Cook's involvement, or lack of involvement, is irrelevant to that.
These stories were released during lockdown, so for all intents and purposes, they are Doctor Who Lockdown stories. It's easier to keep them all under one banner than to spread them out randomly because Emily Cook, someone who isn't an official license holder (but rather, is working on behalf on them), isn't directly involved?
- Najawin
Well, that would be unsuccessful because it was season 12, not because it was organized by BBCA (a different corporate entity than the BBC).
Regardless, the point stands that the distinction you're advancing here, between "Lockdown" releases and "BBC releases riding the coattails of Lockdown" is untenable. As is pointed out to you in Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), the shadow trilogy is split across the lockdown youtube channel and the BBC website, and Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) explicitly says "Doctor Who: LOCKDOWN" on the youtube video with its soundtrack on the Lockdown channel, while the Doctor Who channel has the actual webcast.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: big finish are still releasing stories during covid - are they part on lockdown??
This is an interesting point. It could be argued that some of them have a right to be on the page, especially with releases such as Shadow of the Sun which was prominently advertised by BF to have been recorded entirely during lockdown.
It wouldn't solve all the problems that this thread aims to solve, but a list-type article such as "List of releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic" might be of interest. Multiple companies producing DWU works (Big Finish Productions, BBC Books, Arcbeatle Press) have delayed (or in some cases brought forward) releases because of the virus so comprehensive documenation of all of these examples in a single place would be nice.
Hopefully something like this would be okayed as a replacement to the (in hindsight) rather ambiguous "COVID-19" article.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
all i am arguing is that these releases can all be covered on the Doctor Who: Lockdown page, but should definetly be on separate lists to show which are releases organised by emily cook and the main lockdown team and which are associated releases of the bbc.
"These stories were released during lockdown, so for all intents and purposes, they are Doctor Who Lockdown stories" so every big finish release during this time period is a lockdown release????
- Sabovia
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: so every big finish release during this time period is a lockdown release????
No, because these stories were released to help lessen the burden of the lockdown and keep the planet's spirits up, Big Finish's releases would have released anyway, the only reason for these stories existence is because of the Coronavirus pandemic.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Well, that would be unsuccessful because it was season 12, not because it was organized by BBCA (a different corporate entity than the BBC).
Regardless, the point stands that the distinction you're advancing here, between "Lockdown" releases and "BBC releases riding the coattails of Lockdown" is untenable. As is pointed out to you in Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), the shadow trilogy is split across the lockdown youtube channel and the BBC website, and Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) explicitly says "Doctor Who: LOCKDOWN" on the youtube video with its soundtrack on the Lockdown channel, while the Doctor Who channel has the actual webcast.
the shadow "trilogy" is not "split up" across these three releases. the mention in the shadow passes is so tiny, it does not affect anything in the story and only hints at the two episodes paul cornell will later write.
and farewell, sarah jane was organised by emily cook... hence why it is tagged with lockdown? you will see that no release not worked on by emily was tagged with the lockdown brand name. thats because they are only associated releases.
- Snivystorm
For fear or retreading old ground, I was under the impressions such content (Arcbeatle, Big Finish and so on) would still go under the 2020 (releases) with the Lockdown page serving as the distinction between all releases and one's specifically about the Lockdown?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"Doctor Who: Lockdown!" (or even "Lockdown!") - is an event page. it is not an umberella page about the coronavirus lockdown (hence that it is styalised with the exclamation point). this is the even created by emily cook.
none of the bbc releases have ever mentioned involvement with the lockdown brand. they were released at the same time after the publicity of emily's event became known by the bbc.
- Borisashton
Without wanting to break T:SPOIL too heavily, some of the schedule changes go into 2021 so even collating the info at 2020 (releases) wouldn't give the whole picture. A dedicated article could give way to better coverage in the form of tables with "Moved from" and "Moved to" columns among other perks.
- Najawin
You do understand what through lines are, yes? How instead of plot points being the connective tissue between books, themes can be? I can assure you Paul Cornell does.
Again, you're just failing to respond to the point being made here. We have something that's clearly a "Lockdown" release being hosted on a "BBC space" rather than a "Lockdown space", even when the "Lockdown space" is appropriate. It could have easily been hosted on the Lockdown youtube channel. But it's not, only the soundtrack is. It's hosted on the official Doctor Who youtube channel.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it doesnt matter if the bbc posted it on official sites or not. the fact is that only projects worked on by emily cook have ever been credited as part of the "Lockdown!" brand - which is what this page is for. the bbc releases have not been and they deserve to be in a separate list.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
please provide a time when any of these stories were branded as part of the "Lockdown!" event; Things She Thought While Falling, Message from the Doctor, Incoming Message, Press Play, Breaking Isolation, The Terror of the Umpty Ums, United we stand, 2m apart, The Shadow Passes, The Simple Things and How The Monk Got His Habit.
you will not find anything, because they were never branded as part of "Lockdown!" and they were not worked on by emily cook. they exist as associated releases, not part of the main brand.
- Borisashton
All this back-and-forth seems highly counter-productive to me. It is highly debateable which stories were part of the event and which weren't so how about we don't bother?
If we ditched the stories section from the Lockdown! page altogether and went with a list of stories affected by the pandemic it would naturally include all stories that came about because of it. We can vaguely mention on the Lockdown! page that some new stories tied into the tweetalongs and Emily Cook's page should (if it doesn't already) make a note of all the stories she was explicitly credited for.
- Najawin
And my point, that you've consistently failed to respond to, is that Cook has been coordinating to some extent with the BBC. As such it's presumptuous to think that these other releases don't have at least tacit approval. The distinction you're making is just untenable when we reflect on it for a suitable period of time given the existence of licensed stories and the fact that some of these stories are hosted by the BBC.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
how is it highly debatable which stories are part of "Lockdown!". id have thought that only the stories credited as being part of "Lockdown!" (coincidentally the exact same ones worked on by the founder emily) are the stories which are part of "Lockdown!". how is that debatable?
the bbc created their own stories to trade off the success of the "Lockdown!" even but none of these stories have ever been credited as part of "Lockdown!" and had nothing to do with emily cook or her team.
these are the two different types of stories and that is why we need two lists.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: If we ditched the stories section from the Lockdown! page altogether and went with a list of stories affected by the pandemic"
this page isnt for all the stories released during the pandemic. it is strictly for the "Lockdown!" stories. just because the covid-19 page was removed doesnt mean another page should suffer.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the bottom line is - this page is for the "Lockdown!" event. do not treat is at an umbrella page for all pandemic affected releases. the stories can stay but they need to be separated into those branded as part of the "Lockdown!" and associated releases by the bbc that never mention the "Lockdown!" event once in connection with them.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: how is it highly debatable which stories are part of "Lockdown!". id have thought that only the stories credited as being part of "Lockdown!" (coincidentally the exact same ones worked on by the founder emily) are the stories which are part of "Lockdown!". how is that debatable?
The logic of Lockdown! stories are the ones that are Lockdown! stories is highly unhelpful when trying to have a serious debate, especially when that debate has already established it is not a cut-and-dry matter.
You ask for evidence that How the Monk Got His Habit among others is a part of Lockdown!. I should think the fact that it was released with "#TruthOrConsequences" is suffficent evidence as that was the hashtag one could use "join in the conversation". On the other hand, if it is not sufficient evidence you have just proved why the matter is debateable.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
where has it been established that it is not a 'cut-and-dry' matter? Lockdown! stories are the only Lockdown! stories - as silly as it sounds, and the only ones protesting that seem to want the page to be an umbrella page for the entire coronavrius lokdown instead of the event page.
How The Monk Got His Habit shouldnt be debated here because the fact that it wasnt even a release is being debated elsewhere.
- Borisashton
The fact its validity is being debated elsewhere has no bearing on the debate of how to document its release here. Of course Lockdown! stories are Lockdown! stories but that is a silly argument in a debate that is trying to determine that exact thing. Do you have an opinion on my proposal to cover all this is a list article? I'll assume that the "kudo" they left on that post is indicative of at least User:Snivystorm's support.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i dont agree with your proposal. and snivystorm also agreed with my proposal of separate lists, as did scrooge.
- Najawin
Let me turn this around on you. You want me to find "Lockdown" branding for any of the stories you're saying aren't Lockdown related. How about you find "Lockdown" branding for the Dalek alternative script extract? Or find "Lockdown" branding for Farewell, Sarah Jane and not just the soundtrack or the teaser, etc etc, but the actual webcast. I'll save you time, you won't find it. At best what you'll find is Cook posting the Dalek alt script during the tweetalong with the hashtag metaltron. Or Cook talking about how great Farewell, Sarah Jane is and how happy she is. And you won't find any "Lockdown" branding for any webcast on her twitter. The only way for something to have "Lockdown" branding is to be posted to the youtube account.
But this is straightforwardly impossible for, uh, all but four of the stories you're complaining about. And given the only "prose" story in the lineup you're not complaining about is the script, it's not clear that Lockdown has a place to really put "prose" stories. Since the script is stored on twitter. Which would not be a good medium for the stories you're complaining about. And I'll once again bring up the Shadow Trilogy to point out that the "nonLockdown work" was stored on a BBC site, and it was the only prose work of the three. So once again the problem you're bringing up is illusory upon a little reflection.
As for the four works that you're complaining about that don't meet these criteria, Incoming Message (webcast), United we stand, 2m apart (webcast), and Message from the Doctor (webcast) are all sort of "Public Service Announcements", so it's not obvious that "Lockdown" would want to mirror them. And yes, I do mean mirror, since Farewell, Sarah Jane and Revenge of the Nestene both establish that other places can have priority to host Lockdown stories (Revenge being on Jacob Dudman's youtube), and the Lockdown youtube merely mirrors it or posts like the soundtrack. I'm not sure Castellan is valid, so I have no interest to defend it at this time.
But what you're suggesting we need for these to be "official Lockdown related stories" just isn't something that has ever happened before.
- Borisashton
Do you care to elaborate on your disapproval?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin i found Lockdown branding in all those stories seven hours ago in post #14.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: since Farewell, Sarah Jane and Revenge of the Nestene both establish that other places can have priority to host Lockdown stories
but they are still worked on and promoted by the "Lockdown!" founder emily cook, and tagged with the "Lockdown!" brand named when officially released.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: i dont agree with your proposal.
The discussion can never move forward if you don't reveal why you disagree.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote:
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: i dont agree with your proposal.
The discussion can never move forward if you don't reveal why you disagree.
i have given my reasons several times. the "Lockdown!" stories are very distinguishable from the associated releases, why should they be kept on a single list? give me one example of a story that isnt clear cut (other than Monk - which isnt even a release, and has been stated as unrelated by emily cook)
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Najawin i found Lockdown branding in all those stories seven hours ago in post #14.
Believe it or not, I was aware of this post, and still made my comment anyhow. Perhaps then my point was more subtle than you were aware of. "Lockdown" branding is not the same as someone tweeting about a story. The former would be someone using the hashtag #DoctorWhoLockdown or similar. My point is that the only time the "Lockdown" brand intersects with something is when it's placed on the youtube channel. So it's impossible in principle for prose stories to intersect with the "Lockdown" brand. Etc etc the rest of my comment follows as standard.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
that is completely false. who says that the "Lockdown!" brand is only when something is placed on youtube... i mean WHAT? the lockdown event was started on twitter for one! what has youtube got to do with anything?
- Najawin
That there's an actual Lockdown youtube account and Cook consistently doesn't use #DoctorWhoLockdown in her tweets as branding so it's the first time any of these things actually hits the brand? I'm not sure what the confusion is.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think someone needs to ask emily cook what her opinion is regarding the official / associated releases (and yes her opinion does matter as she is the creator and founder of the event)
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: give me one example of a story that isnt clear cut (other than Monk - which isnt even a release, and has been stated as unrelated by emily cook)
Please stop changing the goal posts. Monk is a perfectly good example. It is currently considered as short story as per T:BOUND and although Cook is the organiser of the event, her involvement goes about as far as that. Peter Harness obviously considered it part of Lockdown! as evidenced by his use of the hashtag and the very fact we are still talking about this is even more proof that the releases aren't completely distinguishable.
As a sidenote, please avoid nested quoting because it is a violation of T:FORUM.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Please stop changing the goal posts. Monk is a perfectly good example.
Monk is your only example, and emily cook said that it wasnt part of "Lockdown!".
when did i quote too much (other than just then which was an accident)?
- Borisashton
You asked for one example and I gave you one. Your violation was in post #63, the one I responded to. To be frank, Emily Cook gave up her right to determine what stories exactly are parts of Lockdown! when she started encouraging literally anybody to join in with the event using hashtags.
- Najawin
Let's be very clear about what Cook said. Cook said that "Harness's unproduced story" was not part of Lockdown. This is not technically confirmation that his mock script wasn't part of Lockdown, as was, again, pointed out to you in the talk page. And this nuance, again, supports Borisahton's point.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you gave me an example of a story that you think is part of "Lockdown!" but has been confirmed by the creator to not be.
and what are you talking about emily cook giving her rights away because she encouraged people to join in? its a watchalong, people are supposed to join in. shes still organising all of the official material, so your personal opinions about her dont really matter.
- Borisashton
Um, what personal opinions? I respect Emily for all the new material she has helped to produce during this difficult time but that is irrelevant to this debate.
Cook thinks Monk isn't part of Lockdown! and Harness thinks it is. Both are entirely correct points of view. What part of this situation makes you think that all Lockdown! stories are easily distinguishable?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: This is not technically confirmation that his mock script wasn't part of Lockdown, as was, again, pointed out to you in the talk page.
she distanced herself from the project without need for any further explanation. had the short story been part of the event, she would have said that - but no, she outright said that it was not. she didnt.
it is your burden to prove that it is part of the event - which is exactly what i told Scrooge on the talkpage.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Cook thinks Monk isn't part of Lockdown! and Harness thinks it is.
emily founded Lockdown, the final say is hers. harness was an invited guest - he does not get to trump her say as to what is part of Lockdown!
and also harness has never said that he thinks that story is part of the Lockdown! event - that is complete speculation on your part, he stated what it was a first page of an "unfinished novelisation"
- Borisashton
Harness released the story with the hashtag "TruthOrConsequences" which indicates it was part of the Zygon watchalong. Nobody has the "final say" for an event in which anybody can contribute material.
- Najawin
It's lovely that you said that, yes. But you're bringing up a statement that doesn't actually say what you're claiming it says. The evidence we have is a great big shrug.
You said Cook said it wasn't a part of Lockdown. Cook did not actually say that. So stop saying something that isn't true.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Harness released the story with the hashtag "TruthOrConsequences" which indicates it was part of the Zygon watchalong. Nobody has the "final say" for an event in which anybody can contribute material.
that doesnt automatically make the story part of "Lockdown!". it was just something he mentioned while reflecting on his time on the show. very different from his intended material the zygon isolation.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: You said Cook said it wasn't a part of Lockdown. Cook did not actually say that. So stop saying something that isn't true.
"someone is suggesting that harness' unproduced story "How The Monk Got His Habit" is part of the lockdown event. is this the case?"
"No - that was just something he mentioned during the tweetalong last week"
that is EXACTLY what she said. youre the one saying things that arent true.
- Borisashton
Again, I don't understand how you can't see that the fact we have been discussing this issue for almost 80 posts is proof that not all Lockdown! releases are clearly distinguishable.
- Najawin
Harness's mock script is not the same thing as his unproduced story. She said his unproduced story is not part of Lockdown. Dear lord. Stop trying to make your position look stronger than it is and just admit there's a lot of ambiguity.
- Borisashton
Do you have any other reasons for opposing my list-article suggestion?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Do you have any other reasons for opposing my list-article suggestion?
dont need any other reasons, the fact that they are not "Lockdown!" stories is enough.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Harness's mock script is not the same thing as his unproduced story. She said his unproduced story is not part of Lockdown. Dear lord. Stop trying to make your position look stronger than it is and just admit there's a lot of ambiguity.
it was not a mock script. he posed it as the first chapter of an unproduced novel.
- Borisashton
The fact that an article provisionally named "List of releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic" would not contain solely Lockdown! stories is enough? I'm not sure I understand.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Again, I don't understand how you can't see that the fact we have been discussing this issue for almost 80 posts is proof that not all Lockdown! releases are clearly distinguishable.
and by "not all" you mean only Monk, a story which neither emily cook nor harness ever stated was part of "Lockdown!" (other than your speculaton on harness' intentions) and emily cook even said that the story was not part of the event.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: The fact that an article provisionally named "List of releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic" would not contain solely Lockdown! stories is enough? I'm not sure I understand.
it should not have that tagged... this is the page for "Lockdown!". of course it should be solely for "Lockdown" stories.
- Najawin
I mean, I'm against the list-article suggestion because I don't even think there's a clear line about what she's even "explicitly credited for". I think there's quite a lot of grey area in the stories I've brought up. (And if you mean credits in a more traditional sense, the Dalek script wouldn't include her in them as she didn't write the script, even though she tweeted it out, so that's grey area as well.) Aside from that it's perfectly fine though.
- Borisashton
@DisoRiEnTeD1 I think you misunderstand. The list is to be a seperate article from the Lockdown! one.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so two people want the list-article suggestion, and three want the separate lists.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: I think you misunderstand. The list is to be a seperate article from the Lockdown! one.
what?
- Borisashton
My proposal was to remove the list of ambiguous stories from the Lockdown! article and port them over to a new article where they can be covered in a way that provides more information to readers.
- Najawin
Oh stop this. Scrooge already addressed your criticism in the talk page for the work.
[...]the thing is that Doctor Who and the Time War and Robert Shearman's Dalek alternative script extract were both written as complete products that looked (and were cheekily presented as) like extracts from deleted stuff. I think it more likely than not that Peter Harness was riding the same trend, and wrote this short story in 2020 for the Lockdown event[...]
His mockup is not the same thing as his actual canceled story. They are distinct entities. She only commented on the latter. Stop trying to act like she commented on the former.
- Borisashton
Najawin wrote: I mean, I'm against the list-article suggestion because I don't even think there's a clear line about what she's even "explicitly credited for". (And if you mean credits in a more traditional sense, the Dalek script wouldn't include her in them as she didn't write the script, even though she tweeted it out, so that's grey area as well.) Aside from that it's perfectly fine though.
I did mean in the more traditional sense like The Zygon Isolation and others explicitly credit her. Cook's page should have a dedicated section about her role as organiser of Lockdown! which would cover any stories where her part is ambiguous.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: My proposal was to remove the list of ambiguous stories from the Lockdown! article and port them over to a new article where they can be covered in a way that provides more information to readers.
I think an article about all coronavirus affected stories would be good. But the "stories" section on "Lockdown!" should not be deleted entirely. it should still cover ONLY the stories emily cook organised, just like it covers ONLY the watchalongs she organised (earlier it included other watchalongs which were removed).
- Borisashton
Great. Now we are getting somewhere. If not by explicit credits, how would you determine which stories Cook organised?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: She only commented on the latter. Stop trying to act like she commented on the former.
how do you know she commented on the latter? if youre suggesting it is ambigious as to which one she was commenting about then youre speculating too by saying that she wasnt commenting on the former! she was clearly commenting on both, she would have elaborated otherwise.
and this wasnt a "mockup". harness said there was a cancelled television episode AND a cancelled novelisation, and he shared the first page of the canceled novel - so they are the same!
- Borisashton
Saying something is ambiguous is not speculation. Do you have a method of determining which stories Cook organised?
- Najawin
Because she said "No - that [harness' unproduced story] was just something he mentioned during the tweetalong last week". Not anything more. If you want me to be precise, sure, she only explicitly commented on the latter. She never commented on the former and it's your interpretation that she did. But she did not clearly do so and to claim otherwise is just untrue.
And do I really need to quote Scrooge's comments again? This is all addressed in the talk page.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Great. Now we are getting somewhere. If not by explicit credits, how would you determine which stories Cook organised?
the only ones i would consider to be part of the event would be the ones emily cook promoted on twitter - also, only those promoted by emily appeared on the lockdown! youtube channel (well the webcasts anyway).
Strax Saves the Day (webcast) Revenge of the Nestene (short story) The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond (webcast) Rory's Story (webcast) Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) Shadow of a Doubt (audio story) The Shadow in the Mirror (webcast) Sven and the Scarf (webcast) Dalek alternative script extract (short story) Pompadour (webcast) The Zygon Isolation (webcast) The Descendants of Pompeii (webcast)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: And do I really need to quote Scrooge's comments again? This is all addressed in the talk page.
youre speculating just as much as i am. the unfinished novel is an "unproduced sotry" just as much as the television episode!
- Najawin
I once again direct you to the arguments made in Talk: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) that you failed to respond to.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Strax Saves the Day (webcast) Revenge of the Nestene (short story) The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond (webcast) Rory's Story (webcast) Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) Shadow of a Doubt (audio story) The Shadow in the Mirror (webcast) Sven and the Scarf (webcast) Dalek alternative script extract (short story) Pompadour (webcast) The Zygon Isolation (webcast) The Descendants of Pompeii (webcast)
Dalek alternative script extract is the only story in this list that does not explicitly credit Cook as producer. Do you have a source for the nature of her part in the story's creation?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
dont care where youre directing me. i replied to every single argument and comment there but my point still stands; harness nor cook ever said that Monk was an official release let alone part of "Lockdown!" so it is up to you to prove that it is.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Even if we accepted that premise, and again, I think the evidence that the novelisation project in 2015 ever existed is very thin… they're not the same unproduced story. If Cook is talking about an unproduced story by Harness (and the exchange you quoted uses the singular "story"), she can't be talking about both the TV story and the prose story. The TV story is definitely unproduced whereas there's very serious doubt about the status of the novelisation/short story. Ergo, Cook must logically be commenting on the unproduced TV story, and doesn't say anything one way or the other about the short story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Even if we accepted that premise, and again, I think the evidence that the novelisation project in 2015 ever existed is very thin
as you ignored me saying in the other thread, it is your burden to prove that this was an official release. nobody ever said it was, harness just posted it after fans asked to see more from his unproduced story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Dalek alternative script extract is the only story in this list that does not explicitly credit Cook as producer. Do you have a source for the nature of her part in the story's creation?
it is also the only story that isnt posted on the "Lockdown!" youtube channel, so i would actually be fine with its removal.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: it is also the only story that isnt posted on the "Lockdown!" youtube channel, so i would actually be fine with its removal.
Are we agreed then? A list-type article detailing releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic should be created and the stories listed in post #100 (minus Dalek alternative script extract) should remain in the list on the Lockdown! page.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: as you ignored me saying in the other thread, it is your burden to prove that this was an official release. nobody ever said it was
I don't know what "other thread" you're talking about, but as someone else pointed out to you earlier in this thread, the fact that Harness posted it within the #TruthOrConsequences hashtag shows that he still meant for it to be part of the tweetalong of The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: the fact that Harness posted it within the #TruthOrConsequences hashtag shows that he still meant for it to be part of the tweetalong of The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion.
speculation.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Are we agreed then? A list-type article detailing releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic should be created and the stories listed in post #100 (minus Dalek alternative script extract) should remain in the list on the Lockdown! page.
i agree with that.
- Najawin
I mean, you distinctly didn't. It was pointed out how multiple authors used a certain framing device that Harness might have used too, explaining that the idea that Harness would be given a novelization for this book is absurd. You just fail to adequately respond to this, since you don't address the nature of Target Novelizations and how they really do make the idea that this would be an unpublished draft unlikely.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Please stop with the nested quotes. It's bad enough you keep double-posting and overquoting and, via the double-posting, driving us to overquoting.
- Borisashton
Wonderful! Cook's consistent credits as producer provide umabiguous precedent going forward regarding what and what should not be allowed on the Lockdown! page.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it is hilarious for you to suggest that emily cook was under the impression that people were debating whether an unproduced television episode from years ago was part of her current event of small webcasts and short stories.
she was clearly meaning the first chapter harness posted.
- Najawin
How is it speculation? He literally used the hashtag for the tweetalong and was carrying on a train of thought from earlier in the tweetalong.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Wonderful! Cook's consistent credits as producer provide umabiguous precedent going forward regarding what and what should not be allowed on the Lockdown! page.
yep!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: How is it speculation? He literally used the hashtag for the tweetalong and was carrying on a train of thought from earlier in the tweetalong.
train of thought does not equal an official licensed release.
- Najawin
I never said it did. You said it was speculation that Harness meant it to be part of the tweetalong. This is clearly untrue.
- Borisashton
Monk is its own thing and is best dealt with in a different debate. Cook is not credited as a producer on Monk so under the proposed parameters it would not be affected anyway.
- Najawin
I mean, wouldn't this imply that prose stories by definition are no longer allowed on the Lockdown page by this standard? This seems so obviously absurd to me as to be a defeater to this whole exercise.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I never said it did. You said it was speculation that Harness meant it to be part of the tweetalong. This is clearly untrue.
well, obviously he meant it to be part of the tweetalong. but the thing is that means nothing. the tweetalongs are not officially licensed, emily cook stated this - the only things that are licensed are the official stories, which are not part of the individual tweet alongs.
for example; the zygon isolation was not released by harness during his tweetalong - it was released before (sometimes it can be released after if the new story is a sequel like today's) and was also published by emily cook.
- Najawin
You literally called it speculation!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I mean, wouldn't this imply that prose stories by definition are no longer allowed on the Lockdown page by this standard? This seems so obviously absurd to me as to be a defeater to this whole exercise.
the short stories released for the "Lockdown!" even seem to always have a webcast anyway, but as long as cook and the lockdown team helped to produce the stories i dont see why they couldnt be added too?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: You literally called it speculation!
i called it speculation to assume that it was an official licensed release...
- Scrooge MacDuck
(For the benefit of people reading this in the future, the "today" DiSoRiEnTeD1 is referring to is April the 17th, 2020, with the sequel being The Descendants of Pompeii.)
I think the interpretation that the prequels and sequels aren't an integral part of the tweetalongs is fairly hard to take seriously. Why are we even covering any of them on the page for Doctor Who: Lockdown! if this is the case?
At any rate, I think User:Najawin makes a good point with regards to prose stories. These don't have producers most of the time.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: the short stories released for the "Lockdown!" even seem to always have a webcast anyway, but as long as cook and the lockdown team helped to produce the stories i dont see why they couldnt be added too?
Yeah, the main thing is about explicit credits. As long as her involvement is made clear I don't see a need to exclude them.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge, the tweetalongs / original stories have always been their separate thing... they literally even get their own time slots during a watchalong so this is hardly news to you? both are still part of the "Lockdown!" event however.
- Najawin
Dalek alt script does not have a webcast. And the point is this, there's no "producer" role for prose. Editor, perhaps? But it's not obvious that Cook would be that. She's not a publisher. As soon as we get to prose, Cook's involvement is instantly heavily debatable. So you're trying to make it into a binary "well they just have to help produce these stories". But I still see no reason to believe that they didn't sign off on all of the prose stories discussed above. So this distinction just isn't as binary as you'd like.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Dalek alt script does not have a webcast.
we have already come to terms with the fact that the Dalek script shouldnt be considered as part of the "Lockdown!" event.
- Najawin
You literally did not.
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: the fact that Harness posted it within the #TruthOrConsequences hashtag shows that he still meant for it to be part of the tweetalong of The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion.
Your response? "Speculation". You didn't call the idea that it was licensed speculation, but the idea that it was part of the tweetalong.
- Borisashton
As per policy, her role needs to be specifically sourced. I think going by explicit credits and having a lengthy section on Cook's page about Lockdown! which covers any ambiguity is the best way to go.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Your response? "Speculation". You didn't call the idea that it was licensed speculation, but the idea that it was part of the tweetalong.
there's no denying that it was part of the tweetalong... but what i believe scrooge was trying to suggest, like he did earlier, is that the tweetalong as a whole is officially licensed. as to which i called it speculation, that was debunked by emily cook when she said that only the official stories are licensed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Could you give us a hard quote from Cook (with a link) on the "official" bit of this quote? How does she define "official stories"? Seems to me "stories posted on the Twitter account of the author doing the tweetalong, as part of the tweetalong" seems as good a definition of "official Lockdown! story" as any.
- Najawin
"We" have not come to terms with that. You have. There are four people currently talking, and two of them have expressed sympathy for the idea that it's not part of Lockdown.
Oddly enough, one of whom earlier said "what has youtube got to do with anything?" and then later said "it is also the only story that isnt posted on the "Lockdown!" youtube channel, so i would actually be fine with its removal."
- Najawin
If that was the case, you wouldn't just respond "speculation", you would outright explain how he was wrong and it was previously debunked. Just admit you were mistaken and move on.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Oddly enough, one of whom earlier said "what has youtube got to do with anything?" and then later said "it is also the only story that isnt posted on the "Lockdown!" youtube channel, so i would actually be fine with its removal."
those two things are not comparable. you said that only work appearing on youtube could have the "Lockdown!" brand, while i agreed that the lack of production credit for emily cook AND the lack of appearance on youtube were enough to remove it from the "Lockdown!" brand.
- Najawin
I distinctly did not say what you're accusing me of having said, not that that's surprising. And I'll also note that, again, prose stories cannot appear on youtube, nor can they have production credits. Neither of the things you're saying are criteria can possibly be fulfilled by prose stories.
- TazminDaytime
I would just like to butt in here and say that on 3rd May Emily Cook made the comment; "No, the new material I’ve been producing isn’t officially licensed at all. I really am just acting as a fan here, using my contacts!".[[32]]
She later went on to clarify; "those new short stories that are appearing on the BBC website are officially licensed. But that’s nothing to do with what I’m doing".[[33]]
This very clearly states that none of the stories organised by Emily Cook for the Doctor Who: Lockdown! even are officially licensed. As she also states that she is "just acting as a fan", this seems to invalidate all of the stories with her listed as a producer as they are unlicensed and fanfiction.
- Borisashton
Najawin wrote: And I'll also note that, again, prose stories cannot appear on youtube, nor can they have production credits. Neither of the things you're saying are criteria can possibly be fulfilled by prose stories.
Revenge of the Nestene did appear on YouTube as an audiobook. As I said, if we don't have a source for the nature of her involvement, detailed mention on Cook's page about the ambiguity is surely the best we can do?
- Najawin
With the exception of Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast), as that's on the official youtube channel. Well that simultaneously simplifies and complicates things considerably, thank you.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think these quotes must be misleading or taken out of context somehow — and apparently, quotes saying something very different were cited upthread. To point out just two pieces of glaring evidence conflicting with a "Lockdown as a whole is fanfic" interpretation, Strax Saves the Day was shared on the BBC's Twitter account and its production discussed in DWM, and Farewell, Sarah Jane was uploaded on the Official Doctor Who YouTube Channel.
- Najawin
Oh God. That means the entire thread discussing Tardis|Fandom is pointless now. Think of all the time I wasted...
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think it's in any way wasted even if User:TazminDaytime's information is correct — and clearly, since several of the things she'd already produced even when she made that Tweet are known for sure to have had licensing from the BBC, we're missing something. Whether it happened with The Zygon Isolation or has yet to happen, what to do about mentions of Tardis in-universe was a useful conversation.
Also, we should remember that this thread is not an inclusion debate of any kind, and not really qualified to have us come to any consensus on what should or shouldn't be covered on the Wiki. Tazmin's quotes are interesting to be sure, but not hugely interesting to this thread, which is how to organise the stuff we do cover. Nor, as I said, are they sort of clear-cut thing which makes further discussion pointless and the conclusion foregone.
- TazminDaytime
I did not intend to stop the discussion so abruptly, but I believe that these quotes were what User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 was referring to when he said Emily had "debunked" the tweet-alongs being officially licensed. Failing to realise that the same quotes seemingly deny licensing for all of the work other than the BBC website short stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, I see. The above wasn't meant to come across as shade in your direction, @Tazmin, sorry; in hindsight I see my second paragraph kinda sounds like it's accusing you of going off-topic. I see now how this flowed from the earlier conversation.
But yeah, "seemingly" is the operative word, looking at all the ways in which, even back when she made it, that statement already wasn't literally true.
- Borisashton
We should also remember that this thread is not entirely about Lockdown!. A consensus still needs to be arrived at for what to do with a list-type COVID-19 artiicle, especially in light of this new evidence.
- Najawin
So that tweetchain talks about Paul Cornell saying that Chibnall was involved in signing off on everything. I tracked down Cornell's tweetand it's ambiguous.
the person who brought the first part of this trilogy, 'The Shadow Pases' to you was Chris Chibnall, who's responsible for all the official Who content designed to help people in lockdown.
This can read either as Chibnall being involved in all of Lockdown and all Who releases in this time, and especially involved in the first part of this trilogy, or every Lockdown story not being official, and just the first part of this trilogy.
Given that the only agreed upon "official Lockdown" release is Farewell, Sarah Jane, it's worth analyzing it. Chibnall's name is not attached. So it doesn't seem like Chibnall is especially involved in Farewell, Sarah Jane compared to the other Lockdown/Quarantine Who stories. So I don't think the second reading is correct.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so when does a consensus get reached? the last time i checked most were in favour of two lists; those produced by emily cook / promoted by the lockdown youtube (theres no current stroy that was both - if it was produced by cook it was on the oyutube channel and if it was on the youtube channel it was produced by cook) and those not.
there was also talk on an entirely separate page regarding all covid affected releases.
- Najawin
Will you stop misrepresenting the discussion? There were four people participating in the discussion actively, two people voiced agreement for it, one, myself, actively voiced dissent, and Scrooge offered a competing standard. Someone else chimed in with further evidence relevant to the discussion which raised a plethora of questions, which has cast doubts on the validity of the stories, and I found a statement that suggests they might be valid anyhow, something Scrooge voiced support for as well.
Suffice it to say, this thread has nothing like consensus. Strictly speaking the thread is in a stalemate in terms of what standard to adopt, and even past that we seem to suffer from a lack of information on some key issues.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
and would you stop with the accusatory attitude? nowhere am I misinterpreting anything! three I saw agree with the separate lists, and Scrooge was on board with that at one point too!
- Snivystorm
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: so when does a consensus get reached?
Typically, an admin will check in to see if a suitable consensus has been reached after (usually) a week has past since the discussion started. As it has only been three days, this discussion is still in it's adolescence, hence available for many more members in the community to chime in and have their say.
- Najawin
Again, this is just untrue. The account you and Borisashton proposed was if Cook was listed as a producer. Scrooge instead proposed the criteria that Cook promotes it on her twitter (edit: or the author who's doing the tweetalong), a separate criteria. So there are three people in favor of separate lists, yes, but there's disagreement among those people as to what the demarcation between those lists should be.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
list of all final stances (as i can make them out):
ScroogeMcDuck:
in regards to separate lists he seemed to agree with the idea of having one list for emily cook produced content and another for bbc stories (but he suggested that the webcasts United we stand, 2m apart and Message from the Doctor be included on the bbc list). although he pointed out that this would orphan Incoming Message and argued in support of How The Monk Got His Habit being a valid lockdown! release.
DiSoRiEnTeD1:
i argued heavily in support of two lists, one of all emily cook produced content and another for bbc stories. although i suggested that United we stand, 2m apart and Message from the Doctor. and argue heavily against the validity of How The Monk Got His Habit.
Borisashton:
agreed that emily cook produced content should be on a list of its own, but suggested that rather than having another list for the bbc releases - a page for all convid affected releases could be created.
Snivystorm:
supported the idea of having one list for emily cook produced content and another for bbc stories. later kudo'ed Borisashton's suggesion of a page for all convid affected releases could be created.
Sabovia:
kudo'ed Borisashton's suggesion of a page for all convid affected releases could be created.
Najawin, i am unsure of your current stance.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so actually; me, ScroogeMcDuck, Borisashton and Snivystorm agreed that emily cook material be on one list. and me and Borisashton (and seemingly Snivystorm and Sabovia from their kudo's) agree that another page for ALL lockdown! releases should exist.
the only "disagreement among those people as to what the demarcation between those lists should be" is for the story How The Monk Got His Habit. but, like all the others, this was not produced by cook or published on the lockdown! youtube channel.
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: list of all final stances (as i can make them out):
ScroogeMcDuck:
in regards to separate lists he seemed to agree with the idea of having one list for emily cook produced content and another for bbc stories
No he did not. This is just obviously untrue if you read the thread. He said two days ago 'Seems to me "stories posted on the Twitter account of the author doing the tweetalong, as part of the tweetalong" seems as good a definition of "official Lockdown! story" as any.'As for my view, I think breaking up "content specifically created to placate people while in Lockdown" is inherently untenable, due to the edge cases I've outlined above. I think a more general page like Borisashton has suggested is a positive, but that includes things that are delayed as well as things that are created. I don't think a BBC/Emily Cook list is at all tenable, unless we somehow get word that she didn't have a license for any of this, which I find unlikely, given the stuff pointed out in the thread above.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
he said exactly what i just said. the only story we disagree with is How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) as I've just said.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I think breaking up "content specifically created to placate people while in Lockdown" is inherently untenable
you forget that this page isnt for all content "specifically created to placate people while in Lockdown". it is a page for Lockdown! content. Lockdown! is an event solely created and organised by emily cook, her involvement is pivotal. if she didnt organise it, its not part of the event.
- Najawin
And, you know, The Shadow Passes (short story).
This is surreal. You and Borisashton have proposed a standard. Emily Cook being listed as a producer. Multiple people have perhaps argued that, yes, there needs to be a split between Lockdown and BBC content, but only you and Borisashton have vocalized support for this standard. Other competing standards have been proposed, arguments against this standard have been proposed. But you're just mischaracterizing all of this as "most were in favour of two lists; those produced by emily cook / promoted by the lockdown youtube [...] and not". Which is just blatantly untrue. Which is exactly what I said you were misrepresenting in the first place.
As for Lockdown! being an event solely created and organized by Cook, well, you're right about the first. Organized, well, you might want to read the Cornell tweet to understand why that's a little more ambiguous.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
as i have said, me and Scrooge agreed on EVERYTHING bar United we stand, 2m apart (webcast), Message from the Doctor (webcast) and How The Monk Got His Habit (short story). i later came round to his understanding of united / message on the bbc list, and we only currently oppose each other in regards to Monk (which is having its entire validity questioned).
- Snivystorm
So we are clear on exactly what I support us doing, I'll repeat what I said above.
I'm in support of two tables: one with all the stories Cook endorses and another containing all stories separate from Cook's own endorsements.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i cant see any "other competing standards have been proposed" for the two lists? where are they? the only ones i see ARE the emily cook / bbc releases which me, Borisashton and Snivystorm vocally agreed on. Scrooge also vocally agreed on it but, for whatever reason, considers Monk to be a worth release for one of the lists.
- Najawin
So you agree that The Shadow Passes (short story) is a Lockdown! story? You've certainly changed your tune.
And Snivy, right. That's not the same as demanding she have producer credit though.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Snivystorm wrote: So we are clear on exactly what I support us doing, I'll repeat what I said above.
I'm in support of two tables: one with all the stories Cook endorses and another containing all stories separate from Cook's own endorsements.
thank you, i was clear on that as you specified it in your comment. i also thought you may possibly have been in agreement with Borisashton's plan for another page for all covid affected releases as you kudo'ed his comment.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: So you agree that The Shadow Passes (short story) is a Lockdown! story? You've certainly changed your tune.
And Snivy, right. That's not the same as demanding she have producer credit though.
i do not agree on the shadow passes, who said i did? and cook hasnt endorsed any work that she doesnt have a producer credit on other than the alternate dalek script.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
ALL of the material produced by emily cook has been published on the Lockdown! youtube channel, and NO release not produced by emily has been published on the youtube channel.
- Najawin
It's not on your list of stories you and Scrooge disagree on. Given: "I think the interpretation that the prequels and sequels aren't an integral part of the tweetalongs is fairly hard to take seriously."
You're talking about an earlier comment where he was merely discussing your proposed change. That does not mean he agreed with your proposed change, but instead was discussing whether it was internally consistent.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge NEVER suggested that the Shadow Passes be included. NEVER EVER. and the Shadow Passes was never posted as part of a tweetalong either.
this is my comment about Scrooge that you are falsely claiming is untrue; "in regards to separate lists he seemed to agree with the idea of having one list for emily cook produced content and another for bbc stories"
and these are Scrooge's comments;
"Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Would it be an acceptable middle ground for you if we did two tables — one with all the actual Lockdown! stories, and one for "other releases along the same time"? That would banish any lingering worries about readers mistakenly believing the non-Lockdown! one had anything to do with Emily Cook."
"That's not bad, but I feel as though we could probably throw in United we stand, 2m apart and Message from the Doctor, which are both BBC products even if they're not part of the navigation system of the BBC website. Not counting the probably-merged Breaking Isolation, that'd leave just Incoming Message and How The Monk Got His Habit floating around."
he later returned to the conversation only to continue his defence for How The Monk Got His Habit, as i have stated is the only part we disagree on.
so what part isnt true?
- Najawin
Let's consider his second comment there. What is he responding to? He's responding to you listing a set of stories that need to be reclassified. And he's saying "wait, no, some of these don't need to be reclassified, they can go on one of these lists because they're BBC products". This is, again, not an endorsement of your proposed solution. It's merely pointing out that within your proposed solution you had made a mistake.
As for Scrooge not suggesting that Shadow Passes be included, I'll direct you back to my quote that you ignored.
Or, you know, his explicit statement in Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) that he considered it a Lockdown! story.
"Cook may have stated that the Tweetalongs weren't a Doctor Who Magazine-endorsed project per se, but clearly some sort of agreement exists with the BBC, since some of the stories were released on the official Doctor Who YouTube channel or the BBC website, with no specific logic to which ones (one chapter of Paul Cornell's "Shadow" trilogy was released on the BBC website, then the other two were released on the Lockdown YouTube channel)."
Obviously this exchange took place before the thread, but in context with the quote, well. Look. The point is this. Consensus clearly does not exist. At best consensus exists that some split should happen, but people do not agree on how the split should be handled. To say otherwise is just a misrepresentation of the thread. There's still a lot of things people can discuss, even if some of them might be better served in a new thread related to validity of Lockdown! stories more generally.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it is clear from Scrooge's comments that he believes that any story posted during a tweetalong is considered valid, which i disagree with. so i guess that he would also say that the alternative dalek script is a Lockdown! release as well as Monk (although he hasnt vocalised this). but that still has nothing to do with the shadow passes.
- Borisashton
I'll quickly outline my own views on this matter for fear of misrepresentation. I'd be in favour of purging all lists from Doctor Who: Lockdown! and instead vaguely mention that multiple stories were created for the event. Emily Cook's page should already (separate from this thread) contain a list of all her credits and I'd like to see a detailed section on Lockdown! there as well.
Also, I'd like to see a "List of releases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic"-type page that would cover stories created because of the pandemic as well as those delayed because of it.
That being said, if strict parameters can be found for what counts as a Lockdown! story can be agreed upon I'd be happy for a list of solely Lockdown! stories to appear on the page. Cook's producer credit was one such proposal but this is by no means agreed upon at this stage.
I find it unlikely 170+ posts in that such a parameter will be agreed upon which is why I currently think it is best to remain ambiguous as to the releases on the Lockdown! page, cover the Lockdown! stories as best we can on Cook's page as per our current policies for crediting and ignore the issue entirely on the "COVID releases" page by having a subheading called something like "Stories created as a result" which can group Lockdown! and non-Lockdown! stories together.
- Snivystorm
Najawin wrote: And Snivy, right. That's not the same as demanding she have producer credit though.
Hence why I have not vocally stated support for that. She gets credit where the source displays she has it (ie: credits from a Lockdown episode.)
- Shambala108
- Scrooge MacDuck
It is my position that any story released during a Lockdown! tweetalong, by one of the people officially promoted as taking part in the tweetalong by Emily Cook (there's your fabled Cook ConnectionTM), should be considered part of Lockdown! in earnest. It never occurred to me that this would ever become a controversial position.
I mean, take Dalek alternative script extract. Such a thing simply could not be released as a YouTube video and remain the same kind of story. Making YouTube-upload the deciding factor skirts near a breach of T:NPOV, in that it implies that the "default" medium of Doctor Who should be video or audio, and that prose is somehow more suspicious.
…This is as distinct from saying any Lockdown! story is automatically valid. Again, it seems pretty clear that Dalek alternative script extract is a fourth-wall-breaking parody, and thus not intended to be set inside the DWU. So it fails Rule 4, and so it is covered as an invalid source.
Of course, whether Lockdown! stories as a whole are licensed by default is a point worthy of investigation. A recent edit of User:Shambala108's to one of the clauses of Tardis:No personal attacks reinstated the long-held policy of this Wiki that we should do our utmost to get a clear idea of a story's legal situation.
But though such a thread might be useful, this is not the thread to discuss whether Lockdown! passes Rule 2.
This thread, as I created it, is concerned only with how to decide what we call a Lockdown! story out of what we do cover, and to decide what we do with the stories we find to fall outside that label. It is a thread to figure out a clear, practical answer. Vague agreement that splitting the table somehow would be an acceptable middle-ground (that's the word I used; personally I'd still want to keep just the one table if it were up to me)… that simply doesn't cut it.
- Najawin
I think what you've described is sort of the obvious minimum action. Sort of obviously we should have those pages and discuss Cook's producer credit. The question is whether we should make larger changes, like removing the lists from Doctor Who: Lockdown! entirely. Or splitting the lists on the page. Maybe the first? I don't really see the need. And I think the second is going to be inherently untenable.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
in an ideal world these are my placings for these stories;
on the Doctor Who: Lockdown! page:
Lockdown! releases
every single one of these stories has been produced by Emily Cook, and published on both her twitter account and the Lockdown! youtube channel.
- Strax Saves the Day
- Revenge of the Nestene
- The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond
- Rory's Story
- Farewell, Sarah Jane
- Shadow of a Doubt
- The Shadow in the Mirror
- Sven and the Scarf
- Pompadour
- The Zygon Isolation
- The Descendants of Pompeii
- Listen
- Fear Is a Superpower
Associated Lockdown! releases
other official stories released to the bbc website
- Things She Thought While Falling
- Doctor Who and the Time War
- Press Play
- The Terror of the Umpty Ums
- The Shadow Passes
- The Simple Things
New Page for pandemic-releases:
- links to the separate sections above.
- Message from the Doctor
- Incoming Message
- United we stand, 2m apart
- Dalek alternative script extract
these leaves;
Breaking Isolation - needs merged with [[Games (short story)]] as the "new story" is just one picture with a caption. not enough to distinguish it from the original material.
The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! - validity in question.
How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) - validity in question.
- Snivystorm
Agreed @Scrooge. I personally would also rather keep one table, but (to compromise) am willing to concede to two tables on the Lockdown article.
- Najawin
Borisashton, to clarify, do you actually want two tables but realize that's not plausible, or were you just attempting to give a workable solution, and your overall view is more like "I'm fine with it if it happens"?
- Scrooge MacDuck
@dIsoRiEnted, the validity of How The Monk Got His Habit isn't in question, it's whether it should be covered at all. There is no serious proposal I'm aware of to cover it as invalid.
But at any rate, I still think there's something wrong with the list of non-Lockdown! pandemic stories, namely that Dalek alternative script extract is on it. The other three stories on that list in your scheme are pandemic-related webcasts not related to Lockdown!, and then you've randomly got that one story in there that doesn't actually refer to the pandemic in any way inside its text, but was created and released in conjunction with one of the official Lockdown! tweetalongs.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have proposed several times that the information should be covered on an invalid page for the novel that harness claimed was unfinished. it bothers me not if you believe him to have toyed with the truth about that novel, without hardcore facts we must take him for his word - or then why can we believe him about the unproduced episode?
- Borisashton
@Najawin, personally I'm in favour of one list that contains only Lockdown! stories (because it is the page for Lockdown!). It is defining a Lockdown! release I think is difficult.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, your terminology is extremely confusing, but if we take the fairly improbable view that the planned 2015 novel was a real thing, then that would mean covering the incomplete novel as {{unproduced}}. This is very distinct from covering the actual text released in 2020, whether as valid or as invalid. "Unproduced", "invalid", and "not covered at all due to Rule 2" are all very different concepts on the Wiki.
Beyond that, I can but remind you that this thread is not an inclusion debate for How The Monk Got His Habit or for anything else. It is about how to sort what we do cover. Until such a time as an admin closure of an inclusion debate rules otherwise, T:BOUND demands that we discuss the Wiki as it currently operates, meaning How The Monk… is one of the stories whose sorting we must discuss. Whether it should be on the Wiki at all is a matter for another thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
at the very start of this discussion i too was in favour of only one list, but i think that the bbc tried to jump on the Lockdown! bandwagon with their releases (Doctor Who and the Time War was published by them to coincide with the Day of the Doctor watchalong & the Shadow Passes includes a reference to an Lockdown! story) so i think they deserve a mention for that, if not in their own list then a section at least.
and i was under the impression that Dalek alternative script extract was a real alternative script for the episode, just posted by emily. but now that i see it was orgnaised by her and created for the event, i am fine with its inclusion in the lockdown list.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Borisashton, to clarify, do you actually want two tables but realize that's not plausible, or were you just attempting to give a workable solution, and your overall view is more like "I'm fine with it if it happens"?
you keep saying that it isnt plausible. what isnt plausible about having only lockdown releases on a page about lockdown? what isnt plausible is you treating this event page as an umbrella for all pandemic releases.
- Borisashton
Can I just add as a general statement that I think it's pretty useless determining what counts as a Lockdown! release on a case-by-case basis and that we should try and work out some strict parameters for what counts as what doesn't.
Lockdown could go on for a while yet and we don't want to be having lengthy debates for every new story. We should check if it fits a decided definition and then that's the status quo.
- Borisashton
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: was that addressed to Najawin or myself? You quoted Najawin asking a question about my opinions.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think that the strict parameters of; organised / produced by emily cook and / or published on the official Lockdown! youtube channel are the best we're going to get. these rules are pretty solid, and would include every story on my original list (with the addition of the alternate Dalek script).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: @DiSoRiEnTeD1: was that addressed to Najawin or myself? You quoted Najawin asking a question about my opinions.
i quoted najawain asking about his opinions?
- Snivystorm
Agreed @Borisashton. What we need is a clear definition rather than that definition becoming loose and changing on a case-by-case basis that will lead to further discussions like this that repeat threaded ground.
There a few options for that. We can take the broad approach that all stories released during Lockdown count, but that's too broad because it would include every story.
We can then boil it down to who made the story but then this restricts releases based on author.
Then there's the more equal ground (which I support) which is we include any story as Lockdown if it can be prove someone in part of the story's production desired/made the story for inclusion in the Lockdown event.
Of course, there can be other definitions but these are the three that have come to my mind.
- Borisashton
You quoted Najawin's post asking "Borisashton, to clarify".
What's your defintion of "organised" by Cook? Is that something we can easily measure? It is synonymous with promotion?
- Scrooge MacDuck
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, what do you mean by "organized by"? Prose stories don't get "organised by" credits. Are you finally agreeing that a story being released on the along-tweeting creator's Twitter during a Cook-organised tweetalong count?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"any story as Lockdown if it can be prove someone in part of the story's production desired/made the story for inclusion in the Lockdown event"
that is way too vague, as someone could argue that the Shadow Passes (which had nothing to do with Lockdown!) was made for the event due to a reference to a Lockdown! story.
emily cook is the creator of the even, she started it on her own and has said before that she organises all of the material for the event. so i think my boundaries of; organised / produced by THE CREATOR and / or published on the official Lockdown! youtube channel are fair enough.
- Borisashton
Yes, but what do you mean by "organised"?
- Najawin
You're begging the question. Clearly I think only Lockdown! releases are on the Lockdown! page as it stands. What I said wasn't plausible was breaking up posts on the LD! youtube channel (etc) vs posts hosted by the BBC. The reasons have already been given, but to reiterate some of them, you're breaking up a trilogy, it's not clear how LD! can even handle prose content aside from the BBC hosting it since they don't have an official site/account outside of youtube/twitter - and I didn't think of the Neutral Point of View angle on that but I quite appreciate it, and the whole Farewell Sarah Jane Revenge of the Nestene rehosting issues raise some serious questions as to how LD! even mirrors things.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: @DiSoRiEnTeD1, what do you mean by "organized by"? Prose stories don't get "organised by" credits. Are you finally agreeing that a story being released on the along-tweeting creator's Twitter during a Cook-organised tweetalong count?
i have never denied that stories posted by emily cook on her twitter are officially part of lockdown, what i have refuted is that any GUEST representative invited to tweet along has the ability to publish their own stories as part of the event (even when said stories are denied by the creator).
- Najawin
Again, the Cornell tweet makes the "organizes all of the material for the event" clause far more nuanced than you might think.
- Snivystorm
I'm personally against solely counting stories by Cook for reasons prior stated (way above) and also against solely including YouTube releases because that creates a source hierarchy, putting visual media as 'more official' than prose/audio.
I'm for all forms of stories that Lockdown take (audio, visual, prose etc.) being included so long as we can prove the stories were made with intent for inclusion in Lockdown is found
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Yes, but what do you mean by "organised"?
"make arrangements or preparations for"?
emily cook arranged all of the writers, actors and artists for ALL of the stories in my Lockdown! list with the addition of the dalek script.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Again, the Cornell tweet makes the "organizes all of the material for the event" clause far more nuanced than you might think.
it does not. chris chibnall HAS to sign off on any doctor who related release. this does not mean her organised the work.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Snivystorm wrote: I'm personally against solely counting stories by Cook for reasons prior stated (way above) and also against solely including YouTube releases because that creates a source hierarchy, putting visual media as 'more official' than prose/audio.
I'm for all forms of stories that Lockdown take (audio, visual, prose etc.) being included so long as we can prove the stories were made with intent for inclusion in Lockdown is found
can you post which current stories you think were made for inclusion for lockdown then? i cant really challenge your opinion if i dont know where you stand.
- Borisashton
There is no way "make arrangements or preperations for" is a good enough boundary. Ideally, we want something we can look at and decide upon immediately rather than hunting around Cook's Twitter (in the case of prose stories) for some indication that she had a major part rather than simply promoting it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
every story intended for lockdown has been posted by cook herself in an announcement. there would be no case for "hunting around" on twitter.
- Najawin
Obviously he does not have to sign off on any DW related release. I could release something right now and he wouldn't have to sign off on it. He does if it's going to be licensed etc etc. But this sort of ignores what was actually said.
the person who brought the first part of this trilogy, 'The Shadow Pases' to you was Chris Chibnall, who's responsible for all the official Who content designed to help people in lockdown.
Emphasis mine. (I already explained why I think the correct reading of this is that Chibnall is involved in everything, just Shadow more than the rest.)
So the fact that he's outright responsible for all of this is what's making this question so difficult to answer. And it forces us either to think that there's continuity between the Cook produced stuff and the non Cook stuff, or instead that the Cook stuff isn't officially licensed.
- Najawin
That's question begging. You can't just assert that every story intended for lockdown has been posted by Cook, that's exactly what's under contention.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
thats clearly talking about the bbc website stories, and i think cornell got a lot of flack for it (as people saw it as diminishing emily cook's efforts) didnt he post a retraction (or correction) later on?
- Snivystorm
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: I already said what my position is: I'm up for counting any story that was made with clear association with the Lockdown; ie: the source states that it was made in association/for Lockdown, etc.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: That's question begging. You can't just assert that every story intended for lockdown has been posted by Cook, that's exactly what's under contention.
then, like i asked of Snivystorm, show me a story that was said to be part of lockdown and wasnt posted by cook.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Snivystorm wrote: any story that was made with clear association with the Lockdown; ie: the source states that it was made in association/for Lockdown, etc.
name one story not produced / organised by cook that was ever stated to be in associated / for lockdown
- Borisashton
I'll quote Monk to you yet again which was posted using the Lockdown! hashtag.
- TazminDaytime
I think asking Cook outright on Twitter is a no-go area. I posed a question to her a couple of days back and she didn't take it very well, the question was ignored and she asked people to stop "arguing" before leaving Twitter for a while.
I think she is very new to being in the limelight, and the stresses of that are catching up to her. For now at least, I think we are on our own debating this topic.
- Snivystorm
@Tazmin: indeed. It is up to us, as a community, to decide on the definition.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: I'll quote Monk to you yet again which was posted using the Lockdown! hashtag.
Monk being the only example that anyone can use is hilarious, especially as it needs to immediately be removed as (like User:Shambala108 stated at Talk: The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast);
"Yes we should [jump to the conclusion of something being unlicensed just because nothing specifically points out that it is licensed]. We should be careful about making assumptions. We have to be strict about licensing just like we have to be strict about plagiarism."
- Najawin
I explained why I think that reading of Cornell's tweet is incorrect above, care to respond? And he certainly didn't retract his statement in the replies to the tweet, and only one person mentioned Cook. If you could find that tweet I'd be grateful, but even the wording would have to be odd to change what was said.
Edit: I'm going back to look on twitter right now. But given that the tweet literally right before he thanks Chibnall he's thanking Cook, I doubt it.
- Borisashton
Once again, this thread is not about Monk and T:BOUND states we should include it in discussions until decided otherwise.
How about Incoming Message, which was promoted by Cook, also with the Lockdown! hashtag?
In fact, that's a new parameter I'd like to admit for consideration. Any story released in conjunction or promoted with a hashtag assigned to one of the tweetalongs.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nice new parameter, i will create my own story and publish it during a tweetalong. why would that not be acceptable? no different to peter harness posting his Monk script LONG AFTER his GUEST tweetalong ended.
- Borisashton
I thought it went without saying that all stories would also have to pass Tardis:Valid sources. I guess I was wrong.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Monk doesn't pass that.
and, before you point out to me again that we have to treat that story like it does pass, then people should stop bringing it up when i ask for OTHER examples.
i am glad you finally brought up Incoming Message (webcast) but i cant remember emily cook promoting it?
- Borisashton
Monk is its own thing, as we are looking for general parameters a single story shouldn't matter anyway. A debate on whether it passes rule 2 should not happen here and it can later be removed if found to be unliscened.
Cook promoted Incoming Message here.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
oh, just seen what youre possibly referring to?[[34]]
she simply retweeted russell who posted it, she may have used the hashtag but this cannot count because i recall her retweeting a fan-made video clip in exactly the same way.
- Najawin
Okay, I did the digging. I looked through Cornell's timeline and the supposed retraction, of course, did not exist. At best he retweeted this, but as we've sort of already discussed, that tweet is ambiguous, and thus Cornell's reason for retweeting it is doubly so.
And Tazmin, that's a real shame, she seems nice enough, but I can only imagine the pressure she's under. I saw that someone from the Radio Times was making up fake quotes from her and the fanbase isn't exactly unified at the moment. Combine that with the fact that lockdown is stressful and it must be awful.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i am going to have to ask you to drop the sacrastic comments, Najawin. i do not appreciate little digs, this is supposed to be a friendly debate so repeately suggesting im a liar (with your "of course, did not exist" in regards to one of my claims - and earlier comments on me "purposefully misenterpreting" things) they're not needed!
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: oh, just seen what youre possibly referring to?[[35]]
she simply retweeted russell who posted it, she may have used the hashtag but this cannot count because i recall her retweeting a fan-made video clip in exactly the same way.
Why can't this count? In that tweet she conveyed authorial intent right from the fingers of Davies himself about its canonicity.
Can you provide the source of this fan-made video with attatched Lockdown! hashtag? As already noted, its a moot point anyway because a self-confessed fan video fails rule 2.
- Najawin
I meant more that I expressed extreme skepticism earlier. Given he literally thanked Cook in the tweet before he thanked Chibnall it seemed highly unlikely he would be retracting his statement.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i really suck at finding things on twitter, but i will give it my best - to save been suggested to be a liar once more. i know it was a fan video about daleks, and therefore must have been around the time of the stolen earth tweetalong.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: I meant more that I expressed extreme skepticism earlier. Given he literally thanked Cook in the tweet before he thanked Chibnall it seemed highly unlikely he would be retracting his statement.
just be more considerate, because that is not how you comment came across at all.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Why can't this count? In that tweet she conveyed authorial intent right from the fingers of Davies himself about its canonicity.
also i have never said that this clip wasnt canon. just that it was not part of the official Lockdown! releases.
- Borisashton
That wasn't at all what I was referring to, I merely used the note of canonicity as a way to show how significant that tweet was instead of it being just a retweet of Davies'. This wiki only deals in validity.
Btw, I've been searching Twitter for specific tweets by using eg ""#DoctorWhoLockdown" (from:emily_rosina)".
- Najawin
She thinks it's a "canon" release and promoted it using a Lockdown! related hashtag. I'm not sure you have a lot of ground to stand on here on the "name one story not produced/organized by Cook that was ever stated to be in associated/for lockdown" front. It's a clear example.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
thats helpful, thank you. i thought stolen earth / journeys end was the only tweetalong dalek story but i remembered that dalek itself had one, so maybe it was posted for that.
- Borisashton
So what's the consensus on using Lockdown!-assigned hashtags to determine what is in and what is out (in conjuction with T:VS obviously)? It's a method that would satisfy T:NPOV because Cook (and most others) have announced everything over the medium of Twitter so far.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so i failed to find the Dalek one, but heres another fan video[[36]] that she actually used the "#DoctorWhoLockdown" tag on as well as that tweetalong's tag of "#HellofaBird". so this renders those tags useless in deciding what is official Lockdown! content.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: so this renders those tags useless in deciding what is official Lockdown! content.
Not true. That clearly fails rule 2 of T:VS unless you want to make a serious case for it being liscened? Anything decided here wouldn't suddenly overwrite our most important inclusion/exclusion policy.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i know it doesnt pass rule 2, but it confirms that the tags are NOT solely for Lockdown! releases. so how can we then say that Lockdown! releases are tagged, when we know that the tags are being used on anything and everything regardless of their status??
- Najawin
Does it? Those videos fail rule 2, but that doesn't mean that we can't reasonably interpret actual Doctor Who media retweeted by her using the hashtags to be endorsed. Though I think even this criteria is too weak because guess what. This tweet exists. And in that tweet she explicitly endorses one of the BBC prose pieces as being relevant to the tweetalong, and it's not like it's the first prose piece either, so we can't argue "oh she didn't know that they might make more".
- Borisashton
Not really regardless of their status. That fan video was made specifically "for tonight's watchalong of Heaven Sent". We'll never get anywhere if we don't use a bit of common sense. C'mon, look at it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
sorry but the fact that the hashtags are used willy nilly makes it impossible for us to use them to determine anything worthwhile, cook even posted the S5 promo trailer with the hashtag.
- Najawin
I think you're the only person bothered by this.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Not really regardless of their status. That fan video was made specifically "for tonight's watchalong of Heaven Sent". We'll never get anywhere if we don't use a bit of common sense. C'mon, look at it.
common sense was thrown out of the window when you suggested that we would be unable to "hunt" through twitter to find cook's involvement with each project, but then want us to use a hashtag that she uses for everything - including fan fictions - to prove something
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
- Borisashton
What? I already proved that your proposed parameter of being "organised" by Cook was far too vague to be useful because promotion and organisation are too similar. You're kinda proving my point if you're getting held up on stuff Cook has promoted that is obviously fanfiction.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you proved nothing.
cook had no involvement in the Incoming Message (webcast), or at least none you can prove without speculating about the intention of her tweet. we know that she has retweeted and commented on fan videos in the exact same way she retweeted RTD's video, and she reposted other work she had nothing to do with like RTD's Doctor Who and the Time War (short story).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
organised / produced by emily cook is air tight. the work that she had involvement in arranging or producing is extremely clear, unless you begin speculating.
- Najawin
I think you'll find that in order for something to be considered a Lockdown! story it must first be a story. :>
We also aren't including the impressions discussion they posted today, are we? Or the messages from various people? Like, it's a bunch of fan art. Why would the wiki cover that? Unless we think everything done by this youtube account/section of the Doctor Who fanbase is newsworthy and deserves to be documented on this wiki, which I do not.
- Borisashton
Cook obviously had some involvement with Incoming Message or I doubt RTD would have entrusted her with the responsibility of announcing that it counted on par with stories like Rose.
And it hasn't been decided Doctor Who and the Time War isn't part of Lockdown! and I'd argue it has a strong case to be, even without the proposed hashtag parameter. Yes, it was released by the BBC but it was released in conjunction with the Rose watchalong as well as being talked about by Cook on several occasions.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
that video IS technically posed as a story.
- Borisashton
This thread is about a general rule, not a single story. Let's stay on topic.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Cook obviously had some involvement with Incoming Message or I doubt RTD would have entrusted her with the responsibility of announcing that it counted on par with stories like Rose.
youre speculating when you say he trusted her with the responsibility. they correspond all the time, she could have just mentioned what he told her. she has no confirmed involvement in the creation of that, your speculation aside.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
still seeing the produced / organised by emily cook as a pretty air tight rule, without your extreme reaches. she has stated on many occasions that she is just a fan at the end of the day, so retweeting stories that aren't designed to be part of Lockdown! doesn't suddenly change them.
emily has no proven involvement in either Incoming Message or Doctor Who and the Time War.
- Borisashton
Just saying, anyone can't just make declarations of canon like that. Either we trust her or we don't but I think we're getting too held up on a single story again.
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: could you reiterate the problems you still have (if any) about using the Lockdown! hashtags to determine relation to the event, in conjuction with T:VS of course?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
anybody in existence can make a "declaration of canon" like she did...
and i have stated my problems with the hashtags, because they're used for ANYTHING as i proved by one being slapped onto TWO fan videos (even though i couldnt find the Dalek one).
- Borisashton
This is why I said "in conjunction" with T:VS. Self-confessed fan videos fail before they would ever be judged on these parameters as they fail rule 2. If not from Cook, would you agree if the hashtags were found from the authors of the stories in question?
And if we don't trust her that RTD says its canon (which we should) then a lot of this thread needs to be reconsidered because apparently nothing Cook has said is certain anymore?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it DOESNT MATTER if the fan videos fail, the fact is that the tags were used on them in the first place which PROVES that they are not strictly used for Lockdown! releases. and no i would agree nothing about the hashtags, they're meaningless - ive seen numerous occasions where representatives have accidentally forgot to even use them during their tweet alongs.
and nothing needs to be "reconsidered" because cook said that a story, that this wikia already considers valid, is "canon". this site doesnt deal in canon.
- Najawin
Are we really going to pretend that Cook, ostensibly an adult, can't differentiate between retweeting a fan video using the hashtag, constituting an endorsement of this as a fan action within the grounds of the tweetalong, and retweeting an official Doctor Who story using the hashtag constituting an endorsement of this as an official story within the grounds of the tweetalong? Who are we trying to fool here?
- Borisashton
The word "canon" is pretty strong authorial intent for someone that does not deal in wiki-speak. Anyway, I'm not prepared to discuss that specific story with you anymore because this thread is interested in finding a general rule.
A thought just came to me: Cook as a fan, can decide that anything is a part of the Lockdown! event that she runs as a fan. However, she does not decide what is licenced, that is for the authors/BBC. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these fan videos are part of Lockdown! albeit not the version of it this wiki recognises for the reasons I've stated above.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
that would be speculating Najawin.
- Najawin
You're confusing "speculating" with "not having literally everything spelled out for us". The two are not the same, as evidenced by the fact that people here discuss authorial intent without just asking the author.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
no i am not confusing anything thank you, what you are doing is speculating.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think the first thing we need to do is separate the bbc website stories from the rest. all cook produced material has questionable validity, due to her claims of having no licensing, so it is best to get them away from the official stories asap.
- Najawin
Okay, you're right, I apologize, I shouldn't assume Cook is an adult who can differentiate between talking about fan works in one breath and official Doctor Who works in another. Forgive me, it's my mistake, and I will never again disparage her or her employer /checks notes/ Doctor Who Magazine. Oh.
- Borisashton
T:BOUND still applies and this thread is not here to decide validity.
- Najawin
If you'd like to make an Inclusion Debate about the works she's attached to, you're more than welcome to write up a thread. Speaking from personal experience, you're gonna get into the weeds.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Okay, you're right, I apologize, I shouldn't assume Cook is an adult who can differentiate between talking about fan works in one breath and official Doctor Who works in another. Forgive me, it's my mistake, and I will never again disparage her or her employer /checks notes/ Doctor Who Magazine. Oh.
i dont care if she can differentiate between the two. i am bothered about our ability to differentiate between what she is just randomly tagging, like the fan videos, and to work that she is actually confirming to being part of the Lockdown! event without speculating. but yea, keep trying to mock me. i wont rise to the bait because i know i am right here.
- Borisashton
I'm going to do something to try and move the debate forward by searching for a list of stories that use Lockdown! hashtags from official sources. Back in a bit.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i wont listen to any comment about hashtags, im sorry Borisashton but i find it ludicrous. cook has tagged so much non-lockdown material with those hashtags, how can we possible use them to determine what is official?
- Najawin
But this, as I stated before, is the wrong reading of the situation. Both of these are part of the Lockdown! event. It's just that one of them is fan action within the context of the event, and the other is action of someone who's a former writer for the show and is one of the guests of the tweetalong.
It's as if she were to write an article on Daleks and interviewed someone and also took quotes from people writing in and put them in little sidebars. It would be wholly irresponsible to pass off one of the interview quotes as being equivalent to something from someone who wrote in, either by putting it in a sidebar, or by using one of the fans' comments in the body of the text. The article has both, but Cook is smart enough to understand, ostensibly, that there's a difference between the two.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the hashtags being used randomly and sometimes forgotten mean that we cannot use them to determine this.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
also, Borisashton there's hypocrisy of you saying that we cannot "hunt" through twitter for evidence of cook's involvement in a probject - yet you are fine doing so in search for meaningless hashtags.
- Borisashton
You don't seem to notice the difference between the fine line of proving either "organisation" or promotion and a simple yes/no question.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: the hashtags being used randomly and sometimes forgotten mean that we cannot use them to determine this.
Sometimes forgotten, yes. Hardly matters. We don't consider that were men driving Daleks around in some stories because of a production error. The same logic applies here.
- Najawin
Also the fact that this is a discussion that would be setting precedent vs a standard going forward.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i know that every story that the event's creator organised / produced is clear, unless you begin speculating - she retweeted this, she posted that, she had "responsibility to canonise it". we deal in facts here, and all the material she was involved in arranging is easy to pinpoint.
- Borisashton
How can you tell if she organised a story she wasn't producer on or just promoted it in a consistent manner?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: How can you tell if she organised a story she wasn't producer on or just promoted it in a consistent manner?
because she is a very active twitter member, and mentions stuff like "i am currently working on", etc. the Dalek alternate script is the only thing i believe she organised without a producer credit, as it wasnt a webcast and didnt have credits.
- Borisashton
I've done the first 10 stories, just putting them on record now. I have prioritised the author of the story over Cook where possible.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so for Doctor Who and the Time War we only have RTD using a popular public hashtag, not even mentioning Lockdown!, to promote his own story which was posted on the BBC website as the second in their own series of stories with no mention of Lockdown! either.
then for Incoming Message we have Emily Cook giving a shoutout to her friend RTD's work, no mention of Lockdown! once again other than the hashtag that she posts to everything.
speculative to suggest anything more.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: because she is a very active twitter member, and mentions stuff like "i am currently working on", etc. the Dalek alternate script is the only thing i believe she organised without a producer credit, as it wasnt a webcast and didnt have credits.
It's not as air tight as I would like, are we to use the specific phrase I am currently working on only? Also, I'm not entirely convinced Cook can overrule an authors' opinion for a public event.
Just had another thought: Before every tweetalong Cook posts the schedule and if any bonus material is to be released in conjunction with it. These announcements could be something to look into as air-tight precedent.
- Najawin
I mean, you can call it speculation, but I think we're just going around in circles, since Borisashton and I pretty clearly feel it's not, and you haven't addressed the different modes of action angle.
So until other people chime in on whether or not it's speculation, let's move onto more fertile pastures of discussion?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
why dont you move on Najawin? me and Borisashton will continue alone if you like.
Boris, i think you could be onto something with the poster suggestion. especially as the posters use the Lockdown logo (that i posted onto the Lockdown! page earlier). but, it could be problematic as i dont think shes used posters right from the start of the event?
- Borisashton
Would anyone be interested in looking into the tweetalong schedules as another possible avenue? I can start digging up tweets if yes.
EDIT: posted this before I refreshed. I'll start investigating.
- Najawin
I mean, you're already moving onto other areas of discussion, so you're doing exactly what I suggested?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i didnt mean to attack Najawin, i just meant to say that i was happy continuing the discussion with Boris and wouldnt hold it against him if he ducked out? i think me and boris are actually getting somewhere, as slow as it may seem.
- Najawin
Cook explicitly says that Rose: the Prequel is on its way.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Cook explicitly says that Rose: the Prequel is on its way.
she is just acting as a fan and sharing what he said on his insta?
- Borisashton
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Just to present my findings thus far:
No schedule as I can see it for The Day of the Doctor however there are several sources that indicate Strax Saves the Day was part of the watchalong: 1, 2, 3.
For Rose, Russell revealed the schedule and then Cook retweeted here.
she makes no comment about the prequel that was to be made available on the bbc website, as it is not a Lockdown! release, but she made specific mention of the Rose sequel.
- Najawin
A cursory examination of the replies returns that someone asked "Is this thing any good?" and she responded "Well, ‘good’ is subjective. But I think it’s fantastic!" on March 24th.
The story was released on the 26th.
- Shambala108
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we have another story in the mix to discuss too; Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery
- Borisashton
Hmm, I slightly disagree with the dismissal of Doctor Who and the Time War from that tweet but it is a single story and probably ideally discussed after all the schedules are posted which I shall continue with periodically now.
Again, no schedule for bonus material for The Eleventh Hour but she calls it part of the #FishCustard watchalong here.
The Doctor's Wife is probably the first one with a strict "schedule". Cook mentions "two exciting Easter Egg" extras to be released along with the poster here and then later calls it a "specially created introduction for The Doctor's Wife watchalong" here.
- Najawin
I don't just slightly disagree, I strongly disagree. We have tweets showing she knew the actual text of the story before it went out, that has massive ramifications on this entire discussion.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i dont see how it matters if she knew the story before or not? nothing to do with her / Lockdown!'s involvement if she was given a sneak preview from her... friend.
- Borisashton
Continuing on...
Farewell, Sarah Jane probably gets a free pass as the only story we agree upon that was posted on the official Doctor Who YouTube channel. Nevertheless, it is described as "#SubwaveNetwork surprise" here.
Human Nature / The Family of Blood is thankfully much more explicit. Names and times of the two bonus stories along with the poster for the watchalong here.
- Najawin
So she knew about an official prequel to the story for the tweetalong, knew the contents of it ahead of time, tweeted "here’s something else to look forward to" using the hashtag for the tweetalong two days in advance, then responded that she thinks it's fantastic to someone below, then retweets it using the hashtag for the tweetalong, but we shouldn't take that as it being part of the tweetalong?
Yeeeeaaaaaahhhhhh... No.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the thing is, all that is speculation.
what i am doing is not speculation, i am looking and seeing that she does not acknowledge the bbc story and nowhere does it officially say that it is part of the event.
also if i were to speculate too, emily probably knew of the story's existence long ago as it was originally intended to be in DWM (where she works) in 2013. emily probably also realised that the bbc were wanting to jump on the publicity she had brought and were releasing their own story - which she was fine with, but didnt acknowledge as part of her event.
- Borisashton
For Dalek, both of the bonus stories were also listed in a schedule with specific times here.
For The Girl in the Fireplace, the bonus story was listed in a schedule with time, name, and the poster here.
For the Zygon two-parter, only The Zygon Isolation is mentioned (with name and time) along with the poster here.
- Najawin
Once again, you're confusing speculation with "things aren't officially said 100%". It's baffling the hoops you're jumping through to avoid reaching reasonable conclusions, where things Cook wasn't personally involved in might still qualify as being part of Lockdown!.
It takes far greater leaps of logic to maintain that she isn't endorsing it here than that she is.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
things arent said at all, let alone 100%. she retweets someone else's work and suddenly shes endorsing it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: For the Zygon two-parter, only The Zygon Isolation is mentioned (with name and time) along with the poster here.
Not going to keep going on about it, but the reason for this anomaly (after the president was set) is that Monk isn't valid let alone part of Lockdown!
- Borisashton
- Najawin
Question begging. We have not yet established that Monk is not part of Lockdown!. Until then, T:BOUND.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Question begging. We have not yet established that Monk is not part of Lockdown!. Until then, T:BOUND.
honestly, you can keep saying it till the dawn of time. i havent tried to open a discussion for validity, i am just pointing out what the only anomaly is. thanks!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: And finally...
The Fires of Pompeii has a schedule mentioning a sequel with a time for it here.
For Listen, both of the releases feature in a tweet with times, along with the poster, here.
i think this is perfect. it confirms more than half of my entire list as being the only Lockdown! releases. thank you for the effort, i struggle to navigate twitter.
- Borisashton
To sumarise, the following stories have been explicitly mentioned by Cook in a schedule for a tweetalong (or as close to a schedule as exists):
- Strax Saves the Day
- Revenge of the Nestene
- The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond
- Rory's Story
- Farewell, Sarah Jane
- Shadow of a Doubt
- The Shadow in the Mirror
- Sven and the Scarf
- Dalek alternative script extract
- Pompadour
- The Zygon Isolation
- The Descendants of Pompeii
- Listen
- Fear Is a Superpower
Doctor Who and the Time War is up for interpretation (as some disagree) but I agree with inclusion in this list.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so the only release i think me and you would disagree on now Boris is Doctor Who and the Time War? and surely you would agree it deserves to be with all the other bbc releases, especially as cook never officially confirmed it as part of Lockdown!
- Najawin
Farewell, Sarah Jane deserves to be with the BBC releases as well!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Farewell, Sarah Jane deserves to be with the BBC releases as well!
despite being produced and organised by emily cook, and not appearing on the navigational list of the bbc website?
- Najawin
It's not listed on the Lockdown! youtube account, but rather the Doctor Who youtube account. And given that Jacob Dudman hosted Revenge of the Nestene as well, and Lockdown! got a copy of that, while Lockdown! outright did not get to upload a copy of Farewell, Sarah Jane, I think it's fair to say that it's the BBC calling the shots on that one.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
as a compromise i wouldnt be hell bent against Farewell appearing on both lists, but in an ideal world it should just be with the other cook-produced content.
- Borisashton
Now that we (although do bear in mind the three of us aren't a consensus) have got a workable definition I think the next order of business would be deciding what the do with the lists.
Personally, I'd like there to be just one list on the Lockdown! page (for Lockdown! releases) and then other COVID-19-related stories can go elsewhere.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: It's not listed on the Lockdown! youtube account, but rather the Doctor Who youtube account.
oh, true. i thought it was on the Lockdown! account but only the music was.
- Najawin
(I don't agree we have a workable definition, for the record. I think Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) absolutely needs to be included, and its inclusion forces the definition to dissolve.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Now that we (although do bear in mind the three of us aren't a consensus)
i dont think the others will be able to argue with using the posters (although i can see that the debate for the pre-poster releases continuing). who knows though? ill be back on tomorrow!
- Borisashton
I think it's a bit strong to say the definition would dissolve if Doctor Who and the Time War is included. Cook tweeted about it a lot, including a retweet of the watchalong schedule from Davies.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
she only retweeted it for the sequel, the prequel was from the bbc
- Borisashton
Yes, but if we're going off of the basis of Cook schedules as a determination a retweet of Davies reitering the schedule is the best there is for that tweetalong.
Although, I was in favour of one list, perhaps a short second list containing Lockdown!-adajacent stories such as Doctor Who and the Time War and Farewell, Sarah Jane could work?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
even when there was no posters, she teased them on her own. And when she retweeted Davies she only teased the sequel.
- Borisashton
Still, what do you think of the latter half of my statement?
- Borisashton
Hm, I see User:Najawin has been blocked (for completely understandable reasons). Even so, it is a tad inconvenient for furthering the development of this thread. I propose this as a natural stopping point for the debate today (as I also need sleep). I'll be happy to return to this matter tomorrow.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I think all the bbc website releases could be considered “Lockdown!-adjacent”. they were all created to ride on the success of Lockdown! and deserve to be in an “associated releases” section. Especially Doctor Who and the Time War (which came out during a Lockdown tweet along) and The Shadow Passes (which mentions Daughter of Mien)
- Borisashton
I disagree with all the BBC releases being there as some were never associated at all with Lockdown! but I agree some deserve to be. As stated before, I'll discuss this in more detail with you tomorrow, as hopefully, will others.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so, just in case anyone is coming back into this thread and wants a conclusion; it was suggested that perhaps the posters (released by the creator emily cook for the Lockdown! event - and including the official Lockdown! logo) could help in deciding which stories were intended for Lockdown! the posters were first used from the Doctor's Wife onwards.
Borisashton did the research and i believe that all stories intended for Lockdown! after the poster system was devised are pretty clear, they are;
- Rory's Story [[39]]
- Shadow of a Doubt / The Shadow in the Mirror [[40]]
- Sven and the Scarf / Dalek alternative script extract [[41]]
- Pompadour [[42]]
- The Zygon Isolation [[43]]
- The Descendants of Pompeii [[44]]
- Listen / Fear Is a Superpower [[45]]
i think that a clear pattern has presented itself after the posters began being used - all Lockdown! releases are now announced alongside the posters. this would be a good method to prevent a new discussion for every upcoming release - if the story is announced with the posters and given an allocated slot, it was meant to be part of Lockdown!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
then there are several stories that were released prior to the use of posters that are currently being contested;
- Strax Saves the Day
- Doctor Who and the Time War
- Revenge of the Nestene
- The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond
- Farewell, Sarah Jane
in my opinion Strax Saves the Day, Revenge of the Nestene and The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond are clearly Lockdown! releases. while Doctor Who and the Time War is solely a bbc release. Farewell, Sarah Jane was released by the bbc but cook herself had a producer credit so i am currently open to where this story would be placed.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i do feel like we have come full circle as the 10 poster confirmed releases / the 5 pre-poster releases are the ones i stated in my original posts in this thread as being the only Lockdown! releases (obviously not including those which hadnt been released yet). and i even mentioned that i thought Doctor Who and the Time War was unclear but i believed it belonged with the other bbc releases as it was posted on their site and on a navigational list of the other bbc releases.
- Scrooge MacDuck
(Sputters) Please refrain from seeing consensus where there is none. I still think any criterion which rules out Dalek alternative script extract is perfectly unsuitable.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nobody is seeing consensus. and nobody has ruled out Dalek alternative script extract, in fact it passes this criteria with flying colours.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, apologies, i missed a bit. But what I was referring to about "seeing consensus" was "So, just in case anyone is coming back into this thread and wants a conclusion…". This isn't a conclusion, what you've got there, is a proposal.
I also still think you should account for How The Monk Got His Habit, at least on the "contested" list. Again, we'll see if we cover it at all, but per T:BOUND, this thread is predicated on the idea that we do.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
that was a conclusion of mine and Boris' conversations for last night, i was posting it so that others would be able to clearly see where we got up to and could continue the discussion without being put off by so many individual comments (when we only came up with the proposed poster criteria right at the end)
and how can you dismiss The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) in the original post but then suggest we account for the equally likely to be deleted How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)? i mean, i guess it can stay on the Lockdown! list until it is inevitably invalidated.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, I see. Sorry!
As for your question — in part, because an admin already chimed in on the talk page of The Castellan… and the situation there is that we're juuuust holding out for a bit more info just in case, but unless some is found it will be deleted. Whereas an admin-convincing case against Monk has yet to be made anywhere, it's just you making some arguments which will have to be turned into an inclusion debate someday when we're done with this discussion.
And in equal part, because Castellan, even if we do cover it, is a good example of a COVID-affected but not-actually-part-of-the-specific-Lockdown!-event webcast. It should go with Incoming Message and Message from the Doctor, most likely.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the comment the admin made on Castellan is exactly the same as for Monk. we cannot assume licensing, we need facts. so it’s not just me making an argument, there’s a guideline that it breaks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Whether it breaks this guideline needs to be argued in a dedicated a thread, not this one. We have offered proof of licensing several times in the form of it being released as part of the Lockdown! Tweetalong and content released during Lockdown! Tweetalongs being licensed. It is your right to personally think this argument is unconvincing, but addressing this argument would be necessary to come to any kind of consensus on Monk, and this is not the thread to do that.
As I said, we can temporarily slap The Castellan on the "unsorted COVID-19-influenced releases" list if it makes you feel better.
- Borisashton
My current opinion on what stories should be included are as follows.
Lockdown! releases:
- Strax Saves the Day
- Revenge of the Nestene
- The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond
- Rory's Story
- Farewell, Sarah Jane
- Shadow of a Doubt
- The Shadow in the Mirror
- Sven and the Scarf
- Dalek alternative script extract
- Pompadour
- The Zygon Isolation
- The Descendants of Pompeii
- Listen
- Fear Is a Superpower
If we were to go with a second list on the page that would include "Lockdown!-adjacent" stories I'd perhaps go with Doctor Who and the Time War, Incoming Message and How the Monk Got His Habit for that. As far as I can tell, most BBC releases are COVID-19-related but not Lockdown!-related.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
and as I said, we can temporarily slap Monk on the Lockdown! list if it makes you feel any better.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Boris my list of official Lockdown! releases is the same as yours.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
is anyone in opposition against the list for Lockdown! only releases being;
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I have made repeatedly clear, so long as it exists on the Wiki, How The Monk Got His Habit really should be on that list. Other than that, seems okay to me, though I still kinda think Doctor Who and the Time War should be there inasmuch as it tied in with a specific Lockdown! watchalong (Rose) rather than just being spurred by the pandemic in general.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i agree with Boris' suggestion of a Lockdown!-adjacent list for the likes of How The Monk Got His Habit (while it still exits on the Wiki) and Doctor Who and the Time War.
if you look at all the current stories on the list you will see; ALL of them were promoted for the event (from Rory's Story onward they were announced alongside the poster and scheduel for each tweetalong) and they were ALL organised / produced by emily cook. these arent just coincidences, they show us what it takes to be an official Lockdown! story.
Monk was not promoted by the Lockdown! event - and was dismissed as being part of the event by emily cook herself (she WAS NOT dismissing the unproduced television story - as why would she think that anyone was ever debating that an unproduced 2015 television story was part of her event?). and likewise, Time War had no involvement from emily cook and was not promoted for the event.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Please don't use capital letters like that. Again, this is not the proper thread to argue your point but you're beating down a strawman. Of course no one's saying Emily Cook would think the 2015 TV story project itself was meant to be part of Lockdown!. But the fact that Harness would start talking about it, that's another thing.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
[[46]] here is where emily cook denies that Monk is part of her event.
some have tried to claim that she was actually talking about the unproduced 2015 television story... why would she ever be under the impression that people were debating whether a non-existent five year old story was part of her 2020 event?
whether it is valid or not, this is confirmation that it is not part of Lockdown! and it is complete speculation to suggest that it is. i am happy for it to reside in a Lockdown!-adjacent list until the page is ultimately purged from the site.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Please don't use capital letters like that.
please stop acting like you are an admin. several times you have attempted to control how i post. you repeatedly tell me to stop "overquoting", this is not your job - and now you tell me to stop putting emphasis in my comments. stop, leave it to an admin if im breaking any rules im sure they will let me know.
- Scrooge MacDuck
For God's sake, we have been over this.
Firstly, this thread is the wrong place to argue about this and I have told you so already several times.
Secondly, the question was whether "Harness's unproduced story How The Monk Got His Habit" was part of Lockdown!. This is thus self-evidently about the unproduced TV story, not about the short story How The Monk Got His Habit, which was in fact produced. Note that Cook's answer says "it's something he mentioned during the tweetalong". Harness mentioned the TV story, and released the short story. So…!…
Thirdly, the idea isn't that the 2015 script would have been intended to be part of Lockdown!, obviously not. But rather, that the unveiling of the old TV project would have been part of Lockdown. That might have been the case, and Cook says it was not.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Of course no one's saying Emily Cook would think the 2015 TV story project itself was meant to be part of Lockdown!. But the fact that Harness would start talking about it, that's another thing.
harness made an anecdote about an old unproduced story, after his watchalong ended he was encouraged by fans to post an old draft copy. this was unplanned, very likely unlicensed, and completely dismissed as being part of the event by emily cook - you cannot speculate what she was talking about.
she made a statement that How The Monk Got His Habit was not part of the event, and im sure she read all of harness' posts, and that is what we must go off.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I am not attempting to override admin authority, far from it. But User:Shambala108 herself reminded us all of Thread:223085 just yesterday. I'm hardly making it up out of thin air or going behind admins' back when I remind you not to overquote — which, besides, is also a matter that affects me as a participant in this debate. This rule is there for a reason, namely that it makes the thread hell to read for other people after a while.
It would be wrong of me to give you orders, or threaten to punish you, but I hardly think it's overstepping to remind you of some Wiki policy and to make polite requests. I didn't say, "Hey! You! I order you to stop using all-caps!". I said, "Please don't use capital letters like that." It was a polite request, and a partially personal one. It makes the debate's atmosphere less pleasant for everyone if people start Internet-shouting.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i am NOT talking about the Monk's validity here!
you have brought up the Monk several times and whenever i try to talk about it you immediately accuse me of derailing the topic at hand. this is not fair.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: It makes the debate's atmosphere less pleasant for everyone if people start Internet-shouting.
capitals do not go hand in hand with "shouting". i was putting emphasis on certain words that i found important in my text.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, what are you talking about if not whether Monk should be on the Wiki? And it is not speculation to say that when Cook is asked about an unproduced story by Harness, and when her answers involves his mentioning it, Cook is likely talking about the, you know, the unproduced story that Harness mentioned, as opposed to the written-out story that he released. It's far more speculative, I should imagine, to posit that Cook is making statements about the two stories at once even though both the question and answer are in the singular form.
In addition, either way, Cook's comment must, as has been pointed out before, be weighed against the fact that Harness used the #TruthOrConsequences hashtag. What we'd have here, at worst, is Cook and Harness disagreeing on the point of whether it was part of Lockdown. Not a clear-cut "it's not".
- Borisashton
Would it be more productive to decide first what stories aren't part of Lockdown! and then try and work out a parameter around those that are left?
I also note that the documentary features list on the Lockdown! hasn't been touched upon at all thus far during the debate.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i am very clearly talking about whether Monk should or should not reside on the list of official Lockdown! releases.
i have stated that, even if it is valid, it should not as it was not officially released as part of Lockdown! it was posted by a guest representative, after his slot had ended, when fans asked him for more information on his unproduced tv story. he claimed that it was a discarded draft and made no comment on an official release, for Lockdown! or otherwise. likewise, emily cook also denied the story being part of her event.
as i have said before, i am happy for Monk to reside on a "Lockdown-adjacent" list. but it should not be with any of the official releases for cook and her team, and to prove that - just compare it to all the others on the list. it is the odd one out as a) the only one not worked on by cook & b) the only one not promoted by cook
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the "short story" harness released IS an unproduced story. he literally claimed that it was from a discarded novel - hence, unproduced. and he mentioned it, and did not officially release it.
but i will stop mentioning that as i feel like i will soon be accused of derailing the topic again.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Borisashton, this is a good point, but as all the documentary webcasts on that list were released via the Doctor Who: Lockdown! YouTube channel, I hardly think there's much doubt about them.
@dIsOriEnTeD1, I stand by my rebuttal of the idea that Cook denied the short story being part of Lockdown! and my further pointing out that it was released within the Tweetalong's hashtag by the featured DWU author. On the one side we have no evidence that the short story (as opposed to the unveiling of the TV draft) isn't part of Lockdown!, and on the other we have significant evidence that Harness intended for it to be part of Lockdown!, as shown by the use of the hashtag.
The reason this turns into a question of validity (and thus outside the scope of this thread) is, you understand, that it is because it was released within Lockdown! that we take this story to have been licensed like all the other Lockdown! originals. It is either part of Lockdown! and covered on the Wiki, or it isn't part of Lockdown! and it's fanfic. You can't start questioning whether it's part of Lockdown! without questioning its coverage on the Wiki. And this isn't the thread to question its coverage; only an inclusion debate is allowed to do that.
You write, “the "short story" harness released IS an unproduced story. he literally claimed that it was from a discarded novel”. You're conflating two things again. The full novel, if it had ever existed, would be an unproduced story. But the actual prose story released in 2020, whether or not it started out as part of a larger project, obviously isn't unproduced. Licensed or otherwise, a page of prose fiction about the Monk's fifth incarnation was released in April 2020 on Twitter. It ain't unproduced because it's right there. I've read it, and you've read it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: I also note that the documentary features list on the Lockdown! hasn't been touched upon at all thus far during the debate.
this debate is only for the stories i think, which makes sense.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: we have significant evidence that Harness intended for it to be part of Lockdown!, as shown by the use of the hashtag.
the hashtags are the most meaningless thing. as ive said before, theyre used on everything and anything - fan videos, the lot. so we cannot use them to determine what is part of the event.
the tweetalong ended just prior to this comment by harness [[47]] however he continued of his own accord and much later posted the discarded Monk script. this was not part of the tweetalong, regardless of hashtags. if you are suggesting it is, then when does a guest's control over the event finish in your eyes? could a random guest representative from ages back post a story today, that is nothing to do with the event and with no indication of licensing, but still have it seen as valid by this site as they used a public hash?
- Borisashton
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: @Borisashton, this is a good point, but as all the documentary webcasts on that list were released via the Doctor Who: Lockdown! YouTube channel, I hardly think there's much doubt about them.
My main concern was about The Doctors Say Thank You (which I don't believe was a Lockdown! release and can't find on the YouTube channel) and the BBC News segment because there is no precedent on the wiki for covering little snippets from the news as their own pages.
I'll go elsewhere with this if required but this debate certainly is for how many release lists we have on the Lockdown! page as well as if that page should be a general COVID-19 release page, both of which are issues that concern these features.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm — well, the BBC News segment itself isn't what the page is (will be? has someone created it yet?) about, but rather the Doctor Who: Lockdown! YouTube channel's webcast constructed around said clip. See The Lord Mayor's Show for a precedent of sorts, too. That certainly didn't start out as a distinct segment with a clear-cut beginning and end.
And The Doctors Say Thank You clip was similarly uploaded through official channels, such as the BBC Twitter account, IIRC, as a distinct entity. It had also been advertised as a distinct entity before release, too, if you'll recall the not-inconsiderable hype.
- Borisashton
Fair points on the first half. I just don't think The Doctors Say Thank You is part of Cook's Lockdown! event and is more comparable to the BBC's The Terror of the Umpty Ums. If its decided we want the Lockdown! page for just Lockdown! stuff that should probably be removed.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
for the list of "Lockdown!-adjacent" releases i still think ALL of the bbc website releases should be included and heres why;
it can clearly be seen that the bbc jumped onto the publicity of the Lockdown! event. the first watchalong was 21st March, and then the bbc bundled together to create a story Things She Thought While Falling that would be released the day before the next watch along. and on the official website they even mentioned that Doctor Who and the Time War would be published next in the series - and this was intended to be released to trade off the publicity of the second watch along.
i think that this proves that the bbc stories were only ever created after they saw how popular Lockdown! was and in my opinion all six deserve to be mentioned in the "Lockdown!-adjacent" section.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
this entire discussion was proposed to talk about the stories and not the documentaries.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: the tweetalong ended just prior to this comment by harness [[48]] however he continued of his own accord and much later posted the discarded Monk script. this was not part of the tweetalong, regardless of hashtags.
You're confusing being part of the tweetalong and being part of the event as a whole I think. That tweet from Harness was made literal seconds after the episode had finished. Almost the entirety of the stories on the Lockdown! page right now would have to be removed if we're suggesting "released during the tweetalong of an episode" as a qualifier.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Borisashton wrote: Almost the entirety of the stories on the Lockdown! page right now would have to be removed if we're suggesting "released during the tweetalong of an episode" as a qualifier.
huh? i dont understand your comment. i do not believe any official story has ever been released during a tweetalong, all the undisputed examples were released at their own times either before or after.
it is Scrooge who believes that tweetalongs as a whole are officially licensed and therefore harness posting the discarded draft of Monk during his tweetalong makes it an official Lockdown! release.
all i pointed out is that he didnt even post it during his tweetalong slot, he posted it long after his slot ended.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: for the list of "Lockdown!-adjacent" releases i still think ALL of the bbc website releases should be included
Wholeheartedly disagree on that. In my eyes, the "Lockdown!-adjacent" stories should be for stories that are closely tied to Lockdown! but fall afoul of whatever parameter we decide. So Dalek alternative script extract if the parameter was Cook as producer, for example. Stories like The Terror of the Umpty Ums has no connection at all with Lockdown!.
- Shambala108
This thread is only four days old, and there are over 350 posts. I have twice brought up Thread:223085, to no avail. The length of this thread and the excessive quoting have made it unreadable.
Please stop quoting each other (and read the policy if you haven't). Failure to follow this basic rule could result in your comments being deleted.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the bbc stories have the connection of clearly only being created to trade off the success of the event. i dont think it is wise to split the six stories up.
- Scrooge MacDuck
For the record, I do not believe that tweetalongs themselvesare officially licensed; this has been shown to not be the case, and anyway, I don't exactly know what they'd need a license for.
I do, however, believe that the phrase, e.g., "Lockdown!’s Listen tweetalong", refers to the whole event involving the hashtag #FearIsASuperpower and the people advertised in advance as taking part in the tweetalong. It is not limited to the specific fifty-minute period during which people were supposed to watch the TV story in sync, but rather also includes the tweets immediately before and after, and any and all bonus material released as part of the hashtag to tie in with that tweetalong.
Strax Saves the Day, for example, was part of "the Day of the Doctor tweetalong", even if it may not have been released during the exact time the special was being tweeted along with.
And further, based on the quote from Cook about Chris Chibnall overseeing all these Lockdown! stories, I believe that all the Lockdown!-original stories are authorised by the BBC.
Ergo, if a story is part of "the tweetalong" (meaning the event, as handled by the people officially in charge of it: Emily Cook + whoever she invited to participate in one), then it is part of Lockdown!; and if it is part of Lockdown!, then it is licensed.
- Borisashton
@DiSoRiEnTeD1 Now you're the one speculating. The simple fact is that some of the BBC releases (eg Doctor Who and the Time War) have far greater connections with Lockdown! than the others. Any COVID releases page would collate all of the Lockdown! and BBC releases together so it hardly splits them up. This is a page for Lockdown! releases and those closely tied to it, not independent BBC stories.
- Scrooge MacDuck
(Borisashton, your above comment was directed at the one directly above mine, right? One gets lost, at the rate these posts are going up…)
- Borisashton
Yep! In fact I posted my message before I saw yours and after that edited it before I saw your question. This thread is growing at an alarming rate.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i have never said that the tweetalong is just for the period that the show is airing - that is the watchalong, the tweetalong lasts for the length of time indicated in the posters (sometimes it is longer if there's a sequel / prequel story).
but harness posted his discarded story LONG, LONG after the entire tweetalong ended. im pretty sure it was even the next day by the time he posted it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think i will start to get lost now too with the inability to quote.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so the only things that would be on a "Lockdown!-adjacent" list in your view would be Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)? that makes the list pretty pointless.
- Borisashton
And Incoming Message, as I've stated before. We've had tables that have less than three entries before, I don't see the problem.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
remind me of the connection between Incoming Message and Lockdown? was it just because emily cook, a fan foremost, retweeted her friend's work and made a comment about canon (despite having made / supported comments that canon doesnt exist in doctor who)
- Borisashton
No, it was because Cook, as the creator of Lockdown!, retweeted the story with the hashtag that she came up with to signify it was part of the event that she organised, not only that but with a statement of strong authorial intent from the writer of the story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
thought we established that she had also stamped a hashtag she came up with on several fan videos, meaning that those do not signify the work being part of the event. and it is complete speculation to suggest that one comment about canon, despite her not believing in it, gives her a connection to the story. what if she declared that The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story) was canon?
- Borisashton
We've established nothing. Using hashtags as a determiner was one of many proposals that has been floated. There has not been consensus on a single one thus far. If nothing can be decided, it's likely my inital suggestion to remove all story lists and remain vague would have to be implemented.
I don't understand why you've brought up The Curse of Fatal Death? As it stands, however, that story has zero reason to be invalid and is being discussed at Thread:270437.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
emily has no known involvement with Incoming Message - she was acting completely as a fan in her comments about it, albeit a fan who has connections. her comment about RTD saying it was canon says nothing for her involvement.
the fatal death similarity was a bit far fetched but still, if she claimed it was canon - under your logic we’d have to believe that she was connected to the story despite having no involvement in the project whatsoever.
- Borisashton
I'll have to leave soon, the debate is starting to tire me.
Unlike Fatal Death (which clearly had nothing to do with her or the event), Incoming Message was released during a tweetalong, in the 36th minute of Rose. That's about as close as you can get to part of Lockdown!.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I never actually realised that Incoming Message was posted during the Rose watchalong, that should have been your leading argument all along. I’ve only been looking at Emily’s retweet of it I guess.
- Najawin
Alright, being back, since so much has been covered, this might be a bit scattered. Apologies for that in advance.
Borisashton, the point I'm making here, to reiterate about including Doctor Who and the Time War and thus the definition dissolving, is that this is official Doctor Who, so Chibnall was involved. We know Chibnall coordinates with Cook on Lockdown! more generally. So it seems bizarre to me to act like the other short stories wouldn't be considered as well.
As for that list DiSoRiEnTeD1, I am, as is Scrooge. You know this. Stop trying to force through consensus when there isn't any. The better question is "let's discuss more objections to this list". And again, there's no need to rush this process.
DiSoRiEnTeD1, why do we think she's talking about the unproduced 2015 television story? Because she's literally responding to someone asking about an unproduced story, rather than the short story he wrote and posted for the event? As Scrooge pointed out to you. And you can't really say "well she meant the unproduced book", because "produced story" isn't exactly how you phrase things about a book, and, as has been explained to you before, the idea that Harness would get a Target Novelization of an unproduced story is bizarre, and because it's bizarre, we should instead take it as a framing device for his short story.
Borisashton , as for the documentary features, DiSoRiEnTeD1 posted the one full of fanart on here and I've been trying to start a discussion about it on Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! but he was resistant. I'll reiterate my reasoning as to why it does not belong.
"Let's discuss the subject of this project that was posted on the Lockdown! youtube channel. It's a scene of Vincent and the Doctor (TV story), when Starry Night is being conceived, that leads into a series of fan art, and then the gallery scene with "pile of good things and bad things". Does this merit inclusion on this wiki and inclusion in this series? In my view, clearly not. This does not itself constitute a story, as there's a scene, a harsh cut to montage, and then a harsh cut to another scene, with thematic coherence but no narrative coherence. Even putting that aside, there's no new narrative material here, just reposting clips of an already existing episode, at best you should make a note on the episode page, and this wiki is not the place for fan art. And finally, not everything this youtube page does is noteworthy, as evidenced by other videos existing that aren't being talked about on this wiki."
As for the idea that the BBC jumped onto the publicity of the Lockdown! event, well, now I get to say it. Speculation. :>
And as for "establishing the hashtag means nothing", we established no such thing, you consistently have failed to respond to the "modes of action" response I pointed out, calling it speculation when it is anything but. This is what we'd expect an adult to understand, let alone an adult in her line of work. The burden of proof is on you to explain why we shouldn't take seriously the idea that she can differentiate between talking about official Doctor Who material and fan material.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
once again I started a discussion on the actual page’s talk page, but you refused to use it. Instead you created your own discussion nearly ten minutes later and repeatedly violated my rights by transferring my comments to the new discussion without my consent. Please stop painting me out to be the unreasonable one and please stay on topic.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
also you repeatedly took pleasure in reminding me that this was not an inclusion debate for Monk, so I’ll remind you this is not an inclusion debate for Gallery
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
And finally, I have already told you that I do not care if cook herself can differentiate between fan and official material. what I care about is us on this wikia being able to differentiate it without speculating! I told you this already!!
- Najawin
Actually, I had begun typing up my arguments for why Gallery obviously doesn't belong on this wiki before you made your post on the talk page. And I again explained why that's the proper place, as it's more likely to get attention, and not just us talking past each other. Also, I didn't transfer your comments, I quoted one comment for continuity (which isn't a violation of your rights, don't be hyperbolic). You then responded in a comment and then deleted both the comment you made as a response and the comment I placed for continuity.
I don't think it's unfair to say "I've been trying to start a discussion about it on Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! but he was resistant".
As for saying this thread isn't an inclusion debate for the webcast, this just beggars belief for you to say this now. This is after you brought it up in this thread, I pointed out it wasn't a story, you said it was anyhow (incorrectly), posted it to the wiki without asking for further discussion from this thread or the talk page, and then after this, while we were discussing its inclusion, brought it up again in this thread.
As for us not needing to speculate, it seems quite obvious. "Does it meet our criteria for validity? If so, it's not fanwork, by definition, and hence Cook endorsing it is a demarcating criterion given standards of validity also being met". (I'll note that I do not agree with this set of criteria but am merely explaining it.)
Given this dual set of criteria, where we can establish what is "Official Doctor Who stuff" by way of our validity standards" and what is "fan stuff" if it doesn't meet them, and then what is Lockdown! endorsed content by her using one of the relevant hashtags, we've created a nice little four quadrant graph. Which is what we've been saying the whole time. The "Lockdown! Doctor Who stuff" would be one quadrant of this graph. So to say that the hashtags are useless because they don't determine the quadrant as a sufficient and necessary condition in themselves is, uh, bizarre.
Edit: And politely, can you respond in one comment? As Shambala said above, this thread is getting needlessly convoluted with all of the posts.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you were blocked for abusing my rights repeatedly. and now you continue to try and paint me in a bad light, as a result of this and other digs in your most recent comment I will not be engaging with you any further. even if that means I have to withdraw myself from this discussion entirely.
- Shambala108
User:Najawin and User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 you are both getting very close to violating Tardis:No personal attacks (and for now I'm assuming good faith). Please keep to the points and stop criticizing each other's methods or accusing each other of misrepresenting you.
And Tardis:Bold text and Tardis:Italics allow for different ways to emphasize your points. Stop using all-caps.
- Najawin
Actually, I was blocked because there was miscommunication over an admin instruction. Danochy had earlier reverted your attempts to delete your comments, citing the no vandalism rule. Shambala mentioned the no vandalism rule and said to stop the edits, so I thought that was directed at you. I made a mistake, still being new to this, and apologized immediately. For some reason the block still took 24 hours to peter out even as Shambala undid it. Technical problems somewhere.
I apologize if you feel like anything I said is an attempt to paint you in a bad light or is a dig. I think these things are uncontroversial. You were resistant to discussing it on the talk page I mentioned, you wanted it discussed elsewhere, etc etc. I can assure you, I've not intended to personally attack you.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I accept your apology now and am fine to move on.
- Najawin
Well what I was blocked for was violating an admin directive, not copying your comment. Having asked, it seems the appropriate procedure would be to keep the comment of yours but have made it more clear that it was a quote. Similar to what you deleted at the very end. But we're going off topic.
- Snivystorm
Is this discussion finished then? Have you (in some hundreds of replies) reached a verdict?
Until it is, it seems the Lockdown page in question will remain locked.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
its very clear by reading this thread that no verdict was reached - and the Lockdown! page is only locked for a week, isnt it? i do not plan on revisiting this topic until the final tweetalong has been and gone (the New Earth tweetalong this coming Saturday is said to be the penultimate).
- Snivystorm
That is precisely my point though. If we do not have a verdict then, when the page does reopen for editing, it is going to get locked soon after because the same problem that caused it to be locked in the first place will still be present.
If (for you) a verdict cannot be found until at least the last 'tweetalong', that still means a locked page for something close to a month.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
tweetalongs happen every few days (a week at max!) - the final tweetalong will happen sometime next week, where did you get a month from?
- Shambala108
No need to reprotect the page after the week expires. At this point everyone on this thread should realize they are not to edit against what we're trying to decide until the thread is closed, and we can block anyone who ignores that.
- Borisashton
Hopefully the end of Lockdown! can bring some clarity to the debate, potentially in the form of hand-selecting which stories we consider part of the event as the need for a general rule would be redundant.
The schedule proposal is pretty busted after Cook mentioned Big Finish's Regeneration Impossible in one though.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Borisashton i missed cook mentioning that, but couldnt Regeneration Impossible just be in the Lockdown!-adjacent section like all the others not produced by cook herself.
- Borisashton
I guess, but it's a bit hypocritical to say that everything mentioned in the schedule tweet is part of Lockdown! and then put one of the stories mentioned in that tweet into an "adjacent" section.
Anyway, I agree with waiting until the event is over so we can get a look at the situation as a whole.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i will also wait until lockdown! is over, but i think the sanest solution has always been separating the cook produced content from the rest.
- Najawin
Snivy, I'll note that the page was locked due specifically to a non story, Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast), being added to the page. Discussion of this is still ongoing, in principle, at Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown!, but has petered out a bit.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
it was locked due to an edit war. i said it belonged on the page, you said it didnt. instead of just allowing it to remain on the page (like every other contested story) and have it discussed here, you repeatedly removed the information. and then you complicated matters by opening a spin-off discussion on the main Lockdown talkpage after i had already started one on the page's talkpage (just like has happened with any other contested release; Talk:The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) and Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)) so no wonder the conversation has "petered out".
- Najawin
This was discussed above. I'm not going to rehash it, except to say it's a mischaracterization of events, and move on.
I don't think that's why discussion has petered out though. Scrooge was talking quite regularly and just stopped. Moreover, I'll note that those two examples aren't analogous. The first was a validity debate, not a debate about whether it was a part of Lockdown!, and the latter you yourself started, so it would be circular to appeal to it as precedent.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
nothing i said was incorrect. we both took part in the edit warring that got the page locked because you believed it wasnt a story, despite that never having been discussed / agreed upon, and i believed it was. deny it all you like that is what happened.
we should not be discussing Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery's validity as a story or documentary on the main Lockdown page. likewise, we should not be talking about it here either so we can agree to disagree and move on.
- Najawin
But I'm not discussing it's validity as a story on the main Lockdown page. I'm discussing whether it belongs on the list of Lockdown! releases on that page. Again, my reasoning for this was explained in full, so just like the above this simply ignores what actually happened.
But yes, let's. My point was more to point out to Snivy that since that discussion is ongoing it seems unlikely that, unless more non stories are being added to the Lockdown! page, there will be a need to lock the page again. :>
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
a validity discussion had already been opened, which would also cover its place on the Lockdown! releases list. so i do not appreciate when you keep advertising the latter forced discussion as the original / main.
how can you say outright that Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast) is a "non-story" and actively remove it from the page, but when i say that "How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) is a "non-story" too (in the fact that it is a draft of an unreleased script) i have to go through a discussion. incredible hypocritical.
- Najawin
A validity discussion would not inherently cover its place on that list, no, because we haven't established that Lockdown! releases as a whole are necessarily valid.
Also, that's just a bizarre comparison. Gallery has no narrative. It can't be a story. Monk has a narrative. It's a story. The current discussion isn't even whether Gallery is a story, it's whether it's a documentary.
But look, we agreed to move on, so why are you still bringing it up?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the discussion i raised, and you actively sabotaged, WAS about whether it was a story or not. so that is what irks me.
- Najawin
Look. We're off topic. I'm not going to respond here anymore.
- Borisashton
The Secret of Novice Hame seems like an obvious Lockdown! release for whatever criteria is decided upon. Anyway, I look forward to discussing this more next Saturday.
- Borisashton
The end of Lockdown! seems to have been delayed slightly. In the meantime, are they any thoughts on how much the recreation of the COVID-19 page affects this discussion?
- Snivystorm
I personally don't really see how it impacts the Lockdown page all that much. The mention of lockdown releases could be included as a "Behind the scenes" section on the Covid-19 page though.
- Borisashton
I thought as much. Most of that discussion will likely go on at Talk:COVID-19 but it's good to mention all avenues available to us.
The Best of Days seems like an obvious Lockdown! release, however.
With the end of the event and the 400+ posts of stalemate, it might be in our interests to do away with the hope of finding a "system" and just decide Lockdown! releases one by one. Thoughts?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i would be fine doing it one by one, but it appears that everyone is already in agreement about every release except for How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) (forgive me if im wrong - but that it what i recall anyway).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not really. I'm willing to compromise on the issue, but I still think the BBC website prose stories and suchlike should be included on the list or an adjacent one, if you asked me.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the ideal setup for me would be;
Lockdown Stories[[edit] | [edit source]]
# Title Featuring Tweetalong Author Release date 1 Strax Saves the Day Strax, Vastra The Day of the Doctor Steven Moffat 21 March 2020 2 Revenge of the Nestene Nestene Consciousness Rose Russell T Davies 26 March 2020 3 The Raggedy Doctor by Amelia Pond Amelia Pond The Eleventh Hour Steven Moffat 3 April 2020 4 Rory's Story Rory, Amy The Doctor's Wife Neil Gaiman 11 April 2020 5 Farewell, Sarah Jane Jo, Ace, Gita, Luke, Clyde, Rani, Mr Smith The Stolen Earth/Journey's End Russell T Davies 19 April 2020 6 Shadow of a Doubt Bernice Summerfield, Daughter of Mine Human Nature/The Family of Blood Paul Cornell 24 April 2020 7 The Shadow in the Mirror Thirteenth Doctor, Daughter of Mine 8 Sven and the Scarf Sven Dalek Andrew Ireland 30 April 2020 9 Dalek alternative script extract Ninth Doctor, Rose Robert Shearman 10 Pompadour SS Madame de Pompadour The Girl in the Fireplace Steven Moffat 6 May 2020 11 The Zygon Isolation Osgood, Osgood The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion Peter Harness 10 May 2020 12 The Descendants of Pompeii Lobus Caecilius's descendants The Fires of Pompeii James Moran 17 May 2020 13 Listen Twelfth Doctor Listen Steven Moffat 20 May 2020 14 Fear Is a Superpower Danny Pink, Clara James Peaty 15 Doctors Assemble! The Doctors An Adventure in Space and Time James Goss 23 May 2020 16 The Secret of Novice Hame Hame, Tenth Doctor New Earth/Gridlock Russell T Davies 30 May 2020 17 The Best of Days Bill, Nardole World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls Steven Moffat 7 June 2020 BBC Lockdown Tie-ins[[edit] | [edit source]]
# Title Featuring Tweetalong Author Release date 1 Things She Thought While Falling Thirteenth Doctor N/A Chris Chibnall 25 March 2020 2 Doctor Who and the Time War Eighth Doctor, Ninth Doctor Rose Russell T Davies 26 March 2020 3 Press Play Thirteenth Doctor, Susan N/A Pete McTighe 1 April 2020 4 The Terror of the Umpty Ums The Doctor N/A Steven Moffatt 7 April 2020 5 The Shadow Passes Thirteenth Doctor, Yaz, Ryan, Graham N/A Paul Cornell 15 April 2020 6 The Simple Things Thirteenth Doctor, Graham, Yaz, Ryan N/A Joy Wilkinson 22 April 2020 the stories removed include;
- public announcement webcasts Message from the Doctor, Incoming Message and United we stand, 2m apart which can be covered on the main COVID-19 or somewhere.
- unclear lockdown releases (and potential non-stories altogether) Breaking Isolation, The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! and How The Monk Got His Habit. all three of these stories are currently having inclusion debates regarding them.
does anyone have any opposition to this?
- Scrooge MacDuck
…Didn't we uncover that Incoming Message had in fact been released to tie in with the Rose tweetalong, even if it's narratively unconnected to Rose? Your table also includes Message from the Doctor even though you say it was "removed", so that's a bit inconsistent.
That being said, I do like the general shape of this. Very neat; "Lockdown! tie-ins" is a good term. Not sure about adding "BBC" — "BBC website", maybe, but all the Lockdown! webcasts were also, to our knowledge, ultimately overseen by the BBC, though they weren't produced thereby. So…?…
In addition… Breaking Isolation and The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! are under debate respectively because the former may or may not count as an independent story, and the latter is not part of Lockdown! and we're still waiting for evidence that it was licensed (though we don't have evidence that it wasn't either, it's very frustrating). So you're right that their having independent inclusion debates means there's little point in arguing about them here.
But… ack, it all comes back to the Monk story, doesn't it? As I and others said on that thread, there are other potential concerns, but a major point of contention is whether it's part of Lockdown!. This is the thread to create the policy of what we acknowledge as a Lockdown! story.
As you know, my position there is that when the official host of an official Lockdown! tweetalong, within the tweetalong's hashtag and a very short time after the tweetalong wrapped up, posts material that seems to directly follows from stuff he talked about and teased during the tweetalong per se, then that should absolutely count as a Lockdown! story. Now that Lockdown! is over, this isn't creating any dangerous precedent. Literally all it would mean to accept this policy instead of your "it has to have Emily Cook credited for something" one would be that we get to cover one more excellent DWU story from Peter Harness. C'mon…
(Also, your setup above doesn't include the table of documentary/out-of-universe releases, but I presume that's simply because there isn't really any controversy in that area, rather than anything else?)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
first of all, this debate is for "stories" - not documentaries. and i don't think that there is any controversy there anyway. and Message from the Doctor was an oversight but removed before your comment posted.
i had forgotten about about Incoming Message (webcast) being released for the tweet-along, so you're right is should be included somewhere.
if your only issue with the main lockdown releases table is that Monk isnt included, surely it is obviously the odd one out? ALL of the other releases were produced / organised by Emily Cook. and ALL of the other main releases were related to the tweet-along, not some random story about the Monk on a Zygon tweet-along. and ALL of the other releases were posted within the tweet-along, or at a scheduled time just before / after, not half a day later.
also, it doesnt matter if there is no evidence for the Castellan not being licensed - the fact that there is no evidence that it was means that it cannot be valid on this site. same with Monk really, as there is no evidence there.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Incoming Message was posted with little-to-no promotion, and does not appear to have been produced or organised by Emily Cook in any way; it was just Russell T Davies's own idea of a fun thing to add to the tweetalong event. So that's already one example. While the circumstances are obviously different, The Best of Days also notably wasn't released as part of a tweetalong. So those are already two "ones out" that don't fit into your criteria either.
You say that "ALL of the other releases were produced / organised by Emily Cook" and Monk is the odd one out. But I could flip this argumentation back at you and say that all the other releases, without fail, had one of the relevant hashtags and were either by Cook or by one of the official Tweetalong hosts — so that my criterion fits all the releases under consideration, while your criterion rules one of them out arbitrarily.
In either case, the problem is we're kind of… assuming the conclusion. Which of the two sets of criteria we pick is going to be based on whether we want How The Monk Got His Habit to be on the list (and, in some form, on the Wiki, though not necessarily as valid depending on how the other thread goes) or not; that's literally the only practical difference between the two sets of criteria. Again, with Lockdown! over, we're not creating any greater precedent.
It's up to us, as a community, to come up with the policy we want to be held to. Given that there are no greater concerns at stakes, I really don't see what we have to lose by going with our criterion and ruling How The Monk Got His Habit "in".
(I'm not going to argue with Castellan, because this isn't the thread to do that and I'm honestly thinking we'll probably have to delete it in the end. But all I meant about the "no evidence" is that for a project by an established DWU creator and professional filmmaker besides, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" and we have a duty to look for evidence of licensedness. If no such evidence surfaces, naturally we will delete the page. But it's different from something which wears its unlicensedness on its sleeve like e.g. Time Rift or Gallifrey Stands and is never really up for consideration.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Incoming Message is not a main release, as you said it was just a piece of fun. And the Best of Days was planned to be released during a tweet-along but it got cancelled...
as I’ve said so much, the official hashtag means nothing when Cook shared fan videos stamped with it - confirming that it is not for official releases only.
Cook also denied Monk had anything to do with lockdown (if the short story Monk DID have something to do with lockdown she would have clarified that!).
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh let's not come back to the Cook quote about Monk a-frecking-gain. We have stated many times before that you can't just assume, when Cook was asked about X, that if she had had something to say about Y, she would have said so. I mean cripes. I could just as easily say "she took the time to point out the TV story wasn't part of Lockdown!, so surely, if the short story hadn't been part of it either, she would have said so in so many words". This whole area of argumentation is much too speculative to be of much use.
Beyond that… again, the thing is that the official host of an official tweetalong using the hashtag seems like a different thing entirely from random fans using the hashtag. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cook (or Moffat, or Talalay, or…) never actually posted fanworks with the hashtags, did they? They retweeted such things, but that's very different.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Cook said it wasn’t part of lockdown, so yes we will come back to it.
she did not think that people were debating whether a 2015 unproduced television story was part of her 2020 Lockdown event, no matter how you twist her words.
and Cook retweeted fan work and tagged it with the hashtag herself.
- Scrooge MacDuck
…I could take issue at you saying we're "twisting" Cooke's word, and I could point out how we pointed out that your interpretation of the quote relies on "mentioning" and "posting" being synonymous, which they, uh, aren't, and I could do any number of things.
But instead I'm going to say this: please, have mercy on this thread and keep all that talk to the Monk thread. User:Shambala108 told us to stop throwing our points back at each other on that thread; I doubt she meant that this should drive us to continue the unproductive back-and-forth here.
But here's something that's on-topic for this thread: even if Cook had said this of the produced short story rather than the unproduced TV outline… again, why should we take her word over Peter Harness's? This thread is the policy for establishing how we define the boundaries of "Lockdown! stories" we cover. We can decide that it's Cook's word/involvement which is the deciding factor, or we can decide that it's whether it was posted by one of the official Lockdown! hosts with intent to be part of Lockdown! which is the deciding factor.
Neither one is objectively superior to the other — it's an arbitrary choice we have to make as a Wiki, and we're making it here. As I said, if you keep the "posted" constraint as opposed to "retweeted", my version doesn't actually force us to include any fanworks. Monk is the only thing whose coverage would change depending on which policy we go with, and either policy is viable.
So, again, why do you want to exclude Monk? Neither potential policy could do the Wiki any harm in the long term; Lockdown! was a one-type, one-of-a-kind event, and now it's over. Whatever we decide here today will affect Monk, and Monk only. (Okay, maybe also whether we put Incoming Message on one list rather than another, but y'know.) In these rare circumstances, we, as a Wiki, do sometimes get to be arbitrary and choose, of two viable policies, the one which rules in the stories we want it to rule in. See Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2. So why not choose the one that allows us to cover one more story to the full extent it deserves?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
take issue with it all you like, I could just as easily take issue with you trying to shut down my comment with “not a-frecking-gain” which is outrageously unnecessary.
and we would take Cook’s word over Harness’ because she A) invited him as a representative so all of his official releases would be known by her and B) Harness’ tweet-along hour was LONG since over while her influence in the project continued.
- Najawin
So these lists are obviously incoherent. Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) was promoted by Cook two days in advance of the tweetalong using the hashtag of the tweetalong. If I want to be really persnickety, I can point out that it was posted on the BBC website with vague reference to the tweetalong going on that day, including the hashtag. But I don't think that's needed, and I don't think the BBC was endorsing the tweetalong, since Cook has explicitly said they haven't done so. They're merely referencing fan behavior related to a short story they posted, legally speaking. Similarly The Shadow Passes (short story) is part of a trilogy with two lockdown releases. You simply can't separate it from the other two.
As for the idea that taking Cook's word of Harness, we've not established that Cook and Harness's comments are in conflict. Rather the idea is why we should take Cook to be "the sole arbiter of Lockdown!^tm". As for the idea that Harness's tweet along was over, so, uh, he kept talking to fans who were interested in the story and his work? The horror.
Regardless, the point is the following. There are obvious narrative and structural ties between what DiSoRiEnTeD1 are maintaining are Lockdown! Stories and what they maintain are BBC Lockdown! Tie-ins. Ties so great that the entire distinction between them vanishes, once we remember that Chibnall has to approve all of this. Given this fact, what makes the Lockdown! stories (from DiSoRiEnTeD1's perspective) special? Is it merely Cook getting producer credit? (modulo Dalek) Then surely it does no harm to go with the broader categorization and note on her page all the places where she was producer. The idea that Cook is the sole arbiter of Lockdown!^tm is just utterly nonsensical. She's coordinating this with Chibnall, we know this. We've been told this.
And even if we didn't, we're told repeatedly by her that this is a fan project merely organized by her. Something we've been forced to realize at least since the revival is that the writers are fans, and it's near impossible to organize the fan community. For those not aware of this, Rec.arts.drwho has some of the relevant history.
So I guess my argument is that even if someone other than Cook wasn't involved in organizing, and we know there is, at least on the story side, this is a situation where Cook can't put the genie back in the bottle once she lets it out. To say that she's the sole arbiter of Lockdown!^tm is to both ignore what we know about how Lockdown! is operating and to ignore Cook's own statements about the project.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
The Shadow Passes having a very minor reference to two lockdown stories does not make it a trilogy... and the BBC released a story (Doctor Who and the Time War) but never presented it as being part of lockdown, hence both these stories are tie-ins. And I see no reason to separate them from the other four BBC website releases, so might as well include all six on the list.
- Najawin
Najawin wrote: You do understand what through lines are, yes? How instead of plot points being the connective tissue between books, themes can be? I can assure you Paul Cornell does.
And again, Cook promoted Doctor Who and the Time War as if it was a Lockdown! release in advance of Lockdown!. This distinction is obviously untenable.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
A reference, nothing more.
Good for Cook, she’s a fan too at the end of the day.
- TazminDaytime
I would advise that everyone in this discussion listens to this interview with Emily Cook. [49] Here, she gives us specific guidelines on what it takes to be an official Doctor Who: Lockdown! release;
It also includes a range of additional content, as well, that I have been producing. And often this content compliments the episodes that we're watching; so it might be a sequel to an episode, or a prequel.
Unlike some of her other comments, I think that this is clear and precise.
On a separate note, I am unsure if it is still being discussed but during another interview Emily Cook states that Chris Chibnall approached Russell T Davies for additional content separately (resulting in Doctor Who and the Time War) completely unaware that Cook herself had approached Davies for material too (and received the "Rose sequel"). [50]
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think this quote is as definitive as you say it is. It says that Lockdown! includes X, Y and Z, but it doesn't say that's all it includes — and as for the second sentence, it says that this content "often" complements the episode tweeted along with, as opposed to "always".
The production info about Revenge of the Nestene is interesting, but clearly by the time the two were released there had been some coordination, so while neat I'm not sure how relevant it is. In such matters, the intent at time of release tends to be what we look at, not how the project started out.
Thanks for the sleuth-work, in any event!
- TazminDaytime
From her comments I see no "coordination" between Chris Chibnall and the Lockdown! Team, there is only mention that they both sought Russell T Davies' help in creating additional content. Furthermore, at this point Things She Thought While Falling had already been released so there would be no need for Chibnall to coordinate with another event before releasing a second story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But surely it's no coincidence that Doctor Who and the Time War, which ends with the Eighth Doctor's regeneration into the Ninth (probably), was released on the day of the Lockdown! tweetalong for the Ninth Doctor's debut?
Also, clearly at some point an agreement was worked out with the BBC in terms of all these new releases being licensed. Farewell, Sarah Jane ending up on the official Doctor Who YouTube Channel is a pretty big clue. I was assuming that this must have gone through Chibnall, and some quote or other was provided upthread to suggest this, but I could be wrong.
- Najawin
So the comment Tazmin is referring to starts at 1:47, "So Doctor Who: Lockdown! is basically a series of tweetalongs of Doctor Who episodes where fans all watch together at the same time and tweet online and it also includes a range of additional content as well that I've been producing, and often this content compliments the episodes that we're watching; so it might be a sequel to an episode, or a prequel, and I'm trying to bring in as much different talent as possible."
Let's note a few interesting things about this. The first is that it's just untrue. Dalek alternative script extract (short story) was not produced by Cook. The second is that she explicitly refers to fans watching and tweeting as being part of the event. So she, by default, is not the arbiter of what belongs in the event once she says this. And, as stated, as the writers are fans of the show, and have been for quite some time, we're forced to conclude that the genie is out of the bottle.
As for the second, that's a highly misleading phrasing of what the article says. Davies's intent was to have Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) be part of Lockdown!, that's what that article establishes. It was published on the BBC website because Cook did not have a way to host prose articles and Chibnall came to Davies also asking for material. After this occurred, Davies then wrote another piece for Lockdown!.
And yes Scrooge, Cornell has been quoted as saying just that.
Oh, I forgot to mention this before. There actually is controversy in the documentary area. We still haven't resolved Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast), I do not think that An A-Z of Impressions with Jon Culshaw! was Lockdown! related or even necessarily something that should be covered on this wiki (though I would cede that it's a documentary should it be covered on this wiki), and I don't think Lockdown Long Song Choir-Only Version is a documentary. The Long Song: Fan Cover How To Get Involved... is sketchy, and I don't think DiSoRiEnTeD1 would call The Doctors Say Thank You a Lockdown! documentary. Nor BBC News Friday 3 April 2020 for that matter. I'll look into the Heaven Sent ones in a bit.
- Najawin
Okay, yeah, the Heaven Sent ones are fine from DiSoRiEnTeD1's perspective, as Cook tweeted about them.
- TazminDaytime
I think that Russell T Davies likely chose Doctor Who and the Time War with foreknowledge of the tweet-along, and it is highly likely that Chris Chibnall was made aware of the event eventually - especially as the hashtag was later used for the official BBC website release of the story.
However, the fact that Chibnall approached Davies' on his own - without any knowledge or involvement of the Doctor Who: Lockdown! event - strengthens the idea that these are simply adjacent releases and not part of the main range. I think Farewell, Sarah Jane is a unique case and deserves to be featured with the other Emily Cook produced releases. I stand by the idea that Cook's comment was clear, and that the official releases are those produced by her.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The Doctors Say Thank You is another matter, but the BBC News, Long Song, Heaven Sent and A-Z are, I think, all fairly uncontroversiall part of Lockdown! on account of having been released on the official Lockdown! YouTube channel.
- Najawin
I do apologize on the BBC News one, that was me not understanding where it comes from. I guess only I object to that one, not DiSoRiEnTeD1. A-Z has no relation to any tweetalong, it's just a series of impressions meant to keep people cheery. Most of the others aren't even documentaries.
- TazminDaytime
@Najawin thank you, I had misread the section - too many mentions of "prequel" and "sequel".
So, Emily Cook approached Russell T Davies for some additional content and he suggested the "Rose prequel". He was separately approached by Chris Chibnall to provide additional material for his own series (which began with Things She Thought While Falling). Chibnall was given the prequel, and RTD wrote a sequel for the Doctor Who: Lockdown! event.
This does help to establish that the two series are completely separate, as Chibnall approached RTD without knowledge of Cook's event, albeit adjacent.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I mentioned at Talk:Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast), the thing is that this Wiki calls any licensed out-of-universe-focused video product a "(documentary)", in terms of dabbing anyway. This may not accord with common usage, but it's what this Wiki goes with, much like our perhaps-questionable description of the Mr Men books as "(novel)"s. And it is in this sense that we call them "documentaries" in these conversations. (If you have an alternative terms you'd like us to use, be my guest!)
- Najawin
Tazmin, you certainly have every right to think that Cook's comments were clear in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nobody can take that away from you. But the fact remains that we have a direct quote from Cornell saying that Chibnall was involved with all "official" Doctor Who releases during this time, meaning that either Chibnall was involved with scheduling of the Lockdown! releases or all of these releases violate T:NO FANFIC and shouldn't be covered at all. Given Cornell's other comments about how he wanted people to interpret his shadow trilogy (which I can find if you want - he very clearly did not think the latter two were fanfic), I think the former is far more likely. Also, you know Strax Saves the Day (webcast) was talked about in DWM as "canon". So your reading seems untenable.
- TazminDaytime
It is confirmed that Strax Saves the Day had no involvement from Chris Chibnall.
- Najawin
Well that's not quite true Scrooge. Firstly you mentioned that on Talk: Doctor Who: Lockdown! (:>), but we need "video or audio product that tells about DW in the real world rather than being a purveyor of fiction".
I don't think many of these do that. For instance, Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast) is simply a compilation of images flashing past. It's a collection of ontological primitives, it's not actually telling us anything.
- Najawin
Really? Where? Note that talking to and getting the a-ok would be all the involvement needed for my point to succeed.
- TazminDaytime
Both interviews I posted have Cook telling the entire story of Strax Saves the Day and doesn't once mention Chris Chibnall. At a later date Chibnall mentions to Davies, that "Doctor Who needs to do something" which paints him as being unaware of the event.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Najawin: Ah, sorry about the wrong talk page link. And I still think Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery fits that criterion. It is telling us something: "this piece of fanart exists, and this piece of fanart exists, and this piece of fanart exists…".
- Najawin
So it isn't confirmed, got it.
Scrooge, surely by that standard T:NO FANART (oh wow, this isn't actually a rule? I guess the image hosting rules take care of it.) and T:NO FANVID are no longer meaningful rules, yes? As anyone can post an article about a "meta" documentary consisting of single piece of fanart, where the only thing it tells us is that this piece of fanart exists. Or a single author could do it to store their portfolio. A collection of ontological primitives just isn't enough for me, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this, politely.
- TazminDaytime
But... it is confirmed? Emily Cook literally explained that she only approached Steven Moffat with the idea because Strax was his character. She was acting as a fan during the first tweet-along, Chris Chibnall had no say in it whatsoever.
- Najawin
There's nothing in there that suggests Moffat didn't ask Chibnall or she didn't ask Chibnall, etc etc. It's bizarre that you're assuming these people would do this, it would get shared by the BBC, and then talked about in DWM as if it was an official release.
- TazminDaytime
Emily Cook has repeatedly stated that she was acting as a fan during the first tweet-along, it was only afterwards that it blew up. Chibnall having no knowledge of the event by the time the Rose tweet-along rolled round does suggest that he had no involvement in the first one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Isn't it wholly possible that Moffat and/or Starkey asked Chibnall (or someone else at the Beeb!) for the requisite permissions when they set out to make Strax Saves the Day, without Cook needing to be told about it? Remember that the first tweetalong wasn't supposed to be the start of a lengthy event, so even if Chibnall distantly heard about said event, he could still have been caught largely unawares by the existence of the later Rose tweetalong. There are lots of moving parts here.
- Najawin
Wait a second here. Is your entire argument predicated off of "Chibnall having no knowledge of the event" in regards to the Rose tweetalong? Let's think about why we would think that's the case. Well, your only evidence is the Cook saying Chibnall said to Davies, "Obviously we’re in lockdown now, the world has gone nuts, Doctor Who needs to be doing something here – have you got anything?"
So let's be clear, your entire argument is predicated off of you taking this quote to be 100% a word for word quote of what Chibnall said and not Cook paraphrasing it and something being lost in translation that could have meant "The official Doctor Who production team needs to be doing something" or "Doctor Who writers need to be doing something" or "The BBC needs to be doing something with Doctor Who" etc etc, yes? You're assuming that this is literally what he said, and your entire argument hinges on that?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, and to back up a bit, @Najawin, the reason this doesn't open the floodgates of T:NO FANFIC is that we don't randomly create pages about documentaries that don't have any licenses from the Beebs. This documentary (or "documentary") about fanart is eligible because it was released as part of the Official Doctor Who: Lockdown! YouTube Channel. It's similar to us having a page on Devious-the-home-video-release even though we don't about Devious-the-completed-fanfilm.
- TazminDaytime
@Najawin is this really so deep that you feel the need to belittle someone's arguments. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion, and I realise now why I have stayed out of it. To completely dismiss someone, like you did with my argument earlier argument about confirmation; "So it isn't confirmed, got it", and to continue patronising me for no reason other than having a difference of opinion is so wrong.
I won't be bothering to post again, thanks.
- Najawin
I see no reason why we'd think that these random "documentaries" have licenses. From the perspective of Cook, she wouldn't need to get one. Incidental inclusion of copyrighted work in a new artistic piece isn't against copyright law, so if her "documentary" is suitably transformative she just doesn't need a license. On the other hand, the characters having new stories is a much bigger deal.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's a fair point, but I was kind of assuming that whatever "deal" Cook got from the BBC was more of a carte blanche to make short Doctor Who material and post it online under the Lockdown! brand than it was a matter of individual contracts for each story/release. In which case anything on the Lockdown! YouTube channel would be covered by the overall license to, if nothing else, use the trademark Doctor Who in the name of the brand (Doctor Who: Lockdown!).
- Najawin
I wasn't belittling your argument. I was attempting to be sure that that's all your argument rests on. If it isn't, please, tell me!
We know she's coordinating with Chibnall on the stories. I doubt she's coordinating with him on the "documentaries" of the type we've discussed. (Perhaps the Heaven Sent ones)
- Najawin
We know she's coordinating with Chibnall on the stories. I doubt she's coordinating with him on the "documentaries" of the type we've discussed. (Perhaps the Heaven Sent ones)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) has just been made invalid because, like Peter Harness always stated, it was not an official release but an extract from a discarded story.
hopefully this can now help us all agree that it should be kept separate from the official Doctor Who: Lockdown! releases (and actually lockdown as a whole due to the fact that it was just a mention of a scrapped idea that had nothing to do with the event)?
- Najawin
I fully expect Death Comes to Time levels of Discourse^TM when people notice how awful that closing post was. So let's not be too hasty.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) has just been made invalid because, like Peter Harness always stated, it was not an official release but an extract from a discarded story.
hopefully this can now help us all agree that it should be kept separate from the official Doctor Who: Lockdown! releases (and actually lockdown as a whole due to the fact that it was just a mention of a scrapped idea that had nothing to do with the event)?
First, that is a misrepresentation of the closure of that thread. User:Shambala108 seems to have ruled that the short story fails Rule 4 because its creator considers it to be "discarded" material in any event, but has not ruled on whether we're to give any credence to the claims of a novelisation having existed.
Second, I have told you many many times why, even if we find that it's not connected enough to be put on our lists, it's just wrong to say Monk had "nothing" to do with the event. It used the bloody hashtag and grew out of something he said in the tweetalong. It's obviously connected to the event, whether officially or not. It's not a complete sodding coincidence.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the only two people who have ever thought that this "story", stated to be discarded, was valid is you and Scrooge. but T:BOUND, as you loved pointing out to me earlier, applies here. so i dont see why this should hold up discussions.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:Shambala108 closure of the How The Monk Got His Habit inclusion debate merely ruled that it was invalid. It did not legislate on whether that's because it was an extract from a phantom novelisation, or simply because Harness presenting his story as a "discarded extract" means the story fails Rule 4. As my recent edits at Template:Monk stories will show, I am respecting T:BOUND with regards to what was actually said in that closure: that this story is invalid.
- Najawin
Arguably the ruling in said thread actually establishes that Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) is invalid as well, for the record. Since the concern was multiple mentions of it being discarded, which certainly happened in the BBC post for that story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Doctor Who and the Time War was a discarded story - however, it was reworked and officially released during lockdown (even presented on the BBC website). Harness' "story" was not officially released, and only shared due to the interest shown by fans, and in his own words was a "DISCARDED first page of a novelisation". i do not know how many different ways i can get that across.
- Najawin
The closing post never addressed any details related to any proposed official release, just that it was discarded. (And no, Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) wasn't reworked. That is not said on the BBC website.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the date of its release was reworked, and it was formatted into the style of a Target novelisation (with an image). so yes, it was reworked. but even if it wasnt - a discarded story can be released eventually, just a shame that Harness has no ability to do that on his own (even if he wanted to - which he had no clear intention of doing).
- Najawin
So the story itself was not reworked. And the cover already existed. So, again, you're harping on there "being no official release", something that was not a part of the closing post.
But I'm sure discussing this further will seem like I'm disrupting this wiki to make a point (which I promise is not my intent), so I'll just not respond further if you keep insisting otherwise.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you really need to work on your attitude. we are supposed to be having a discussion, do not try to dismiss me with "you're harping on" when i am trying to get my points across.
my point; there is nothing that can be compared between Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) and How The Monk Got His Habit (short story). one was replanned and posted by official sites, with the known backing of Chris Chibnall himself. while the other was posted onto an ex-writer's twitter and stated to be a discarded extract that was only shared because of fan interest.
- Najawin
Er. Apologies. I'm using it as the synonym for "dwelling on", not the "nagging about" version. I didn't realize how that could come off given our previous interactions. That's 100% my bad, I was speaking very casually and wasn't thinking.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
you seem to be apologising a lot, and it is becoming meaningless. but i guess it is not my place to say, and i will let this discussion continue in peace. i am off to sleep.
- Danochy
I've just noticed that the BBC short stories have now been advertised as being part of the Staying in the TARDIS event, so that could serve as an umbrella series for all those stories.
Specifically it includes the following six stories:
- The Terror of the Umpty Ums (short story)
- Press Play (short story)
- Doctor Who and the Time War (short story)
- Things She Thought While Falling (short story)
- The Simple Things (short story)
- The Shadow Passes (short story)
It also includes
- Various activities
- Three Annual story readings from their recent audio releases
- The video release of The Runaway (video game) (this was obviously released prior to the lockdown
- Making Big Finish in Lockdown
- The Doctors Say Thank You (these last two are both from the DW Youtube channel)
What it doesn't include:
- Lockdown! channel videos Strax Saves the Day (webcast) - The Best of Days (webcast)
- Message from the Doctor (webcast) United we stand, 2m apart (webcast) - BBC but not Staying in the TARDIS
- Incoming Message (webcast) - On RTD's Twitter, not explicitly Lockdown!
- Breaking Isolation (comic story) (which may or may not warrant conversion into the page for a poem from Now We Are Six Hundred (anthology)) - on RTD's Instagram
- Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) - On the DW Youtube channel but is produced by Emily Cook
- The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) - Part of a fan rewatch
- Dalek alternative script extract (short story) - posted on Twitter by Emily Cook
- How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) - On Harness' Twitter, not explicitly Lockdown!
So it provides a pretty clear demarcation between BBC and Lockdown! stories, and a much needed title for the former! I'd support the idea I saw floated of having separate tables. Specifically, I'd propose a new page called Staying in the TARDIS for everything related to that, and then on the Doctor Who: Lockdown! page have a {{Main|Staying in the TARDIS}}. On the on the Lockdown page itself have a table for all explicit Lockdown stories and then a second for the rest of the stories. Then a third section/table for all the relevant documentaries/fan-based videos would cover everything, I expect!
- Najawin
Danochy wrote: So it provides a pretty clear demarcation between BBC and Lockdown! stories
No, it provides a centralized hub for prose stories released during this time frame. There's ample evidence to establish both that Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) is a Lockdown! story and that Farewell, Sarah Jane (webcast) is production connective tissue between the two, if such a thing is needed.
Let's also note that the phrasing of the website doesn't actually make note of the short stories or videos, though it arguably makes note of everything else there (depending on if you take "recipe" to also refer to craft recipes, or interpret those to be suitably puzzling to a small child).
Welcome to Staying in the TARDIS. There's amazing things out there in the universe, but life at home can be an adventure too. Here inside the TARDIS you can find lots of fun activities to do at home such as recipes, printable colouring sheets, dot-to-dots, free audio adventures, quizzes and puzzles from the vortex. Get exploring, it's bigger on the inside after all...
This strongly suggests that these were an afterthought, and not the actual intent of this page. Which is also consistent with the audios, media content, being separate from the prose and videos. Not to mention "challenges" followed by empty space on my end (though I admit this could be an issue on my end, if someone else has something there I'll retract this specific bit of critique, though the rest succeeds).
Now, if we want to go ahead and use this demarcation anyhow, well, that can be discussed. But it's just not the case that the demarcation is clear from the website. The website seems to have been planned in isolation and then these two things groups of things were tacked on at the end of it to provide a central hub.
- Danochy
Yep, that's fair enough! I was just saying that it provides a means of delimiting the two, rather than just grouping them as online prose, or Lockdown-related stories. The page would be made to represent all the activities and stories and such, and not be made out to be a series. The main thing I take from it is an official title given by the BBC to these six stories, so we don't have to refer to them as BBC COVID-19 related short stories or similar.
I wasn't trying to imply that Farewell, Sarah Jane wasn't a Lockdown! release. Indeed, there's certainly an argument that it is, given that it tied into a Tweetalong and was produced by Cook. I would, however, say that it isn't a "Staying in the TARDIS" release as it's not presented on that page. It's also clearly separate from that whole short story project.
As for Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) - it was written at least seven years ago and was clearly not made for the Lockdown! project. It was also released on the BBC website, and seems to officially be BBC, rather than Lockdown!. On the other hand it was released to tie into the Rose Tweetalong and used the relevant #TripofaLifetime hashtag, so I guess there's an argument for it's inclusion there too. Is there any reason why it can't be in both?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
there’s always been clear ways of separating the stories, but a lot of people in these discussions perfect speculation than fact.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I again protest against the characterisation (in @Danochy's message) of How The Monk Got His Habit not being "explicitly part of Lockdown!". The hashtag is right there. We can debate all night whether that makes it a part of the official line-up of "Lockdown!" content, but it is at the very least unofficial "Lockdown!" content from an official creator.
At any rate, I agree that the extent of the use of Staying in the TARDIS is that it gives us something definite to call the list of BBC Lockdown!-but-not-quite stories. As we discussed, separate lists have always been an option, but we did need a way to foreground that even if there were two distinct "brands", and fiddly things caught in the middle, those were very much closely interconnected events, not two random unrelated ranges that happened to come out at the same time. Until such a time as there was a good way to have a twin list of the non-Lockdown! but Lockdown!-era stories, this was difficult, because there was no obvious place to make a list of just the non-Lockdown!-branded stories. This gives us that opportunity.
In other words, I wholeheartedly approve of a Staying in the TARDIS page (indeed, I think having one to some capacity is sheer common sense, whatever else we decided), so long as it and Lockdown! prominently mention each other in the leads. We could mention the other BBC releases on Staying in the TARDIS without putting them in that page's main list (so United we stand, 2m apart and Message from the Doctor?). We can similarly similarly figure out some way to mention Incoming Message, plus possibly Dalek alternative script extract and How The Monk Got His Habit if we can't agree on putting those two in the actual list, somewhere on the Lockdown! page within its text, without their being part of any numbered lists.
And I think that sorts us out, not counting the Castellan story — which it is now officially recognised is going to be deleted once the information has been ported over to the relevant BTS sections — and Breaking Isolation. Go us!
I don't think that despite happening to have been on the main Doctor Who YouTube Channel, Farewell, Sarah Jane needs to be put elsewhere than in the list of Lockdown! stories. Strax Saves the Day was also released outside the Lockdown! YouTube channel (because it didn't exist yet), what's the problem?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i didn't know anyone had an issue with Dalek alternative script extract?
- Najawin
Technically it fails to meet many of the criteria you've proposed for a Lockdown! story. And if we're to believe Cook's characterization of what it is, it should be merged with Dalek (TV story).
- TazminDaytime
Why would those two pages ever be merged?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
TazminDaytime wrote: Why would those two pages ever be merged?
they wouldnt, a strawman argument.
- Najawin
See the arguments made in Thread:275671. Not liking the implications of your position is not a strawman.
- TazminDaytime
Can you elaborate? I see no mention of Dalek anywhere in that thread.
- Najawin
The script extract is mentioned multiple times. If we're to take seriously that this is a discarded script extract from the work, as it was portrayed to us, using the reasoning in said thread, it would be merged.
I don't think we should do this, I'm just pointing out that it's at least somewhat controversial and depends on how that thread goes down, those two stories are somewhat linked together in how they were set up by the people who shared them with the public.
- Danochy
@Scrooge MacDuck well it isn't explicitly a Lockdown!-produced story, but it was definitely associated with it. I wasn't trying to say what should or should not be included there, I was just honestly reporting how it was presented (although I should have mentioned the #, that is true).
- TazminDaytime
The Dalek script was made clear to have been written during lockdown, was it not? It contradicts the real alternative monster planned had they not been able to use the Daleks, which was later turned into the Toclafane, and was also presented as a parody.
User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 never suggested this page being merged?
- Najawin
It was not, no. As was stated in said thread. And yes, it's clearly absurd. As is the Monk extract. That's why the two are similar, and if we merge the one we merge the other. So it really doesn't matter if DiSoRiEnTeD1 has actually suggested it, it's the logical conclusion of their position.
Again. I think this position is wrong. But to say that there's no debate over Script Extract is just incorrect, it's the same sort of thing as Monk, and if we do something specific with the one, we have to do the something specific with the other.
- TazminDaytime
The difference is - the Dalek alternative script was supposed to be a parody, the Monk story (however absurd) seemed to follow the actual story roots.
This is confirmation that Dalek alternative script extract was written purposefully for Doctor Who: Lockdown!.[51] For context, this tweet was posted straight after Emily Cook released the script.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, the Monk story is not a parody of the original story. What it definitely is, though, is a parody of a Target novelisation, what with the "simply known as Roger" and the "Tardis" spelling and whatnot.
- TazminDaytime
I wouldn't call that a parody. Perhaps Peter Harness was simply appropriating the style?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fair on Tardis, but the bait-and-switch of opening with a Time Lord in a TARDIS, only "…that mysterious adventurer in all of Time and Space simply known as…" with "Roger" is absolutely a joke, a very funny one if I may sayso. In fact, it's a joke Steven Moffat also made in World Enough and Time with Missy.
- TazminDaytime
What I can make out is that there are four Doctor Who: Lockdown!-related stories that were presented as having been discarded; Doctor Who and the Time War, Revenge of the Nestene, Dalek alternative script extract and How The Monk Got His Habit.
Doctor Who and the Time War[[edit] | [edit source]]
For this story we know that it was originally written by Russell T Davies' for the 50th anniversary, RTD had no knowledge of the War Doctor while writing this script. The story was eventually discarded, but picked back up again when Chris Chibnall approached RTD for some lockdown content. This means that the story is no longer treated as a discarded story, but as a released story.
Revenge of the Nestene and Dalek alternative script extract[[edit] | [edit source]]
Both of these stories were confirmed to have been planned for lockdown. Links somewhere in this thread, alas I am too lazy to find them myself.
How The Monk Got His Habit[[edit] | [edit source]]
This is the only one that I can agree that there is question surrounding, but it is currently being discussed on another thread entirely so no point going into it here. I think it is unfair for User:Najawin to suggest that this story being questioned drags the others into question too, and would for whatever reason force Dalek alternative script extract to be merged with Dalek when we already have confirmation that this story was written separately.
- TazminDaytime
@Scrooge as funny as it may be I still do not think it is a parody. There is no clear timeline as to when this novelisation would have been written, perhaps it was after World Enough and Time or, quite possibly, Moffatt got the line from Harness' original pitch and asked his permission to use it in a future episode.
- Najawin
So the actual context is the following. Shearman posted four tweets in succession. [52] [53] [54] [55]
Given the first two specifically refer to tweetlongs, and him wrapping this one up (indeed, he continued to answer questions but didn't continue tweeting out generally), and the last one is actually about Script Extract, it's obvious that the third tweet is about Cook arranging the tweetalong, not Script Extract. And, I'll note, Script Extract is once again referred to as part of the script proper.
So, no, we don't have actual confirmation that this was planned for Lockdown!. Someone just said that.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@User:TazminDaytime: You are missing a level of recursion with Doctor Who and the Time War. It is, as you say, irrelevant that it was originally written in 2013 and held back. But the actual story, as written in 2013, was, unrelatedly, written to look like an extract from a nonexistent novel — indeed, for a nonexistent Target novelisation, looking at the style and the design of the cover. That is the respect in which it can be likened to How The Monk Got His Habit.
- TazminDaytime
Absolutely untrue, @Najawin, fortunately Shearman thanked Emily Cook separately in the same tweet for the tweetalongs "and for all the tweetalongs". However, his first part "thanks for arranging this" came directly after she posted the script.[56]
It is crystal clear what he meant, and you couldn't twist his meaning even if you wanted to.
- TazminDaytime
@Scrooge but Doctor Who and the Time War was never said to be part of a discarded novelisation - was it? It was just made to look that way, that is very different from How The Monk Got His Habit.
- Najawin
Okay, let's try something here. I'll substitute in your proposed notion of "this" and my proposed notion of "this" into the tweet and see which of them makes sense.
Thanks for arranging (this tweetalong), @Emily_Rosina-and for all the tweetalongs. (This tweetalong) has been brilliant. xx
Thanks for arranging (this script extract), @Emily_Rosina-and for all the tweetalongs. (This script extract) has been brilliant. xx
Um. I think the second one kind of has a problem here. The first is just thanking her for a specific element of a list and then the total list more generally, no issue there. But the second one, well, you're saying "this script extract has been brilliant"? That's a very bizarre thing to say and is arguably ungrammatical. I guess you could argue he meant
Thanks for arranging (this script extract), @Emily_Rosina-and for all the tweetalongs. (This tweetalong) has been brilliant. xx
But then we have mixed pronouns and that's also grammatically dicey. So I heartily agree that it's clear what he meant, but it's very much not what you're claiming it to be.
- TazminDaytime
Hopefully you cant interpret this any differently than I can.[57]
- Najawin
Not technically confirmation. :>
Look. I know it was written for this event. Everyone does. I'm not arguing anything like "we should merge these pages". I'm arguing "under the criteria given for merging the Monk pages - they were stated to be discarded material multiple times and there wasn't a clear statement that they were made for the event - this also counts".
I think this criteria is bonkers and we need to be a bit more subtle in how we evaluate things due to framing devices and the like. That's my entire point.
- TazminDaytime
Seriously, you cannot really be that stubborn.
Robert Shearman stated that he thought of the idea for Dalek alternative script extract "last week" so unless he had a time machine that is complete confirmation that it was never truly a discarded story.
In all honesty I think that your argument, as User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 said, was a strawman one. You were trying to make his attempt to merge How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) into How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation) look bad by suggesting the alternative script would have to be merged with Dalek (TV story). This has never been on the table, that is not the criteria that has been laid out.
Time and time again How The Monk Got His Habit sticks out like a sore thumb as the odd one out of all supposed Doctor Who: Lockdown! releases.
- Najawin
Technically he described a scenario that occurred "last week" after someone asked him how writing those extracts felt. Again, I fully concede that he wrote them for the event. That's not under contention. What's under contention is whether the criteria being argued for invalidating Monk equally apply to Script Extract.
Also, to call this a strawman is utterly absurd. This is a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously the person having their position reduced to absurdity doesn't want the absurdity to be on the table, as it would invalidate the original position. But the issue is if the absurdity is the logical conclusion of the reasoning presented in the original position, then the original position must be false. So, yes, I'm attempting to make his attempt look bad. In the sense that I'm attempting to show that the logic used, if taken seriously, takes us to an absurd position.Similarly, to say that Monk sticks out is just bizarre. It only sticks out because you ignore all of the similarities Scrooge and I have pointed out.
- TazminDaytime
That is once again a very misguided interpretation.
Do we know for sure that Dalek was released for Doctor Who: Lockdown!? Yes, undoubtedly as it was posted by Emily Cook and advertised beforehand. Robert Shearman has confirmed that he thought of the idea during lockdown and thanked Cook for arranging the release. The same cannot be said for Monk, which was not shared by anyone but Harness himself - was dismissed by Cook, and was stated to be a discarded extract.
Also, the fact that Harness has deleted his account and therefore no copy of Monk exists that we know of - doesn't that retract is as being an official release? In a similar way that the Faction Paradox "release" Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire was printed and reviewed by critics, but a problem with the printers caused Obverse to retract the story and therefore it doesn't pass for an official release and isn't covered on this Wikia.
- Najawin
TazminDaytime wrote: That is once again a very misguided interpretation.
You're never gonna guess what I think about your Monk comments. Also your characterization of "thank[ing] Cook for arranging the release", for that matter.
That said, while your discussion of Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire isn't exactly correct from my understanding (it was retracted due to lack of fan response, in addition to issues with printers), you bring up an interesting point there.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The Monk story was released, though, and "recorded" (saved) by fans. It's more like a missing episode than anything. Indeed, its original release was more permanent than the release methods of Hartnell-era TV episodes! Cook also never dismissed it, as has strenuously been proven before. She dismissed the TV story, or, at a stretch, the hypothetical novelisation, but never the actual prose release.
- NateBumber
If we're comparing Harness' deletion of his Twitter to anything in past Who history, the BBC's destruction of Marco Polo et al is far more apt than Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire, which was never properly released in the first place, outside of a few advance ebooks for reviewers (which have since been destroyed).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Natebumber i think User:TazminDaytime's comparison is far better as this "story" was not released. in fact it was not a story at all, it was a "discarded first page of a novelisation". how is a first page of a discarded story being shared and then retracted (by the deletion of Harness' twitter) different from a few ebooks being released in their entirety and then retracted?
Then it was deleted. Just like The Feast of Steven.
As User:NateBumber explained, Wallowing in Pessimism's Mire was never released to the general public. As far as anyone knows, the advanced-copy ebooks were only sent out to reviewers. But if the ebook had been available for purchase by the general public, even for a single week, then it would absolutely be covered on the Wiki, I have every confidence. Again, The Feast of Steven was only broadcast once in the history of everything, then it was destroyed. Brevity of availability doesn't change anything.
……
EDIT: Woops, we, uh, broke the Wiki. Quoth Nardole: "No biggie!"
Unsure how to proceed; I see an inquiry has been sent to an Administrator to sort it out. Until then, everyone please hold. Make notes of counterarguments if you have them, but let's not scatter this around talk pages or whatever.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:274134
unsure if there has already been a discussion about this before or not, but i think there is a big problem on this Wikia when it comes to who is considered a companion and who isnt. this issue is massive and we would probably have to take it Doctor by Doctor. i will start with the Tenth to showcase my issues.
Television
first of all we have the "multi-story" section, which i agree with. Rose, Mickey, Donna and Martha were all on-screen companions of the Doctor over the course of multiple stories. But, technically so were Jack and Sarah Jane - yet, they are in the "multi-adventure" section which seems to be intended to house characters like Kazran Sardick (before he appeared in audios), Abigail Pettigrew, Nefertiti and John Riddell, who all went on multiple adventures with the Doctor but only appeared in one episode.
to conclude this part, Sarah and Jack should be in the "multi-story" section as they travelled with the Doctor in different episodes / stories rather than having multiple adventures in the same episode / story. theres also the fact that they had adventures with the Tenth Doctor in other medium - and Kazran's adventures with Eleven in audio led to him being upgraded from "multi-adventure" to "multi-story". also, for these reasons, Jackie should be in "multi-story" too (rather than "narratively ambiguous" as she also travelled with the Tenth Doctor in different episodes / stories.
next is the "single-adventure" section. i agree with all of the entries here - K9 MKIII, Astrid Peth, Christina de Souza, Cassie Rice, Jimmy Stalkingwolf and Wilfred Mott. but these characters served the exact same purpose in their stories as others who have been banished to the "narratively ambiguous" section; River Song, Rosita, Jackson Lake, Adelaide Brooke.
i wont go any further, as i believe the television companions will open up enough discussion of their own. but there seem to be glaring absences in the prose / audio / comic companions - i think the first thing to do would be for an admin, who has rights to edit the companion pages, to go through all the companion categories and place the missing ones onto the templates so they can be discussed here too.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
here's who i would have in each section of the Tenth Doctor's list;
Multi-story: Rose Tyler, Mickey Smith, Sarah Jane Smith, Jackie Tyler, Donna Noble, Martha Jones, Jack Harkness
Multi-adventure: Christina de Souza, Wilfred Mott
Single-adventure: K9 Mark III, Astrid Peth, Jenny, River Song, Jackson Lake, Rosita, Adelaide Brooke, Cassie Rice, Jimmy Stalkingwolf
changes
- sarah, Jackie and Jack added to the multi-story section as they all appeared in multiple stories (rather than just multiple adventures in the same story). they have also appeared with the doctor in other media than television.
- christina to multi-adventure as she has also appeared alongside the Doctor in a comic story. i do not believe that she should be in "multi-story" as she technically only acted as the companion in the comic, as the Doctor declined her being a companion in the television episode.
- all characters moved from "narratively ambiguous" to "single-adventure"
Also, i think "multi-adventure" should be placed before "single-adventure" on the template - as those characters are more likely to be more important due to appearing more times.
- Shambala108
For a wiki that is over 15 years old, of course this has come up. It was most recently addressed in Thread:131414, which includes links (in my comment) to three previous forum threads.
To make a long story short, until/unless we get an in-universe definition of what a companion is, we will have the occasional "questionable" companion. See the previous posts for how we deal with these.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd even add that any definition of a companion we might find in a valid source would likely be contradicted by another equally-valid source sooner or later.
That being said, while I don't think there's cause to change our wise policy of not trying to construct a hard definition of companion status, OP also makes a good point about the necessity of adding new companions to the navboxes.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think anything has to be better than the current setup. the companions listed are completely random, surely we can work out something better? some companions arent listed (or in the category) like Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson.
i think the "multi-story" speaks for itself, and works fine. thus Sarah, Jackie and Jack ARE "multi-story" companions of the Tenth Doctor. as does the "multi-adventure".
it is the "single-story" / "narratively ambiguous" sections where the trouble lies. perhaps a good distinction would be if the Doctor ever voiced their potential of travelling with him full-time (either through asking them to join him or otherwise). that would leave;
Single-adventure: Madame de Pompadour, Joan Redfern, Astrid Peth, Jenny
Narratively ambiguous: K9 Mark III, River Song, Jackson Lake, Rosita, Adelaide Brooke, Cassie Rice, Jimmy Stalkingwolf
- Najawin
Are you telling me that Doctor in Distress didn't give us a valid definition of companion as "[a] screaming girl [who] just hoped
That a Yeti wouldn't shoot her"? Perish the thought.
Joking aside, I, again, don't think this distinction makes sense. Especially not from an in universe perspective. We know that to the Doctor all our lifespans are short. So while he might want particular people to stay around for long periods of time (eg Clara) I'm not sure that the distinction between one story and two stories would be meaningful for him.
Also, if we're discussing River Song, it's impossible to watch Silence in the Library and come away from it thinking that she never met 10 before. It's heavily implied that she's met that particular incarnation before off screen. Obviously this decision was made before S5 and onward was filmed, but I don't think it's possible to say that they were strangers. Indeed, at one point they had a picnic at Asgard, but that was changed to Eleven. So there's clear authorial intent that they've actually interacted a reasonable amount, even if we don't know of specific instances to put in the wiki. It's not at all reasonable to list her as "ambiguous". As with all things, she has her own category.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think “single-adventure” should be for people that the Doctor either invited to travel with him or indicated that he wanted them to travel with him, but they ended up either declining / being unable to. Madame de Pompador, Astrid and Jenny were all offered, but died before they got a chance. And Joan Redfern declined an invitation, the Doctor still considered Joan a companion and visited her granddaughter during his farewell tour.
the “multi-adventure” should be for people who acted as companions over multiple stories, like Christina and Wilf.
then narratively ambiguous should be for those who weren’t vocally called a companion but acted as one for a certain episode (and who the BBC or other sources promote as companions). River Song should go here as I don’t believe she ever made a solid comment about travelling with the Tenth Doctor before (unless I’m forgetting something?).
- Najawin
This just isn't a response though. To the Doctor in universe traveling for a few weeks and then leaving is no different than agreeing to come, then changing your mind when you see how dangerous it is. So we can't really apply any line of reasoning here. And since we can't, there's no real reason to try and force a major change.
But if I'm going to really try and defend the multi story/adventure distinction, let's have a go. Sarah Jane Smith was not the Tenth Doctor's companion for all of the second story she appeared on screen for in S4, if we're even calling her a companion, which is generous, as she doesn't really fill that role. She's a guest star, ensemble casting. She's a companion for one segment of that story, one adventure. Hence multi adventure. The same is true for Jackie Tyler, she was never consistently a companion throughout two separate stories. She would pop in and out for specific adventures within the stories but was not actually a companion for the entire story. Jack should probably be reclassified though off of Boom Town and Utopia.
River Song did get solid comments in non valid sources that were later retconned. It's a mess, since iirc the part was written while Tennant was still thinking about coming back for one more season, but the non valid comments show clear authorial intent on how to interpret her statements in Silence in the Library. I don't think "narratively ambiguous" is the right category for her, because there's nothing in the narrative that's ambiguous. It's just that the category that would exist for her would probably just include her and only her in relation to Ten, and it would be something like "had adventures at some point, but we're not sure if that still happened or time travel erased them, because we've never seen them on screen and behind the scenes stuff sort of made this complicated".
We can't even use the "according to one account" language, because the one account we have of this is invalid even though there's clear intent that there were adventures that were just never mentioned. (If I want to get really wacky, I could argue that because she has pictures of all his faces in order during Husbands, she knows that Eleven is after Ten, but she asks Ten about the Byzantium, which means that there is an alternate timeline where Ten and River did the Byzantium rather than Eleven and River. But that's like actual speculation, not just authorial intent.)
Suffice it to say that these things can be argued in many different ways, if I'd make a change, I'd say Jack should be moved.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That doesn't really affect your main point, but @Najawin, we actually have valid stories depicting other River/Tennant adventures, chiefly the Day of the Doctor novelisation. And of course there's her various appearances in Big Finish (starting with The Diary of River Song) where she goes back on the Doctor's timeline and has adventures with a bunch of Classic Doctors, only to wipe their memories of her once she's done.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
boom town has nothing to do with the Tenth Doctor. jack is a “multi-story” companion for his appearances in the two separate stories Utopia / The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords and Stolen Earth / Journey’s End. then there are his travels with the Tenth Doctor in other media (which have proved to be worthy of upgrading a character - see Kazran’s audio appearances upgrading him from “multi-adventure” to “multi-story”.
and as for River, it matters not what was planned for the character. all that matters is what happened. and to my knowledge she has never had another adventure with the Tenth Doctor other than Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead. and in that story she was never invited aboard the TARDIS or to travel with the Doctor, so she technically had no more companion status than Lux - but I believe that she is “narratively ambiguous” due to her larger focus in the episode / with the Doctor.
I think making the distinction between those who are actually invited aboard and those who travel with the Doctor as part of a certain story, would be a simple thing to do and would make the templates far better than they are now. even if they decline or don’t get the chance, the Doctor has clearly shown an interest in them as potential for a main character due to their single-adventure together.
- Scrooge MacDuck
See my message above, showing that the River Song problem is a red herring — we've already got valid sources where she has other adventures with the Tenth Doctor.
But at any rate, I think any sort of distinction based on whether the Doctor invited the maybe-companions to travel with them is fundamentally, even ghoulishly flawed. The archetypal companions, Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright, were famously not invited to travel with the Doctor, but rather kidnapped; they and the Doctor spent the rest of the era waiting for the Ship to land in the 1960's again so they could go home, for all that they ended up striking some sort of friendship with the Doctor and Susan in the meantime. There are also several other Classic and EU companions who stowed away aboard the TARDIS or were otherwise accidentally taken on-board, and who only continued travelling with the Doctor because they had nowhere else to go.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i think im being slow - which valid sources does River have adventures with the Tenth Doctor?
and, i think the Doctor inviting them or eventually letting them stay (if they stowed away / were accidental travellers) would be a good distinction.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Multi-story Single-story so, the only change i have made here is adding Lynda Moss. the Ninth Doctor travelled with her in this story and recognised her as companion material, he invited her to travel with him but she was killed before she was able to. this counts as a single-story companion in my eyes.
Multi-story Single-adventure Multi-adventure Narritively Ambiguous the changes made here were to upgrade Sarah Jane Smith, Jackie Tyler and Jack Harkness to "multi-story" as they all acted as his companions over multiple stories both on television and in other mediums. i also added Christina de Souza and Wilfred Mott to "multi-adventure" as they both had multiple adventures with the Doctor through various mediums (while only having a single adventure on-screen). the Doctor also considered Wilfred as his companion as he appeared in a flashback of a number of his companions in Big Bang Generation.
for "single-adventure" i have only included characters that were offered a place aboard the TARDIS regardless if they declined or were otherwise unable; Madame de Pompador, Joan Redfern, Astrid Peth and Jenny. and finally, in the ambiguous section i have included characters who acted as a companion for a certain story (and / or were promoted by the BBC as companions) but were never acknowledged as being companions by the Tenth Doctor.
Multi-story Amy Pond • Rory Williams • River Song • Craig Owens • Kazran Sardick • Winston Churchill • Vastra • Jenny Flint • Strax • Clara OswaldSingle-adventure Multi-adventure Narritively Ambiguous here i removed Brian Williams from the "multi-story" category, as he only travelled with the Doctor in one episode (his appearance in The Power of Three is no more than say Sylvia Noble's appearances in S4). i also added Vastra, Jenny and Strax for obvious reasons, i am unsure why they werent already on the list.
Dorium and the alternate Amy were added to the multi-adventure section as they all had multiple adventures with the Doctor. then Rita was added to the "single-adventure" section as she was invited aboard, but died before she could. Canton Everett Delaware III was moved to narritively ambiguous as there was never any acknowledgement of him being a companion by the Doctor, he is joined by; Madge,Lily and Cyril Arwell, Tasha Lem and Barnable as they all acted as the Doctor's companion for their episodes but there was never an acknowledgement of their companion status.
Multi-story Single-adventure Multi-adventure Narritively Ambiguous Vastra • Jenny Flint • Strax • Danny Pink • Psi • Saibra • Rigsy • Bors • Ashildr • Grant • Lucy Fletcherthe first two categories remain similar to how they were, but Rigsy and Bors were moved to ambiguous as there was never acknowledgement of their companion status. and Perkins was added to "single-adventure" due to his invitation to travel. Petronella Osgood was added to "multi-adventures" due to her travels with the Doctor in various mediums as well as her invitation to travel with him.
Vastra, Jenny Flint, Strax, Danny Pink, Psi, Saibra, Ashildr, Grant and Lucy Fletcher have all been added to ambiguous. with the exception of Ashildr, all of these characters are already in the companion category but just not on the template yet.
- Najawin
Good point on Boom Town, I have no idea what I was thinking what I said that. But in pointing out that he should be multi adventure by that logic you're agreeing that Sarah Jane Smith and Jackie Tyler should be as well. (Because you failed to respond to my distinction between adventure and story)
As for River, Scrooge references The Day of the Doctor (novelisation) and The Diary of River Song (audio series) has multiple references to older Doctors, and given the exchange with Ten in Silence we can expect that she'll get to Ten eventually.
Now, right you are to say what happened is what matters. What happened is that there is clear indication that Ten and River have met before, and River expects THIS FACE to know her. There is authorial intent that River and Ten have interacted on at least some of the things she's mentioning in that episode. That is what happened. This isn't speculation, this is what the narrative tells us. Hence the correct term is not "narratively ambiguous". The narrative is not ambiguous. There are other terms you could use. But "narratively ambiguous" is not one of them. The narrative is quite clear on the fact that River and Ten have adventures together.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
“there was authorial intent that River and Ten have interacted on at least some of the things she’s mentioning” - there’s no proof of that. while 10 was intended to be the incarnation to visit Asguard with her, it never came to and eleven went instead.
I can’t remember any exchange between 10 and River to confirm that they had previously met (or even suggest it). but if there was any suggestion it has been completely retconned with her meeting even older Doctors (as didn’t she say 10 was the youngest she’d ever met?).
as for Sarah and Jackie - they served as the companions in School Reunion and Army of Ghosts / Doomsday respectively, and then travelled again in Journey’s End. you may suggest that Jackie doesn’t count as the Doctor didn’t know she was aboard, but then she also had an adventure with him in the audio Infamy of the Zaross and some novels.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: it never came to and eleven went instead.
As you'll see at Asgard, there's a "one account" situation going on there. The Day of the Doctor novelisation does in fact depict the Picnic at Asgard between the Tenth Doctor and River.
- Thefartydoctor
River shared a bath with the Tenth Doctor in the novelisation of Day of the Doctor. She states that she's about to head to the Library and he knows what that entails. The Tenth Doctor is meeting River to gain knowledge of Zygons, thus being one part of a lengthy prequel to Day of the Doctor from the Tenth Doctor's perspective.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
so she is either a “multi-story” or “multi-adventure” companion too.
- Najawin
I really have no idea why you think saying "there's no proof of that" or "speculation" is a damning rebuttal to arguments concerning authorial intent. It's not, and it makes you look like you're being unreasonable. This wiki does, occasionally, discuss things like authorial intent, and does so without always having clear proof, having to parse things from the text. This isn't at all damning, unless you think that things like metaphor, subtext, etc, are a waste of time. Which to my knowledge this wiki hasn't yet agreed to fully. :>
As to your Journey's End comment, I addressed it above. It was the original comment I made, about how Journey's End is not sufficient to make someone a multi story companion, but instead a multi adventure companion. (Also, if you're falling back to audios and such, surely you're ceding the point, since that's the definition you gave of multi adventure companions.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the thing is Najawin, you made these statement and can’t back it up. you state that there was authorial intent for River to have met the Tenth before, but then you seem to think I’m being “unreasonable” asking for proof. But then others can immediately back up their point like Scrooge and Farty did by posting an example of River’s travels with 10.
and I don’t understand the last bit of your comment.
- Thefartydoctor
It's important to note that "Picnic at Asgard" refers to two separate events. On the one hand, Asgard™ is a theme park visited by the Eleventh Doctor and River. Permission was given for this story by Moffat. On the other hand, in a novelisation written by Moffat, Asgard refers an adventure shared by River and the Tenth Doctor amongst the Old Gods. Both happened and both are valid.
- Najawin
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. For all else there's evidence. I can provide textual evidence and non textual evidence about authorial intent. And I did.
As for the second bit of my comment, you could go back and read the original point I made about why Sarah Jane is classified as a multi adventure companion and not a multi story companion? It's my second comment in this thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You do this a lot, expect me to suddenly agree with a post and if I don’t you accuse me of ignoring the post and suggest that I reread. I saw your post, but I didn’t agree with it.
- Najawin
That's fine! Don't agree with it! But at least respond to the arguments presented therein. Which you haven't done.
- Thefartydoctor
Let's not get off-topic. As you may have noticed, my role in the discussion threads is normally to sit in the middle and provide what evidence I have and play for both sides. I won't lie, I've actually lost the thread of this... thread haha. I don't know what we're discussing any more because of these squabbles. Let's take five to calm down and then continue with our points.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: That's fine! Don't agree with it! But at least respond to the arguments presented therein. Which you haven't done.
there was a lot to respond to, which I did. so it’s not “at least respond” at all. we’ve established that I think Journey’s End is enough to gain companion status and you don’t believe it is, but even then Sarah has her travels in School Reuinion / The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith.
- Najawin
Let's be clear. If I say, "Journey's End is not sufficient to grant multi story status" and then provide reasoning, you then saying "oh but I think it is" is not a response. It's ignoring the argument. Give reasoning that successfully rebuts the reasoning presented to you.
Similarly, The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (TV story) is the Doctor being a companion in a Sarah Jane Smith story. :> Or, alternatively, "multi story" does not specify whether it's any tv show or the main one. So bringing up a spinoff is not obvious cause to move her across categories.
Which is really my main point, that this entire thing is a mess and there's no clear reason to change anything.
- Thefartydoctor
I think anyone who has watched the show can agree that companions have a few roles, the biggest of which is being the Doctor's aide. Asking the questions that matter and helping the Doctor to reach the conclusion of the story. Sarah Jane plays that role quite well in Journey's End, in my opinion. "But what about the Earth? It's stuck in the wrong part of space!" she asked, thus ticking the 'asking the important questions' box. Then she aids the Doctor with K9 plus Mr. Smith in returning Earth to its original co-ordinates.
If SJ hadn't have done any of that, would that detract from her role in the story? I don't think so. If the writer had incorrectly written a role with no questions and no action, she'd still be the Doctor's long-standing friend. Her being the Doctor's 'companion', or 'friend', or whatever, has been well established. Her presence aboard the TARDIS and helping to fly the Earth back home is enough to call her a companion, in my opinion.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"Give reasoning that successfully rebuts the reasoning presented to you."
she travelled with the Doctor in the TARDIS (in Journey's End), together they helped save the world and piloted it back home. i dont think it matter in the slightest if it was a short adventure - in that moment she was a companion of the Doctor's.
"So bringing up a spinoff is not obvious cause to move her across categories."
as i have said, Kazran was upgraded for his appearance in an audio story (thus making him a multi-story companion) so i dont think it matters at all if it was a spin-off or not. and, while it may have been Sarah's show, she was still a companion of the Doctor in that episode (just like Jo / Sarah are on the Eleventh Doctor's list because of Death of the Doctor). and once again travelled in the TARDIS with him.
- Thefartydoctor
The SJA stories with the Doctors, on the one hand, puts SJ in a position where this is her plot, her show and her crew. The Doctor knows that and is completely aware of it, so on the one hand, yes, the lead is SJ, not the Doctor, and he respects that. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Doctor is in control. He doesn't have to be there. He's there, visiting his friend, and thanking her and her gang for their continued saving of the world. You're both right in that respect.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"Multi-adventure" is clearly designed to house those characters who had multiple adventures within a single story (or had the suggestion of multiple adventures prior).
Kazran Sardick and Abigail Pettigrew are an example of this. they travelled with the Doctor throughout their lives, and they had countless adventures within a single episode. this isnt the same as Sarah Jane and Jack, who appeared in separate stories across entire series, and i think that should be reflected in their placement.
- i guess Kazran is a poor example now as he has been upgraded due to his appearances in audios -
- Najawin
I don't dispute that she was a companion within certain segments of Stolen Earth/Journey's End. My distinction is more subtle, that there are multiple "adventures" within the span of Stolen Earth/Journey's End and only one story. She was not a companion throughout the entire story or even most of it, but she was a companion throughout some of the adventures.
DiSoRiEnTeD1, given that you yourself used the phrase "it was a short adventure", rather than "it was a short story", I rather think we're done here. Her actions in Stolen Earth/Journey's End are sufficient to make her a multi adventure companion, not a multi story companion.
That said, thinking about the Kazran example, I guess only the "he was a companion of Sarah Jane and not vice versa" angle would work.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
please STOP putting words into my mouth.
Sarah Jane had a main companion role in School Reunion, and another companion role in Journey's End. these are two completely different stories so regardless of the length of her appearance she appeared as a companion in multiple stories hence "multi-story" rather than "multi-adventure".
- Thefartydoctor
To be honest, I think this conversation is stale. We've already had this discussion at a previous thread. We're not gaining anything here. This is more 'head-canon' than anything else. My opinion is this thread should be closed unless a clear, in-universe explanation is given.
- Snivystorm
End of the day, we aren't ever going to be able to properly categorise companions until the DWU provides a proper, detailed and clear definition for what a companion is. All we have to do look at the Behinds the Scenes section at Companion to find how difficult our wiki has had defining the term.
Sure, we could take it on a case by case basis defining each character's legitimacy as a companion, but without the definition this is untenable. Only option I can see is to either a) go with a dictionary definition but that's far too restrictive for the show or b) simply leave it as is until a tangible definition is provided by the DWU itself. Granted, neither option is satisfactory, but then dealing with linguistics, semantics and definitions is never easy.
So, with that said, I personally do not see how we can properly and permanently resolve this case without a said definition.
- Najawin
I quite agree. I don't think this is going to change anything. Maybe River needs to be moved and a few others in light of new evidence (I'm sure she hasn't been moved since the DotD novelization, for instance), but a mass change seems implausible to me.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
"we've already had this discussion at a previous thread"
that discussion was seven years ago, it deserves to be discussed again.
the current system is problematic and shouldnt just be ignored. anything is better than what we have at the moment which just seems like a random selection. you cannot make the suggestion that Adelaide Brooke or River Song were any less companions to 10 than say Canton Everett Delaware III was to 11 but they are included in different sections, and id like to know why.
- Thefartydoctor
I feel the same way about Vienna Salvatori's spin-off series, Disoriented. But I have no new evidence to bring to light. This thread should never have been opened without a new piece of evidence (located from in-universe). I have no new info about Vienna, hence I can't open a new thread. It would go against the rules of the Wiki.
- Snivystorm
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: I think in the quest to understand why the categorisation is the way it is, it would be wise to read the previous threads and discussions that have occurred, notably the ones @Shambala108 linked near the start of this discussion for us all to check out.
- Najawin
I guess technically we do have new evidence about River? So we could at least discuss moving her? But that could be considered off topic.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i had no idea that there had already been a thread, but i think that is ridiculous. we shouldnt need "new evidence" to protest against something that is very clearly broken. and actually, this thread was originally opened as an outcry for all of the currently missing companions from any section of any template;
Tenth Doctor
Eleventh Doctor
Twelfth Doctor
Thirteenth Doctor
this is why i asked in the OP for someone, with admin rights, to go through all of the companion template and add the missing companions in somewhere. however, i realised that this would be difficult without a definition - hence the rest of the discussion.
- Thefartydoctor
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, I know. But it's how this Wiki works. You need new evidence to refute anything that's previously been decided, which makes the Vienna series very difficult. In the beginning, they said 'it's absolutely separate from the Doctor Who world'. Now numerous people say it's a 'Doctor Who spin-off'. That leaves us with a big paradox. We can't mention new evidence without the first piece of evidence refuting everything haha. I'm waiting for Master! to come out so that it can hopefully shed more light.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the "new evidence" here can be all of the companions since the 2013 discussion that have been sadly missed off the templates despite being obvious companions.
- Borisashton
I will also add my support for the immediate closure of this thread. There are too many conflicting definitions (or not enough) to come up with any sort of general rule for companions.
This is the sort of thing that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as evidenced by the numerous failed attempts to implement something such as that proposed in the OP.
As User:CzechOut wrote way back in 2011 in his closing statement for Forum:Disputed Companions: "Closing as unresolved, because these companion discussions never get clear closure." (emphasis his)
- Najawin
That's not evidence to reconsider the categorization of companions that already exists, but instead to simply place the companions that you've noted.
- Thefartydoctor
New evidence in this case would be any dialogue or wording from a licensed work where the Doctor is explaining what makes a 'companion'. It's not what the companions think of themselves, it's what the Doctor thinks of them. Does the Doctor have a rulebook or a ticklist of sorts? That's the evidence that the Wiki's probably looking for.
- Najawin
And I also voice support for closure of this thread, either immediate, or discussing the companions listed in DiSoRiEnTeD1's most recent post + River as there's new evidence, then closing the thread immediately.
- Snivystorm
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: Care to clarify what you mean, any companion in particular?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Snivystorm ive literally just posted a list...
and thats probably not even half of those missing.
- Snivystorm
Yes, but what about them provides us with a clear definition for companion?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Thefartydoctor sorry but thats just not true. the likes of Bors and Rigsy have been added to the template since 2013 and the Doctor has never vocalised their companion status, so why do we need it for the rest?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Snivystorm what provides Bors and Rigsy?
- Najawin
You misunderstand. His comment is that new evidence to reopen discussion on classification of companions would require that sort of in universe comment from the Doctor.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm not in charge of the templates, Disoriented. There's a lot of spin-off media and a lot of possible companions. It's possible they simply were forgotten. Give the Wiki the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, editors like me are equally confused as to the use of 'companion'. For example Vashta travels to an island of Silurians with the Ninth Doctor in the comics, does that make her a companion? I don't know. It's difficult.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
well then... thank goodness we have this thread if they were forgotten.
- Borisashton
We are still in the same position as where we were in 2011. There is no new evidence and no reason for the discussion to continue as far as I can see.
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: Your determination to solve long-standing problems with the wiki is admirable but it's been proven time and time again that a rule for companion status is an impossibility.
- Thefartydoctor
Don't lose hope, Disoriented. That doesn't mean those 'possible companions' of the Doctors that you've mentioned won't get their day. There's a lot to get through - more than you can imagine haha. For example, Grant Markham is a very unique companion having appeared in only two Virgin Missing Adventures, yet hardly anyone knows who he is. Yet, in my opinion, the Paternoster Gang are most definitely companions. But they each deserve their own thread when sufficient evidence is gathered.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
if you all read the original comment this was a duel discussion, the first part was for the reevaluation of the template as a whole and the last part was about the rehousing missing companions (who exist in the categories but not on the template).
nobody is willing to discuss the former, so now i am quite happy to move onto the latter and discuss which sections the latter characters will go.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Thefartydoctor wrote: But they each deserve their own thread when sufficient evidence is gathered.
i have so many questons. how many threads would you be able to create without it being seen as spam? would the paternoster gang be able to be covered as a whole or would they need to be single too?
- Snivystorm
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: So you want an admin to add in the new companions (which is doable) but then move long standing ones to different sections even though we lack a new definition for their placement in the companion status anyway?
- Borisashton
But again, I think this should likely be a case-by-case decision, probably made on the talk pages of the characters themselves. I'm not sure any of this is thread-worthy discussion if I'm honest.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Snivystorm obviously that was my original intention - along with finding a definition for the companion, but that was shot down.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
admins completely ignore talkpage discussions about companion statuses.
- Thefartydoctor
Well, first off, Christina has met the Doctor in the audios too, unless I'm very much mistaken. The term 'adventure' is troublesome. Whether it's a TV episode, an audio adventure, a comic strip, a short story or a poem, this Wiki classifies them all as 'stories'. Christina would be classified as a 'multi-story' character as she has been on TV, comics and audios. There was also a version of her in a short story. I love the idea of having the Doctor's travelling companions (using the term loosely) separated into maybe 'regular' (such as Rose Tyler, Gabby Gonzales, Lucie Miller), 'multiple' (such as River Song, Jenny, Christina De Souza) and 'one-off' (Reinette Poisson). But that's just my view.
- Thefartydoctor
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: admins completely ignore talkpage discussions about companion statuses.
Admins are also very busy. When I was needing help with the homepage of the Welsh Tardis Wiki, it took a very long time to get assistance. You don't realise how much they do until you really need them haha.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
thats my frustration with this whole thing. the current companion template is extremely problematic - but apparently nothing can ever be done about it, or until we ever get an in-universe reference to what a companion is. your suggestion is far better than what is currently on offer farty.
- Borisashton
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: admins completely ignore talkpage discussions about companion statuses.
This is no reason to start a thread. An small admin team is not an excuse to create repetitive redos of past discussions. Everyone who edits here does so voluntarily. If you feel a talk page discussion has reached a consensus, the best thing you can do is politely ask an admin on their talk page to examine it for you.
- Snivystorm
Agreed @The fartydoctor, and to add...
@DiSoRiEnTeD1: We have to remember the admins are a small group of individuals (no more than 10?) and they have hundreds of users to help and thousands of articles to fix/expand/code/create just like the rest of us and then some. So I think it's a bit much to say they're 'ignoring' talk pages rather than simply being very busy people just like anyone is with real life, especially at times like these.
But I digress, it's best to stay on topic.
- Thefartydoctor
I think Disoriented has the best will and intention. I agree that things get very frustrating sometimes, and if you ask other admins, such as SOTO and Amorkus, they'll tell you that when I first started, I was sometimes very close to stepping over the line for breaking a few rules. You get used to how the Wiki works. For example, gathering together the people who are 'experts' on Christina De Souza and talking/debating about her companion status in the talkpage. Then you all provide your evidence from in-universe. Then, when you think you've reached a solid conclusion, with solid evidence, you politely ask an admin to check in on your decision. They'll give you some pretty solid feedback on whether you've not found enough evidence or maybe there's a hole in your logic. It's just how we work here. I'm looking forward to working with you here, as you seem very determined.
- TazminDaytime
Nothing much to add on the subject itself, and I do not wish to offend you User:DiSoRiEnTeD1, but I cannot bare the fact that an adventure in other mediums can upgrade a minor television character to the "Multi-Story" segment of the television section.
This is extremely misleading to the average reader, who will take one look at the template and be under the impression that a character like Kazran Sardick had multiple on-screen appearances when in actuality he only appeared in one episode.
When was it agreed that this should happen?
- Thefartydoctor
A 'story' does not just refer to the TV episodes. It's anything licensed and valid that has a storyline, regardless of medium. If Kazran appears in more than one story, then I would say he's 'multiple'. That's how this Wiki classifies adventures here, and I don't see it changing any time soon.
- Najawin
And yet names for articles are based off of how characters are referred to in TV episodes, even if the names are expanded upon in other media, since "the average reader" will be looking for the article using that name. Neither one of these decisions rankles me that much in isolation, but in combination, ooooohhhh boy.
- Thefartydoctor
Clive Finch's son has an article on here entitled 'Michael Finch'. That was taken from the official novelisation and also from the Target Storybook. Not a brilliant example but the Wiki tends to update articles if it knows more information. For a long time, Susan's article was entitled Susan Campbell but at no point, to my knowledge, in the TV series did the credits ever refer to her as such. In The Five Doctors, I'm pretty sure she was just "Susan".
- Thefartydoctor
Same could be said for Mickey's grandmother. We didn't get a name in the TV series, and even if the parallel grandmother had given a name, we wouldn't be able to use it for the N-Space version. Then the novelisation named her Rita-Anne Smith, so the Wiki adopted it.
- Borisashton
The most high-profile example I can think of is at Talk:Miranda (Doctor Who) which decided not to use her and Bruce's last names in their titles. I don't like it either but no new evidence equals no changing of policy.
- Thefartydoctor
Borisashton wrote: The most high-profile example I can think of is at Talk:Miranda (Doctor Who) which decided not to use her and Bruce's last names in their titles. I don't like it either but no new evidence equals no changing of policy.
Yeah, that's strange how the Miranda article wasn't changed to include their last names. But the Miranda thing certainly needs bumping up the list.
EDIT: Didn't read the article properly. Sorry!
- TazminDaytime
@Thefartydoctor I completely understand that, but I think that adventures "Original to television" - as the section states - should be counted separately to adventures "Original to audio", etc.
I believe it would solve a multitude of problems - albeit leaving a few glaring ones, if we were to consider "Original to..." as referring to the medium rather than the character. Hopefully that makes sense.
Obviously it would include a lot of repetition for characters who have appeared in multiple mediums - for example; Rose Tyler would appear in the "Multi-story" segment of all current mediums; television, audio, comic and prose. But it would be an easy way to see which companions haven't appeared in a certain medium - Bill Potts, and all of the current companions, would be glaringly absent from the "Original to audio..." segments.
- Thefartydoctor
TazminDaytime wrote: @Thefartydoctor I completely understand that, but I think that adventures "Original to television" - as the section states - should be counted separately to adventures "Original to audio", etc.
Most people on this Wiki would disagree with you. There's a license, there's authorial intent, therefore the stories are valid. Doctor Who isn't like Star Trek or Star Wars. There's no "Expanded Universe". It's all one Whoniverse. It all counts. Having to separate articles multiple times would confuse things. Condensing everything into one article wouldn't.
- Najawin
The relevant thread to the whole naming thing that I've seen is Thread:232143. Again, neither one by itself is that bad. But together it just seems hypocritical.
- TazminDaytime
I have never once suggested the stories to be invalid.
I don't believe I made myself clear, which is my fault as I struggled to put my meaning into words - but never was I questioning the validity of these stories.
- Thefartydoctor
It's okay, I never take anything personally. :D I know what you mean and your opinion is a valid and understandable one. I personally like the idea of someone clicking onto a story, not having heard about it, realising that Billie Piper has appeared in the audios, and going off and exploring them. I love that. I think this Wiki needs to be inclusive of all mediums and the validity of these stories needs to be re-enforced wherever possible. Our universe is unique in that we're not hypocrites. We're not like Star Trek, where we happily and freely give license to novelists and comic writers and then deny their existence. I love that we don't have a Memory Beta of Tardis Wiki. I'm really proud of that.
- TazminDaytime
The template is already split up into four separate sections; television, prose, comic and audio, so I do not understand your comment about "having to separate articles multiple times would confuse things" when this currently exists already.
What I am suggesting, and I believe there is wiggle-room due to the wording, is that each section treats the character's companion status original to each medium. Therefore, the "Multi-Story" segment of the "Original to television" section will only include characters who were multi-story companions of the Doctor in adventures original to television. While those such as; Kazran Sardick, can appear in both "Multi-Story" television segment as well as the "Multi-Story" audio section.
This prevents confusion for the average reader, as the current template seems to suggest that certain one-off television characters had multiple on-screen appearances. It also helps to control certain sections - the television section, for example, will not need to be readdressed every time a minor companion on television gets a more prominent role in other mediums.
- Thefartydoctor
To be entirely honest with you, Tazmin, I don't have any problem with how it is now. Like I said further up, in discussions I play both sides of the argument. I don't mind if we stick to this way, I also don't mind if we change it. It doesn't impact on my life at all haha. Also, if Gabby and Cindy were to appear in the audios (which would complete my life haha), they would still be comic companions, just like Izzy is despite her appearance in Company of Friends.
To make my opinion perfectly clear: I'm perfectly happy with what we have now.
- TazminDaytime
If Gabby and Cindy were to appear in audios under my proposition they would reside both in the comic and audio sections. Then, their placement in either the "Multi-Adventure (original to audio)" or the "Multi-Story (original to audio)" segments would be decided by the nature of their audio appearances. If greater than two appearances, they would certainly be in the "Multi-Story" segment.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:274166
Given the new release Regeneration Impossible, ties Bill Potts to taking an interest in the Twelfth Doctor's lectures around 2012 (The Doctor says 1892 is 120 years ago for him), and the implication in The Pilot that the Doctor only recently started noticing Bill in his lectures, should we ammend the timeline of The Pilot, Knock Knock, The Pyramid at the End of the World, and The Lie of the Land to be set in around that era, as opposed to when they were released?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not if there's other lines elsewhere to suggest otherwise, which I'm sure there are somewhere. I think you're taking the line too literally — "120 years" sounds like an estimate to me, not a precise figure.
- SarahJaneFan
The notes on the article for the story say he actually identifies the year he’s come from as 2017. I don’t know how accurate that is as I’ve not listened to the story. If it’s true then certainly 120 years is very likely a rough approximation.
Plus, evidence in Knock Knock suggests that Series 10 is set in 2017 and I’m fairly sure the Titan comics and other expanded media treats it as being set in 2017. I can’t think of any reason why it would be retconned by Big Finish to be years earlier so I’m with Scrooge MacDuck on this one.
- Borisashton
If I remember correctly, at the time that series 10 aired, we had sources that said the first bit of The Pilot was set in 2016 and that the last bit of the episode through The Pyramid at the End of the World was set in 2017. However, we had no evidence to confirm whether or not the six month time jump affected in The Lie of the Land was 2017 or 2018.
The Clockwise War apparently gives 2018 as a date for some portion of the St Luke's stuff but I've not read it so I have no idea if it gives us a place in 12/Bill's timeline to help date the last half of series 10.
- SarahJaneFan
I’ve just listened this story, and it gives a very specific date of the Doctor travelling to 1892 from July 27th 2017.
However he also mentions a dinner lady that keeps sneaking into his lectures, which would suggest that it’s before the earliest scene in The Pilot.
So that’s a bit difficult. We’ll probably have to chalk it up to a continuity error / joke because there’s not really any way around having Knock Knock set in 2017.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:274329
So, this is gonna be a bit controversial, but I'd like to put forward the following proposition: Delete all of the unmade stories pages.
There's a few reasons for this that I'll list below:
Most were eventually adapted[[edit] | [edit source]]
A lot of the Lost Stories, and a few novelisations and/or scripts, already exist for these, meaning that there are TWO pages for these stories, sometimes even three. And on the actual released stories page, there exists the Behind the Scenes headings. We could just as easily transfer the info on how it was never made there.
They're not stories[[edit] | [edit source]]
But for those that weren't adapted into any form, they weren't made and released. They weren't and won't, unless a future adaptation happens, ever be a story. So why do we include them?
The Outsiders problem[[edit] | [edit source]]
Not everyone who edits the wiki has that deep knowledge of Doctor Who that we do, and may stumble across one of these unmade stories, some of which use photographs from actually broadcast/released media, and may not notice the "unmade" tag at the top, and think that this was actually broadcast. As such, they'll eventually find out that it isn't and wonder why it's here.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
I'm not saying, "Never mention any unmade media", since that would be foolish. I'm just wondering why they need articles of their own, when you can easily put them in a Behind the Scenes section if they were adapted. And if they weren't, there's not really much of a reason to give it it's own page.
Perhaps we could just make one page, so those who are interested can see, or make another wiki dedicated to these stories.
Thoughts?
- MystExplorer
I respectfully disagree. Unmade stories are part of Doctor Who lore despite never seeing the light of day. And even if they were adapted, changes are often made to them to fit a different medium. They're also interesting from a historical perspective and give us insights into what the various production teams were planning at the time.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Myst Explorer Yes, I know that people are interested in this stuff; I a most certainly am. But why do they need their own pages? Like I said above, if they were adapted, we can put the info on that page, and include the differences too.
- MystExplorer
Because not all of them were adapted. And I see no reason to differentiate between those that were adapted and those that weren't.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Like, take The Clock (TV story) for example. There's not that much on the page, and it uses an image from The Tenth Planet (TV story) to illustrate itself. Why couldn't we just transfer the unmade stories like this to a singular page?
- MystExplorer
Wikipedia has a page like that. But this wiki is meant to be far more in-depth with respect to Doctor Who.
- Najawin
Hard disagree. It's hard enough to find information on some of these unmade stories, and the sources used on this wiki often use wayback links. If we remove our articles on them all record of them will effectively vanish. As an example, Valentine's Day (novel). That's an unmade story of reasonable historical importance. And if we remove the page here, we're just failing in our duty to catalog it, and it basically vanishes. Honestly, it's frustrating that events from the wilderness years are as poorly documented as they are. But what you're suggesting does violence to some of the documentation that we actually have from that time, so just can't be acceptable.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'm not saying to throw the information away, I'm just questioning why each singular one has its own page. Wouldn't it be far more efficient to put Unmade TV stories on page, Novels the next, and so on?
And on Valentine's Day, the info on there could easily go on Interference-Part Two's behind the scenes and/or on an unmade novels page.
- Najawin
I mean, there's The War (novel), which would probably go on The Curse of Fatal Death (TV story) (an unmade but would be valid novel on a currently invalid story?), Enemy of the Daleks (novel) (doesn't have a clear place to go and is a massive article), Destination: Bandril (novel) (massive article), Time's Champion (novel) (doesn't have a clear place to go), and To Hold Back Death (novel) (doesn't have a clear place to go).
And it does a disservice to these unmade stories, meaning instead of having mentions of them on those pages, and then people finding them in other ways, they can only find them through that particular page.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
The problem is though, someone that's not familiar with these, will look at say, Time's Champion (novel), see the novel in parentheses, and might believe it to be an actually released novel, as opposed to an unmade one.
- Najawin
I'm find with adding (unproduced) or (unmade) as a disambiguation tag as well. I just don't think deleting the articles and moving the information is viable.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin That sounds pretty good. Something like Insert Here (Unmade TV story)?
- Najawin
So either The War (novel) goes to The War (novel)(unmade), The War (unmade) or The War (unmade novel)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
The War(unmade novel) looks like the best one, at least in my opinion.
- Borisashton
Although it doesn't seem intentional, this thread is a successor to Thread:189997 and the (forgotten) talk page discussion created as a result of it at Talk:List of unproduced stories#Defining the scope of the article. Everyone should go and read them before proceeding.
- MystExplorer
Quite frankly, I don't think we should be worried about people who don't bother to look at the unmade tag and category on these pages.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Okay, so now that I've read through the Thread and got a hold on what happened previously, I'm fine with keeping these pages, but again, in the format Unproduced Story (unmade TV story) or in a similar vein, to make sure that the general people who read the wiki aren't confused.
- Borisashton
I'm not sure I entirely understand why people would be confused if they actually care to read the articles.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@MystExplorer But what about the people who are just typing in the search bar and see, for example, The War (novel), without knowing of its status? That'll still be confusing.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Borisashton See the above point. Also, it'd at least make it more clear.
- Borisashton
That makes no sense to me. If you know what The War (novel) is you know it was unproduced and if you don't you'd surely go to the page and see the large banner telling you of that?
- Toqgers
There's no need to change the disambiguation term. The pages clearly state in multiple places that they were not produced. People failing do bare minimum in terms of actually reading the page they are viewing is not a reason to change that.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But not everyone who looks for it knows that. Some people just type words like that into the search bar, to see if a story like that exists. It'd be helpful for them to know, before entering the article, in case they just see The War (novel), leave the site, and waste five minutes trying to find it online.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, in aesthetic terms, adding the (unmade TV story) or (unmade novel) just makes sense, at least to me.
- Borisashton
We shouldn't be creating new dab terms to cater for people who don't want to spend literally five seconds by clicking on the page to find that info out in my opinion.
- Najawin
I have no strong opinions either way, except to say that moving the information is totally unviable.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I've realised that too, so I'd be fine with the (unmade TV story) format.
- Borisashton
I find it frankly ridiculous to think that we should change our dab terms for people that, when discovering the name of a story on an online encyclopedia, would rather click off that resource of information they were currently on to search elsewhere instead of spend seconds of their time to investigate further.
It's also a tautology because Google favours Tardis in the search results so for some unproduced stories they would be redirected back here if they attempted to search online.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: Also, in aesthetic terms, adding the (unmade TV story) or (unmade novel) just makes sense, at least to me.
- Borisashton
Yes, I did read that post. There's no need to post it again if you're not going to add anything. Why change a system that we've had for years when it's done us no wrong? Adding more words to a dab term makes it uglier (and unnecessarily longer) for me.
- Thefartydoctor
For me, the 'Scratchman' banners are more than sufficient in making the reader aware that the story they are reading about is an unproduced story. It's a big box that explains the status of the story. We don't need to go editing the entirety of stories that may or may not have been unproduced stories when a simple box can do the trick. If it's not broken, don't fix it, and this most certainly isn't broken. That's my two pence on the matter. I just think it's an unnecessary edit to a system that works perfectly fine.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Borisashton, @Thefartydoctor Fair enough, I just thought it looked nicer.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I reckon a bot could do it if we do decide to change the dab term, which is the only viable solution to this, if I'm being honest, non-problem. It is the reader's problems if they fail to notice the giant ostentatious banner at the very beginning of the dang article. We do not have a duty to cater to people who aren't interested in reading, or even skimming, our actual articles, is my take.
- Thefartydoctor
I don't see how we could make it any clearer tbh. And inventing new tags just seems superfluous and untidy. Just my opinion.
- SOTO
As explained at category:Unproduced Doctor Who TV stories, no special dab is needed because, thus far, there's been no conflict with produced stories in the same medium. Disambiguation is there to serve one function: to disambiguate. The Fragile Yellow Arc of Fragrance (TV story) is already clearly distinguished from The Fragile Yellow Arc of Fragrance (audio story), so no
(unproduced TV story)dab is needed.(Also, the {{unprod}} tophat, brought up above, has been around for nearly 9 years. It's not a new thing to be invented; it's been doing its job all this time, just fine.)
As for the merging idea, stories adapted from unproduced originals, like The Song of Megaptera, are adaptations, ie. separate productions (sometimes even reworked for an entirely different cast of characters). And Shada (TV story) is not Shada (webcast), Shada (webcast) is not even Shada (audio story), and none of those are Shada (novelisation). Adaptations have their own separate histories and on this wiki constitute distinct stories from the source material they're based on. The story of the original is not just a footnote to the audio story or the novelisation, even if the final product never came to pass.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Ok, so looking back, I was being foolish. We should keep the stories. Can an admin close this, since I was the only one who argued for this?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275417
Since its beginning, this wiki has clearly taken the stance that The War Chief and The Master are two separate individuals. The main reasoning appeared to be that novelisations were "secondary" to other media. As this wiki now appears to count novelisations (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:231243), there now appears to be a case that they are one and the same. While it is not stated outright that "The Master is the War Chief" in that exact phrase, common sense makes it obvious.
(Note that this differs from someone concluding that "Mondas is Marinus" by using the facts. As here, the same people who wrote The War Games (TV story) also either co-created or wrote extensively for The Master of the UNIT Years.
Let us begin with a real-world quote. Malcolm Hulke, who co-wrote The War Games, and also wrote(among others) Colony in Space (TV story), The Sea Devils (TV story) and Frontier in Space (TV story), said of the relationship between The Doctor and The Master(reprinted in DWM 91 (on page 28):
"There was a peculiar relationship between the Master and the Doctor: one felt that the Master wouldn't really have liked to eliminate the Doctor...you see the Doctor was the only person like him at the time in the whole universe, a renegade Time Lord and in a funny sort of way they were partners in crime."
This was right after he was talking about The War Games.
Now, using material from both the television story and the novelisations, we see something very clearly.
From Episode 8 of The War Games (TV story) :
- WAR CHIEF: You may have changed your appearance, but I know who you are.
- DOCTOR: Oh, do you? WAR CHIEF: Your machine is a Tardis. You’re too familiar with its controls to be a stranger.
- DOCTOR: I had every right to leave.
- WAR CHIEF: Stealing a TARDIS? Oh, I’m not criticising you. We are two of a kind.
(Thus, we can clearly see that both the Doctor and the War Chief have stolen a TARDIS)
By the way, the same scene played out in Doctor Who and the War Games (novelisation) like this(page 104):
- The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. “Now, ” he said “a traveller in a space time machine. There is only one person you can be”.
Back to those stolen TARDISes. Remember, the War Chief has stolen a TARDIS. The Doctor has stolen a TARDIS. Has anyone else stolen a TARDIS? Why, yes. From Doctor Who and the Sea-Devils (novelisation) (page 28):
- ‘But what use is your TARDIS to you while you’re in here?’ Jo asked: ‘It would be difficult for you to understand,’ said the Master, ‘but my TARDIS is my proudest possession.’ The Doctor laughed. ‘You don’t even own it! You stole it from the Time Lords!’ ‘As you stole yours!’ retorted the Master.
So, again, the Doctor has stolen a TARDIS. But we now know that the Master has stolen his TARDIS too! So, that makes three stolen TARDISes, right? Well, the exact same person who wrote The War Games AND Doctor Who and The Sea Devils ALSO wrote this. From Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon (novelisation) (page 7):
- ‘The first TARDIS was very small,’ he said. ‘On the outside, yes,’ said the old Keeper. ‘Inside it could carry up to three persons, four with a squeeze. Later we built much bigger ones. There have been two stolen, you know.’ The young Time Lord didn’t know. ‘By our enemies?’ he asked. ‘No. By Time Lords. They both became bored with this place. It was too peaceful for them, not enough happening.’ The old Keeper smiled to himself, as though remembering with some glee all the fuss when two TARDISes were stolen. ‘One of them nowadays calls himself “the Doctor”. The other says he is “the Master”.
So, the Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. But, by Season 8, a grand total of TWO TARDISes had been stolen. We know the Doctor is not the War Chief. We know the Doctor is not the Master.
Of course, one may say that that is Malcolm Hulke. yes, he co-wrote The War Games, he wrote throughout the Pertwee Era, including three Delgado Master stories. But, surely the man who is widely acknowledged as being the one who came up with the idea of the Master as a recurring villain in the Pertwee Era should have some say in the matter? What did Terrance Dicks have to say in the matter? From The Three Doctors (novelisation) (page 930:
- In his various incarnations, the Doctor had found himself up against many terrifying enemies. With the exception of the Master, this was the first time he had found himself opposed by a fellow Time Lord. And in comparison to Omega, the Master shrank almost to a petty criminal.
Yes. In the words of Terrance Dicks, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever encountered ONE other renegade Time Lord...the Master. Had Dicks simply forgotten the War Chief by this point? No. As Dicks unofficially helped to finish off Hulke's "Doctor Who and the War Games", which was only published in 1979, a time when Roger Delgado was far better known than Edward Brayshaw to Who viewers. And Dicks felt no problem at all with including the excerpt quoted above. Again, it is this..
- The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. “Now, ” he said “a traveller in a space time machine. There is only one person you can be”.
Of course, Hulke and Dicks both 'fleshed out' their novelisations with material not included in the television show. As these novelisations were usually about 148 pages, every sentence was pretty special. Even so these two sections, first from Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon, followed by Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons (novelisation) speak volumes. The first is by Hulke(page 9 of Doctor Who and the DoomsdayWeapong), followed by Dicks (pages 25-26 of Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons) (And both were inserted to give a backstory to the history of the Doctor and the Master):
- The old Keeper seemed to drop off to sleep again for a moment, then he suddenly woke up with a start. ‘I had to travel once. There were tens of thousands of humans from the planet Earth, stranded on another planet where they thought they were re-fighting all the wars of Earth’s terrible history.
and
- The Young Time Lord reminded him. ‘Humans on a planet refighting the wars of Earth’s history.’ ‘Oh, yes. Well, the Doctor had done the best he could to stop it all. But in the end we had to step in and get all those poor soldiers back to Earth, and to all the right times in Earth’s history.’
(Which is very clearly The War Games (TV story). Why mention that for a history of the Doctor and the Master?)
Meanwhile from Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons:
- The Master was a rogue Time Lord. So too was the Doctor, in a way. But all his interventions in the course of history were on the side of good. The Master intervened only to cause death and suffering, usually in the pursuit of some scheme to seize power for himself. More than that, he seemed to delight in chaos and destruction for its own sake, and liked nothing more than to make a bad situation worse, Already he had been behind several Interplanetary Wars, always disappearing from the scene before he could be brought to justice. If ever he were caught, his fate would I be far worse than the Doctor’s exile. Once captured by the Time Lords, the Master’s life-stream would be thrown into reverse. Not only would he no longer exist, he would never have existed. It was the severest punishment in the Time Lords’ power. The Doctor knew that the Master’s presence on earth made matters far worse than he had feared. ‘You’re sure he’s here?’ he asked. The Time Lord nodded gravely. ‘We tracked him on the Monitor. Then there was some kind of alien interference and we lost contact.’ ‘Is his TARDIS still working?’ ‘I’m afraid so. He got away before it could be deenergised.’ ‘Then he was luckier than I,’ said the Doctor sadly. He had never really got used to his exile. ‘Don’t be bitter, Doctor. Your punishment was comparatively light.’ The Doctor rounded on him angrily. ‘Whatever I’ve done, I too am still a Time Lord. Do you know what! it’s like to be restricted to one tiny planet, one limited era of time?’ The Time Lord shrugged. ‘It is your favourite planet after all!’ For moment the Doctor gazed up at the summer sky without speaking. Then he said, ‘Why did you take the trouble to warn me?’ ‘The Master knows you’re on this planet, Doctor. You have interfered with his evil schemes in the past, and he has sworn your destruction. The Council felt you should be warned of your danger.’
So, the Doctor was the one who interfered in the Master's schemes, which is why the Master is now coming to get him for revenge. It is also very strongly implied that it was at the Master's scheme where the Doctor interfered that the Doctor was captured by the Time Lords. The War Games (TV story) again. And the only time in the history of the Classic Series Doctor Who where someone was erased from ever having existed in this manner by the Time Lords was...The War Games. The Doctor also shows surprise that the Master has a working TARDIS. Which only makes sense if the Doctor had encountered a renegade Time Lord who the Doctor had been led to believe didn't have a functioning TARDIS. Of course, that's The War Chief in The War Games (TV story). Again.
So, very clearly, both Malcolm Hulke AND Terrance Dicks believed that the War Chief and the Master are one and the same. And Hulke clearly still believed it when he died in 1979, the same year Dicks helped finish off Doctor Who and the War Games (novelisation).
The following year, 1980, saw the release of the officially licensed board game Doctor Who: The Game of Time & Space. While this wiki may not regard that as a valid source, it is still worth pointing out that the character information says outright that the Master is the War Chief.
We could also note the Faction Paradox wiki, which has an entry for The War King here.. https://factionparadox.fandom.com/wiki/The_War_King . This states outright that the Master and the War Chief are one and the same. Of course, this is from information contained in The Book of the War (novel), which may not be considered fully valid according to this wiki, but is clearly seen as such by another Who-related wiki.
The only "Oh no he's not" pieces of story are seemingly Timewyrm: Exodus (novel), The Dark Path (novel) and Divided Loyalties (novel). except, of course, that that's not true.
if someone can show me where in either Timewyrm:Exodus or The Dark Path there is anything that makes it impossible for the Master and the War Chief to be the same individual, I would be very interested to see it.
Which leaves Divided Loyalties. The Deca. Magnus and Koschei. Right? Nope. The section is unambiguously called "Dreaming". Immediately before, the Doctor falls asleep. Immediately after, he wakes up. And there is so much in that sequence that completely contradicts what we know about Who lore. And, far worse, there are impossibilities, such as this gem (Page 96):
- "All but three of the Deca were on their first regenerations and were forbidden to regenerate, should the whim take them, until after their five-hundredth birthdays. If Gallifreyans could be said to have birthdays. Vansell, Ushas and Rallon had already become junior Time Lords and were now in their final semesters, whereas the rest still had two to go before they received the Rassilon Imprimature - the genetic coding that gave them their regenerative powers, the ability to withstand time travel, the telepathic connection to TARDISes, time rings and all the other transtemporal feats of Gallifreyan engineering."
If that is a literal truthful flashback, then NOTHING from An Unearthly Child (TV story) onwards counts.
Now, some may say, "But there's a section at the back of the back, a sort of Where Are They Now? And that's not part of that drug-induced dream!"
Well, let's look at that. As just one example, there's this gem(page 247):
- Mortimus also left Gallifrey, but more from boredom than anything else. Never really malevolent, he became fascinated with the planet Earth and headed there, intending to have fun playing around with time. Giving the Normans atomic bazookas in the eleventh century, putting money in a bank and nipping forward a few thousand years to claim millions in compound interest, that sort of thing. Harmless really.
Ignoring the stupidity of someone giving Mediaeval soldiers atomic bazookas, and noticing that it was "two hundred years", not "a few thousand years", the biggie is the "giving Normans atomic bazookas". The entire point of The Time Meddler (TV story) was The Monk trying to prevent the Norman conquest of England. He was planning on destroying the Vikings with one atomic warhead.. In that way, the Saxons would destroy the Normans at the Battle of Hastings, and King Harold would remain on the throne. How exactly would giving the Normans atomic warheads achieve that? That's not just a continuity error. It's not even just the exact opposite of what actually happened. It's as surreal, and as dreamlike, as the "Rassilon Imprimatur" comment in the DREAMING section, and should be treated with the same attitude.
The War Chief and The Master are the same person. "They" were clearly intended to be the same person. The novelisations, now valid sources on this wiki, make that clear beyond any reasonable doubt. The Faction Paradox Wiki has "them" as one person. As this wiki uses narrative/story for content, I very strongly suggest that The War Chief be added to The Master, and Edward Brayshaw be added to the list of actors to have played the Master. Roger Delgado mayalways be the definitive Master, but he wasn't the first actor to play that character. Likewise, Tom Baker is the definitive Doctor, even though William Hartnell may have been the first. You may have changed your appearance but I know who you are.
From Doctor Who and the Sea-Devils (novelisation) (pages 28-30)
- ‘We used to be great friends,’ said the Doctor. ‘Hundreds of years ago, when we were both young Time Lords, we were inseparable. After all, we had a lot in common.’ ‘What, for instance?’ He turned to her. ‘You know the Golden Rule of the Time Lords—just to sit and watch, but never actually do anything? He and I are different. We wanted to get out into the Universe, to meet other species, to explore.’ ‘One for good and the other for evil?’ said Jo. ‘Yes, you could say that.’
One for good and one for evil. NOT "one for good and two for evil".
And, in case someone wants to suggest it(Though I can't for the life of my think why). From Doctor Who and The War Games(page 68):
- The War Chief’s eyes came to rest on the Doctor. Zoe thought she detected a moment of mutual recognition between the Doctor and the War Chief, as though they had once known each other.
- Scrooge MacDuck
This is a very strong case — and one I've wanted to make for a long time. User:197.86.143.126 may be a new and as-yet-nameless user, but if it should sway anyone in the following debate — not that it should — I stand by everything they have said, although perhaps I would have structured my opening post a little differently.
In fact, I think the case is even slightly stronger than the OP makes it out to be. Not only does Exodus not say that the War Chief is not the Master, but it does the exact opposite, in positing that the War Chief manages to regenerate after one more War Lord-related adventure, being briefly seen to emerge as a "dark, satanically handsome man". A younger form of Roger Delgado's incarnation, one wonders?
Now, it's obviously quite a vague description, too vague to be evidence on its own. But it certainly sounds more like Delgado than it sounds like the NOTVALID War Chief regeneration featured in FASA's 1985 Doctor Who and the Legions of Death. The Virgin books weren't shy about referencing info from the FASA games, and yet they specifically overwrote the "War Chief is not the Master" story from Doctor Who and the Legions of Death to feature the War Chief regenerating into a markedly Master-like form and getting away.
On the other hand, to play Devil's advocate, there is one other source suggesting the War Chief and the Master are distinct individuals: A Brief History of Time Lords, which accounts for the War Chief's experience in front of the Untempered Schism separately from those of the Master. However, the novel is presented as an in-universe history book, and is sometimes uncertain on certain points, some of which (like the circumstances of his escape from the Eye of Harmony) already have to do with the Master. We can source "One Time Lord historian, writing long after the Time War, believed that the War Chief and the Master were distinct individuals" to the novel, but not necessarily "According to one account, the War Chief and the Master were distinct individuals".
…
I don't have much more to add right at this moment, though I could think of something else later. An important point about implementation is that there's an ongoing proposal to once again have separate pages about incarnations of the Master. If it goes through (and it looks like it will), that would certainly make it a lot easier to implement the in-universe acknowledgement of the War Chief as the Master.
- BananaClownMan
Ever since I saw Flashback, I've had this sort of theory that the Magnus from Divided Loyalty and the War Chief from The War Games are different people.
The short version; The Magnus from Divided Loyalty dies at some point, and Koschei, who had always admired him, takes his name of "Magnus" to honour him, a nickname that would stick all the way to Flashback. Eventually, "Magnus" would ally with the War Lords, having heard of them from the original Magnus, and eventually regenerated into Roger Delgado's Master, as seen in the Timewyrm books.
- Najawin
So I have no real interest in this case one way or the other. What little interest I do have is keeping this thread honest.
There's a rather glaring hole in the bits of the argument concerning their only being one stolen TARDIS, and that's The Monk. All of your arguments saying that there's only one renegade Time Lord or only one stolen TARDIS imply that The Monk is also an incarnation of The Master, as does Doctor Who: The Game of Time & Space, which you referenced.
Since this is obviously absurd from a modern viewpoint, these arguments must be also dismissed as well (since it means that Hulke and Dicks thought The Master and The Monk were the same character). Instead we understand that these things are artifacts of a specific era of Doctor Who that has been superseded, and not necessarily binding on our view of the DWU today.
This leaves us with Hulke's interview, additions to novelizations, the Faction Paradox connection (which if you check the edit history at the wiki was contentious and it's not clear why they actually kept it in), and your discussion of the arguments "against".
Out of curiosity, did Holmes ever comment on the War Chief/Master issue?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
There's a lot going on here, and it's certainly very interesting, but let's all keep in mind one thing: The universe of Doctor Who has a very complex and incoherent relationship with canon. I mean, we've got like fiftyish spinoffs. It's great, part of the reason why we all love it, but let's avoid trying to use canon for both agreement and disagreement.
That being said, we do count and rightly so, in my opinion, Faction Paradox, (that's why the FP wiki went silent) so if there is something in a FP novel that says that the War Chief and the Master are the same, then sure. I don't really lean one way or the other.
- Najawin
Okay, so the Faction Paradox wiki angle is the following.
User:Pluto2 originally put in the alias, and then User:Revanvolatrelundar removed it. There was a small edit war that followed involving them, User:NateBumber and User:Fwhiffahder.
This issue then moved to the talk page, where discussion included quotes like:
"Personally, I don't like the War Chief = Master idea at all. But the sordid details of that question are the Doctor Who wiki's problem, not ours — this page only mentions the War Chief at all because of the hypercube connection in The Book of the War."
The hypercube connection being:
"Taking the name of War Chief, the renegade joined forces with a lesser species group known as the War Lords. Together, they collected and brainwashed human soldiers from various wars in Earth's history, in an effort to build an army. The Doctor used a hypercube to summon the Time Lords to deal with the situation. (TV: The War Games) As the War King, he would keep a hypercube as a memento on his desk. (PROSE: War King)"
Someone else points out "In Invasion of the Cat People, Magnus is actually mentioned by name. And that book came out well before Dark Path. So a friend named Magnus, separate from Koschei, was floating around as an idea for a while."
The discussion then is never resolved in 2017. The most recent post is in May of 2020, using similar arguments as to the ones in the OP, and while it's not the same IP, they share the first three numbers so are close geographically. Likely the same user on different computers. (I say this not from paranoia, but just to point this out for full transparency.)
So the FP wiki was going off of a hypercube on The War King's desk (which, fair enough, is how FP hints at things), but seemed utterly uninterested at actually resolving the issue and instead said it was up to this wiki to do so.
- Scrooge MacDuck
A fairer assessment is that the FP Wiki isn't as stringent about overlooking authorial intent as we are. The intent behind the hypercube thing was that as far as FP was concerned, the War King was both the War Chief and the Master. But of course, The Book of the War was licensed to use neither, and so should be disregarded; FP Wiki, bless its heart, has its own policies with little bearing on ours, even if they had not decided that this was an issue they didn't care very much about anyway.
So I agree, the FP thing is a no-go, save in demonstrating an ongoing impression in recent Who creators that the War Chief may be the Master, which is of minimal import to this Wiki. Now on to the other objections raised.
Firstly, I take issue with the idea that…
Najawin wrote: …this is obviously absurd from a modern viewpoint, these arguments must be also dismissed as well (since it means that Hulke and Dicks thought The Master and The Monk were the same character). Instead we understand that these things are artifacts of a specific era of Doctor Who that has been superseded, and not necessarily binding on our view of the DWU today.
…which seems to fly in the face of the spirit of T:NPOV. As documented at "The Doctor's species", the idea that the First Doctor was a human scientist who went about calling himself Dr. Who is, and should be, equally true to anything else.
It is sheer dumb luck that we do not have to deal with "the Monk was an incarnation of the Master" as a valid fact on this Wiki. It is simply that none of the stories & works which include the link happen to pass our own, custom-made, oft-arbitrary validity policies. One 1970 short story — or, to choose a different butterfly, us choosing to write different validity policies, of course — would be all it would have taken.
That is to say, if following the full implications of those quotes means we get to put a note on The Monk's page saying "Some sources suggested that the Doctor had never fought another Time Lord than the Master prior to his showdown with Omega, suggesting the 'Meddling Monk' he'd encountered in Northumbria was in fact an earlier incarnation of the Master"… well, I'd honestly be okay with that. That's all it would entail, a minor implication like this: a quote on the character page, not some big overhaul. Can't we live with that?
But less extremely, as to why the various "only two Time Lords ever…" quotes are more relevant to "The War Chief" than they are to "The Monk"… the thing is that Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon and Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons both acknowledge the events of The War Games in the same breath as they claim the Master and the War Chief are the same person.
When a story which makes no reference to The Time Meddler at all says "The Doctor and the Master were the only Time Lords ever to steal TARDISes and run away", it's hard to say if it's saying "for the purposes of this story, the Monk is the Master" or "for the purposes of this story, The Time Meddler did not happen". When a story acknowledges the War Chief's story and says the Doctor and the Master are the only two Renegades, the logical connection is much, much stronger.
- BananaClownMan
Could it not be possible that, from the Time Lords' perspective at least, the Monk hasn't left yet. The First Doctor implies in The Time Meddler that the Monk left Gallifrey fifty years after he did. Could there be wiggle room, there?
As for the Third Doctor not acknowledging the Monk as a Time Lord foe, well... the Monk's not exactly a top tier villain. Even his own wiki page states he's more of a "wannabe" villain. It could just be the Doctor doesn't see him in the same league as the Master and Omega, thus dosn't even bother with a comparison.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Also a good point. There's no argument that the Doctor and the War Chief were foes — the Doctor gave up one of his lives (and his freedom) to bring his schemes to a halt. By contrast, the First Doctor always keeps the Monk at arm's length, derides him often, and has impish fun foiling his improbable schemes. It's very debatable whether the Doctor had "fought" the Monk by the Pertwee era.
- Najawin
I think you misunderstand me slightly. With my "Monk comments" I'm not disputing that Hulke and Dicks have authorial intent that The Master and The War Chief are the same person (though I do not cede that point, I really don't care, I merely am not disputing it with this argument here). I'm disputing the idea that comments about it are necessarily binding. And I agree with you on the T:NPOV issue, as it so happens. At least somewhat.
I guess a better way of rephrasing my argument is the following. "If we take these arguments as to be part of the reason why The War Chief and The Master are the same person, we have to include language that suggests that The Monk and The Master are the same person, since The Monk was also a renegade met by The Doctor."
Now we have two options. We can either accept this, and take these as good arguments, then change wording on The Monk's articles, or reject them, and consider the other arguments in a vacuum. I think it's important that the rest of the argument stand on its own. If it does, then we can discuss how to handle The Monk being The Master, since this change would seem to force that one.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm, I see. Well, I'm certainly not saying these comments are binding. They are interesting, because they show that we're not just seeing things when we interpret the actual hard quotes the way we do, but they wouldn't drive us to anything on their own.
There is an important precedent for looking at these sorts of quotes: The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light), whose description had just as many seemingly-decisive clues to his identity as we might use to identify the Doctor in, say, a Short Trip, as e.g. the Sixth Doctor. Yet when quotes came to light confirming that no, he was not in fact intended to be the Shalka Doctor despite the apparent similarities, this changed the Wiki's mind, and rightly so.
So it's useful, after we bring up a bunch of quotes from Hulke's valid stories, to take a step back and check that this is indeed what he meant by those quotes.
But I don't think the case needs rest on those quotes. And as I have said, neither do I think that the quotes prove the Monk is the Master to the same extent as they prove the War Chief to be the Master. Again, in terms of the Monk, a perfectly reasonable interpretation of all the "only two Time Lords ever…" quotes is "kindly forget The Time Meddler happened for a sec", as opposed to "please assume the Master appeared in The Time Meddler".
(Before anyone becomes worried about Rule 4 and the like, stories rely on older stories not having happened all the time. Let's not forget that Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon also ostensibly posits that Terror of the Autons as seen on TV didn't happen either.)
Which simply isn't possible for The War Games for all the reasons stated above.
But this is sort of what I meant about how I wouldn't have structured the opening post the way our anonymous friend did. The "only two Time Lords" quotes per se are given a lot more weight than other, perhaps more decisive ones, such as the "I was not so lucky" one.
- 197.86.143.126
As stated in the OP, and as Scrooge MacDuck stated, they are two separate issues. Dicks and Hulke had no part in writing either The Time Meddler (TV story) or The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story).
However, they did write The War Games (TV story), and then, less than two years later, were two of the people who worked extensively on the Roger Delgado Master stories.
That's why I mentioned the Marinus/Mondas "connection" in the OP. Using the same logic, it would appear that they are the same. Except we can safely say that when The Tenth Planet (TV story) was being written, nobody was thinking "Let's write a sequel to The Keys of Marinus (TV story) ".
But with Dicks and co. The War Games (TV story) was made by the same people. And it wad still fresh in the memory, having come out shortly before. Terrance Dicks said that 'continuity' was 'what people could remember in the last two years", or something similar. In 1971 people remembered The War Games, and they remembered the other Time Lord, the one who knew the Doctor, the one who hypnotised people. Did they remember the character from five years before, and draw the same conclusion?
But basically, the same people who created The War Chief also 'created' The Master. They didn't create Butterworth's character.
Saying "The Monk is the Master" is like saying "Marinus is Mondas".
Saying "The War Chief is the Master" is like saying "Melody Pond is River Song".
- 197.86.143.126
Just out of interest, here are some other views, from different people over the years. I'm sure there are many more.
Some interesting points made there. There's also a lengthy piece written by Chris McKeon, giving his thoughts on various things. One short section, near the bottom states
- In regards to “The Dark Path”, that story deals with the potential origins of the Master, the War Chief is simply a pre-Delgado incarnation of the Master; they are not intrinsically contradictory. In regards to “Timewyrm: Exodus”, the seventh Doctor meets the Master (as Kriegsleiter) out-of-order, exactly as the eighth Doctor does with the Delgado Master in “Legacy of the Daleks”. In regards to “Divided Loyalties”, the early years of the Deca are in a dream sequence, which are not always totally literal in Doctor Who fiction,
None of those people are me. There's a lot to take int there. Some stuff said there wouldn't be valid here, but it may have some help with this discussion.
- Najawin
Again, you're confusing the issue of "did Hulke and Dicks actually intend for the Doctor and the Master to be the only two renegades from Gallifrey" for "did Hulke and Dicks actually intend for the Master to be the War Chief".
But I think the far more interesting question is what Holmes thinks about the Master and the War Chief. Obviously at the time The War Games (TV story) was written Hulke and Dicks did not think that the War Chief was the Master. If only because the character did not yet exist. But Holmes is credited with the creation of the Master, not Dicks, even if Dicks is the one who decided to bring him back as a recurring villain. So it seems to me to be the far more pertinent question is "did Holmes intend to create a second incarnation of the War Chief with a new name", as opposed to "given that Holmes created the Master, did Dicks and Hulke decide to retcon their story to include the Master when it didn't originally?"
This isn't to say the Hulke And Dicks comments aren't relevant. Surely they are. But without considering Holmes's authorial intent it seems to me we're approaching this entire discussion backwards.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't know about that, User:Najawin; you seem to be falling into the same trap of looking too much at authorial intent. If there are sources which seem to say that the War Chief is the Master, but do not say so quite in so many words, it's important to check that such really were the intentions of the writers of those sources. The place these authors also played in the TV story debuts of the War Chief and the Master is largely superfluous icing on the cake. Don't forget that Holmes likely also had on his mind the idea that (whether Brayshaw had been playing him or not) the Master might be some sort of yin-yang emanation of the Doctor's dark side, or what-have-you.
In point of fact, we cover Mondas on Marinus on separate pages, but only because we have sources which disagree with The World Shapers on the relationship between the two planets, not least The Doctor Falls citing Mondas and Marinus separately in a list of Cyberplanets. I reckon that if we didn't happen to also have Spare Parts and The Doctor Falls to murky the waters, we very much would have merged Mondas and Marinus long ago on the faith of The World Shapers, like it or not.
And as things stand, the connection is very much mentioned in the in-universe portions of the relevant pages — much, you might say, as you'll find the word Time Lord on "The Monk" even though Time Lords didn't exist yet at the time The Time Meddler was released, and by all accounts Peter Butterworth's character was intended to be a member of a future human civilisation, like Dr Who.
Yet due, I think, simply to the overlooking of novelisations as sources, this is not currently the case with The Master and The War Chief.
Now, important update: Thread:269689 has just been closed negatively by User:Shambala108. She understandably asks not to be "bombarded" with talk page messages on the matter, so I'll note my staunch intellectual disagreement here, instead; I think her closure fails to account for a lot of the new reasons we had presented why we might want to split The Master, of which this is one of them. But T:BOUND means we must simply deal with it, like it or not.
So in terms of dealing with it, I'd say that it is unreasonable to ask for The War Chief to be merged into The Master. However, it is equally unreasonable that we do not mention the connection between them in many accounts in in-universe sections.
Thus, I'd say the proposal we should be laboring towards is something similar to the current Mondas/Marinus setup: prominent notes in the relevant leads that…
According to several accounts, the Time Lord whom the Second Doctor encountered on the planet of the War Lords using the alias of the War Chief (TV: The War Games) escaped justice and, after regenerating, (PROSE: Timewyrm: Exodus) became the individual the Doctor knew as the Master. (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon, Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons)
- Najawin
Let me note here that I'm responding with that comment to the line of thought that goes:
"However, they did write The War Games (TV story), and then, less than two years later, were two of the people who worked extensively on the Roger Delgado Master stories [...] But basically, the same people who created The War Chief also 'created' The Master. They didn't create Butterworth's character. [...] Saying "The War Chief is the Master" is like saying "Melody Pond is River Song"."
I fully agree that I would be putting too much weight into authorial intent otherwise, were this a general point about the thread. I figured that would be clear and I wouldn't need to quote, I apologize.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I sort of figured that, but especially in light of how Thread:269689 just went down, I feel it's important to not miss the forest for the tree, and not give too much of this thread's time to objections that miss the mark of the original proposal to begin with. Once more with feeling, for the sake of the closing admin: authorial intent is not the main sticking point of this thread, though it happens to support its conclusions to a nonzero extent. The proposal is very much rooted in evidence in valid stories.
- 197.86.143.126
Ok. So, it's made clear, using the television show and the novelisations, that The Master was involved with The War Games. The War Chief and the Doctor were the only two renegade Time Lords at the time, the War Chief and the Doctor each stole a TARDIS. But then the Master and the Doctor were the only two renegade Time Lords during the same time, and the Master and the Doctor were the only two Time Lords to steal a TARDIS.
There's really only one way to interpret that. Even, as Scrooge MacDuck says, the ending of Timewyrm: Exodus (novel) shows that "Krigeslieter" has regenerated:
- Ace saw, just for a second, a young man, tall, dark and satanically handsome, reaching up to her... The door closed, the TARDIS dematerialized, and they were gone.
What is interesting is that this was sued as "evidence" that 'the War Chief is not the Master' for years. Why? This is the same as those people who said(and some still do!) that "The War Chief is not the Master, because the War Chief and the Doctor don't recognise each other in The War Games". Which is completely contradicted by what actually happens in the story itself, where they absolutely do recognise each other. That is basically fandom myth. And that fandom myth not only contradicts the instant mutual recognition between the Doctor and the War Chief, it also completely contradicts what is in the OP.
Is there anything at all in an officially licensed Doctor Who(or Who-related) story that contradicts the statements made in the novelisations written by Hulke and Dicks?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, sort of, as I have said. Aside from Divided Loyalties which you have successfully argued is hella unreliable, there is the fact that A Brief History of Time Lords treats the Master and the War Chief as different individuals. But it's also presented as an in-universe record written long after the fact, so it could very well be mistaken.
- 197.86.143.126
As one person said on one of those links, the reason behind people not accepting what is stated in the Target novelisations, is they don't like the idea of there being a pre-Delgado Master. For so many people, Roger Delgado IS The Master. And if there was anyone before that, it would be wrong. But that's most definitely NOT a reason to ignore what is said in the multiple narrative quotes etc. to the contrary. As said, some people even make up blatant lies like "The Doctor and The War Chief never met each other before The War Games (TV story)", which is clearly wrong.
The only "problem" is there could be some contradictions within the narrative. But then, try and reconcile First Frontier (novel) with stories like Prime Time (novel), Dust Breeding (audio story) and Mastermind (audio story). Or, explain how Legacy of the Daleks (novel), The Two Masters (audio story) and Doorway to Hell (comic story) all fit together. There's a lot less "problem" with "The War Chief is the Master" than there is with any of those. At the very least, the page The Master should mention the War Chief, and at leasts ome of the story narrative listed on this page linking "the two characters" together.
- Najawin
If this proposal were to go through, I think Scrooge is correct that merging the two characters entirely is now utterly infeasible due to the resolution of Thread:269689 and just use "according to one account" language. One possible solution to that would be if there was some way to have multiple drop down menus on a single page, you could then string together a linear structure to events in a single dropdown menu and then say the ordering between the menus is somewhat agnostic. This is actually a natural solution for a wiki involving time travel.
The problem is my understanding is that wiki markup doesn't do that unless you really muck around with table of contents and force them to do things they really weren't designed to do.
- 197.86.143.126
So, what would others suggest? It appears the idea to split the Master article didn't go through. As there are conflicting narratives on the The Master page as it is, and as there is clear narrative linking The Master and The War Chief as the same character, surely information on The War Chief should be added to the The Master article?
- 197.86.143.126
Is this topic still active? Just some more tidbits, and very interested in what other people think..
Here's an interview with Robert Holmes from 1985(or rather a link to a transcript of it)[63] . The quote is
- "They have one image that they project but they were something else to themselves, which every now and then produced renegages like the Meddling Monk, Omega and the Master.".
"They" here, are, of course, the Time Lords. He doesn't mention "the War Chief" as a separate renegade Time Lord.
Meanwhile, Paul Cornell's Goth Opera (novel) features a Time Lord character called "Ruath". Unlike the Doctor, Ruath stayed on Gallifrey. Ruath is unimpressed with the renegade Time Lords, and lists them (page 195):
- “Mortimus, the Rani, that idiot Magnus. And you, Doctor. All graduates of Borusa's Academy for scoundrels.”
So, where's the War Chief among the list of renegades? Unless he's actually included in those four.
Someone also mentioned an interesting fact on another site. The discussion was about "Stories that were erased from ever having existed", and The War Games (TV story) was mentioned. As the Time Lords erased the War Lord and his accomplices were erased,
Exact quote from Episode 10:
- TIME LORD: You have been found guilty of all charges, and you and your murderous associates will be dematerialised. It will be as though you had never existed.
Thus, The War Games' never actually happened. Meaning that unless someone was part of the story, and didn't have their memories liked(like all the humans in the story), they couldn't possibly know about the events The War Games at all.
But then, in Frontier in Space (TV story), the Doctor tells Jo about The War Games while they're being held prisoners. The Master overhears them, and it's clear from his reactions that he knows all about The War Games (TV story). But that is impossible...unless he was there in person before the events of The War Games were undone by the Time Lords.
Lastly, what are the motives, beliefs etc. of The War Chief and The Master? Are they different? Let's see...
From The War Games Episode 8:
- DOCTOR: Your reasons are only too obvious. Power!
WAR CHIEF: How much have you learnt of our plans?
DOCTOR: I know that you've been kidnapping soldiers from the Earth from various times in it's history and bringing them here to kill one another.
WAR CHIEF: But do you realise our ultimate objectives?
DOCTOR: No objective can justify such slaughter.
WAR CHIEF: The war games on this planet are simply the means to an end. The aliens intend to conquer the entire galaxy. A thousand inhabited worlds.
DOCTOR: Yes, but why choose the people of the Earth?
WAR CHIEF: They are the most suitable recruits for our armies. Man is the most vicious species of all.
DOCTOR: Well, that simply isn't true.
WAR CHIEF: Consider their history. For a half a million years they have been systematically killing each other. Now we can turn this savagery to some purpose. We can bring peace to the galaxy, and you can help. You see, I'm not the cold-hearted villain you suppose me to be. My motives are purely peaceful.
...
- DOCTOR: You have given these aliens our science and our knowledge to carry out this disgusting plan.
WAR CHIEF: We are going to bring a new order to the galaxy, one United Galactic Empire.
DOCTOR: An empire of slaves, with you as one of its rulers.
...
- DOCTOR: I never promised to help you!
WAR CHIEF: But you will. You have no alternative.
DOCTOR: But to help people like that to conquer the galaxy?
WAR CHIEF: Not people like that, people like us. I intend to take over as Supreme Galactic Ruler. You can help me to rule, if you will cooperate. -- Now, let's see what The Master is all about, From Colony in Space (TV story) Episode 6:
- GUARDIAN: Why have you returned? What do you want here?
MASTER: I want to restore this city and this planet to their former glory.
DOCTOR: Don't listen to him, sir.
MASTER: You have here a wonderful weapon. Why, with it you could bring good and peace to every world in the galaxy.
DOCTOR: On the contrary. He'll bring only death and destruction.
MASTER: This planet of yours could be the centre of a mighty empire! The greatest that the cosmos has ever known.
DOCTOR: Tell me, sir, has this weapon of yours ever brought good to your planet?
GUARDIAN: Once the weapon was built, our race began to decay. The radiation from the weapon's power source poisoned the soil of our planet.
DOCTOR: Exactly. The weapon has only brought death, and yet he wants to spread that death throughout the galaxy! Unless you destroy this weapon, sir, he will use it for evil.
MASTER: No! You must be mad! Why, with this, we could control every galaxy in the cosmos! We could be gods! -- Identical. Because it's the same person. And it always was.
If the decision to NOT split The Master article into incarnations is now fact, then surely some information about The War Chief should be added to the article. Or at the very least, a section detailing that The War Chief could be The Master, with some of the information contained in this discussion used. Or, other information stating the same thing.
- Najawin
He also doesn't mention The Doctor in that list. Is the Doctor Omega?
Also, yes, Magnus is the War Chief. So they're on the list. The Master isn't, but I dunno if that's hugely important. Since, you know. Drax exists. So clearly it's a non exhaustive list.
The comment from the Time Lords can be figurative, or, you know, the Master is a Time Lord and could have known anyhow.
Obviously their motives are similar, the Master looked up to the War Chief.
Again, I have no horse in the race, but these arguments are just bad.
- 197.86.143.126
Najawin wrote: He also doesn't mention The Doctor in that list. Is the Doctor Omega?
Also, yes, Magnus is the War Chief. So they're on the list. The Master isn't, but I dunno if that's hugely important. Since, you know. Drax exists. So clearly it's a non exhaustive list.
The comment from the Time Lords can be figurative, or, you know, the Master is a Time Lord and could have known anyhow.
Obviously their motives are similar, the Master looked up to the War Chief.
Again, I have no horse in the race, but these arguments are just bad.
You very clearly do "have a horse in the race.
How can erasing someone from ever having existed be "figurative"? That is an argument that's "just bad".
But this was just extras. The real points are in the OP. The ones from Terrance Dicks and Malcolm Hulke from the stories 1969 to 1973m along with their relevant Target novelisations.
Clearly, the Master didn't "look up to" the War Chief. If he wanted to look at the War Chief, he just needed a mirror.
And, this was to try and get others to join in, and make suggestions.
- Najawin
197.86.143.126 wrote: You very clearly do "have a horse in the race.
From above.
Najawin wrote: So I have no real interest in this case one way or the other. What little interest I do have is keeping this thread honest.
Again. I don't care as to the outcome of this thread. My only concern is that we don't have people advancing poor arguments and them going unchallenged.
- 197.86.143.126
It's also peculiar that you clearly put all your money on the horse that called "Divided Loyalties (novel)". And use the "the War Chief is Magnus, the Master is Koschei" stance.
And yet, as already noted...
1) The Doctor very clearly fails to recognise the name Koscheiin The Dark Path (novel), meaning he has never met a Time Lord called "Koschei" prior to The Dark Path.
2) The character of Magnus who appeared in Flashback (comic story), and was mentioned in Invasion of the Cat-People (novel) and Goth Opera (novel) was unambiguously supposed to be The Master.
3) If you accept the Divided Loyalties (novel) DREAM SEQUENCE as literal reality, then you must ALSO accept THIS piece of fool's gold(already posted in OP, but I'll repost it here again, just for you...)
(Page 96):
"All but three of the Deca were on their first regenerations and were forbidden to regenerate, should the whim take them, until after their five-hundredth birthdays. If Gallifreyans could be said to have birthdays. Vansell, Ushas and Rallon had already become junior Time Lords and were now in their final semesters, whereas the rest still had two to go before they received the Rassilon Imprimature - the genetic coding that gave them their regenerative powers, the ability to withstand time travel, the telepathic connection to TARDISes, time rings and all the other transtemporal feats of Gallifreyan engineering."
Ok. You accept that? Right, then explain everyone from Barbara Wright through to Yasmin Khan being able to travel in a TARDIS. I'll wait...
- Najawin
I mean, I again reiterate that I do not defend these statements generally and I'm just here to keep the overall thread honest, but I'll note for #3 that it's well established that traveling with the Doctor changes a person's biodata. It's entirely unknown what long term effects that has. I'll also note that it's well established that The Doctor's TARDIS is not an ordinary TARDIS. So this argument is, again, poor.
- 197.86.143.126
Najawin wrote:
197.86.143.126 wrote: You very clearly do "have a horse in the race.
From above.
Najawin wrote: So I have no real interest in this case one way or the other. What little interest I do have is keeping this thread honest.
Again. I don't care as to the outcome of this thread. My only concern is that we don't have people advancing poor arguments and them going unchallenged.
Did you read the OP? Yes, it's long. But please actually read it, rather than just making personal attacks. If you still claim to "not have a horse in the race"*why not just be honest?), then that is your right.
But please actually read something before condemning it.
Also, what about that Rassilon Imprimatur?
- 197.86.143.126
Najawin wrote: I mean, I again reiterate that I do not defend these statements generally and I'm just here to keep the overall thread honest, but I'll note for #3 that it's well established that traveling with the Doctor changes a person's biodata. It's entirely unknown what long term effects that has. I'll also note that it's well established that The Doctor's TARDIS is not an ordinary TARDIS. So this argument is, again, poor.
You're clearly not here "to keep the overall thread honest". You're now grasping at non-existent straws, to try and defend what is very clearly your position.
if you want to "keep things honest", why not be honest about why you are posting here?
- 197.86.143.126
Najawin wrote: I mean, I again reiterate that I do not defend these statements generally and I'm just here to keep the overall thread honest, but I'll note for #3 that it's well established that traveling with the Doctor changes a person's biodata. It's entirely unknown what long term effects that has. I'll also note that it's well established that The Doctor's TARDIS is not an ordinary TARDIS. So this argument is, again, poor.
It is also worth noting that I quote everything I post, with page numbers, issues etc.
Whereas you make wild claims, with "it is well-established".
But, even if, travelling DID change biodata, there would still need to be that first time travel. Checkmate.
- 197.86.143.126
Can we please discuss how/if etc. information about the War Chief could be added, if felt that is the right thing, to the Master article?
Rather than saying "I don't have a horse in this race, but your argument is poor. The Master looked up to the War Chief". because that is clearly just an attempt to derail a discussion, and try and make it unsalvageable.
- Najawin
I have read the OP, I've responded to the OP in this thread before this. I'll also note that "advancing poor arguments" is not a personal attack.
Again. I have no horse in this race. Accusing me of being dishonest of my motivations here actually is a personal attack. Not one I mind, but given that you're accusing me of making personal attacks perhaps some self reflection is in order.
I mean, off the top of my head, Dalek (TV story) for biodata, and Toy Story (short story) for TARDIS. Arguably The Doctor's Wife (TV story).
As for the "checkmate", the argument is that it gives them the ability to "withstand" timetravel. Not to timetravel at all, but to survive the damage it's doing to them. Your reading here is incorrect, the changing of biodata is what would be harmful, in the longterm, in my hypothetical.
- Scrooge MacDuck
My word, are things getting heated around here!
My two cents: what Divided Loyalties says is not actually that relevant. If true, it would be interesting for the solitary explicit source for "War Chief ≠ Master" to actually be an unreliable dream sequence.
But that is not necessary to the proposal of this thread. It can, and, in my opinion, is, a simple matter of conflicting accounts. Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon and Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons can say one thing while Divided Loyalties stands in a corner saying another. As it happens, whatever we make of the dream sequences, the Third Epilogue is pretty explicit on who Koschei and Magnus become, even directly referencing The Dark Path despite the problems this involves.
Koschei who, after leaving Gallifrey to seek his fortune, came upon the DarkHeart, a malevolent force that was to imbue him with a new sense of direction. He was obsessed with universal domination and the Doctor became his ultimate nemesis. The two fought many times, across many times, places and dimensions, Koschei always trying to be the Doctor‘s Master…
(…)
Unlike Magnus, the only one of the Deca to leave Gallifrey and face a rather ignoble end. Obsessed with the Aliens and their war games, he fled his homeworld and joined them, offering his services to build TARDISes for them. He claimed that he deliberately built in defects so that the Alien War Lord would always need his services. The War Lord, however, was not as foolish as he seemed, although he was prone to bouts of extreme paranoia. And it was in one of these moods that he had Magnus executed when the final war game scheme fell apart and the Time Lords finally carried out their threat of erasure…But again, this doesn't matter. Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon still disagrees, in that it says "War Games happened, but only the Doctor and the Master ever left". And there still isn't any certainty that Magnus (Flashback) was either of those people. Magnus is a pretty common name, after all.
The War Games is, notably, the theatre of another, very similar matter of conflicting accounts. The Legacy of Gallifrey says that Bernard Horsfall's character in War Games was Goth, whereas several other stories say he was Pandad IV. The Wiki acknowledges this through clever use of "According to another accounts…", and what's amazing about this is, the Wiki has yet to explode.
We can easily add content to the in-universe sections of the the relevant pages (The Master, Magnus (Flashback), The War Chief) in a similar way, taking care not to place one account more highly than another.
- Najawin
I mean, that's sort of how you have to proceed when you have a show involving time travel and history being rewritten. I still think Holmes' thoughts should be looked into before any decision is made, but certainly Hulke and Dicks saying they're the same is sufficient for "according to one account" language. If we ultimately decide to interpret their comments in that way.
- BananaClownMan
If it interests anyone, I recently added the War Chief to the Master's timeline in the Theory forums, and they meld together quite nicely, with no contradictions I could find. The War Chief information was removed though due to his inclusion being too big a leap without discussion, so feel free to contribute to the current stalemate.
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Theory_talk:Timeline_-_The_Master
- 197.86.143.194
Najawin wrote: I have read the OP, I've responded to the OP in this thread before this. I'll also note that "advancing poor arguments" is not a personal attack.
Again. I have no horse in this race. Accusing me of being dishonest of my motivations here actually is a personal attack. Not one I mind, but given that you're accusing me of making personal attacks perhaps some self reflection is in order.
I mean, off the top of my head, Dalek (TV story) for biodata, and Toy Story (short story) for TARDIS. Arguably The Doctor's Wife (TV story).
As for the "checkmate", the argument is that it gives them the ability to "withstand" timetravel. Not to timetravel at all, but to survive the damage it's doing to them. Your reading here is incorrect, the changing of biodata is what would be harmful, in the longterm, in my hypothetical.
But what about the human soldiers travelling in the SIDRATs? Did they all have Rassilon Imprimaturs? What about time rings, and static electricity with mirrors? You are clearly trying to defend the undefendable.
But, the main points in the OP were:
1) It is explicitly stated in The War Games (TV story) that The Doctor and The War Chief each stole a TARDIS.
2) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Sea-Devils (novelisation) (among many others) that The Doctor and The Master each stole a TARDIS.
3) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon (novelisation) that only TWO TARDISes have ever been stolen up to that point, one by the Doctor, and one by the Master.
4) Furthermore, the exact same chapter of the exact same book gives the events of The War Games (TV story) when describing the history between the Doctor and the Master.
5) It is explicitly stated in The War Games (TV story) that the Doctor and the War Chief are both renegade Time Lords.
6) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons (novelisation)(among many others) that the Doctor and the Master are both renegade Time Lords.
7) It is explicitly stated in The Three Doctors (novelisation) that, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever come up against ONE renegade Time Lord...The Master.
8) When the War Chief sees the Doctor in Doctor Who and the War Games (novelisation), he states that there is only one person the Doctor can be.
9) In an interview reprinted in DWM 91, Malcolm Hulke, who co-wrote The War Games (TV story), and actually speaks at length about The War Games in the exact same interview states that the Doctor and the Master were the only two renegade Time Lords at that time.
10) Likewise, the same person, Terrance Dicks also co-wrote The War Games, and was Script Editor for the entire Delgado Era. He also novelised the Target Books of many Delgado stories. And, in some cases, he himself was the one who put in the War Chief/War Games references in the Target Books.
Anything else is just icing. The Doctor and the War Chief were good friends when they were younger. The Doctor and the Master were good friends when they were younger. The Doctor was led to believe that the War Chief's TARDIS wasn't working. The Doctor is surprised that the Master had a working TARDIS and was able to get away after organising wars, and the Time Lords were alerted. The War Chief and the Master's MO and ultimate aim are identical etc. That all helps with, but is not the main issue. That's in # 1-10.
- 197.86.143.194
As for the final Chapter of Divided Loyalties (novel), how do we know it is unreliable? Easy. Let's go back to that quote from Page 96:
- "All but three of the Deca were on their first regenerations and were forbidden to regenerate, should the whim take them, until after their five-hundredth birthdays. If Gallifreyans could be said to have birthdays. Vansell, Ushas and Rallon had already become junior Time Lords and were now in their final semesters, whereas the rest still had two to go before they received the Rassilon Imprimature - the genetic coding that gave them their regenerative powers, the ability to withstand time travel, the telepathic connection to TARDISes, time rings and all the other transtemporal feats of Gallifreyan engineering."
But, in the Final Chapter of the same book(Page 248) we get this little gem:
- "Jelpax, on the other hand, was probably Cardinal Borusa's proudest achievement - the only one of the Deca to stay the course, graduate and eventually join one of the major recorders, keeping an eye on matters arising in four or five minor galaxies. It was his team who foresaw a future where the Daleks had achieved domination over all other species."
So, logically, if Jelpax was the only one of the Deca to graduate then he was the only one who has the power of regeneration, along with all the other Time Lord gifts.
Or, Divided Loyalties is a Celestial Toymaker-induced dream state. It is not a literal depiction of events in the Doctor's(or anyone else's for that matter) past. It's about the Toymaker being sadistic, and uh, toying, with his victims for his own amusement. If you start cherry-picking that there are both a "Koschei" and a "Magnus" in a DREAM at the same time, and take that to be a literal fact, then it follows that "neither of them" were ever able to regenerate, or control a TARDIS, or ever actually even became a Time Lord. Whereas, we know that "both" The War Chief and The Master were Time Lords. In fact, the same Time Lord.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the Master and the War Chief were named as separate members of the Deca, were they not?
- 197.86.143.194
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: the Master and the War Chief were named as separate members of the Deca, were they not?
Please read the post directly above yours.
- Scrooge MacDuck
No, that post is not enough. Even if the Deca flashbacks themselves in Divided Loyalties are clearly unreliable, the Epilogue, which is not from an unreliable point of view, clearly describes Koschei and Magnus as two different individuals, stating that Koschei went on to "try to become the Doctor's Master" while Magnus tracked down "the Aliens and their War Games" and eventually got killed.
But as has been said several times before in this thread, this does not matter. It can be the case that some valid sources say X and Y are the same, and another does not. Just look at Goth and Pandad IV.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
when I have a dream about my school days I don’t often recall two different versions of the same person!
- Scrooge MacDuck
@DiSoRiEnTeD1, this is a very unusual application of it but I'd say that falls under T:NO RW. How dreams work in the DWU — nay, how they work for a nonhuman — doesn't have to match to your personal subjective experience of dreams. After all, you presumably didn't know your old school chums across several different regenerations. In multi-Doctor/multi-Master situation, the Doctor clearly slips into thinking of different incarnations as different people (just look at his treatment of the Simm Master and of Missy in The Doctor Falls).
But again, this is besides the point, because A) "the Deca flashbacks in Divided Loyalties are unreliable due to dream sequences" doesn't convincingly rebuke "Divided Loyalties says the War Chief and the Master are different" because of the epilogue, and B) this doesn't actually matter because accounts are allowed to contradict each other, and this thread is only concerned with whether there are valid sources which say the War Chief is the Master, not whether there are other sources which don't say that.
- 197.86.143.194
Actuwlly it has already been explained. If Jelpax was the only one to graduate, then none of the others became Time Lords.
And see the OP about 'Mortimus'. That's veru definitely NOT what happened.
It's not just a simple continuity either.
Clearly the "Epilogue" is just as unreliable.
What's more, much of Divided Loyalties is about duality. The Ainley Master is both the Beevers Master and Tremas, the Toymaker is both the Eternal and the Doctor's friend etc.
Plus, if the Master was called Koschei at the Academy, why doesn't the Doctor recognise him by that name in The Dark Path?
- 197.86.143.194
Above, I meant 'not just a simple continuity ERROR either'.
But Scrooge MacDuck makes the best point. Is there clear narrative evidence that the War Chief is the Master? Yes. Yes, there is.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Dreams may work differently in the DWU but that has never explicitly been said, the Master and the War Chief were given as two different individuals (that made up the Deca - which means ten, and if they were the same person it would only be nine!).
as for Jelpax being the only one to graduate... that is only *one* account, many other accounts have given the Doctor being a fully fledged Time Lord which contradicts this.
- 197.86.143.194
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Dreams may work differently in the DWU but that has never explicitly been said, the Master and the War Chief were given as two different individuals (that made up the Deca - which means ten, and if they were the same person it would only be nine!).
as for Jelpax being the only one to graduate... that is only *one* account, many other accounts have given the Doctor being a fully fledged Time Lord which contradicts this.
Thank you for making my point for me. Divided Loyalties is the ONLY account where the Doctor never graduated. Just as Divided Loyalties is the ONLY story which would seem to indicate that the Master isn't the War Chief. While, in both cases, there are significantly more accounts which state the exact opposite.
- Najawin
197.86.143.194 wrote:
But what about the human soldiers travelling in the SIDRATs? Did they all have Rassilon Imprimaturs? What about time rings, and static electricity with mirrors? You are clearly trying to defend the undefendable.
Again, you seem to think that the Rassilon Imprimatur is needed to time travel rather than to survive the effects of time travel. But this just isn't supported by the text. And if it's the latter we have no clue how long it takes to kill someone. Radiation can take quite some time to kill someone IRL. To think that these people would just drop dead borders on question begging.
197.86.143.194 wrote:
But, the main points in the OP were:
1) It is explicitly stated in The War Games (TV story) that The Doctor and The War Chief each stole a TARDIS.
2) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Sea-Devils (novelisation) (among many others) that The Doctor and The Master each stole a TARDIS.
3) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon (novelisation) that only TWO TARDISes have ever been stolen up to that point, one by the Doctor, and one by the Master.
Well I'm glad we established that The Monk is the Master.
197.86.143.194 wrote:
4) Furthermore, the exact same chapter of the exact same book gives the events of The War Games (TV story) when describing the history between the Doctor and the Master.
Reasonable point. Don't disagree. In the context of 3 this actually suggests that they're intended to be the same character by the authors. Not sure if it's sufficient, I do want to see Holmes' thoughts, but I don't deny this point. Again, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm here to dispute bad arguments.
197.86.143.194 wrote:
5) It is explicitly stated in The War Games (TV story) that the Doctor and the War Chief are both renegade Time Lords.
6) It is explicitly stated in Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons (novelisation)(among many others) that the Doctor and the Master are both renegade Time Lords.
7) It is explicitly stated in The Three Doctors (novelisation) that, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever come up against ONE renegade Time Lord...The Master.
8) When the War Chief sees the Doctor in Doctor Who and the War Games (novelisation), he states that there is only one person the Doctor can be.
9) In an interview reprinted in DWM 91, Malcolm Hulke, who co-wrote The War Games (TV story), and actually speaks at length about The War Games in the exact same interview states that the Doctor and the Master were the only two renegade Time Lords at that time.
Again, I'm glad you've established that the Monk and the Master are the same person. Like. C'mon. These statements obviously contradict things we know about the "continuity" of the world from that time. So unless the War Chief or the Master are brought up in the same context, to show some textual connection, and thus an intentional allusion, it's just a continuity error.
- Shambala108
Please read Thread:223085 before proceeding any farther.
- Najawin
Fair enough. I felt things were so involved in that comment that I needed to quote for my points to be adequately understood. I try to avoid doing so.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:Najawin asks that "the War Chief or the Master [be] brought up in the same context, to show some textual connection, and thus an intentional allusion". Well, the War Chief by name is not quite referenced in The Three Doctors, but the events of The War Games are, since The Three Doctors ends with Pandad IV revoking the exile he originally decreed in The War Games.
The ways in which Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon namechecks the War Chief/The War Games are now well-documented and I shan't waste everyone's time by going over them again. But the point is: this (quite valid) criterion has already been met.
And there are no such things as "Continuity errors" or "Discontinuity" in the view of this Wiki, only alternative accounts. Stories where the Doctor is human or called Dr. Who are not "mistaken", they are valid alternative accounts, exactly as correct as the televised version. If a story says, with no unreliable narrator in sight, that the Master was the only Renegade Time Lord the Doctor ever fought, we must recognise that this is an "according to one account" which has exactly as much weight as The Time Meddler or A Brief History of Time Lords. There only remains to puzzle out exactly what is being said.
And as I tried to explain earlier, the argument goes thusly: when a story simply says the Master is the only Renegade the Doctor had fought by the end of the Pertwee era, and does not reference the Monk stories in any way, Occam's Razor suggests that what's going on is that the author is kindly asking the readers to forget that The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan happened. It is unsurprising that Terrance Dicks would do this — in 1975, with no home videos and the novelisation of The Time Meddler still over a decade away, readers couldn't be expected to remember the Monk, and as Dicks had had no part in the creation fo the Monk, he must have felt no great need to enshrine this forgotten 60's character's existence.
Whereas Dicks goes out of his way to reference the events of The War Games in the same breath that he establishes the Master as the only other TARDIS-thief, and (in The Three Doctors) in the same book which resolves a story arc begun in War Games. This is very different.
On the subject of the Monk, the simplest explanation si that PROSE: The Three Doctors says "According to another account, the Doctor had never fought another Time Lord, suggesting the events of TV: The Time Meddler never happened". Whereas as far as the War Chief is concerned, it says most specifically, "According to one account, the Doctor had never fought another Time Lord than the Master, even though The War Games did take place".
- Najawin
Re: Continuity errors. I did mean from an Out of Universe standpoint. I don't think we disagree there, the question is "did the people in question just forget about the Monk or were they actively trying to say the Monk and the Master were the same person". If it's the former, that would be an "out of universe continuity error". Hence why I put "continuity" in quotes when I first used it. I'm very aware that I'm abusing language slightly.
Again. I have no horse in the race generally. I'm just here to talk about bad arguments. Your formulation of the argument is perfectly acceptable to me.
- 197.86.143.88
Najawin wrote: Like. C'mon. These statements obviously contradict things we know about the "continuity" of the world from that time.
Actually, it does nothing of the sort. It contradicts one continuity from this time today. At the time, it actually contradicted nothing at all.
I have started another thread here. [64]. It's not as open-and-shut as you make it out to be. In fact, in that case, there are multiple contradictory continuities.
However, when it comes to Master/War Chief, it is clear that Dicks and Hulke intended them to be one and the same. And they established in-narrative that they are one and the same. We can also bring up the Magistrate/War King which shows that subsequent authors intended them to be one and the same. And, not established fact, but John Simm's speeches about humans and his "Call to War" again back up "This is the same person as the War Chief". When we take real-world things like interviews with Malcolm Hulke etc. it becomes overwhelming.
By contrast, we have ONE account, namely Divided Loyalties too the contrary. (and even that comes in what is explicitly said to be a dream). Therefore, it looks like the default position is "The War Chief is the Master". And the 'alternative' account is the dream in Divided Loyalties.
- Najawin
The "contradictory continuities" that suggest they're the same (as opposed to just conflicting accounts of what one character has been doing in non Television media) are exclusively either non valid sources or miniscule hints a la the FP hypercube case. So, no. It's open and shut. FASA is entirely irrelevant to this wiki, and it's the only source that has said that they're the same character. Everything else is just perfectly normal "according to one account" without other characters getting involved.
As has been stated in several places, the DWU is very messy. Stories contradict each other, authors contradict each other (and themselves). If it takes any kind of interpreting to make some connection, then it doesn't count. There's enough evidence against the Master being the War Chief or the Monk that, while info can be placed on the behind-the-scenes sections of any of these pages, we will not be combining them.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275671
How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) should be merged into How The Monk Got His Habit (novelisation), because no short story existed - just an extract of the unproduced novelisation.
Peter Harness's comments revealed the extract to be a "discarded first page of a novelisation" that he only shared because "some of you seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea". [65]
User:Shambala108 ruled that we were to believe Harness' comments about the novelisation having existed, and having been discarded, here;
"The author's use (twice) of the word "discarded" simplifies things: we do not consider unpublished stories to be valid. None of the arguments for validity were able to get around this fact."
so i do not wish to see continued "if we are to believe Harness" when it has been ruled that we are to believe him. according to this site the novelisation existed, and according to Harness this was only an extract and not written as a short story.
- Najawin
Let's note that Thread:275277 does not rule that we actually as a wiki must view the alleged novelization and the short story that was released to be one and the same. Rather, it says that because Harness refers to the alleged novelization as being discarded twice we consider it invalid and that neither Scrooge nor I were able to get around this fact.
Obviously this argument is flawed in its conception. Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) in its official release is referred to as being discarded in some form or fashion arguably two or three times. So then we turn to the next issue, whether Scrooge or I were adequately able to address Harness's comments.
The answer, is, of course, yes. Similar to how Doctor Who and the Time War was conceived of being "a surviving fragment of the Novel That Never Was", it was argued, the alleged novel was also a framing device for the short story released. Now, what evidence do we have for this position?
Harness pitched the original story after 2015, when his Zygon 2 parter aired. Since then there have been three places doing Doctor Who Novelizations. Doctor Who photo novelisations, Target novelisations, and BBC Books novelisations.
Are any of these likely to have picked up Harness's pitch? Or, rather, would Harness have pitched this to any of these?
- I think it's uncontroversial that we can safely discount Doctor Who photo novelisations. This is a set of children's books, the tone, subject matter, and level of literacy are in direct contradiction with this line.
- BBC Books novelisations hasn't done a single NuWho novelization, and in the time period we'd guess Harness would be looking at them every book they'd have written would be by James Goss. This one is also out.
- So that leaves us with Target novelisations. But the issue here is that they've has never once done an unfinished work, not even Shada, and for the New Series touch prominent stories within that season. Harness would know for a fact that if he pitched this he would be rejected, just from simple induction on their past entries.
So it seems highly unlikely that this novelization ever existed. Indeed, if we look at the style of the "first page", it's clearly parodying old novelizations.
"The mysterious time traveler known only as Roger" is an absolutely delightful send up, similar to what Moffat did in World Enough and Time (TV story).
Since none of this was ever addressed in Thread:275277, and instead the closing argument was only that we care that Harness said the extract was discarded, these arguments still stand, unaccounted for. Similarly, the only thing that thread resolved was the validity of the story, not whether an attempted novelization ever existed in the first place. Without addressing these arguments it cannot, in principle, do that.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
this is not a validity discussion, we’ve been over your poor evidence time and time again - and it was deemed unsubstantial.
- Najawin
I don't believe I'm discussing validity here. We're discussing whether there's a distinction between the short story posted by Harness and the alleged novelization mentioned. That evidence was never ruled on, and, indeed, that's what you created this thread to discuss.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
your entire post was about validity, the exact same points you were making in the resolved discussion - unless i missed something?
- Najawin
So these arguments here establish that there's likely to be no novelization. If this is the case, that would be an argument both in favor of validity as well as an argument in favor of not renaming the article. Since the arguments weren't addressed, they can be transplanted from the issue of validity to the issue of not renaming the article, since they apply to each.
It's as if I were to take a bunch of arguments for "Greeks are good at philosophy", and then argue over whether Plato was good at philosophy. Someone then said, nah, Plato was bad at philosophy without addressing my arguments, but a discussion of Aristotle popped up. I could just transplant my arguments from before and move right along without changing much.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
your arguments are just speculation after speculation, because you arent privy to all the information you seem to think that it is fine to dismiss the actual statements made by these individuals. who gives you that right?
- Najawin
Call it speculation if you want. In general the term is critical thinking. This wiki discusses authorial intent frequently. Framing devices based on books that never existed and metafiction are old hat for Doctor Who.
- Chubby Potato
Yes, I do think these points can be raised here— even if they were ultimately irrelevant to the validity decision, they are relevant here. To be honest both options are speculation (that the extract comes from a novel, or that said novel was an invention for the release of the extract), but logic points us to the latter. I will also add that if we look at the way the "short story" is written, the style implies that it was intended as an extract of a missing novel, and not the start of an actual one.
Although on a possibly larger note I must add that, quite strangely, it appears that Peter Harness's Twitter account (and the story along with it) have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but this also changes things.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
how the heck is it speculation to say the extract comes from the novelisation when Harness states it was the “discarded first page of a novelisation”???
- Chubby Potato
It's not speculation to say it comes from the novelisation, but it is to say that Harness had written this novelisation long before this tweet— he never clarified that, and you're using it as the basis as your argument. This discussion depends more on whether that novelisation exists or existed, which, as I have said, we don't know.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
don’t care how long before he wrote it. the fact is he wrote it and this was an extract from it. there is no evidence that it didn’t exist - and never has been.
- Chubby Potato
That's a rather stubborn stance to take. I have yet to see evidence it did exist either. You state this as fact, and you may believe it, but do you have proof? If you do, could you please provide it? (Aside from the fact that Harness claims it's a discarded novelisation, which Scrooge, Najawin and I have said can reasonably, though not 100% certainly, be seen as a framing device. Because that quote is uncertain, what else is there?)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i struggle to understand you at all @ChubbyPotato.
you say that it is "not speculation to say [the extract] comes from the novelisation" but then question the novelisation existing in the first place... that makes no sense, it either came from the novelisation - because the novelisation existed - or it didnt.
you keep coming into these discussions (like you did with the Monk's validity discussion) and saying that you agree with Scrooge / Najawin but then the points you make completely side with me and against them.
it was both Scrooge and Najawin who speculated about when the novelisation was written, i have never once made comment to when it could have been written, yet you say that Harness having "written this novelisation long before this tweet" is the basis of my argument when it literally is not.
please try to read all comments clearly, and if you dont understand someone's point or argument - ask them, dont just make it up and put words into their mouths.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
the evidence it existed is Harness stating that it did. what more evidence can you need? you even just said yourself "its not speculation to say it comes from the novelisation"... so you even acknowledge the novelisation existed...
- Najawin
Potato is correct that Harness has deleted his account. Which is bizarre, as he was still tweeting about BlackLivesMatter semifrequently. I guess Moffat convinced him.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
fortunately, User:Shambala108 quoted the most important tweet in the closing post of the validity discussion.
- Najawin
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the actual story had been stored anywhere else. Don't get tunnel vision.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Najawin wrote: Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the actual story had been stored anywhere else. Don't get tunnel vision.
a "story" didnt exist in the first place so i am not at all surprised. hopefully someone somewhere saved the extract.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
correct me if i am wrong but the only pieces of "evidence" to this having been a framing device are;
other releases have been presented as discarded
Revenge of the Nestene and Dalek alternative script extract were both presented as "discarded". however, we have confirmation from Emily Cook that both stories were written during lockdown and she produced / organised them.
a discarded release saw the light of day
Doctor Who and the Time War was originally discarded but released for the lockdown. however, we have confirmation that RTD was approached by Chris Chibnall himself for this work and it was released on official sites.
Harness would be "incompetent" to pitch the story
apparently Harness would be "incompetent" to pitch the story to the publishers operating at the time - for numerous reasons. however, Target novelisation had just returned after a major break and therefore Harness could have pitched it to them in the hopes that they would stray from the norm and release his unproduced story. also, Harness never said that he pitched it to anyone - just that it was a discarded novelisation, he could have just written it and ultimately stopped short of ever getting it published.
how does any of that outweigh Harness' own comments about the novelisation having existed?
- Najawin
story: noun
1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale.
2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel.
3. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature
4. the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc.So, uh, clearly meets 1 and 2? Can you stop this nonsense now?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
anyone who disagrees with you is talking "nonsense". but unlike others i will not be forced away from the discussion.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: you say that it is "not speculation to say [the extract] comes from the novelisation" but then question the novelisation existing in the first place... that makes no sense, it either came from the novelisation - because the novelisation existed - or it didnt.
Obviously I cannot be sure this is what User:Chubby Potato meant, but my reading of the situation is that there's too little evidence ot know either way, and so the Wiki should remain agnostic on the matter; so that it'd be speculation to decide in either direction, and we should simply present the facts ("Harness said [X] at [Y date]") without either disbelieving them, or giving them undue credit.
As for your other points: if you do not believe the alleged novelisation was written long before the tweet, when do you think it was written? I struggle to imagine a scenario where it really existed as a book project separate from the prose "extract", yet was created just before the tweet. Please elaborate.
I think User:Najawin's calling up of the definition rather lays the matter of whether the extract, if it was meant to be read as such, counts as "a story". Again, Friend from the Future counts as an invalid story even though it was ruled to constitute an extract from an earlier draft of The Pilot' — a deleted scene, in essence — because it was released as an independent entity, before the story it would have been a part of. How does that precedent not apply here?
And — no one is attempting to force you away from this discussion, or at least I certainly am not. I am trying, tirelessly, to convince you, or at the very least to make you see my point(s).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
there's not "too little evidence". we have a statement from the writer himself, the same statement was used to determine the validity so the site obviously views that statement at face value.
i have never said when i think the novelisation was written - anywhere between 2015 and 2020, and why would it matter when i thought it was written? that would be a guess and pure speculation - just like you writing "it was written at the same time as the television story" on the page.
Najawin is extremely hostile to anyone with an opposing view. his comments such as that i am "harping on" and talking "nonsense" is designed to shut me up. it is extremely uncalled for in what is supposed to be a peaceful discussion, but he thinks that apologising and then doing it again is absolutely fine.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
and the thing is... Friend from the Future (TV story) was officially released.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The thing is, User:Shambala108's closure of the validity debate was that since Harness called it "discarded", it was to be considered invalid. Non-validity is a distinct status from {{unprod}}ucedness, and usually applies to things the Wiki recognises as officially-released stories. It is perfectly possible to interpret Shambala's closing post as meaning that whether or not it was written as a short story, the short story's contents have been called part of a "discarded" narrative by their author, and thus fail Rule 4 of T:VS. That is certainly how I understood it, as well as how I understood the fact that we're having this discussion right now instead of Shambala having performed a rename to the "(novelisation)" dab term at the same time she closed the thread.
It was also objectively "officially released" (Rule 3). It was released by its author to the public, and for free at that. The question is rather whether that release was licensed (that's Rule 2), and again, Shambala closing the inclusion debate with invalidity rather than deletion suggests she didn't hold your arguments about it not being licensed to be convincing, any more than she held my arguments for Rule-4-passing-ness to be substantial.
Neither of us got our exact preferred outcome in that thread's closure, which comes across as essentially a compromise based on the hard facts of the case (what Harness has said about his story, rather than the truthfulness or lack thereof of said statements). Nothing is gained by either of our "sides" in the former debate acting as though we got what we wanted.
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: other releases have been presented as discarded
I once again see no reason to give one care in the world what Emily Cook says. But I'll bite. I pulled up her tweets from that tweet along. Where does she say that the script extract was written during Lockdown and she produced it? We might be meant to think that given her general comments about Lockdown, but she obviously said produced, and there's no producer role to this. Clearly I'm not saying these things aren't fake. But this is an example of where we clearly have someone saying "oh, no, this is actually a discarded script", when it isn't.
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: a discarded release saw the light of day
You misunderstand the Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) point. The point is twofold, both that stating something was discarded is not sufficient for dismissing it, and that Doctor Who and the Time War was itself presented as part of a book that doesn't exist. And while we've been told in the post that it doesn't exist as it was a discussion of the history of the piece, I don't see why we'd think that would be the case if it were to be published normally.
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Harness would be "incompetent" to pitch the story
Your argument that Harness would have had hopes on pitching this to Target is just utterly absurd. Nobody with passing familiarity with Target would have thought this proposal had a snowball's chance in hell. Indeed, they had been reprinting older novelizations since 2011, so it was clear that they were sticking to tradition.
As for the idea that Harness never pitched this to anyone, I certainly agree, since it never existed. The point is that there's nobody he would have pitched it to, so it makes no sense for him to have even begun to write.
- Najawin
I'd also like to note that I'm not attempting to force anyone away from the discussion. If anything I'm trying to force people to stop insisting that there's no story when we've all seen it with our own eyes. I'm rather sensitive on the subject of gaslighting.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Najawin i will not be replying to you anymore, you litter your points with little jabs that are not needed whatsoever. stuff like; "ill bite", is just completely unnecessary. not trying to exclude you from the discussion, but i cannot deal with it anymore.
@Scrooge i will reply to you in due course.
- Najawin
How on earth is "I'll bite" a jab?
From Urban Dictionary:
Giving into what someone has to say
Person 1- I just learned some great news!!
Person 2- Alright I'll bite. What's your great news?From the Free Dictionary:
slang OK, I'll engage with you on this topic.
Since I had just stated that I had no interest in what Cook said, but engaged anyways, this was an appropriate thing to say.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Scrooge "since Harness called it "discarded", it was to be considered invalid" so... this site will take his word for that, but wont take the word of it simply being an extract from the novelisation...?
you continue to propose that this was licensed as part of lockdown but you refuse to accept that this is the odd one out of all the other releases. it was not produced / organised by Emily Cook (we know that cook has had some contact with Chris Chibnall but this is for her licensed work only), and was not pre-planned (as Harness stated that it was only shared as an afterthought due to fan interest) or promoted by any other site.
theres simply no evidence that it was licensed, and as User:Shambala108 told you on Talk:The Castellan has returned and has brought a message from Gallifrey! (webcast) we have to be very strict when it comes to licensing.
- Chubby Potato
Disoriented, how do you think I agree with you? I say the extract is from the novelisation, but the novelisation is still hypothetical. Scrooge's above comment (not his last, but the one above it) is exactly my point.
Also, just as Shambala108 said in the other thread, I'd like this to remain a discussion and not an argument of who said what. So I will bring up one of the basic tenets of wiki editing: assume good faith. Not everything is an attack against you; I didn't read it that way, and Najawin certainly did not intend to be rude. Please stop setting up strawmen to make this an argument, and let this remain a formal discussion.
- Borisashton
I'm tired of the the Monk discussions so I won't comment much but I just wanted to ask why is this being discussed in the forums? This is a rename/merge proposal which should be dealt with on talk pages, in this case Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story). The {{merge}} template on the page even explicitly states "Talk about it here"!
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm not sure. I seem to recall, though, that once something has been brought to the forum it should continue being discussed there, even if the reasoning for bringing it there in the first place was tenuous. Don't quote me on that.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i didn't think it was a place for the forums either but i was told to by Najawin on Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Chubby Potato wrote: Please stop setting up strawmen to make this an argument, and let this remain a formal discussion.
i have set up no "strawmen". but the attitude and certain words, not just the "ill bite" which suggested that i was baiting him, are extremely uncomfortable. i am absolutely fine to keep this as a formal discussion, hence my decision to distance myself from a certain user who rubs me up the wrong way.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Chubby Potato wrote: I say the extract is from the novelisation, but the novelisation is still hypothetical.
also, this still makes absolutely no sense. it cannot be an extract from a novelisation that doesn't exist.
- Shambala108
User:Borisashton is right, rename and merge tag discussions should be done on the article's talk page. I'm not going to close this one because it would be too much work to transfer everything over to the talk page, but in the future please keep this in mind thanks.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
sorry, that is where I originally opened the discussion but was told wrong I guess.
- Shambala108
Also in the future, if you're not sure about something, ask any admin.
- Najawin
My point was more that you weren't going to convince Scrooge and myself. But fair enough.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
It’s not locked?
- Scrooge MacDuck
No, it's not. If you are (confusingly) referring to what I said in the other thread, I thought the "more relevant thread" you were referring to was Thread:273268, which remains locked due to the technical glitch. We've said all that can be said on this thread, I think, for the time being; it is that thread, about how to define Lockdown!, which would greatly benefit from the new data provided by DWM 554.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I was obviously talking about the Monk discussion... how is that confusing to you when we were solely discussing the Monk?...
- Scrooge MacDuck
This isn't a generic "Monk discussion", it's a discussion about how to dab the page. Whether we cover it at all is an entirely different problem, which has already been ruled upon in a manner that was not to either of our satisfactions. But DWM 554 sheds no new light on the dabbing question, even if it might or might not influence a hypothetical redo of whether to cover the thing.
What we had started discussing on the other thread was, instead, a broader problem about what counts as Lockdown! and what doesn't — which seems like it would most naturally fall within the purview of the thread about how to define Lockdown!.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
The locked thread about defining lockdown releases is relevant for the actual lockdown releases - time and time again this single story shows itself to be the odd one out of all the releases discussed there, and time and time again this release is the one that holds up discussions on that thread.
This story had nothing to do with lockdown (no more so than the drafts of Doctor Who and the Cave Monsters (TV story), etc. It was simply mentioned by Harness and should definitely be assessed alone.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
This discussion, which I started, was always to deem that the short story never existed and should in fact be merged with the novelisation that it was revealed to have been part of - so I would appreciate you not try to educate me on matters like the reason behind the discussion I created.
Nothing was ever ruled in regards of covering this story. All that was ever ruled was that either way it would not be seen as a valid release (which you wanted for whatever reason) because it... was not released. Now I go further and suggest it should not be covered at all because... the short story never existed, it was a discarded draft of a novelisation!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
On the main lockdown discussion you repeatedly took glee in telling me that I was bound to T:BOUND and quenched my attempts to challenge Monk. But then when I open a discussion to have it assessed separately you tell me that it should be covered in the main thread... it’s an absolute joke, and clearly an attempt to control the discussion in your favour.
- Shambala108
Admin note to all:
Tardis:No personal attacks and as I have said multiple times: stop assuming what others mean. If you're not sure what someone is saying, ask in a non-attacking way.
These forum posts have become arguments about "you said" "no I didn't" instead of people arguing their points. There's no reason to have forum threads and open up questions to the community if all it's going to do is get people to snipe at each other.
I have been very lenient (due to complaints about blocking some but not others in older posts) but these forum threads have become needlessly long as people interpret others' posts, re-explain something they posted multiple times above, and accuse others of misinterpreting them. I don't want to start blocking but it's nearly impossible for an admin to come to any kind of closing statement when we have to wade through so many complaints and arguments. Try to keep things civil; try to make your points clearly; try to ask nicely when you have a question; and assume other users' good faith.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
With all due respect you come into these discussions and accuse people of personal attacks all the time (which is not assuming good faith in itself?) but never give any examples. I do not believe that I have personally attacked anyone here, nor do I feel personally attacked (although ironically one time when I did feel personally attacked and came to you my compliant was ignored completely, and eventually archived).
If you want discussions to be condensed that’s one thing, but accusing people of personally attacking each other when they’re simply putting their individual points across is incredibly misleading.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Shambala has already spoken to you about the accusations you make against me, so I'll leave that to her and present the facts.
If User:Shambala108 herself, who closed Thread:275277, were to come out and tell us otherwise I would accept that correction, but as things stand, her closing post was against validity of How The Monk Got His Habit, not against coverage — and, despite having reviewed said page as part of the process of drafting her closing post, she did not delete it or mark it for merging upon closing the thread. On the face of it this seems to constitute a de-facto ruling that the story is deemed to be something we cover, just as {{invalid}}.
Since this ruling exists, well, at the risk of displeasing you once again, T:BOUND is in fact a policy that exists. You cannot advocate for us to fundamentally change our coverage of the story again without new evidence, or otherwise without the go-ahead of an administrator. I likewise am not planning to reopen the inclusion debate in favour of my preferred outcome (validity) unless some new quotes from Harness are found about his authorial intent regarding the nature and setting of the story. It is only fair that you hold yourself to the same standard.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Her ruling was about validity, because that was all the discussion was about. She did not rule in regards to coverage because that was never brought up, hence the existence of this thread - to discuss its coverage. So I don’t understand, at all, how you could try to dismiss this thread by suggesting that Shamblar had already ruled on the subject “to neither of our personal satisfactions” when she hadn’t ruled about coverage at all.
Once again, the previous discussion was NOT about coverage - but about validity. Completely different. So I am not breaking any rules by discussing this, and if I were I’d appreciate you leave it to an admin to tell me.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The last thread was an inclusion debate. There are, broadly speaking, three possible outcomes of an inclusion debate:
- coverage as valid;
- coverage as invalid;
- no coverage.
I have never heard of an inclusion debate that limited itself to just the first two options, and simply put the third one out of its purview completely.
The possibility that How The Monk… was simply fanfic was brought up numerous times (by you, as it happens) in that inclusion debate, and no one ever acted as though it was off-topic then. Deletion was very much on the table in that debate. The closing post ruled invalidity instead.
As you say, coverage and validity (and by the same token non-coverage and invalidity) are different things. Invalidity is the status of "stories which we cover, but cannot use as sources for valid in-universe pages". Something invalid is by definition covered to some extent or another. The Lego Batman Movie, for example, isn't an "invalid source" — it's simply not covered because T:NO FANFIC.
The inclusion debate for The Lego Batman Movie, as a matter of fact, started out as a matter of validity; the OP didn't really pose the question of coverage in itself; yet evidence against licensedness was found partway through, and so the story was eventually deemed outside the bounds of what the Wiki covers, as opposed to merely valid or invalid as the binary was originally presented.
This is a route that inclusion debates can and do go; it was not the case with that one.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You are not an admin. If you think it shouldn’t exist, report it to an admin. But the fact is, Shamblar has seen both threads and has not taken action against this one so it is not your place to continuously poke holes in the discussion.
I was the creator of both discussions. In the original discussion my main goal was to have it deemed invalid, and in this separate discussion my goal is to have the information merged.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I am not saying this thread shouldn't exist; I am referring to your earlier musing about creating a new debate that would be about whether Monk was part of Lockdown!/whether it was something we covered.
Honestly, even if I were an admin I'd think twice before trying to make a call about this particular thread because — well — it's kind of unheard-of, to, some time after a story has been ruled invalid, have a thread disputing whether the story even exists as a story per se.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I didn’t understand any point in your last post. If you’re not saying it shouldn’t exist, then that’s fine and I’m not sure how we got onto this topic?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275731
So I've finally gotten TARDIS Eruditorum into a state that I'm satisfied with to begin this discussion. Technically the "needs cleaning" tag is still present, but I'd prefer if the person who put it there would take it down as I don't want to step on their toes by removing it myself and suggesting that there's consensus that the article is 100% kosher in its formatting. Given that, let's begin the discussion.
What is TARDIS Eruditorum?[[edit] | [edit source]]
TARDIS Eruditorum is a mixed media project consisting of a series of books as well as a series of "blogposts". I note here that this is not a technically correct usage of the term, as blogs are by definition inherently casual rather than formal, colloquially are in reversal chronological order (while these are in chronological order), and even historically even represent a diary, which these assuredly do not. However, as the author, Sandifer, herself uses the term, I too will use the term. Just be aware that these are formal essays at the very least approaching academic levels of rigor if not consistently at academic levels of rigor analyzing Doctor Who.
There is also an associated podcast, but I'm not taking that to be part of the main project for purposes of this discussion. It's important to note, for full transparency, that this podcast has had several figures involved in production of the DWU interviewed on said podcast, including Kate Orman and Peter Harness.
Okay, so What's the Problem?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Even discounting the obvious differences between the podcast and the other forms of the text, there are some massive issues that arise.
Speed in Publication[[edit] | [edit source]]
First and foremost, the website version of the text has far outpaced the book version of the text. Currently the page I've created covers both, as I consider them one project, and Talk:TARDIS Eruditorum seems to be in agreement on this. But this is the first instance of a publication like this to be addressed on this wiki, so a hard and fast policy going forward would be prudent in my eyes.
What the Books Have That the Website Does Not[[edit] | [edit source]]
Another issue that emerges is that the books will add in content after the fact in an attempt to get people who've read the online version to buy the book. One example is that Sandifer is currently writing the McCoy book and had for her kickstarter a stretch goal of an essay "Is Ace Queer?" Now, this might encourage someone to say, "well, alright then, that's easy, the books are the definitive edition of the project and online is secondary, a test run." But not so fast.
What the Website Has That the Books Do Not[[edit] | [edit source]]
Sandifer has experimented with the fact that she's originally writing for a digital medium and used that to great effect. She wrote a chapter in emoji. She wrote a chapter as a choose your own adventure novel, of which the definitive account is one that someone adapted online. Interference part II would be nasty to read in a book. The Family of Blood is a rewrite of the Human Nature post. Silence in the Library is itself a small book in its own right. All of these things can in principle be translated to a book. But they lose something when you do. They're designed first and foremost with the digital medium in mind. The fact that she doesn't have to be constrained by normal printing procedures is what allowed her to do these experiments.
Aside from this, some of the posts on her website end up "on the cutting room floor" as it were when the book is published, as mentioned here. And all of this ignores...
The Comments[[edit] | [edit source]]
Now here we have a real quandary. Are comments sections supposed to be "text" (part of the work) or "paratext" (other material that helps us interpret the work)? There's decent arguments in either direction. The author is actively engaging in the comment sections and elaborating on their work, as well as responding to criticisms. This is deeply important if it is indeed text. And, as this is already media criticism, it's not as if these actions are unrelated to what the text normally does. In addition, these comment sections are often frequented by prominent figures in the Doctor Who community. So losing this information when you go to the book is a very real blow.
With that said, there is one caveat, and that's that on the older comments a different threading system was used and Sandifer used a different name. So while the name was changed site-wide, people responding to the name in their comments never went back to discussions 7 years ago to edit their comments. So these old discussions would be hard to read. A footnote added to discuss this would be appropriate, if we do decide to incorporate the comments as part of the text.
Current Policy[[edit] | [edit source]]
Honestly? There's not much. I wasn't able to find anything in the forums, but someone who's been here longer than me might know of a post I overlooked, or on the old boards. T:UNOFF REF is going to be the relevant rule here, but the wording on this is pretty clear that it wasn't built to handle a case like this.
A distinction should be made, however, between the above types of sites which are "forbidden" because of their fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour, and, for lack of a better phrase, "unofficial reference sources". Some fans have created sites that are more like interactive reference books, in that they present well-sourced analyses, in exactly the same manner as would any reputable reference writer. Prime amongst this type of allowed fan site is Shannon Sullivan's A Brief History of Time (Travel), which we feel is a genuine attempt at behind-the-scenes scholarship.
But this just isn't what TARDIS Eruditorum is attempting to do at all. It's not merely attempting to document facts about production or continuity, it's attempting to look at Doctor Who's broader impact on culture, and culture's impact on Doctor Who. The one bit of this that is relevant is 'A distinction should be made, however, between the above types of sites which are "forbidden" because of their fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour'.
I'll also note that the rule as written allows for unofficial reference websites and interviews, but not other works of analysis like Running Through Corridors, About Time, or even scholarly works like this one, even if analysis books are mentioned in Tardis:Resources. I'll note that Tardis:Resources also says "Only official sites should be cited on articles", a policy that I think this example shows is outdated.
Clearly TARDIS Eruditorum, while a fan project, is intellectually rigorous. So the spirit of the rule would seem to support the website version being included, even if the actual letter of the law does not suggest so. (Note here that there have been actual developments about the show only detailed heretofore on the website version of this project, such as the original scripts for The Pyramid at the End of the World (TV story).)
One could even argue that we should expand this to the entirety of Eruditorum Press, allowing things like Orman's comments about Looms in this post to be treated as text and part of an interview, but that is beyond the scope of my argument here.
Where Do We Go From Here?[[edit] | [edit source]]
I propose the following policy changes.
- When discussing an out of universe project spread out over multiple forms of media, if there is significant overlap between those forms of media, they are all contained on a single page. However, no one of them is to be taken as definitive, and instead content is solely additive.
- T:UNOFF REF be rewritten to include language allowing broader analyses of the form. My specific proposed wording would be "[...]which we feel is a genuine attempt at behind-the-scenes scholarship. In addition, analysis of Doctor Who using specialized knowledge or academic scholarship also serves as a reference point for this wiki." But I'm not wedded to this and it's something we can workshop.
- If we adopt language explicitly mentioning academic scholarship, I'd suggest making a page referencing all academic papers discussing Doctor Who (or at least one by field), rather than a page for each paper.
- The "Only official sites should be cited on articles" language in Tardis:Resources be reworked to also allow for the website version of a mixed media project to be cited. An example would be "Only official sites or digital publications of reference texts or academic sources should be cited on articles".
- For scholarly works of the type above detailed in the new T:UNOFF REF, if this work is online, we take comments sections to be treated as text rather than paratext. This does not mean that we must cover everything detailed in the comments sections. It just means that if, for instance, the author elaborates on a thought, we can cite that elaboration in an OOU section somewhere. If need-be, we can even require that it be tagged as "comments", to note that it's specifically on the online version of the text. But as this is freely available to users, and so more accessible than the book version, this seems to me to be only a positive.
- Shambala108
Why don't you just ask the person who posted the cleanup tag if he's satisfied?
- Najawin
I mean, the first sentence is just an opening statement for why it's taken so long for this post to be made. The rest of that paragraph is just explaining the existence of the tag still. I suspect they are, given what was said on the talk page, but it's really not important for this thread, and since there was potential to change things on the page here (ie, if admins say we should remove all references to the website version of the project), that would involve changing the page somewhat radically, so I figured best to leave it up for now.
- Najawin
So I took some time to trawl through old threads and found Forum:Are Blogs valid sources?. There's not that much here different from the actual policy in T:UNOFF REF, but we can make it a little bit clearer as to my argument that the current policy wasn't built to handle the current situation.
Blogs are generally invalid sources for statements of fact, except when: [...] they are independent of the BBC, but take a scholarly approach, using sources deemed acceptable by tardis:resources (nevertheless all such statements should be specifically footnoted or classed as the opinion of the researcher inline)
But this just isn't the approach taken by About Time or Running Through Corridors, two of the closest analogues. The policy seems designed for a cataloguing, rather than an analysis. Equally, however, it's not the case that the statements made in TARDIS Eruditorum are those of opinion. While I may object to some bits of scientific inaccuracy in her treatment of alchemy, for instance, I still acknowledge that the particular flaw exhibited is one we'd expect to see in a literary analysis of Doctor Who. It's very much a scholarly work. So it fits none of the categories that currently exist.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
As requested by Najawin, I'm going to put some of my thoughts here. I'm still fine with mentioning and using the comments, as long as they are either made by the author or Who figures. Just make sure that they are that person, since fans seem to have a liking to naming their accounts after real people. (see our own blocklist) I'm also good with the website being used for the wiki, because it seems that it ties into the books. However, I don't want to consider the comments "text". They're not the main work, and while it does clarify things, it's not the main critic and such.
Also, no matter what, I do not want to see the deadname anywhere on her page. It's a common courtesy, and, taking a lesson from what I learned in the Thread:274329, I don't want to cater to those who can't do five seconds of research.
- Shambala108
No need to be contemptuous to people who aren't familiar with how wikis work. There are far more people visiting the wiki who never edit than there are those of us who edit here. All are welcome here; we don't just cater to the small minority who do the work here.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
?????????????? I'm not quite sure what you're referring too? I'm not talking contemptuous about any of the people who don't edit, I just don't want the deadname anywhere. (Which is supported by our policies.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
To make it clear, I'm not affiliated with Sandifer. I stopped reading her blog years ago, and have never read any of the books. But making sure we refer to a current name is a common courtesy we should afford everyone.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm the person who'd originally posted the Cleanup tag and can confirm that it's got nothing to do with what is now being discussed. I've now removed my original note, as I do indeed find that my concerns had been addressed.
As for this discussion — I definitely think we should be able to cite comments as footnotes in articles; e.g. what Robert Shearman revealed about the actual early Dalek-less draft of Dalek over the course of several lengthy messages in the comments section of the essay about that story. I don't believe he ever wrote in such detail on the subject anywhere else, but if we can find a way to cite that info, it's to the point that it might well support the creation of an {{unprod}} page about Absence of the Daleks, not to mention extensive rewrites to the BTS section of such pages as Toclafane.
I think it'd be possible to link to such comments as our sources, whether or not we deem them to be part of TARDIS Eruditorum, and, indeed, even if we did not have a page about TARDIS Eruditorum at all. But it's certainly much tidier if we can link to our own page on the Eruditorum instead.
At any rate, T:UNOFF REF is in such obvious conflict with Tardis:Resources on the issue of non-BBC-licensed RW-focused scholarly works that I suspect it's just a case of an overlooked update, which could and should be corrected by an admin without further discussion.
- Najawin
Never, my current proposal is simply noting that she was referred to in a different name in the past.
The post Scrooge is referring to is here (though I'm not sure I'd quite characterize the posts as he would, Shearman certainly did talk about earlier drafts of Dalek extensively in the comments). Shearman also talks about Dalek to a small extent in the Jubilee chapter. Having these be text would be hugely beneficial going forward.
- Najawin
Going through the whole thing again, looking for comments that might be relevant, I actually found more comments from Shearman about the alternative Dalek script here.
I've been compiling the comments I've found so far here, just to show what all so far we'd gain from including them as "easily reference-able" by being text rather than paratext. (Funnily enough, the "Absence of the Daleks" example is the only one I've found that isn't in the relevant entry's comment section, and so isn't that helpful.)
But let's do get rid of the deadname. This is easily handled with wiki software. Just create a redirect from the old name to the new one, but keep the name that's attached to the work on original publication and make a note somewhere on the article explaining the name change.
On any page about the author themselves, the canonical pagename (in the coding sense) should be the person's current name, and some note should be made on the page about which works were published under which name.
As for the alleged conflict between two rules, I'm not really comfortable using what is clearly a "special snowflake" of a case to redefine policy.
I think it's most prudent, for now, to just follow Scrooge MacDuck's suggestion on how to include this material and do this:
- if we can find a way to cite that info, it's to the point that it might well support the creation of an {{unprod}} page about Absence of the Daleks, not to mention extensive rewrites to the BTS section of such pages as Toclafane.
That's what we've done in other cases, and I don't see why it wouldn't work here.
The truth about running a wiki is that you're never going to be able to write rules that take into account every situation. Sometimes it's better to come up with a unique solution, like the one MacDuck provided, than top spend hours trying to jam a star into a square hole so that your policy fits every situation. Cause, sure as rain makes flowers grow, there'll be another snowflake in a few years that doesn't quite match up with our rules.
Basically, you gotta look at the size of the problem. If it's not happening a lot, then the common case on which the rule is built — that of some random person in their basement writing a blog based upon their own opinions — is the one that receives the focus.
That doesn't mean we're not gonna look at those rules again at some point in the future. We revise rules from time to time. But they likely won't be changed just so they can accommodate this particular case. Until then, please avail yourself of the reasonable solution MacDuck has suggested.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275905
Pretty self-explanitory. I’ve seen a bunch of articles around here that have been waiting for ages to have their titles changed. Sure, some are instances where the potential change needs to be debated first, but then there are those that clearly have to be changed due to something as simple as a misspelling, or even ones where the title is quite blatantly incorrect.
In some cases, holding off on changing the names right away delays the production of other pages (I’m currently holding off on creating anymore Doctor Whoah! pages that feature the fictionalised versions of Tom Baker and the other Doctor actors as a result).
- Najawin
Just for context here, Eddie (The Piggybackers) was originally on a rename tag which you changed to a speedy rename tag on Jun 5. Brideport Elemenatry School had its tag applied May 29. For wait times of 9 and 16 days, respectively. When I had Eaglemoss Collections tagged with a rename (not speedy, but I felt it was relatively uncontroversial, though I still gave my reasons in the talk page), it took 10 days. So your wait isn't that different from that. Admins are busy, have you tried posting on their talk pages?
- Shambala108
Answer to criticism:
- Admins are volunteers, just like the rest of the editors on the wiki. We have jobs and real lives, and we don't always have time to go through the maintenance lists. And to quote User:CzechOut from Thread:221655 "and the fact that we'd (yanno, one day, maybe) like to get back to editing simple pages about a franchise we love"
- Also, sometimes we just don't know why a page is suggested for renaming. If we're not familiar with the story (stories) in question, we don't know if a renaming is justified by the wiki rules.
- Also also, there are so many complaints when we do do something, I think some admins are reluctant to take any actions these days.
All this to say, if you have an issue with a particular rename, ask an admin on their talk page. The forums aren't really the place to complain about admin inaction.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275976
Given that Romulus and Remus Sylvest have their own pages and are arguably less distinct from one another than [[John and Gillian]], don't the Doctor's grandchildren too deserve their own pages?
- Borisashton
Prior discussion of this has occurred at Forum:John and Gillian, Forum:Split John and Gillian and Talk:John (comic strips).
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd like to reopen this, actually, because a lot of the reason was, at least in my opinion, rooted in the older days of the wiki, and not so much suited to the current days. A lot of the original reasoning was because it was "simpler to type John and Gillan", as opposed to typing each individually, as well as "they're too similar to each other". A lot was made of how simple the stories were and how the two had much of the same experience.
While yes, I do agree that the strips were childish and John and Gillian were pretty close in experience, I don't see why that reasoning can be used for this. I mean, what's next? Merging Susan and Dodo because they fill the "granddaughter like" role? Or merging Owen and Tosh cause they shared every TV Torchwood story? And furthermore, just because something is easier, doesn't at all make it good for the wiki.
And they are somewhat different. John is more brave than Gillan, and Gillan is more emotional (Very unfortunate 60's stereotypes, but they are different characters)
I'd like to cast my opinion in that we need to seperate the two.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think this thread should really have been opened, per the Wiki's policies on such matters. But since we're here…
Now, I do see the value in the arguments in favour of keeping them separate back in the day, but I have to agree that it would probably be best in the long run to split. It just sticks out like a sore thumb that we cover two of the main companions one of the most famous Doctors together, on a single page, even though in other matters we are a "no topic is too minute" sort of Wiki. The fact that we keep having new users weirded out by the [[John and Gillian]] exception and restarting the old discussion — this is exactly why it was a bad idea.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Exactly, thank you Scrooge. Although, to be fair, there was a few reasons we needed to reopen this. The last time this was discussed was in 2011, and the reasons given at the time were, as I stated, pretty biased. Like, yeah, I'd agree that the two aren't exactly the best ever written characters. But that shouldn't factor into what we do at the wiki.
- Najawin
Speaking as a user who has never seen this exception before now, it's utterly inane, though, I agree, per the rules of the wiki this discussion technically should be closed immediately. (Which I guess itself raises an interesting question about whether revisiting past policy as the wiki changes would be a good idea, not as a continuous thing, but like perhaps every five years allow a debate over something to be reopened even without new evidence just as the standards for how the wiki operates change. But that's a much more complicated topic than this thread.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin Why should it be closed, though? We have new evidence: That the original decision was flawed towards personal opinion as opposed to non-biased perspectives.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I do agree with your idea of being able to open discussion about policy even without new evidence after a certain timespan, though.
- Najawin
That's not new evidence. I could levy that charge at any thread ever. When you're evaluating arguments for and against, some measure of subjectivity must come into play, since we're not working in formal systems, there's inherently some degree of personal bias. (Indeed, the charge can be levied that even in those formal systems the probabilities assigned have personal bias, hence the split between subjectivist and objectivist Bayesians)
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Perhaps there isn't new evidence, but given that in the meantime we've started having pages on the number 1, concepts such as deduction and finger-bashing and separate pages for cannabis and marijuana, it does seem very strange to have two characters sharing the same page when every man and his dog has his own.
- Najawin
I don't disagree. It's absurd. It's also technically been decided by a forum post so should stay given current wiki rules. (Also, another aside, but dear lord that Deduction article is making me angry. brb I'm going to fix that.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Well, we've already started, so we might as well finish it. (Also, I'm going to start a thread to possibly implement Najawin's idea, so maybe we don't need "new" evidence for this one)
- Shambala108
User:Scrooge MacDuck said: "The fact that we keep having new users weirded out by the John and Gillian exception and restarting the old discussion..."
Not just new users, I've been griping about this one for nine years. No matter what has been said in the previous decisions, it is against policy to combine more than one character into a page. Sometimes we do that for obscure characters, or one-off characters, but these guys are companions. User:CzechOut's objections in the previous decisions fail to take into account that someone out there might want to actually fill out each character's biography even more.
Ruling: we will split this page into two separate pages.
Now all that's left is to decide what to name them (see the previous decisions cited above by User:Borisashton for background) and then decide what we need to do for the split and ensuing cleanup.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd personally vote for John Who and Gillian Who, which I think is what the comics intended.
Also, for those who want it, the thread I was talking about earlier is now Thread:275996.
- Borisashton
Gillian Who has never been used in a valid source as far as I can tell. User:NateBumber's suggestion of John Who and Gillian (The Klepton Parasites) at Talk:John and Gillian seems like the best route to me.
- Shambala108
Is The Klepton Parasites their first story? One of the concerns in the old forums was the ease of finding them.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd disagree, since the narrative does tell us that John and Gillian are siblings. It's not 100% explicit, but it's like the dancing reference in The Doctor Dances; It's somewhat obvious that it means sex and is reasonable enough to infer.
- Borisashton
Yep, The Klepton Parasites is their first appearance.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In terms of ease of finding, I think as many people as know the title of The Klepton Parasites will also know expect to see the characters as having "Who" for a last name, so I don't think that's a concern. It should definitely be John Who per Tardis:Naming conventions — this is the name he uses in official correspondence during his adult life, per PROSE: Beware the Trods!.
It is true that no valid source has directly used Gillian Who — but uniformity is a concern, and the thing is, when two blood siblings are travelling with their grandfather Dr. Who, and one of them is explicitly called John Who, and we never see any hint of Gillian having been married or otherwise having come to change her name… well, it's not so much speculation as sheer common sense to expect Gillian's name to be Gillian Who as well.
- Borisashton
I'm not opposed to Gillian Who, I'm just concerned that it is (albeit completely reasonable) speculation by wiki standards.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But it isn't really speculation, though. See my previous post on the manner.
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: I'd disagree, since the narrative does tell us that John and Gillian are siblings. It's not 100% explicit, but it's like the dancing reference in The Doctor Dances; It's somewhat obvious that it means sex and is reasonable enough to infer.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't know, is there any interesting precedent on this? I feel like if we were told that (say) Amy Pond, daughter of Augustus Pond and Tabetha Pond had an offscreen older brother called Preston, we wouldn't actually need a confirmation of the full name to put it at Preston Pond rather than Preston (Doctor Who and the Thought Experiment). I could be wrong. If a case like my thought experiment could be found, presumably not about as high-profile a character as Amy, that'd be grand, but I have no idea how to even start searching.
(I don't actually think the comparison to 'dancing' in The Doctor Dances is as apt as all that. I mean yes, it's an example of us exercising some common sense about stuff that is never voiced in so many words, but made explicit on other ways. But it's quite a different situation. If nothing else, that issue has nothing to do with page naming, even though that is its own set of conventions separate from what is speculation; it's not speculation that the guy from the ambulance was called 'Bruce Gerhardt', but it's still not good enough for it to be the page name.)
- Borisashton
It's up a generation rather than down, but Ryan Sinclair's father was moved from Aaron Sinclair to Aaron (Resolution) shortly after its creation.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
You have a point, but taking a look at Talk:Aaron (Resolution), the discussion wasn't quite finished before the move and it seems more of an admin acting on their own as opposed to a consensus.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd personally be in favor of a policy allowing us to assume, unless otherwise stated of course, the last names of blood related siblings.
- Borisashton
I disagree. A CV is very clearly in violation of T:VALID and the decision was made by two admins together. I'm also against any policy that would allow "assuming" on a regular basis. Assuming should be the exception to our strict rules not the rule itself.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The thing about Aaron is — there is a degree of reasonable doubt in his case.
Namely, we don't know what Grace O'Brien's last name was before it was O'Brien, so it's not impossible that Sinclair was Ryan's mother's name, with her never actually having taken Aaron's name.
This is not the case with Gillian. There is literally no possible way, aside from ruthlessly convoluted fanfiction, that her name could be anything else than Who, once we accept know that Who was John's last name.
- Najawin
I mean, maybe they were unreasonably progressive for the era and the girls took the mother's last name? But yeah, this is reaching.
- Shambala108
This might be one of those things where we just take a vote and go with the majority. So for the next few days, anyone interested can post YES or NO to naming Gillian's page "Gillian Who".
Feel free to add any extra comments with your vote, but please only post once. After about a week, we'll tally the votes and if there's a clear majority we'll go with it. If it's close, we'll decide what to do then.
- Borisashton
As far as I can see there are two viable options on the table:
- Go with John Who and Gillian (The Klepton Parasites) if we take our policies on speculation very seriously.
- Go with John Who and Gillian Who if T:CHAR NAMES ("The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site") overrides the above.
I don't care either way, although I should note I would be against "Gillian Who" appearing in the body of the article.
- Najawin
I think it's bizarre to conflate inference and doing basic textual analysis with speculation. I don't care that much about the issue, so weight my vote accordingly, but between the two my vote is YES.
Also, it's perfectly reasonable to note in a behind the scenes section that while her brother is referred to as "John Who" she's just referred to as "Gillian".
- Scrooge MacDuck
YES, as previously stated.
- Borisashton
I would also lean YES, on the condition that "Gillian Who" does not appear in the in-universe sections of the page.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
yes to split pages, unsure where i stand on the naming. i guess Gillian Who wouldn't be the end of the world even if it is an assumption.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yes, for the reasons I've stated above.
- Shambala108
Just to be clear, I already ruled that we are splitting the pages. The current vote is whether or not to use the name "Gillian Who". Once we've decided this, we'll address any other issues.
- Danochy
That'll be a YES from me.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Yes. I'm not sure about the Gillian issue, but if it's decided not to name her "Gillian Who" then we'll have to review pages like Lucy Shaw.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Since we already decided we're going to split the pages, regardless of what the last name is, I've copy/pasted the list of appearances, so we can make sure to fix the pages.
Comics[[edit] | [edit source]]
TV Comic[[edit] | [edit source]]
- The Klepton Parasites
- The Therovian Quest
- The Hijackers of Thrax
- On the Web Planet
- The Gyros Injustice
- Prisoners of Gritog
- Challenge of the Piper
- Moon Landing
- Time in Reverse
- Prisoners of the Kleptons
- The Caterpillar Men
- Lizardworld
- The Ordeals of Demeter
- Enter: The Go-Ray
- Shark Bait
- A Christmas Story
- The Didus Expedition
- Space Station Z-7
- Plague of the Black Scorpi
- The Trodos Tyranny
- The Secret of Gemino
- Guests of King Neptune
- The Gaze of the Gorgon
- The Haunted Planet
- The Hunters of Zerox
- The Underwater Robot
- Deadly Vessel
- Kingdom of the Animals
- Return of the Trods
- The Galaxy Games
- The Experimenters
- The Extortioner
- The Trodos Ambush
- The Doctor Strikes Back
- The Zombies
- Master of Spiders
- The Exterminator
- Barnabus
- Jungle Adventure
- Return of the Witches
- Masquerade
- Attack of the Daleks
- Pursued by the Trods
- The Time Museum
- The Electrodes
- The Monsters from the Past
- The TARDIS Worshippers
- Space War Two
- Egyptian Escapade
- The Coming of the Cybermen
- The Faithful Rocket Pack
- Flower Power
- The Witches
- Cyber-Mole
- The Sabre-Toothed Gorillas
- The Cyber Empire
- The Dyrons
- Dr. Who and the Space Pirates
- Car of the Century
- The Jokers
- Invasion of the Quarks
It's Bigger on the Inside![[edit] | [edit source]]
Doctor Who Magazine[[edit] | [edit source]]
Prose[[edit] | [edit source]]
Novels[[edit] | [edit source]]
Virgin New Adventures[[edit] | [edit source]]
Short stories[[edit] | [edit source]]
Doctor Who Classic Comics[[edit] | [edit source]]
Doctor Who Magazine[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Borisashton
I must say this makes the thread unnecesarily longer. We can use Special:Whatlinkshere to modify the links.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
It's been about a week. I think we're all in agreement, then?
- Shambala108
Busy right now but I'll take care of this tonight.
- 50.37.28.47
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: I'd personally be in favor of a policy allowing us to assume, unless otherwise stated of course, the last names of blood related siblings.
I wouldn't be in favor of such as policy as it would rely too heavily on and reinforce a "traditional family" stereotype. Take the aforementioned thought experiment as written:
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: I don't know, is there any interesting precedent on this? I feel like if we were told that (say) Amy Pond, daughter of Augustus Pond and Tabetha Pond had an offscreen older brother called Preston, we wouldn't actually need a confirmation of the full name to put it at Preston Pond rather than Preston (Doctor Who and the Thought Experiment). I could be wrong. If a case like my thought experiment could be found, presumably not about as high-profile a character as Amy, that'd be grand, but I have no idea how to even start searching.
So all the hypothetical story does is reveal Amy Pond has an older brother: no other information/context. Is he a half-brother? We know barely anything about Amy's parents' backgrounds and never saw him in the scenes of Amy growing up. He could be a retcon full brother. Fine. But with so little information he could equally be a half-brother, foster brother, adoptive brother, and any of those could have a different last name. Heck, even a full older brother could be married and not have the last name Pond.
Amy herself is a funny example because she took Williams as her married name, yet when her and Rory had their biological child well after their wedding, she made their daughter's last name her maiden name.
I don't know enough about John's and Gillian's stories to know what the right course of action on the naming of her page is (I am glad the decision was made to separate though, I never understood why they shared one), but if the decision to make her Gillian Who is made, I wouldn't want that to become a precedent that opens the door to assuming surnames on future pages.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fair concerns, but within the thought experiment, I was assuming A) that this was an alternate universe where it wasn't a weird retcon for Amy to have a brother, and B) that he was unambiguously a (bachelor) brother by blood. At any rate, no such concerns are present in the John and Gillian case, as I have said before.
- Shambala108
So this is one of those cases where people didn't really read the posts before theirs before posting their own comments. Some people seemed to think that we were voting on whether to split the pages when I made it completely clear that we will split the pages; the issue was merely what to name Gillian's page. I'm going to have to add here that if you're not going to read the posts that comprise a forum thread, then your comments will not be taken into account in the decision-making process.
Anyway, the consensus seems to be that we should name the pages John Who and Gillian Who, with the main caveat that we will not use "Gillian Who" in the body of the article (instead making a behind the scenes comment) and will use a conjecture tag at the top of her page.
- Shambala108
OK both pages have been created, but I haven't done much of anything in the way of cleanup. Any help in this will be appreciated.
For convenience of cleanup, see the post above by user:Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived for the stories where John & Gillian appear.
- Shambala108
At some point the original page will either be deleted or turned into a redirect.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I've added the delete tag for the original page. I think at this point, we don't have much else to do beyond some cleanup on the two new pages.
- Borisashton
As I said before, Special:Whatlinkshere can be used to modify all the links which still are yet to be moved to the new pages.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also that, thank you for the reminder.
- Shambala108
All info from [[John and Gillian]] has been moved to these two pages; however, there are still articles that link to it that need to be changed to link to the individual pages instead. The original will not be deleted until this part of the project has been finished.
Also, obviously John and Gillian - list of appearances needs to be split into John Who - list of appearances and Gillian Who - list of appearances.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, and what about the talk page? Since most of the conversations pertain to both John and Gillian, I feel as though both pages ought to retain the talk page archive, but I'm not sure that's doable preserving the edit history.
- Chubby Potato
I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but I want to say there is a valid source that refers to them as "John and Gillian Who"... this being, unexpectedly, The Incomplete Death's Head. Within the story, several scans from Hob's Death's Head Interactive Archive are shown (actually to provide the reader information from other comics), including one of the Doctor. You can see that here. Among his companions listed are "John and Gillian Who". While Hob's archive isn't exactly complete or accurate, this is an in-universe example of Gillian being referred to as "Gillian Who". So although that's already been decided, there's some further evidence. Perhaps the conjecture tag can be removed too.
- Shambala108
We don't usually delete the talk pages when we delete pages because they sometimes contain info that we might need later.
- Borisashton
Yeah, Talk:John and Gillian should remain separate from both pages but it might be an idea to include a link to it at both talk pages for people who want to read the previous discussions. On that subject, is it worth bothering to rename Talk:John (comic strips) to Talk:John Who?
The list of appearances pages have also now been created, albeit with incorrect names. Is it worth merging John and Gillian - list of appearances into John's list of appearances to preserve the edit history since they are exact copies? Or delete the wrongly named page and rename the combined list?
- Shambala108
Couldn't move Talk:John (comic strips) to Talk:John Who, so I just copy/pasted the info from the first onto the second.
Agree with merging John and Gillian - list of appearances into John Who - list of appearances.
- Shambala108
Just checking, did we ever finish moving all the links? Last time I checked there were still quite a few, and I meant to get to them but real life intervened.
- Danochy
Yes, all the links have been moved. Sorry, I mentioned it at Talk:John and Gillian, but forgot to bring it up here as well which would have been more helpful. the pages remaining at Special:Whatlinkshere/John and Gillian are all forums and talks pages etc.
Also, the pages which have the templates you edited are still listed on the page, as it seems only upon editing the page does it get removed from the list. For example: Ian Chesterton has been edited since the template was updated, and so his page isn't listed anymore, whereas Ben Jackson has not.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:275996
So, back in Thread:275976, User:Najawin mentioned the possibility of allowing older decisions to have another discussion after a certain period of time, around five years or such.
I'd support this being implemented, for two reasons.
Updating[[edit] | [edit source]]
Lots of decisions of the older days were made specifically for the wiki at the time, but seem outdated now. Case in point, the thread I mentioned above, where two characters (John Who and Gillian Who) were given one page.
Bias[[edit] | [edit source]]
There was also a lot of bias in the early decisions, even more so than natural. Case in point, the original decision in the thread I cited was due to the characters being considered flat. Now, people can most certainly think that, but I don't think basing decisions off it is good for wiki policy
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
I'm not saying constant reopenings of issues, but if five years and such have passed, it might be a good idea to allow certain issues that the community feels is outdated to be reaired. It might even allow us to make certain that the decision we make is allowed to breathe and the original drama behind the decision (if there was significant) doesn't affect the outcome.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:276659
So, a little while back, a user at Talk:Telepathy voiced concerns that the banner for the too listy template was slightly offensive, due to the quote in question's role in the episode. On the talk page for the template itself, there was a small discussion, which I'll link here. There was some support for a replacement image of nanogenes, but the discussion kinda stopped, due to the fact that Template Talks don't appear on the Wiki Activity link, so I thought I'd bring it here.
I'd personally like to change it. With everything currently going on, it feels like bad PR for the wiki to keep it.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I find it very sad that the picture, taken away from the scene’s context, can’t just be referring to two maids indicating that the page needs cleaning. There was a racial comment made in the scene, but that is not referred to anywhere in the template - said template simply shows two women cleaning, one who happens to be black.
That being said, I actually quite like the nanogenes template idea that was suggested.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
The thing is, we can't really take out the context. The episode it is taken from is partly about Martha's struggles as a Black woman from the 2000s during the 1900s, and as such, shows her in uncomfortable situations. Most people associate the scene with that and especially now, will feel off about it being here. I do appreciate the support for the nanogenes photo, though.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, I left a message on the original user's talk page, but they're an IP user, can someone check twitter or something like that and see if they can voice their perspective here?
- Najawin
Even if we were to magically remove the racist context from that image (which we cannot), the fact that the template itself says "Scrub away the lists, ladies" is perhaps unnecessarily forcing gender onto an issue that doesn't need it. Literally "Scrub away the lists" works just as fine with that image and is less questionable.
The user also brings up the issue of classism, which, of course, is a complicated subject in discussing Doctor Who, but while there's some merit to this, the mere act of cleaning is seen as lower class, so unless you have it automated (eg, the nanogenes) this will always be present.
Suffice it to say, however, I'm in full agreement.
- SOTO
Oh yikes. A few more suggestions:
- Some relevant image of the Sixth Doctor, with the line "Change, my dear. And it seems not a moment too soon."
- the same nanogene image with the line "Come on, you clever little nanogenes!" instead (the whole point of this template is that the problem won't sort itself out, so "the nanogenes will take care of it" is not necessarily the message we're going for)
- a screenshot from New Earth, with the line "Watch out for the disinfectant!" or "Commencing disinfection"
- a visual gag from The Happiness Patrol (beginning of episode 3; the list of the disappeared rolls out and stretches across the square), though I've got no line for it
- something from the Doctor's trial in The War Games, for the line "Oh no, that won't do at all" or "I warn you, I'm very particular"
I've not got anything better so far.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Both the second and fifth option sound nice, I'm down for either.
- SOTO
Or just an image of a Dalek with its lights on and the line "Ex-plain!"
- Najawin
I think technically it should be "Ex-plicate!" But I'm not sure if many people would get that.
- SOTO
I was thinking more "Explain! Explain! Explain!" or "Explain. Explain!" (which, come to think of it, might work better as a heading), like Daleks shout in Journey's End, Victory of the Daleks and quite a lot in The Witch's Familiar. (Probably to a close up of a Dalek dome, eyestalk facing forward, from one of those stories.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh I love that. My vote is definitely for "Explain. Explain!". On top of not having the whole baggage of sexism and racism of the current template, it's just much less forced an allusion, giving more context to editors on what exactly we want them to do.
"Scrubbing away the lists" is all fine and good (well… it's not, as has been explained, but y'know), but we're not asking for the deletion of lists as such, but rather for the information to be expanded with added context. So "Explain!" is perfect.
- Borisashton
We do already use the Daleks from Victory in another template though variety is obviously not the main concern.
I'm happy as long as everyone else is.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
It's perhaps not recognisable enough, but Catherine in The Massacre has the line "We have no need of lists, Marshall."
- Scrooge MacDuck
I tried putting together a sandbox using an image from the Supreme from Series 4, but I can't figure out where the mage variable goes in the source code of this template for some reason (help, anyone?), so I ended up faking it via Photoshop.
Still, should give you some idea:
(@Jack: The Massacre line is a neat find, but yeah, I'm afraid it's not "iconic" enough for this sort of thing, I think.)
- Najawin
Obviously if I had issues with the Deduction article I'll have issues with "explain" being technically incorrect. But aside from me being persnickety about language, I quite like it.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
The explain one is pretty nice, I like it. But, in the future, let's try to keep from using only the "iconic" bits. This is an encyclopedia on all parts of the DWU, not just the TV series. A big chunk of our 83,229 pages come from the obscure, which we really should use more.
But yeah, the one Scrooge made is pretty great.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, "iconic" doesn't necessarily mean TV. If someone had a suggestion from a comic, or even an audio or prose cover, by all means! It's just a matter of what's a "memorable moment" that will make the reader snicker if they've experienced the relevant story, as opposed to a random line. The problem with the Massacre line isn't that few people have seen The Massacre, it's that it's not an especially memorable line to begin with.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Well, I'd argue that even if it's not memorable, we shouldn't let it deter us, but I'm weird in that way, so I see how it's not for everyone. Back to the main topic, your suggestion is pretty good, so should we hold a vote?
- Najawin
I'm down. While in general there's the whole "we shouldn't move too fast" issue, given the nature of this particular problem, I personally think moving quickly is better than slowly. Perhaps, if an admin agrees, similar to Thread:275976 we take a week to vote on it?
- TheDarkBomber
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: I can't figure out where the mage variable goes in the source code of this template for some reason (help, anyone?)
It's a CSS background image, tied to the class
.type-cleanup, which is located at Tardis.css. If you want to see what other images would look like in its place live, you'd have to edit your personal local CSS. - Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: Also, I left a message on the original user's talk page, but they're an IP user, can someone check twitter or something like that and see if they can voice their perspective here?
I echo my call here.
- Shambala108
I suggest you stop worrying about the IP user. If they don't care enough to register, they are going to miss a few things. That's one of the benefits of registering.
There are a few pertinent comments by User:CzechOut at Thread:120540 explaining the difficulties in getting in touch with IP users.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Does anyone else have any new suggestions?
![[6]](https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6512/558/1600/File0224.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/4/43/Emily_Cook_tweet_reply.png/revision/latest?cb=20200517135145){kind=link}
As I said, the community's voice weights greatly in this threads decision, and most who voiced their opinions here seem in favour of changing our templates {{cleanup}} and {{too listy}} to the "Explain! Explain!" quote.
Indeed, as of the time of this thread's closure, the local .css has been changed, and it should be only a matter of time until the changes catch up to all users.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:276856
So, for context, this is referring to stories with individual episode titles, from An Unearthly Child to The Gunfighters. Currently, the policy is to style them like so:
[Insert info here] (TV: "The Expedition").
Like, not to be rude, but it kinda looks bad, especially compared to the rest, where we stylize it like this:
[Insert info here] (TV: The Savages)
I'd like to propose either scrapping citing individual episode titles, and replacing it with its overall story title or at least putting them in a similar format. It currently stands out and not especially in a good way.
- BananaClownMan
I vote for [Insert info here] (TV: The Savages)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
????? I don't quite get what you're saying, Banana? What I'm saying is that the Savages example is what we do for most of the references, but for the Hartnell stories with individual episode titles, they're in the format I showed. What I'm asking is for it to be changed to either cite the story's overall accepted title or to be put in italics to fit with the rest of the wiki's citations.
- BananaClownMan
Sorry. The heat's affecting the way I think. I'm more of a winter person. I was saying I think we should use the overall title when referencing individual stories, as is protocol for the classic series, The End of Time and Spyfall, as well as audios and comics.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It was long-ago decided that we could use the citations of individual episode titles (when available) as a way to make citations more precise, and I don't see why we should get rid of this very nifty feature. I disagree that it "looks bad", and even if it did a little, it's more than outweighed by the usefulness of this policy.
For the longer serials like The Daleks' Master Plan, it allows us to tell our readers exactly in what episode Factoid X appears, as opposed to leaving them to wade through 6+ hours of content if they want to find the source again.
And we want it to stand out. We don't want to give people the impression that "The Expedition" is a TV story in its own right; it has to be obvious that it's an episode within a serial, to make the reader curious about which serial that is, and therefore click the page. Editing strategies which lead to readers visiting more of our pages are a good thing, it has repeatedly been pointed out.
It's also not a weird T:NPOV-breaking exception for the Hartnell era. The same policy has been used to e.g. cite individual installmets of The Time Lord Letters. The Doctor in Earth history would be a massively less useful page if it wasn't allowed to use the "quotations mark trick".
- Borisashton
I completely agree with Scrooge here. I see no reason to make our citations more vague.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
But it still stands out like a sore thumb. Plus, we don't do stuff like Spyfall Part One, The Twin Dilemma Part Four, and the like, so why just for the early Hartnell titles?
And it's not that vague. It still links to the story, so they can go visit the plot summary if they want, since I know that all Hartnell episodes with individual episode titles under a story banner are filled in.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, who's to say that putting "The Expedition" won't make people think it's a story of its own?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I have to agree that it seems strange to source one thing with as exact a source as "The Bell" and others as "Genesis of the Daleks" without specifying the episode.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Jack "BtR" Saxon wrote: I have to agree that it seems strange to source one thing with as exact a source as "The Bell" and others as "Genesis of the Daleks" without specifying the episode.
That's mostly what I'm getting at, although I'd prefer to just put in The Massacre instead of the individual episode titles. It's about making everything look uniform and professional.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote:
But it still stands out like a sore thumb. Plus, we don't do stuff like Spyfall Part One, The Twin Dilemma Part Four, and the like, so why just for the early Hartnell titles?But it doesn't tell them which part the information came from, which is a bit rubbish. Why make them wade through a humongous plot summary when we have a perfectly good method for precise citation?
Plus, there is the factor that the collective titles of Hartnell serials are subject to debate and are, to an extent, post-hoc. You'll still find people to say "the second serial" is called The Dead Planet rather than The Daleks, or even that The Myth Makers isn't an individual serial but rather part of a monster of a thing which they call The Daleks' Master Plan but which includes everything from "Mission to the Unknown" to "Destruction of Time".
Citing individual episode titles, which were actually broadcast back in the 1960's under that title, thus allows us to stick closest to the actual sources and remain as agnostic as possible on the matter. Of course, we still had to make our own half-arbitrary decisions about how we split and title these, but we don't have to push for our choices harder than we need to.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
<Wrote this before Scrooge's comment>
In the end, having "[Insert info here] (TV: "Individual episode title")(TV: Full Story title) just looks, frankly, not that good. It looks much better if you do, "[Insert info here] (TV: Full story title)(TV: Full Story title)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Scrooge MacDuck wrote:
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote:
But it still stands out like a sore thumb. Plus, we don't do stuff like Spyfall Part One, The Twin Dilemma Part Four, and the like, so why just for the early Hartnell titles?But it doesn't tell them which part the information came from, which is a bit rubbish. Why make them wade through a humongous plot summary when we have a perfectly good method for precise citation?
Plus, there is the factor that the collective titles of Hartnell serials are subject to debate and are, to an extent, post-hoc. You'll still find people to say "the second serial" is called The Dead Planet rather than The Daleks, or even that The Myth Makers isn't an individual serial but rather part of a monster of a thing which they call The Daleks' Master Plan but which includes everything from "Mission to the Unknown" to "Destruction of Time".
Citing individual episode titles, which were actually broadcast back in the 1960's under that title, thus allows us to stick closest to the actual sources and remain as agnostic as possible on the matter. Of course, we still had to make our own half-arbitrary decisions about how we split and title these, but we don't have to push for our choices harder than we need to.
I'm fine with citing individual episodes if that is our overall policy. Stuff like The Savages Part Four, The End of Time Part Two, The Caves of Androzani Part One doesn't bother me. I just want it to look uniform and it currently does not.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
To clarify, I'm cool with doing either full story titles or individual episode titles, I just want the community to decide on which. Doing both makes us look amateur, doing only one makes it more uniform. In my view, the wiki should either look like all this: (TV: Full Story Title) or all this (TV: Individual episode title)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived wrote: It's about making everything look uniform and professional.
There's "uniformity", and then there's "making our coverage vaguer because some people think quotation marks have cooties". And as for "professional"… as it happens, citing individual episode titles between quotation marks is what most reference works do, and it's even our own weird arbitrary, idiosyncratic decision to cite serials in italics rather than quotation marks. As documented at T:ITALICS, there was a community vote on the matter, but its decision goes against every style guide around.
Now if we want to introduce the option to cite
The Tenth Doctor then regenerated into a young man with a large chin after having a good cry. (TV: "The End of Time - Part 2")
instead of
The Tenth Doctor then regenerated into a young man with a large chin after having a good cry. (TV: The End of Time)
then I am okay with that. It wouldn't come up that often, but I'd be happy to see that codified into policy.
But again, I think we absolutely should keep the norms that italics are for "complete stories", while quotation marks signal an individual episode/installment.
But it would be ridiculously too much work to replace every instance of a citation of a full serial with a citation of an individual episode. What's this about uniformity at the cost of all variability? What are we, Cybermen? Quotation-mark-hating Cybermen? Quotationmen, if you will?…
Professional reference works allow themselves exactly the same kind of freedom we do. A mix of quotation marks and italics is fetching and smart-looking and intriguing, not an eyesore. I don't know what to tell ya.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Again, I'm cool with citing individual episode titles, like you suggested or even not doing italics. But what I want is for it to all look the same. Doing both makes it, frankly, amateur looking. Both options are good, but we should only do one of them, either full story or individual episode.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Why? It doesn't look amateurish-looking in the slightest, I don't know where you got that idea. It looks like we actually have some complexity to our system, as opposed to being a one-size-fits-all, round-pegs-in-square-holes sort of Wiki.
The current policy has worked well literally for over a decade. If you have no stronger arguments than "I think the way this Wiki has looked for fifteen years looks amateurish because my aesthetic sense cannot cope with several different forms of citation", I don't know what to tell you, except "are you going to recommend we replace all prefixes with (STORY: Doctor Who and the Quotationmen), next?".
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
No, the prefixes are great. If anything, they demonstrate my point more clearly, because they have a uniform structure. Would it look good if one prefix was (PROSE: Doctor Who) and the other was (audio: Doctor Who)? To me at least, not really, and that's more what I'm getting at.
Like, I usually love non-conformity, but this is an encyclopedia, so I feel that this needs to be more uniform.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But it is as rigorous and uniform as it needs to be. Citing episodes and citing stories are different types of citation, so they need to look different. That was my point with bringing up the prefixes: in both cases, the need they answer is to make it immediately obvious to the savvy reader what sort of sources is being linked to.
…Actually, a valid solution to this would be to introduce a new prefix, I suppose. With the episode title in italics, but a different prefix from "TV". Something like:
And then the Doctor keeled over and regenerated from sheer aesthetic shock, because they had been a very sensitive Time Lord in this incarnation. (EPISODE: Doctor Who and the Quotationmen - Part 3)
There may be CSS objections which escape me, but if it's feasible, would that resolve your troubles — while still allowing us to cite either whole stories or individual episodes, depending on what is most efficient? (EPISODE is probably not the best prefix name, though, as it wouldn't really fit for prose installments as in the Time Lord Letters case.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yeah, that'd work. If anything, maybe we could replace the TV prefix with EPISODE or whatever the name ends up being, and allow us to cite individual episodes that aren't just early Hartnell? If accuracy is what we're going for, it'll allow us to be accurate and look nicer.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh by all means this can be bound up with allowing us to cite even "untitled" episodes of non-Hartnell-era multi-parters. But the TV prefix could and should remain for when we're citing whole stories, because again, with well over 80,000 pages on the Wiki, we are not replacing every TV source with the specific episode when it isn't already given. We cannot. It is physically impossible.
Proposal will not be implemented.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:277124
Now that the The ArcHive Tapes have been ruled as valid, could someone please restore the long-deleted pages CyberTelosian and CyberNeomorph. In addition, CyberMondasian as I recall had a history before being deleted and ultimately recreated as a redirect to CyberMondan. I believe it would be useful to restore that history and possibly useful content within.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:277456
I remember a few years ago I added Susan Campbell to the Eighth Doctor's infobox as his granddaughter given their extended interactions in An Earthly Child, Relative Dimensions, Lucie Miller and To the Death, which have since been followed up by All Hands on Deck and Susan's War. However, it was reverted with the explanation that Susan is the First Doctor's granddaughter.
Per this rationale, River Song should not be on the Twelfth Doctor's page. If we are indeed to say that River belongs on his page, then surely Susan should be added to the Eighth Doctor's page and John and Gillian to the Second's.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I don’t think that should have been reverted at all.
- BananaClownMan
It's really up to preference really when it comes to marriage. River had the ceremony with the Eleventh Doctor, but then lived 24 years with the Twelfth Doctor.
As for grandchildren, there's no arguing with genetics and/or adoptions; the First Doctor was Susan's grandfather, and the Eighth Doctor was a different man that happened to have his memories.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I don't think it is "up to preference". that doesnt work on a site like this, and would lead to constant edit warring.
River Song
she married the Doctor, it may have been a ceremony with the Eleventh but she has had adventures with several other incarnations where she identifies him as her husband.
John and Gillian
there are conflicting accounts in regards to John and Gillian - some state that they were the Doctor's grandchildren and therefore they should be in the First and Second's infoboxes, but the only story they shared with the Eighth gave an account where they did not exist at all and so should not be in his infobox.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I get that, but John and Gillian travelled with the Second Doctor for many, many stories and, if River deserves to be on Twelfth's page then surely they belong on Second's.
Perhaps John and Gillian don't share the Second Doctor's genetics, but Zygon Osgood is (or was, the last time I looked) listed as Osgood's sister just because Osgood apparently considered her to be so. Similarly, Orr never married Vincent Parry but is listed as his wife.
I can understand River being on Twelfth's page because he considered her to be his wife, but Second and Eighth considered John and Gillian and Susan respectively as their grandchildren.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i said that John and Gillian belong on the Second's, but the Eighth *never* considered John and Gillian as his grandchildren - they were figments of his imagination while he was dreaming.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
When I said respectively, that meant Second considered John and Gillian his grandchildren and Eighth considered Susan his.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
ok, so you agree John and Gillian should not be in Eighth's infobox?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to think they should be.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
we're on the same page, sorry i misunderstood and thought you wanted them adding.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
The way I see it, we can either be strict and keep relations solely with the first Doctor to whom it applies (John, Gillian and Susan to First, River to Eleventh) or if the Doctor identifies them as a relation (John and Gillian to First and Second, Susan to First and Eighth, River to Eleventh and Twelfth).
The problem with the latter option is where to draw the line. The Fourth Doctor says that River is his wife in Diary of River Song but he hasn't married her yet. Fifth met Susan in The Five Doctors, so that does mean she should be added to his infobox? If Thirteenth mentions River in passing, should she be added?
I think we need an actual, proper rule about who qualifies.
- BananaClownMan
I say keep relations solely with the first Doctor to whom it applies.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I feel like it really has to be said: there is no hard evidence that Susan's mother(?) was conceived by the William Hartnell incarnation of the Doctor. In Lungbarrow, she was the granddaughter of the Other long before the Other flung himself into a loom and got recorporated into Hartnell. And Cold Fusion, meanwhile, suggests that it was Patience's husband/the Douglas Camfield Morbius Doc who sired Susan's father. Heck, Birth of a Renegade opines that Susan was only ever the First Doctor's adopted granddaughter.
It is one thing that TV: The End of Time and the incidental other story makes the philosophical point that a regeneration of the Doctor can be seen as just "a new man" with the previous incarnation's memory. But I could stand here all day listing instances that literally, explicitly say the various incarnations of the Doctor are "the same man". Just from the Tennant era, it's a pivotal point of The Christmas Invasion when David Tennant is recognised as "absolutely the same man" as Christopher Eccleston.
As for the purely genetic argument — well, firstly, see again the fact that the First Doctor may not actually have been genetically related to Susan at all. Secondly, looms. But also, thirdly, even if we focus on accounts where Susan was born "normally" and where she was born to a child of the First Doctor… Time Lord DNA is weird and we do not know how it works. The Tenth Doctor's "daughter" comes out looking more like the Fifth. It's not unreasonable to propose that a Time Lord's DNA remains constant through regeneration, and contains the potential of all their possible regenerations. Or something. We don't know.
Tl;dr, the only reasonable parameter for relatives of Time Lord is self-determination. If Susan Foreman calls any Doctor "her grandfather", or if any Doctor calls her "granddaughter", then we should take them at their words. They're the Gallifreyans and they know how their family vocabulary works better than we do.
Ergo,if Susan calls Eight "Grandfather", we have no business disputing that statement.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
That's a good point about Susan and the Other that I hadn't considered.
- Shambala108
This thread was started due to the near-edit war over River being Twelve's spouse. Thing is, that was already determined by an admin on Talk:Twelfth Doctor/Archive 2. User:23skidoo stated:
- "I have to agree with WarGrowl. The episode clearly indicates that the Doctor was still married to River because River - in her time line - had not yet died. The River the Eleventh Doctor met in "The Name of the Doctor" is referred to as his ex-wife because that River was dead. And if one subscribes to the Twelve/Clara romantic relationship idea (which has been endorsed in multiple televised and cinema-screened interviews by Jenna Coleman, Peter Capaldi and Steven Moffat), keep in mind that THORS clearly indicates that River married several people while still married to the Doctor. So it all evens out (and there's no indication of Clara and the Doctor ever having wed, anyway). So it is perfectly correct to say the Twelfth Doctor was still married."
Whenever there is a doubt or an edit war, always check the talk pages first.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I did look but missed that one comment from 2016. In which case, I guess it is about self-identification. Shall we go ahead and amend other pages accordingly?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
i agree completely with @ScroogeMacDuck
- Najawin
(I will say the use of "romance" in the context of Clara and Twelve is highly misleading even if technically accurate, as Moffat in behind the scene interviews has also made clear that it's very much platonic, and thus completely different from River. So I really dislike that quote.)
Regardless, I think Scrooge is completely correct. Time Lord biology is obviously not something we know much about, and it's entirely possible that when we think of someone being a "DNA relative" the correct terminology is actually "biodata relative".
Even ignoring that, we know so little about human DNA as it stands that it's not strictly speaking impossible for the reshuffling of regeneration to be simply epigenetic and turning certain sections of your DNA on or off. (From my very very limited understanding of genetics this is highly unlikely, but the point remains.)
At the very least Susan should be listed as "adopted Granddaughter" similar to Miranda Dawkins. Which, aside from the issue that Susan might be adopted in her own right due to Lungbarrow, etc etc, is exactly analogous. As Miranda is a descendant of a version of the Doctor and refers to Eight as her father.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:277568
So, I've been browsing the wiki and the fandom web, and I noticed that the old Faction Paradox wiki is still there. Now, I've read through a lot of old threads, and it's my understanding that it was basically a sister (albeit not as well run) wiki to here, run by much of the same admins, back in the old days when we didn't cover Faction Paradox for some weird reason. Given that we now do, can we close it down, since leaving it up will open it to vandalism, and therefore damaging the franchise?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Not that I'm married to the sister-Wiki's existence myself, but the admin decision at the end of the debate which ruled in Faction Paradox was in fact that we should keep the FP Wiki up. See here: Thread:208233#Why the FP wiki is good for FP fandom. It's not just some weird holdover from before we included FP on this Wiki.
Why the FP Wiki exists: correcting a misapprehension[[edit] | [edit source]]
Essentially, it was decided that it would do no harm to have a Wiki specializing in FP as a media object, just like there exists a Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki separate from Tardis (or, to take examples in other fictional universes, a Clone Wars Wiki separate from the Star Wars Wiki, or a DuckTales Wiki separate from the Scrooge McDuck Wiki). It can be the case that a FP fan who doesn't really care about prime Doctor Who would like a page just describing "the Great Houses" as they are defined in FP lore, without having to wade through televised Time Lord lore to get there, even if no one denies that the Great Houses 'are' the Time Lords in an in-universe sense.
Additionally, there were concerns that it would be an unnecessary hassle for our already-overworked admin team to perform all the merges preserving edit history, as, for complicated coding reasons, this would all have to be done by hand.
Then again…[[edit] | [edit source]]
…Now all this being said, arguably, the fact that the FP Wiki has been so inactive these past years might suggest User:CzechOut misjudged the wishes of the FP fandom when he surmised that a separate FP Wiki would be good for FP fandom. Certainly, the two years of FP history since 2018 have been ones of increasing reintegrations of FP into the broader extended Whoniverse; back in the mid-2000's FP was much more trying to break through as its own franchise, whereas today it doesn't occupy a very different spot in fandom from Gallifrey's or Iris Wildthyme's. And the SJA Wiki, with all due respect, is a bit of a joke.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
So maybe, if that is the wish of the FP fandom, it would be time to reconsider the viability of a merge between the FP Wiki and this one. Maybe. But IMO, it could only be a new discussion all of its own, based on new evidence — not a simple matter of "cleaning up the past".'
EDIT: But see my message later for a stronger reason not to merge the Wikis.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Not that I'm married to the sister-Wiki's existence myself, but the admin decision at the end of the debate which ruled in Faction Paradox was in fact that we should keep the FP Wiki up. See here: Thread:208233#Why the FP wiki is good for FP fandom. It's not just some weird holdover from before we included FP on this Wiki.
Why the FP Wiki exists: correcting a misapprehension[[edit] | [edit source]]
Essentially, it was decided that it would do no harm to have a Wiki specializing in FP as a media object, just like there exists a Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki separate from Tardis (or, to take examples in other fictional universes, a Clone Wars Wiki separate from the Star Wars Wiki, or a DuckTales Wiki separate from the Scrooge McDuck Wiki). It can be the case that a FP fan who doesn't really care about prime Doctor Who would like a page just describing "the Great Houses" as they are defined in FP lore, without having to wade through televised Time Lord lore to get there, even if no one denies that the Great Houses 'are' the Time Lords in an in-universe sense.
Ah opps, must've misread the thread
Then again…[[edit] | [edit source]]
…Now all this being said, arguably, the fact that the FP Wiki has been so inactive these past years might suggest User:CzechOut misjudged the wishes of the FP fandom when he surmised that a separate FP Wiki would be good for FP fandom. Certainly, the two years of FP history since 2018 have been ones of increasing reintegrations of FP into the broader extended Whoniverse; back in the mid-2000's FP was much more trying to break through as its own franchise, whereas today it doesn't occupy a very different spot in fandom from Gallifrey's or Iris Wildthyme's. And the SJA Wiki, with all due respect, is a bit of a joke.
Yeah, this was what I was intending. It's not that it can't have it's own wiki, it's more to do with the fact that the current one seems to have been abandoned in favor of Tardis. And I believe that there might be some info there that could be useful here.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, if there's any information there that would be useful here, we can always add it here without having to merge the Wikis to do it.
And the thing is, I've just been made aware of an extremely good reason not to merge the Wikis: our validity policies are different enough that there is important Faction Paradox material which only it can cover, and not us, namely a number of charity stories. (e.g.) We can present a more-or-less complete picture of the wider Whoniverse while ignoring charity publications, but with a smaller franchise like FP, it pokes a much greater hole in the web to remove those stories completely.
Therefore, only a Wiki with leave to cover charity stories — namely, the FP Wiki — can cover the full breadth of Faction Paradox as it deserves to be covered somewhere on FANDOM/Wikia, and I hereby cast my vote (as it were) against any potential merging, except in the unlikely event that Tardis's policy on charity publications changes.
- Shambala108
Given the state of the FP wiki, and how it's being ignored in favor of this wiki, I wonder if we should revisit our coverage of FP here.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Scrooge: Ah, I see. Yeah, I kinda missed that, my bad. Really, my concern was more for the fact that it was a target for vandalism and the like.
@Shambala: The reason FP wiki is being ignored is because most of the fans of FP prefer it to be linked to the DWU (rightly so, imo) and because the FP wiki is, frankly, not that good compared to Tardis.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Also, remember, that the only reason FP wiki exists is because the original decision the admins made didn't want to cover it. FP fans didn't really want FP wiki and don't really want it now, especially due to the fact that Tardis is a much more accurate and stable source.
- Najawin
Should we stop covering The Sarah Jane Adventures? If I created a "Doctor Who Series 10 wiki" that didn't get a lot of traction would we stop covering Series 10 so people would use that? What a bizarre notion.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The rights to FP at this point in time are either owned by or licensed to (it's not clear, but what is clear is that Miles wants no part in it if it's licensed) Obverse books. Obverse is fundamentally a DWU publisher. They do other stuff occasionally, but first and foremost, this is what they do. The name gives away the game, as it were. As Scrooge pointed out, while earlier on in FP's lifecycle there were calls for greater autonomy (mainly from Miles not liking the BBC Wales series, if I was being cynical), the fanbase at this point is to some extent swinging the other direction. I've seen multiple jokes about "Faction Claradox" and obviously there's Cobweb and Ivory and A Farewell to Arms (Though both of those are from one particular author.)
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Najawin, 100% agree.
@Shambala, may I ask why you jumped to that slightly off-topic conclusion? The only reason I started this thread about FP Wiki was due to the fact that, unlike other spinoff wikis, this one was EXCLUSIVELY run by Tardis Wiki admins, and created by the admins of this wiki. I wanted to know if there was a reason to keep it around, which Scrooge gave, so I don't really think we need this thread anymore.
- Xx-connor-xX
I am confused? Why would we stop covering Faction Paradox simply because the Faction Paradox Wikia is not getting a lot of attention? It is my understanding that the FP Wikia was originally created only because the information wasn't allowed here, and I have seen several people (from the time where FP was still banned from this site) slating this Wikia for not including it.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@Xx-connor-xX Yes, I echo your sentiments exactly.. It was Shambala who made the statement (which was really-off topic). I only wanted to know if there was a reason for FP Wiki to still exist. (Which it does: It covers Charity Books that this wiki does not cover)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
My understanding was that the Faction Paradox Wikia could be a little looser with the rules, so yes they could cover unauthorised charity books and stories contained in non-DWU releases.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
@DiSoRiEnTeD1 Yes, that's exactly it.
Can we close the thread now? A reason has been given for the existence of FP Wiki, while still supporting Faction Paradox's future coverage here at Tardis.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Please, can we close the thread? My question was answered and there's nothing else to discuss.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Seriously, please? There's nothing else to discuss here anymore.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
stop bumping it, the admins will get to it eventually. it’s not bothering anyone.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:277688
So, as I'm sure most are aware, on June 6th, quite a few accounts (or one with alts) vandalised parts of the wiki, while using names that were, to put it mildly, composed entirely of slurs. (see Special:BlockList). I've noticed that we have an autoblock for IP addresses, is there a way we could code the autoblock to keep accounts with slurs, neo-nazi dogwhistles, pedophillic references, and the like from editing? I'm sure it'd save time and keep us from cleaning up the vandalism that the accounts would end up causing.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:278448
So, I started this discussion a while ago at Talk: Daughter of Mine but it hasn't really gained too much attention so I thought that I would bring it to the forums. The basis of this discussion is that the Daughter of Mine / Aphasia pages should be merged, and other changes should be made to the Family of Blood.
In the Doctor Who: Lockdown! story Shadow of a Doubt, Bernice Summerfield meets Daughter of Mine (the incarnation seen in Human Nature / The Family of Blood) and identifies her as Aphasia (the incarnation seen in the novel Human Nature). Obviously, Bernice could be mistaken - but The Shadow in the Mirror intentionally goes further to portray the television version as having the same characteristics as the novel version. For example; in the novel, Aphasia could command her balloon to pursue and kill people - and in this story Daughter of Mine prepares to "release [the balloon] to eat the Doctor's face".
Several references are made to Daughter of Mine being "not quite" Aphasia, but then it is recognised that her story "had happened many times in many ways, she hadn't been present for all of them".
In the mirror appeared a little girl with a balloon, I had good reason to be afraid. I knew a girl like that, I had been hunted by a girl like that. But this wasn't quite her.
She asked them how she could be sorry for a story that had happened many times in many ways, she hadn't even been present for all of them.
I asked her if she was sorry for what she did to me, she tried to tell me that was a different her. I said that was a story I had heard before.
Conclusion, it is clear that Daughter of Mine and Aphasia are incarnations of the same individual. Bernice Summerfield identifies the characters as the same person, and Daughter of Mine calls Aphasia "a different her". I propose that each member of the Family of Blood's pages are edited to show that they are Aubertides, while a merger takes place between Aubris and Family of Blood's home planet. Daughter of Mine / Aphasia's pages should be merged (here is a sandbox of how that would look; User:Xx-connor-xX/sandbox/Aphasia).
- Scrooge MacDuck
I disagree. You successfully prove that a temporal relationship of some sort exists between Daughter of Mine, Aphasia, and an arbitrary number of other variations. But in the absence of clear evidence of quite what this relationship is, I think it would be too speculative to merge the pages.
To put it bluntly, if it' "not quite her", if it's" a different her", then it sounds to me like we should treat the two like" parallel universe"/"alternate timeline"-type variations of each other, minus the "parallel universe" bit. It is not clear that they have continuity of consciousness with one another, which I think should clearly be the deciding factor. They have ties to each other, but they're not the same person the way the Splinters of Clara are all Clara — Clara goes through each lifetime one after the other as she's falling through the timestream, and kind of remembers all of them once it's done. No such thing is in evidence with Daughter of Mine.
- Xx-connor-xX
Authorial intent is very important. It is clear that Paul Cornell (who wrote all the Aphasia / Daughter of Mine stories) wanted these two characters to be seen as one and the same. Hence why he had Bernice meet Daughter of Mine, despite having history with Aphasia, and gave DoM characteristics of Aphasia (see OP). To further hammer this home, Cornell compared Aphasia / DoM's many lives to that of the Doctor.
So the way I see it, the characters should be on a combined page - similar to the Master. Gomez' incarnation is "not quite" Simm, and Simm's incarnation is a "different him" to Jacobi. No reference was made to a parallel universe or alternate timeline.
- Shambala108
To make something clear:
Authorial intent is for determining validity; for in-universe pages (which Daughter of Mine and Aphasia are), we cite stories, not any out-of-universe info.
- Xx-connor-xX
Their intention was to portray the two characters as the same, which they did. It is not out-of-universe, that was their intention and that is what they did within the story.
- SOTO
It has to be clear within the text, or it can only be an interesting BTS section. Note that the Face of Boe still has his own separate page, despite in-story allusions, because only RTD's authorial intent is fully clear that he and Jack are the same. In-universe, it's intentionally left ambiguous. Likewise, The Woman (The End of Time) remains unidentified. It's gotta be in the story.
- Xx-connor-xX
There's no comparison between the Face of Boe and the Woman to this. Those characters were only ever hinted at being Jack / the Doctor's mother. This story has Daughter of Mine saying that her story had happened in "many times in many different ways" and this is clearly compared to the Doctor's lives. There is no ambiguity that they are the same individual.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, if you want to compare this to the Doctor's lives, I would like to humbly point out that John Smith (Seventh Doctor) and John Smith (Tenth Doctor) are different pages. Again, I do not deny that there exists a clear in-universe link between Aphasia and Daughter of Mine.
However, I do not believe that link is sufficient to establish that Aphasia and Daughter of Mine are the same person in the same way that the First Doctor in An Unearthly Child is the same person as the First Doctor in Twice Upon a Time.
"A different me", "not quite her" are phrases which could mean many many different things in a big sci-fantasy universe like the DWU. Obviously the metaphysics are completely different, but you could have Sutekh say that Anubekh is "a different me… not quite me". Ditto for the Aztecs Doctor relative to the original First Doctor.
For a completely different technobabble explanation, you could also imagine familiar with the Ainley Master (or some other post-Delgado Master) encountering the "Kisgart" Master from the Unbound Universe, and noting that it was "a different him" who did X misdeed, "not quite him".
And again, you'll note that in both cases, even though those statements are true and a clear link exists between the two likened individuals, we correctly hold them to be different persons, worthy of separate coverage. As we cannot know exactly how Daughter of Mine relates to Aphasia, it is the more conservative, text-based answer to keep them separate, even as we describe at length the relationship we do know about.
- Xx-connor-xX
I am not saying that they are exactly the same incarnation (like your example of the First Doctor). But we are quite clearly told that they are incarnations of the same individual, and this is compared to the Doctor's many lives (not just me pulling that comparison out of thin air).
The difference is that Bernice Summerfield identified Daughter of Mine as Aphasia, you could not have a character visually identifying those versions of the Master without knowing more about them.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, again, if you're going to compare it to the Doctor's lives, it feels too easy — but it's true — to point out that we have First Doctor, Second Doctor, etc., not one single page. Even more to the point, we have separate pages for incarnations whom we can't place in a linear timeline (e.g. the Curator, the Father of Time, the Dalek Factor Doctor), to avoid all speculation of in which order they go. It seems to me we can do the same for the Daughter and Aphasia.
- Xx-connor-xX
You keep insinuating that I myself are choosing to compare the two, this comparison was given in the webcast - so if it feels "too easy", its probably because of how obvious it was made.
Then a main page should be created for both Aphasia / Daughter of Mine which contains info from both.
Although I wouldn't think it necessary, I have no objection to a "hub page", so long as we do not imply more than we know about the extent to which Aphasia and Daughter of Mine are the same person. Do you have any suggestions as to the name?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:278505
This one reared its head, when someone rather dismissively said that the reason a certain piece of narrative couldn't work is because it would "imply that the Monk is the Master as well, which he very clearly isn’t."
There are several things wrong with this single point. This will be a long post, and it may lead to I don't know what.
Let's begin with what we all agree on. In the Hartnell era, Peter Butterworth appeared in two television serials, as a character who, like the Doctor, had a TARDIS. And that's pretty much all that's universally accepted by various strands. Who was this character? What was he called? Did he know the Doctor prior to his first television appearance? And did he ever return, in any medium? There are multiple contradictory pieces of narrative, often within a single framework. And when we take real-world statements into account, it gets even more tangled.
The first key issue here is simple. The character never actually identified himself as "the Monk". Go back and watch the episodes. Nobody calls him by his actual name, and as he's disguised as a monk, then "the monk"(and NOT "the Monk") becomes the most convenient term to apply to him. However, it is very clearly stated this this is a disguise, and we get
- DOCTOR: Yes, and you can drop the monk's act.
The term "Time Lord" was first used in The War Games, and it was made clear that the Doctor and the War Chief instantly recognise each other, have a history together, and are both Time Lords.
At another discussion[66], there are multiple narrative points establishing that the War Chief and the Master are one and the same. But, as someone stated, does this mean that "the Monk"[sic] is the same character? Yes, and No, and Yes, and No...
First, as noted on that discussion, the same small group of people wrote The War Games and the Pertwee Era, a well as novelised all those stories, and they unambiguously made it crystal clear that Brayshaw=Delgado. If the idea was that canon was "the stuff from the past 2 or 3 years" that definitely made Delgado and Brayshaw the same Time Lord, but did it include Butterworth?
The statements about the Doctor having only faced ONE Time Lord before Omega, only TWO TARDISes ever having been stolen etc. clearly led many people to say, that Yes, Peter Buttewroth was playing the same character.
The Doctor Who Game of Time & Space board game, and the FASA Role Playing Game both stated outright that the Master disguised himself as a monk in 1066 AD. While the Master File(FASA again) listed Peter Butterworth as the first actor to play the Master. Meanwhile, the preview for The King's Demons in Doctor Who Magazine said that the villain would be the same villain from The Time Meddler. It was, of course, the Master. DWM even had an article later, where the theory was that Time Lords meet out of sequence, The idea being put forth was not that the "Monk" was the Master, that was taken as read, it was that Butterworth may be a post-Delgado Master.
Then, of course there's the fact that Pertwee refers to Delgado as a "jackanapes", Simm calls himself "Harold Saxon", Yana is uncovered thanks to his anachronistic watch, and Simm having a laser screwdriver(like Butteworth had in a missing episode of TDMP). To name just a few examples of many. SO, case closed?
Well, of course not. The same DWM also ran a comic called 4-Dimensional Vistas. Here the character returned, but called 'the Time Meddler'. He was a "failed Time Lord". He didn't wear a monk's cowl(obviously), and the "m" word was never used. Yet, it's clear he's not the Master. It is made abundantly clear that the character's Time Lord name is "the Time Meddler", not anything else.
But then DWM ran another comic, where the character reappeared, and here he is called "the Meddling Monk".
To throw a spanner in the works, Virgin Books gave us the novel No Future. Here the character reappeared, and met up with the Seventh Doctor. He was said to be called "Mortimus"( name never used before), and it was stated that he had not encountered the Doctor since TDMP.(Which throws the DWM comics out of the Virgin continuity. And, of course those two comics contradict each other.) Worse, he was said to have been "trapped on an ice planet", which must have occurred in some unknown adventure. He made it clear he had never encountered the Doctor before The Time Meddler. (This whole book seemed like the author trying to force continuity more than trying to write a story).
The same author also wrote The Discontinuity Guide, which told us that "the Monk and the Doctor had never met before The Time Meddler". Even though there is NOTHING in that story that says that. So, that is a blatant lie. Funnily enough, the same book also tells us that the First Doctor completely fails to recognise the Master in The Five Doctors, without a hint of irony or shame.
Was The Discontinuity Guide entirely wrong? Not in that sense. Again, the actual television serial The Time Meddler doesn't actually show the encounter. The novelisation says they instantly recognise each other, but that was after FASA etc, While The Discontinuity Guide was after No Future.
We then reach Divided Loyalties. Here, Mortimus is at the Academy with the Doctor, and the two are good friends. This completely and utterly contradicts No Future. Were they buddies at the Academy, or did they first meet in 1066? It can't be both.
The Revived Series seemed to throw doubt on the canonicity of much of the spin-off material, and with RTD giving us Harold Saxon, many felt that this was saying "He could be the Master, but we're not saying it outright".
But then, RTD left, and Nicholas Briggs took over Big Finish. Briggs clearly feels that "the Monk" is a separate character. Or characters.
In The Books of Kells, the Doctor encounters "the Monk" in and 11th century monastery. Everyone, the Doctor, Lucie, Tamsin, Susan, the Daleks all call him "the Monk" as though that is his Time Lord name. More importantly, he refers to HIMSELF as "the Monk". And, very importantly, the Doctor and "the Monk" agree that they haven't seen each other since The Daleks; Master Plan. And, again very importantly, the Doctor states that he FIRST NET "the Monk" in 1066.
In the TIME MEDDLER'S first three encounters, he first went to an 11th century monastery, then had a close encounter trying to ally himself with the Daleks, in which two of the Doctor's companions and a debatable companion were all killed. Finally, he teamed up with the Ice Warriors, which saw the Doctor be imprisoned.
So, in "the Monk's" first three Big Finish Audios, he first went to an 11th century monastery, then he teamed up with the ice Warriors, which saw the Doctor be imprisoned. Finally, he had a close encounter trying to ally himself with the Daleks, in which two of the Doctor's companions and a debatable companion were all killed. And again, everyone calls him "the Monk".
However, things take two weird turns, when The Rani Elite has the Doctor and the Rani reminiscing about their time at the Academy, including their old friend Mortimus. But, if Series 4 of the Eighth Doctor audios established that the Doctor and the Monk never knew each other from Gallifrey, then Graeme Garden's Monk and this friend from the Academy called Mortimus must be two separate people.
And then in The Secret History, the Fifth Doctor meets the Mom. (For Garden this is after meeting the Eighth Doctor). Here, when the Doctor calls him "Monk", Garden's character says that the Doctor is THE ONLY ONE who calls him "the Monk". This despite EVERYONE(including himself) referring to him as that in the NEDA.
Rufus Hound appears in the Second Doctor audio The Black Hole. Here he is disguised as a Commander. He says that he has worn many disguises, but when he FIRST MET the Doctor he was disguised as a monk. And the, with no logical reason, he starts dressing as a monk again. On a space station. Even odder, another Time Lord called Pavo calls him "Monk" as as his Time Lord name, with no reason given.
The Hound "Meddling Monk" also meets up with the Third and Fourth Doctors, making several-released-earlier-but-set-later "we haven't seen each other since The Daleks Master Plan" references increasingly discontinuous.
And then Hound, who has now adopted the name "the Meddling Monk" meets up with the EIGHTH Doctor. And it is then established that he is a post-Garden "Monk". But, if Garden was already "the Monk", and Hound was the one who took on the moniker "the Monk".... If the Doctor was good friends with Mortimus at the Academy, but Garden, Mcgann and Hound all make it explicitly clear that the Doctor and the "Monk" never knew each other on Gallifrey, then again Mortimus has to be a different person to "the Monk", according to Big Finish. Hound also makes ti clear that he survived the Time War. Which makes Eccleston and Tennant's failure to detect him another continuity error.
It is the Twelfth Doctor who then RE-discovers that "Mortimus" survived the Time War. And here, it's stated that the Doctor is the only one who calls him "the (Meddling) Monk". Despite both garden and Hound(as well as pretty much everyone else in Big Finish) calling him that.
Made even more surreal by the fact that HE WAS NEVER A MONK.
So, we can say Virgin had their one take. FASA had their take. DWM seemed to have at least different takes. Divided Loyalties would seem to to have another take.Big Finish have tied themselves into knots of continuity. While the television series never explicitly stated anything any way. And, going by Target, this character would very strongly appear to be the Master.
How can he both be and not be the Master?
How can he have been friends with the Doctor as part of the Deca, and meet him for the first time ever in 1066?
How can he both have been stranded on an ice planet, while very clearly NOT having been stranded on an ice planet?
How can the Doctor be the only one who calls him "Monk", when he himself keeps saying that he's "the Monk" in Big Finish audios?
Was Graeme Garden or Rufus Hound the one who adopted the name "the Monk"?
How can the Doctor keep encountering him "for the first time since The Daleks Master Plan" in at least half a dozen different stories?
And yet, with all this, one simple thing has been taken fro granted. It seems obvious to us all NOW. And yet there is NOTHING AT ALL in either The Time Meddler nor The Daleks' Master Plan to lead anyone to that conclusion.
Where in The Time Meddler or The Daleks' Master Plan is it stated that Peter Butterworth's character is a Time Lord?
Yes, the Doctor says that they "come from the same place". But a) this could be a guess as the other character has a TARDIS, b)all of Butterworth's meddling involves Earth history, and all his stolen artifacts are from Earth, and c)at this stage the Doctor still had one heart, and referred to himself as a 'human being'.
It seems strange now. But, ignore everything you think you 'know' about early Doctor Who. If you just watch from An Unearthly Child, then through Season 3, there is noting at all to make you think that Peter Butterworth's character is anything other than a HUMAN BEING FROM THE FUTURE.
The first time "Time Lords" are mentioned is The War Games. The first character identified as a "Time Lord" is the War Chief. The Doctor is the second, and from then on, the Doctor is a two-hearted Time Lord. As is the War Chief. And, obviously, the Master.
In multiple Target books, interviews etc. it is stated that only two Time Lords ever stole TARDISes. It is stated that only two Time Lords ever left Gallifrey. And the history of the Doctor and the Master includes multiple references that are unambiguously to The War Games. So, clearly, the Master and the War Chief are the same Time Lord.
Does that make Peter Butterworth's character the same Time Lord? Well, the moment you identify him as a Time Lord, then, per those multiple references to TWO renegade Time Lords, he MUST be. And all those stories, 4-Dimensional Vistas, No Future, all those Big Finish audios all identify the different takes on the character, whether he's called Mortimus, the Monk, the Time Meddler, or the Meddling Monk as a Time Lord. But, to call him a Time Lord is to call him the Master. You can't have him be a Time Lord who met the Doctor before the Doctor encountered Omega, and NOT Have him be the Master. And the War Chief.
But is there another possibility? One that was staring everyone in the face for years? And, perversely enough, one from the SAME PEOPLE who have us Graeme Garden and Rufus Hound's grotesques? There could very well be.
Did Peter Butterworth's character return in a short story? One missed by this wiki, because they were so obsessed with "Is the Time Meddler, er Monk, er Meddling Monk, er Mortimus, er... the same Time Lord as the Master?"
That story is of course The Church of Football (short story). And there is a time-travelling character in it called John Scanlon. He is a HUMAN who stole a TARDIS. And it's clear he's from the far future. And he meddles in history. Earth history. And he collects multiple treasures and artifacts from history. Earth history. And, just reading that story, there is nobody else this human time meddler really can be.
Does that make Scanlon THE return-of-Butterwoth? No. But it undoubtedly makes him ONE return of Butterworth.
And there is narrative evidence that Butterworht is the Master. There's narrative evidence he's not the Master. There's narrative evidence he knew the Doctor at the Academy. There's narrative evidence he never met the Doctor before 1066. etc. etc.
As it stands now, this wiki pushes ONE specific position. Which itself, is completely contradictory, and well, impossible.
To summarise, the article "the Monk" needs a MAJOR rewrite. As there are numerous contradictory positions, and for anyone to state "this one is best" is wrong.
- Najawin
I would like to apologize to everyone else for my comments that lead to the creation of this thread.
- Borisashton
The Monk's page states that no valid source has drawn the connection to the Master. Could you summarise in an in-universe "According to one account"-style sentence or two which sources state this?
- 197.86.143.88
Najawin wrote: I would like to apologize to everyone else for my comments that lead to the creation of this thread.
Meaning what? You said that something was clear, or words to that effect.
But with this character, NOTHING is clear. It is impossible to reconcile No Future with 4-Dimensional Vistas, with Divided Loyalties, with The Book of Kells, with The Black Hole etc. No two of those stories can fit into a single continuity. Yet, you're happy to ignore that, while also ignoring the fact that all of them, excluding 4-Dimensional Vistas, also contradict the very television stories they're supposed to act as sequels to.
- 197.86.143.88
Najawin wrote: I would like to apologize to everyone else for my comments that lead to the creation of this thread.
It is also notable that you make this single sentence statement, rather than address the actual issue of this thread. Because to address the actual issue of this thread would make you have to do a major re-evaluation.
- SOTO
Why are there two threads on the same subject?
- Najawin
SOTO, they attempted to move the Monk specific issues here.
- 197.86.143.88
Borisashton wrote: The Monk's page states that no valid source has drawn the connection to the Master. Could you summarise in an in-universe "According to one account"-style sentence or two which sources state this?
It started on another thread [67] Essentially, Malcolm Hulke and Terrance Dicks, who co-wrote The War Games (TV story), and thus co-created The War Chief, and who also both worked extensively on stories featuring The Master, made several in-universe comments that established that Edward Brayshaw and Roger Delgado were playing the same Time Lord. A few quotes here..
From Episode 8 of The War Games (TV story) :
- WAR CHIEF: You may have changed your appearance, but I know who you are.
DOCTOR: Oh, do you? WAR CHIEF: Your machine is a Tardis. You’re too familiar with its controls to be a stranger. DOCTOR: I had every right to leave. WAR CHIEF: Stealing a TARDIS? Oh, I’m not criticising you. We are two of a kind. (Thus, we can clearly see that both the Doctor and the War Chief have stolen a TARDIS)
By the way, the same scene played out in Doctor Who and the War Games (novelisation) like this(page 104):
- The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. “Now, ” he said “a traveller in a space time machine. There is only one person you can be”.
Back to those stolen TARDISes. Remember, the War Chief has stolen a TARDIS. The Doctor has stolen a TARDIS. Has anyone else stolen a TARDIS? Why, yes. From Doctor Who and the Sea-Devils (novelisation) (page 28):
- ‘But what use is your TARDIS to you while you’re in here?’ Jo asked: ‘It would be difficult for you to understand,’ said the Master, ‘but my TARDIS is my proudest possession.’ The Doctor laughed. ‘You don’t even own it! You stole it from the Time Lords!’ ‘As you stole yours!’ retorted the Master.
So, again, the Doctor has stolen a TARDIS. But we now know that the Master has stolen his TARDIS too. So, that makes three stolen TARDISes, right? Well, the exact same person who wrote The War Games AND Doctor Who and The Sea Devils ALSO wrote this. From Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon (novelisation) (page 7):
- ‘The first TARDIS was very small,’ he said. ‘On the outside, yes,’ said the old Keeper. ‘Inside it could carry up to three persons, four with a squeeze. Later we built much bigger ones. There have been two stolen, you know.’ The young Time Lord didn’t know. ‘By our enemies?’ he asked. ‘No. By Time Lords. They both became bored with this place. It was too peaceful for them, not enough happening.’ The old Keeper smiled to himself, as though remembering with some glee all the fuss when two TARDISes were stolen. ‘One of them nowadays calls himself “the Doctor”. The other says he is “the Master”.
So, the Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. But, by Season 8, a grand total of TWO TARDISes had been stolen.
What did Terrance Dicks have to say in the matter? From The Three Doctors (novelisation) (page 93):
- In his various incarnations, the Doctor had found himself up against many terrifying enemies. With the exception of the Master, this was the first time he had found himself opposed by a fellow Time Lord. And in comparison to Omega, the Master shrank almost to a petty criminal.
Yes. In the words of Terrance Dicks, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever encountered ONE other renegade Time Lord...the Master.
There is lots more, but the thread was to establish that authorial intent was that the Master and the War Chief are one and the same, and that there is in-narrative that they are one and the same.
At which point, Najawin entered the discussion, made some personal insults, claimed to "not have a horse in the race", but generally made it clear that he/she hated the only sensible conclusions that could be drawn from those(and many other) pieces of both in-narrative and real-world quotes.
So, the result was Najawin saying "Well, that makes the Monk the Master too! And we know that that's not true" (or words to that effect). The response, which another user posted much better than I did, is that Hulke, Dicks, Holmes etc. all worked on the same Era, and all referenced The War Games in stories involving The Master. Whereas none of them had anything at all to do with the Peter Butterworth stories. And it wasn't even clear if any of them were even aware of those stories at the time they created the Time Lords, the Master etc. But Najawin used the existence of "the Monk" as one of their only two pieces of "proof"(despite 'not having a horse in the race') that "The War Chief can't be the Master". *The other is the Dream sequence in Divided Loyalties, btw.)
So, this thread was actually worthwhile. And really, it's worthwhile even without those comments of Najawin'.
I am not stating that Butterworth was the Master. But I'm not stating that he's not the Master either. And, in fact, unlike the character of Master/War Chief, there was NO clear in-universe narrative in the television serials to establish that Butterworth was even a Time Lord. If we state that he is a Time Lord, then, if we go by Dicks and Hulke, it appears to be that they included him to be the Master as well. Which actually wouldn't have contradicted anything at all at the time. BUT, then , we don't even know if they even had him in mind at all when they created the War Chief/Master.
And then of course the various other ranges. He's "Mortimus", who was both at the Academy with the Doctor, yet had never met him before 1066.
He's "the Time Meddler", and that monk's cowl was a badly executed one-off disguise.
He's "the Monk", who never met the Doctor before 1066. But the same incarnation says that the Doctor is THE ONLY ONE who calls him "the Monk".
He's a human being from the far future who stole a time-space ship, and sued it to try and move Earth's technology forward before its time, while also using his new possession for personal profit.
And, how many times did he(they?) encounter the Doctor "for the first time since The Daleks Master Plan"?
So, this Thread is not saying "the Monk is..." Personally, I don't believe that Peter Butterworth ever even played a character called "the Monk" the way the Doctor is called "the Doctor". "The monk", yes. But not the "Monk" as a Time Lord name. In fact, going just by tv, we don't even know that he even was a Time Lord.
- Najawin
From T:VALID: "The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories." [Emphasis mine]
Everything FASA has published is invalid on this wiki as it's non narrative. So what else is there, hmm? The DWM getting something wrong, and your assertion that 'with RTD giving us Harold Saxon, many felt that this was saying "He could be the Master, but we're not saying it outright".'
Aside from that you have some minuscule, absolutely minuscule, hints that they might be the same character, and comments that don't even begin to suggest that they're intended to be the same character, but instead suggest that the writers forgot about the Monk, or that during that story the Monk was erased from reality, etc etc. The only way we can conclude that's evidence is if we have the authors telling us that was their intent, since there has been another renegade Time Lord the First Doctor has met. Obviously there's no way the authors of the lines in question could know about that character. But we also have no way of determining that they even remembered The Monk.
So. No. There is no narrative evidence they're the same character. Not one whit.
"At which point, Najawin entered the discussion, made some personal insults, claimed to "not have a horse in the race", but generally made it clear that he/she hated the only sensible conclusions that could be drawn from those(and many other) pieces of both in-narrative and real-world quotes."
?
This is libel. You can find my comment here, there is not a personal attack to be found. The worst I get is pointing out that the arguments in question are "bad" [emphasis present in the original]. Which they are.
"But Najawin used the existence of "the Monk" as one of their only two pieces of "proof"(despite 'not having a horse in the race') that "The War Chief can't be the Master"."
This is again untrue. I have used it to show that certain arguments are overly strong, in that they prove too much. Thus, because they prove too much, they must be incorrect. It's called reductio ad absurdum. CF: Thread:275417#10 (Made before you said I entered the discussion btw)
And I'm not going to repeat myself here, but please see Thread:275417 for the rationale for that thread and this one.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:279543
Problem[[edit] | [edit source]]
So, I've been wanting to thread this for a while, as I think this is a pretty big problem. So, the official policy on stuff that hasn't been released yet as of now is to not make a page until the story is released. But, a lot of the time, I see certain titles that haven't been released yet made into pages. Time Lord Victorious (series), Down the Middle (anthology), and The Lone Centurion: Volume One. Now, Down the Middle I kinda get, since a few stories have been released already. But why does individual releases from TLV not get a page, while the first volume of TLC does? Why does Out of the Shadows get a page, while the Lytton comic doesn't? It seems rather off-balance.
Solution[[edit] | [edit source]]
I'd like to propose a policy change where pages are allowed to be created for releases that aren't yet out, as long as the spoiler tag is there and the page isn't filled with rumors.
- TheDarkBomber
From T:OFFICIAL INFO:What, then, do we do with information that comes from a reputable source like the BBC itself? We use it only on the series page.
These all count as series pages, as valid as any other series page.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I think it does seem a bit strange that we can make a page for Time Apart just because it contains multiple stories but not for any other main range story yet to come out, for example. I wonder who exactly this rule exists for - is somebody unbothered by spoilers about Time Apart going to be bothered by spoilers for the next main range story?
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I think it does seem a bit strange that we can make a page for Time Apart just because it contains multiple stories but not for any other main range story yet to come out, for example. I wonder who exactly this rule exists for - is somebody unbothered by spoilers about Time Apart going to be bothered by spoilers for the next main range story?
- Borisashton
I created Thread:262789 a while back which deals with the contradictions in our spoiler policy.
As for the specifics of this thread, however, T:SPOIL currently says this in regard to individual stories:
"Stories that have been confirmed — by the BBC, Starz, Metal Mutt Productions or any other production partner — but have not been broadcast, are routinely created with their basic layout and infobox and then fully protected to prevent further edits until the stories have been broadcast or released."But this course of action has not occurred in the time I have been on the wiki and seems to be a remnant leftover from years past.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
I'd personally say that for once, the leftover from the old policy was correct. If the story is confirmed to be released, I don't see why the barebones cannot be created.
So much for reason 1 of the spoiler policy. Reason 2, as a technical reason, means this thread will be closed without any policy change. As pointed out at Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar, sometimes information about upcoming releases is changed once the release comes out (see also Talk:The Vampires of Venice (TV story)/Archive 1#Correct title?). It saves a lot of work to not have to change links and move pages due to this kind of thing. That's a second reason for our strict spoiler policy and waiting until something is released before making pages.
And as User:TheDarkBomber pointed out, the stories cited in the original post are actually series, which are currently allowed to exist under Tardis:Spoiler policy.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:279580
The wiki's current categorisation of life at the species level is confusing and in desperate need of an overhaul. While I encourage anyone reading this to have a quick glance at the categories in question, the main categories involved are as follows:
- Category:Species: "Sentient/sapient species from around the universe."
- This definition of species is wrong, as all life can be divided into species, regardless of intellect. It would be better named Category:Sentient species.
- Category:Creatures: "Unintelligent creatures that do not exist in the real world."
- The dictionary definition of creatures is simply "an animal, as distinct from a human being", so the use of the word here to cover non-sentient beings sort of holds up, but it isn't super-relevant to a universe of alien life. I therefore propose a rename to Category:Non-sentient species, as this is a very clear title which still fulfills the desired purpose.
- Category:Sentient organic life - no description given.
- This is a strange category, as it holds both individuals and species and is nested within Category:Species by biology. I propose its outright deletion, with the individuals placed within subcategories ofCategory:Individuals, and the species within the proposed Category:Sentient species.
So with that said, here is what a category tree would look like, with pre-existing and new subcategories fitting within.
- This should contain just three categories: Category:Species, Category:Individuals, and Category:Artificial beings. On top of that, it should contain any individual pages that don't fit into those three pages, but can still be classed as lifeforms.
- Category:Species - should contain all species, either directly or through its subcategories. There should be several subcategories (which already exist) such as Category:Species by ability, Category:Species by appearance, Category:Species by biology. Furthermore, Category:Species by class, (as a biologist, I would say phylum, but this is a very Earth-centric term) Category:Sentient species, and Category:Non-sentient species should be created and will house the following:
- Category:Animal species (nested within Category:Species by class)
- Category:Plant species - Same subcategories as animals. One of which is currently known as Category:Sentient vegetation for some unfathomable reason.
- Category:Fungus species - Ditto. One of which is known as Category:Sentient fungi
- Category:Silicon-based species - Subcategories depend on Tardis:Rule of three
- Category:Crystalline species - Ditto
- Category: Bacterial species - Perhaps nested in a microorganism category. I'm unsure if there have been any sentient microbes in Doctor Who fiction, but it seems likely.
- Category: Viral species - Ditto
To summarise: I propose that 1. Category:Species is opened up to non-sentient lifeforms, 2. The creation/conversion of categories which house sentient and non-sentient lifeforms, 3. Category:Sentient organic life's deletion.
I encourage criticism and suggestions related to my thoughts, and once a finalised form has been admin-approved, I'd be happy to carry out all the changes required (barring category renames), although any help would be appreciated.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'll need to think some more on the specific category tree you propose; if nothing else I would advocate for replacing "sentient" with "sapient". A dog is, by the actual dictionary definition, sentient, although a mushroom is not and a worm debtably so. It's nothing short of improper sci-fi usage to think "sentient" is equivalent to "intelligent". But I agree 100% that the current category names are nonsensical.
Another notable issue with using Category:Creatures for "nonsentient life" is that DWU and BBC sources themselves use "creature" for sapient beings all the time. The Kaled mutant, for example, is often referred to in older sources as the "organic Dalek creature".
- Najawin
Well, it's not clear that a dog is sentient by the actual dictionary definition, no. Certainly it can react to stimuli, but what matters for the definition is whether it has qualia.
Note also: "Phenomenal consciousness refers to the qualitative, subjective, experiential, or phenomenological aspects of conscious experience, sometimes identified with qualia. (In this article we also use the term “sentience” to refer to phenomenal consciousness.)" (Just noting here that that entire article is relevant [but especially 4.2], this issue is deeply contentious.)
Many moral philosophers have held dogs are sentient (Bentham, most famously, and modernly most every utilitarian and quite a few but not all Kantians [note I mean modern in the contemporary sense, not in the modern period of philosophy sense]), but it's not a trivial fact. Humans are the only "non debatably" sentient species we know of, and well, under the qualia definition, technically you could argue humans aren't sentient either.
So I don't see a massive issue with "sentient" if we do choose to use it, even if "sapient" might be slightly better, it's a 60/40 split sort of thing. I certainly agree with a rework in general as well.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh dear. I swear I didn't mean for this to derail into a philosophical debate about the nature of consciousness, interesting as those are. As a utilitarian myself I was definitely working within a materialist framework to start with (as in, no waving one's hand in the air and saying in a spooky voice that there might be some immaterial thing that a human brain has but a dog brain doesn't).
Of course, what should interest us would be the state of things in the DWU, not in the real world; they don't have to correspond. We know for a fact (at least in certain accounts) that souls exist in the DWU, for example. It wouldn't surprise me if there were also stories to establish various animals have consciousness — in fact, higher consciousness than even us pro-"dogs are sentient" folks would assign to animals in the real world. The fully-constructed thought processes of Rose-the-cat come to mind, even if the sources about how DWU cats are actually alien beings masquerading as animals do mitigate the usefulness of it, even if it' clear that A Rose by Any Other Name wasn't intended to set itself within that framework. I am sorely tempted, if I ever get the chance to do so in published DWU work, to hit you with irrevocable evidence in a valid source that nonsapient animals have qualia in the DWU, using those terms.
However, in any case, it's widely held on this Wiki that things like infobox fields shouldn't be controversial. If there exists controversy about the meaning of the word "sentient", I think that's reason enough to avoid it when naming categories, if we have a viable alternative. Whatever we decide "sentient" means on this Wiki, there could always be new users who understand the word differently and would miscategorize pages as a result.
- Najawin
Well you and I are both using "sentience" as a term of art. Danochy ostensibly was using it as used by pop culture sci fi. (Not sure where this traces back to, but Star Trek is a big factor in its use.) So, again, I don't think for this wiki it should be a massive problem if we went with it, as we reasonably expect people to be familiar with that convention even if they're also familiar with the term of art.
And I'm no qualia theorist myself, and probably a physicalist, it's an even Friday, yeah, I'm a physicalist today. Tomorrow I'm a neutral monist. But I don't think it's a fair characterization of qualia theories you've given there, some of them are physical. I mean. I think they're all nuts. But they exist.
- Danochy
Well as someone with a very low level interest in philosophy, I wasn't trying to get philosophical. Either way, 'sapient' seems like the clearer choice to go with, so I'll agree with Scrooge on this matter, from the wiki-based perspective.
How, though, would we house sapient individuals which don't come from sapient species. A possible framework could begin with Category:Sapient individuals (Nested within Category:Individuals), which can contain Category:Sapient individuals from typically non-sapient species as well as category pages for all individuals from sapient species. This seems like a lot of work to implement though, so any better ideas? (if this is even needed at all?)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Er… I'm not sure I see what actual characters you have in mind?
- Danochy
I mean, you gave the example of Rose (A Rose by Any Other Name) before, another example could be Penguin (Once upon a Time-Lord). (I haven't actually read either story myself, but you get the point)
The point was, do we still want to identify these individuals with a category indicating their sapience? Since the penguin is currently in Category:Sentient birds, which would be reworked to Category:Sapient bird species under the new framework.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I pointed out regarding Rose-the-cat, the thing is that we have several sources telling us in no uncertain terms that cats are in fact typically sentient, it's just that most Earth cats choose to conceal that fact from their human "masters". Cats should be categorised as sapient species within the DWU.
And similarly, while some might exist, I don't believe any of the sources currently mentioned on Penguin contradict the notion that all penguins have human, or near-human, levels of intelligence.
T:NO RW has never been more relevant than in this matter: before anyone goes and scoff at me, remember it was a key plot point in The Eaters of Light that crows are in fact sapient beings with a cultural memory going back nearly two thousand years, and in The Stolen Earth that a majority of bees on Earth are actually aliens in hiding.
- Danochy
Right, so I suppose this is a "problem" we can tackle when (or if) it actually becomes one.
- Danochy
Something which we haven't considered is those in Category:Unique beings. Take, The Cold (Time and Relative), for example. This being is in Category:Earth sentients at present. This category is nested within Category:Species by planet, which is clearly not ideal, as the Cold isn't a species.
Perhaps we should keep Category:Earth sapients, but instead have it cover both Category:Sapient Earth species as well as sapient individuals from Earth, including unique beings from Earth. The same would apply to any other locations which pass the rule of three. Really we just need a category which connects these beings to Earth somehow.
Similarly, Category:Sapients could cover both Category:Sapient species and all these unique beings (at least the sapient ones). Obviously these categories would be as-well-as those discussed in my OP, so that we have a category pathway defining species, and a separate (but connected) pathway defining sapience. (which we already have)
As well as this, we have Category:Sentient art, Category:Sentient astronomical objects, Category:Sentient astronomical objects, etc. which would all be treated in similar ways.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:279761
When the Faction Paradox series began being covered on this sites many of the elements were rightfully separated onto different pages - for example; Great Houses instead of Time Lords, and Timeships instead of TARDISes. This was because the FP writers do not have the rights to use these properties, however, some elements have been overlooked:
- Kelsey Hooper's page has a lot of information about the FP version of Cousin Ceol and Sojourner Hooper-Agogô - despite no evidence that they had any rights to use this character.
- The Homeworld, mentioned in FP (and appearing in The Book of the War, is merged with Gallifrey - despite no evidence that they had rights to use Gallifrey.
- Auteur and Astrolabus contain information about each other.
There's probably more examples, but I think these pages need separating immediately. If the writers had no rights to use these characters / concepts, and went to special lengths to alter their names to get past the copyright, then we have no right to cover them on the same page as the original. The information should be retained to behind the scenes sections only.
- Najawin
This post is premised on a mistake. Great Houses is not separated from Time Lords because it refers to two distinct names for the same concept and you have to decide through interpretation if they're the same (similar to Timeship and TARDIS), rather, these are distinct concepts. For instance House Lolita or I.M. Foreman's Travelling Show.
The issue in question is not that the authors changed names to avoid copyright, but that they change names to better match the aesthetic of the world they're writing for, even if they have the rights for the names, which just so happens to also avoid copyright. As was explained to you at Talk:Auteur.
At best some of these are a Man with the Rosette situation, but that should be handled at the respective talk pages, Homeworld is certainly not.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I believe you are categorically wrong.
The Faction Paradox team have no rights whatsoever to be writing stories about Gallifrey - so The Book of the War should not be on Gallifrey's LOA page, as it is an unlicensed appearance. Instead they write stories about The Homeworld - which may be intended to be Gallifrey, but cannot be legally connected due to copyright. So why are these pages merged?
- Scrooge MacDuck
They can be legally connected — by a story with the copyright to use both. This is the standard that was set at the end of the original FP inclusion debate.
There are sources which have the license to use "Gallifrey" and Great Houses, which tell us that the homeworld of the Great Houses is Gallifrey. Lungbarrow, for example. As such, the logical link carries over for all stories which involve the other concept, because two different copyrights, from a RW point-of-view, can, from an in-universe point of view, be facets of a single subject that requires only one page.
It is not copyright infringement to say in a story licensed to use Gallifrey that Gallifrey later becomes "the Homeworld," and then to use the Homeworld in non-Gallifrey-licensed stories with the understanding that it used to be the Homeworld. This is the same token whereby which Bernice Summerfield is still "a former companion of the Doctor" even in stories which wouldn't be licensed to say so.
It is possible that this has been misapplied in some cases, but it's a matter of "no speculation", not anything to do with copyright. I fully expect that if by some stroke of luck, an officially BBC-licensed story explicitly says "The War King was once the Master", we will consider them to be the same individual and merge the pages — even though the two are not the same copyright.
That being said, it may well be, again, that this standard has not been correctly applied in e.g. the case of Kelsey Hooper. But I don't believe, for one, that "the Homeworld" should be questioned. One book said that the homeworld of the Great Houses was Gallifrey, and other books licensed to use "the Great Houses" went on to say things about "the Homeworld of the Great Houses" without infringing on any of the copyrighted feature of "Gallifrey" as owned by the BBC.
Oh, and as User:Najawin said, it's simply incorrect to say that…
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: If the writers had no rights to use these characters / concepts, and went to special lengths to alter their names to get past the copyright', then we have no right to cover them on the same page as the original.Which is a point that was gone over repeatedly in the original inclusion debate.
- Najawin
It's nice that you believe that.
You seem to have confused a few things. Whether a story licensed a particular entity is not relevant to whether or not we can include references to that entity on their wiki page. Rather, we just require that all actual uses of things explicitly mentioned are licensed for T:VALID. The source is valid. How it's then placed into articles does not depend on the licenses, but rather on what conclusions you can draw given the textual evidence. Legal connections are irrelevant, narrative connections are what matters.
Indeed, this is why Man with the Rosette is not stated to be The Master in the article, even though the book in question would have had the rights. Narratively there wasn't enough support.
Again, it has been pointed out to you that the examples you're referring to are actually distinct concepts and there are other examples of Faction Paradox changing names, even when they have the rights. These are massive hurdles for you to overcome in your argument, you can't just ignore them and say "but I believe you're wrong".
Edit: I agree with Scrooge that some of these are certainly questionable, I think Kelsey Hooper could go either way, as there's an awful lot of narrative support for it. Questioning the Homeworld is just utterly absurd though.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
The Doctor appeared in Lungbarrow, so are the Faction Paradox team now allowed to reference him (by name) whenever they please? No. This is the exact same with Gallifrey and The Homeworld, they may have been allowed to connect them within the stories written for the BBC. But outside of that they can only use their version of the Homeworld, which is not legally connected to Gallifrey and should be housed on a separate page.
I don't know of any appearance of Bernice Summerfield that mentions the Doctor (by name) without a license to do so?
- Najawin
This is a misunderstanding of what Scrooge said.
There is precedent on this wiki that if a licensed story uses both an FP term and a DW term to refer to the same entity/concept, the page for the two is merged. Lungbarrow does this for Homeworld and Great Houses.
Edit: Thought this was referring to the ORIGINAL FP discussion, MB.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Then that is completely and utterly wrong.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You write: “I don't know of any appearance of Bernice Summerfield that mentions the Doctor (by name) without a license to do so?” No, but Bernice is still the same person even in stories which don't have the license to mention a crucial facet of who she is (namely "a companion of the Seventh Doctor"). This is the same principle as the Homeworld being the same in stories which are allowed to mention the crucial fact "it's got orange skies and it's called Gallifrey", and in stories which are not.
Slightly closer analogy: Irving Braxiatel. He is still a Time Lord even in Virgin novels that don't have the license to say he's a Time Lord. We don't suddenly create a separate page for Irving Braxiatel (Dragon's Wrath) the humanoid of indeterminate species, just because from that point on, he is no longer allowed to say he's a Time Lord. By the same token, the Homeworld is still Gallifrey, and Homeworlders are still Time Lords, even in stories published without the rights to the words "Gallifrey" and "Time Lords".
- Scrooge MacDuck
You write: “I don't know of any appearance of Bernice Summerfield that mentions the Doctor (by name) without a license to do so?” No, but Bernice is still the same person even in stories which don't have the license to mention a crucial facet of who she is (namely "a companion of the Seventh Doctor"). This is the same principle as the Homeworld being the same in stories which are allowed to mention the crucial fact "it's got orange skies and it's called Gallifrey", and in stories which are not.
Here's an analogy: Irving Braxiatel is established as a Time Lord in his earliest appearances in the Virgin New Adventures. But he continues to appear in stories published after the VNAs lost the Doctor Who license. We don't suddenly consider these stories to refer to a different individual, an "Irving Braxiatel (Dragons' Wrath)" placed in Category:Individuals of unknown species, nor create a page for "Irving Braxiatel's species" for those instances when Benny mentions "Brax's lot" in a non-copyright-infringing way.
By the same token, the Homeworld of the Great Houses starts out as Gallifrey, and it remains Gallifrey even in later War in Heaven stories which don't have the license to repeat that its name is Gallifrey, or that it has a burnt orange sky and people in silly hats.
- Najawin
You may think it's wrong, but that's how things were decided. Without new evidence to reopen discussion, I believe the thread should be closed immediately?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
There's no way that you can compare Bernice Summerfield and Irving Braxiatel to The Homeworld. Both of these characters were entirely licensed in every appearance they have made (to my knowledge), while the Faction Paradox team has no rights to Gallifrey.
Also, you're not making this discussion easy with your deleting and heavily editing your posts...
- Najawin
I don't know about for Scrooge, but I've noticed that I've had a lot of server lag, so if I post a comment and want to edit it immediately after, realizing I made a mistake, it takes a few minutes for my edits to go through.
- Scrooge MacDuck
But again, Brax in stories not allowed to say he's a Time Lord is no more or less licensed than "members of the Great Houses" in stories not allowed to say they're Time Lords. We hold all these guys to still be Time Lords. If "Irvin Braxiatel's species" is still Time Lord in stories not allowed to say that, why is "the Great Houses' Homeworld" not allowed to be Gallifrey in stories not allowed to say the word 'Gallifrey'?
(P.S.: Sorry about the post-deletion: what happened was I didn't see it going up, so I thought Wikia had swallowed it as it sometimes does, and retyped the same broad point entirely. Then I realized I'd double-posted, so I deleted the earlier version of the message while editing the second message with a point I'd made in the earlier message but forgotten to put in the second one.)
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
There's a very obvious difference, Scrooge.
Irving Braxiatel is a character who has been licensed in all of his appearances (unsure who holds the rights to the character). It matters not if they cannot reference him being a Time Lord, because he is still intended to be the same character by the individuals (or individual - help, who owns Braxiatel?) who created him. They could completely change his species if they really wanted to, and it would still count as the same character - because they have the rights to do so.
Any appearance, or mention, of The Homeworld outside of the licensed appearances for the VNA is not a licensed appearance of Gallifrey (and not intended to be so by the copyright holders) and therefore should not be affecting that page on this site.
The FP team have rights to their creation only.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Just to be clear as to what I am proposing;
The Homeworld should be a page of its own (instead of redirecting to Gallifrey). This page should include information from the Virgin New Adventures and the subsequent appearances withing the Faction Paradox series. It should reference Gallifrey with information solely from the appearances where it was licensed to be presented as a future Gallifrey - with the rest of the information existing on behind the scenes sections. Likewise, Gallifrey should only have information regarding the Homeworld from the licensed appearances within the VNA. The unlicensed appearance of Gallifrey should be removed from the LOA page.
The same should be done with Kelsey Hooper and Cousin Ceol, Astrolabus and Auteur, and any other similar page.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Just want to point something out - Irving Braxiatel has not been licenced by the BBC in all of his appearances, as he appeared in Virgin Bernice Summerfield New Adventures post Virgin Books losing the Doctor Who licence.
- Dragons' Wrath (novel)
- Ship of Fools (novel)
- Deadfall (novel)
- The Medusa Effect (novel)
- Where Angels Fear (novel)
- Tears of the Oracle (novel)
- Return to the Fractured Planet (novel)
- Twilight of the Gods (BNA novel)
These all feature Irving, and he is definitely treated as the same character.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
And that would mean that the BBC don't own the license to the character of Irving Braxiatel?...
- Najawin
Just to be clear, this thread should be closed immediately.
The thread was premised on multiple mistakes, that certain concepts were identical, when they were not, that renamings are done for reasons of licensing when it happens even if the rights are present, and most importantly the policy under discussion has already been decided. Unless you have new evidence, which you have not yet provided, this discussion should be closed.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You've already stated your opinion that the thread should be closed immediately, so if that is the only thing you have left to add... please could you just leave it to a moderator. Thanks.
- LilPotato
I know the original head of publishing for the Faction Paradox series, Lars Pearson, personally, and during an exchange at a coffeeshop, he explicitly debunked the idea I mistakenly held that he never got the rights from those involved with the naming of the Homeworld in Lungbarrow to mention the same planet in FP as a substitute for Gallifrey. It's completely licensed. You have presented no new evidence to the contrary, and on top of that, the very idea that the FP writers don't ask for rights is predicated based on a sizable misunderstanding.
I highly suggest that the Caretakers close this thread, as it harms the Wiki's integrity to keep it open.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again, DiSoRiEnTeD, I think the root of the issue is that you are confusing copyright and concept. It is possible for two different copyrights to correspond to a single in-universe thing, because the BBC doesn't own the copyright to the platonic essence of the Time Lords, it owns the copyright to a set of words and iconography. It would make us a ridiculously useless Wiki in many respects if we started going a route of "legal entity"="page". No one person owns everything on The Master, or even The Doctor — individual events, and individual likenesses, are owned by various writers and actors, even though the overall character is owned by the Beeb.
I believe what goes on a singular page should reflect "what sources prove corresponds to a single in-universe entity". We have valid sources showing that the names "Gallifrey" and "the Homeworld" are talking about a single planet. Therefore, we should only have the one page.
But look, I don't have to justify all this to you. The treatment of FP concepts, and of "the Homeworld" specifically, was front and center in the original inclusion debate and its "what-do-we-do-now" aftermath. Unless you have new evidence why we should revise our coverage of the Homeworld and of other major concepts, Tardis:You are bound by current policy.
There is room for discussion about Auteur and Kelsey Hooper. But please, read through the FP inclusion debate and the "Talking about the FP debate" thread, then come back with facts about the Homeworld case not mentioned there. Only then, if I've got my Wiki policies right, are you allowed to call for us to change our coverage of it. And frankly I don't see how it would improve the Wiki to do so.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@LilPotato Not to be rude, but you are not a reliable source. If you know Lars personally you could perhaps persuade him to make an official statement, but until then your word cannot be taken on this.
I believe entirely that Faction Paradox has the rights to the substitute name "The Homeworld", but I see no evidence that they have the rights to the concept of the Gallifrey - merely their version of it, which should be separated from each other..
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again, why should they be separated? There is a piece of imaginary rock in the DWU. The BBC owns the copyright to some of its physical feature and its name of "Gallifrey". A story licensed to use "Gallifrey" and said physical features added that the same piece of rock also had features X, Y and Z.
Later stories identify the same piece of rock exclusively by features X, Y and Z, as they do not have the right to mention the features "Gallifrey, orange sky, silly hats". But now, no single person owns the piece of rock in its entirety. Different people own different features of it, and it's silly to create separate pages for every instance of someone using it through feature X instead of feature Y. Just because Feature X happens to be the name "Gallifrey".
I don't believe you're denying that there is evidence in valid sources that the piece of rock called "Gallifrey" by certain sources is the same piece of rock as the piece of rock called "the Homeworld" in other sources. So why shouldn't we have a single page about that piece of rock?
- Najawin
Actually, let's clarify here. User:LilPotato are you saying Pearson that got the rights from the specific Homeworld concept mentioned in Lungbarrow? Because that was my interpretation, and that's the concept that's continuous with Gallifrey.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
To my knowledge licensed references of Gallifrey as "The Homeworld" existed only within the Virgin New Adventures. These were licensed to make that connection. However, the way I see it Lars Pearson was able to copyright the name "The Homeworld" and use it as a substitute in his series. However, this is only a licensed appearance of his version. It is not a licensed version of the actual Gallifrey.
Its ridiculous to say that writers can hijack a copyrighted concept, they can't - they can use their own name for it and make heavy hints that they are the same, but it isn't licensed use of the original concept and should be kept separate.
- LilPotato
Najawin, I know Lars knows Marc Platt's contact information, and distinctly remember him saying he contacted those involved with Lungbarrow for FP. I'll have to take Disoriented's advice and suggest that he post it somewhere publicly, but I can't make any promises he will.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I feel like I'm not getting through to you. Two names can refer to one in-universe piece of rock. Different entities can own, and license, the various names, but nobody owns the piece of rock. Heck, the piece of rock appeared long before it was given the name of "Gallifrey". Not being licensed to use the name "Gallifrey" is not the same thing as not being allowed to feature "the planet of the Great Houses", which other sources establish to be named Gallifrey. No copyright is being broken and one singular piece of orange real estate is being referred to.
- Najawin
LilPotato, please don't bother him. This thread is almost certainly going to be closed. It would be a waste of his time. While it would be interesting to document, it's not the sort of thing that really matters.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You’re not going to get through to me so we’ll leave this to an admin.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I wouldn’t listen to backseat moderating @LilPotato
If you know him personally he surely shouldn’t be bothered, and I’m sure he’d want to set the record straight on a copyright he owns.
- Epsilon the Eternal
As an example, Albion was an archaic name for Great Britian, and we know that they are one and the same. But by your logic, DiSoRiEnTeD, if somebody uses Albion, then they are referring to a place which is not Great Britian, which is a major factual misconception.
- NightmareofEden
I was going to respond to this with simply something about how a more direct comparison to Braxiatel being created separate pages of "Time Lords" and "Brax's lot", and using some absurd implementation of "according to one account" in the header, but looking at this more we really don't have any consistent system anyway.
How is it that, for example, "Dr. Smith" and "that northern chap with big ears" are acknowledged as the Doctor, but, say, "Cosmic Hobo" or "the man with a bent nose" are not (in both former cases, they didn't have the rights to the Doctor at all, and in both latter cases, not to that specific incarnation). Or how we can't call Man with the Rosette or Professor Stream "the Master", but positively identifying Route22 as Iris Wildthyme or the Galactic Council referenced in the non-BBC spin-off K9 as one and the same as the one from Mission to the Unknown is A-OK. Or how the BBC Books line can't use Grace Holloway in an EDA but is allowed to partially novelise her departure scene as part of a flashback in Shroud of Sorrow without ringing any alarm bells. I see no consistency in this.
I mean, by the strictest interpretation of the rule we'd have to make a page for Man Who Was King of His Own Little Word (Dalek), which read
"According to the Ninth Doctor, the Man Who Was King of His Own Little World created the Daleks. The Doctor claimed that Henry van Statten would "like him". (TV: Dalek)"
And then a behind the scenes section explaining that Shearman intended him to be Davros but never stated this. In fact, as I mentioned its talk page, given T:NO RW combined with the strictest possible interpretation of the "in-universe evidence only" rule, we'd have to rename The Entertainer "Whistle Song (Image of the Fendahl" or similar. And checking that very page it looks like I successfully got a "conjecture" template added. And it's true it is conjecture. Because, if it wasn't, we'd get stuff like I just mentioned.
This may all seem a bit silly, but of course it is. It wouldn't please anyone I doubt this wiki would ever go that far though. On the other end of the scale we'd be making pages for Ace and Professor audios, which personally I would LOVE since those stories are GREAT, but I doubt equally this wiki would do that.
So I understand we need a middle ground SOMEWHERE, but it really should be consistent.
I've probably made my point more than enough already, but the real important thing is that we really need to look at how we consider all these "writing around trademarks" things, b/c I see it as extremely arbitrary at the moment. Honestly, "Cosmic Hobo" being the Doctor has considerable MORE narrative evidence than "Dr. Smith" being them. Should we now consider her the first female Doctor? If so, where does that leave Cosmic Hobo, a character who is quite honestly utterly meaningless if the connection is entirely ignored, something Dr. Smith isn't?
Actually, this might seem like something that deserves its own thread, but I'll just post what I've written here now and leave the community to comment. I've got something else I should be doing now, unrelated to this wiki, and so I'll now stop procrastinating on that.
- Najawin
I was the one that asked LilPotato to clarify and then said that it wasn't so important that he actually needed to bug Pearson? I'm not sure how that's backseat moderating?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Epsilon, I’m not interested in hypotheticals. Find me any instance similar to The Homeworld and Gallifrey, and I’ll be interested to hear that.
- LilPotato
Disoriented, what was the point of starting this thread if you weren't ever willing to change your mind? If you had other evidence, my mind certainly would have changed, but you just admitted no one will get through to you, no matter how many old threads we give for you to read and understand. I'm trying to assume good faith, but this certainly makes it hard.
If my interpretation is wrong, please explain the purpose of this thread.
- NightmareofEden
Actually, forget the "female Doctor" line, I misread something. The rest still applies though. Apart from the typos. I do those. Right, NOW I'm heading off.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I am perfectly willing to change my mind, but nobody has offered any information yet. Other than you (who I don’t know from Adam) suggesting you we’re friends with the writer. Anyone could say that.
Nowhere did I say nobody would change my mind!
- LilPotato
NightmareofEden wrote: Right, NOW I'm heading off.
Right behind you. It's obvious what's going on here.
- Epsilon the Eternal
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Epsilon, I’m not interested in hypotheticals. Find me any instance similar to The Homeworld and Gallifrey, and I’ll be interested to hear that.
The example is not hypothetical, it's an analogy.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
“It’s obvious what is going on here”
These little digs are getting right on my nerves.
- NightmareofEden
LilPotato wrote:
NightmareofEden wrote: Right, NOW I'm heading off.
Right behind you. It's obvious what's going on here.
OK, I'm just staying long enough to clarify I have no idea what this person is talking about. I wash my hands of any insinuations they may be making. I know I said I was leaving, but I feel this is too important to not clarify. I simply meant I had some work I needed to do. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not permanently storming out in a rage or whatever else this person may be saying. Just to make that clear.
- Najawin
We have offered information though.
We've explained that the wiki is concerned about concepts and narrative evidence, not legal rights, that faction paradox changing names is about aesthetics, not necessarily legal rights, the different pages you referenced are because they are different concepts, not because they're different legal rights, and that this has already been decided and so should be closed without new evidence.
You haven't responded to any of this. You just ignored these arguments.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Thank you @NightmareOfEden
- Scrooge MacDuck
@DiSoRiENTeD: Not that it makes LilPotato's claim into a reliable source: we can't base a Wiki decision on facts that are first revealed on the Wiki itself. But he's not some random fan claiming to know a bigshot out of nowhere. User:LilPotato is the Wikia account of Hunter O'Connell, an editor and writer on several spin-offs, who has every reason to have met with a fellow spin-off editor in person at some point and talked licenses.
At any rate, you have yet to provide any new evidence to overturn the decision of the earlier FP debates on how to handle "the Homeworld". The Kelsey Hooper case is all-new, and I'm willing to talk about this. But you still haven't justified poking the hornets' nests again when a working system had been reached after a long, long discussion, years ago.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Just going to start this off by saying that I can see no way that this thread could be taken to be anything other than genuine, so I do not appreciate the comments of "I'm trying to assume good faith, but this certainly makes it hard" and "It's obvious what's going on here". Nor do I appreciate someone commenting three times only to say that this thread should be deleted. If you think it should be deleted there's no point whatsoever to comment on the subject, leave it alone and the admins will see to it.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
Nobody has provided any evidence of an example similar to The Homeworld / Gallifrey - where a concept has literally been hijacked. The earlier comments about Bernice Summerfield and Irving Braxiatel are not the same as all their appearances have been licensed by their copyright holder and always intended to be the same characters.
I can only think of one other instance in Yssgaroth / Great Vampire, and these too should be separated in my opinion.
With both "The Homeworld" and "Yssgaroth", they were presented as alternative names for "Gallifrey" and "Great Vampires" and were likely sought out by the Faction Paradox team as an easy work-around (likely what LilPotato was meaning when they said that Lars Pearson had contacted Marc Platt for use of the title "The Homeworld"). But these are still not licensed appearances of the original concepts, and should be kept separate.
It would be just the same as someone gaining the license for the name "the Oncoming Storm" and creating a character around it, this character isn't suddenly licensed to be the Doctor.
- Scrooge MacDuck
You may argue the specifics of "the Homeworld", but just going to mention that Yssgaroth is a very different matter. The Yssgaroth is presented as an impersonal force of evil from the beginning of creation, of whom the "big leathery monsters" known as Great Vampires and depicted in State of Decay were explicitly just one of many forms.
And we know, from interviews, that what happened was Lawrence Miles wanted an impersonal-force-of-evil-from-the-beginning-of-creation in FP, and wanted the name "Yssgaroth" for it because it was cool. He couldn't have cared less about State of Decay.
At any rate, why should they be separate? You keep asserting this, but… why? Where in policy does it say that? The page Gallifrey is about a certain piece of real estate in the DWU. Whether it be known by the copyrighted name "Gallifrey" or the copyrighted name "The Homeworld", it is the same rock, and Lungbarrow outright says the rock called "the Homeworld" is the same rock as the rock called "Gallifrey". Why do you want us to obscure this basic fact? You keep acting as though the BBC owns the rock, but they do not. They own the name "Gallifrey" and a finite list of features. But no single person owns the entire concept.
And likewise, no single person entirely owns The Doctor. There are individual incarnations whose appearances and quirks belong to their original creators; and the vast majority of events in the Doctor's lives are likewise owned by the authors of the various stories featuring the Doctor. It would be goddamn insane to separate the page The Doctor on that basis.
The only difference is that in the case of Gallifrey, one of the copyrighted features is the name.
To answer your hypothetical, I am, actually, pretty sure that if someone got the legal right to say "the Oncoming Storm did X, Y and Z", and we had valid sources saying The Doctor was the only individual ever known by the title of "the Oncoming Storm", we should put this information on the page "The Doctor". Whether we should put that story on The Doctor - list of appearances is a separate question. But no license would be broken and the "Oncoming Storm" story would be talking about the same in-universe individual. Why are you against this?
- Najawin
It's deeply misleading to say I commented three times only to say the thread should be deleted when each time I brought up specific arguments you have consistently ignored in this thread and continue to do so. To say that in the same breath as to say you see no way this thread could be taken as anything other than genuine is, well, breathtaking.
Regardless, your claim about the Yssgaroth is just factually incorrect, as Scrooge has discussed. Which, you know, is stated on their page on this wiki. Certainly the concept denoted by that name has little to do with the original Great Vampires seen in State of Decay, but they're the same continuous concept, that has evolved over time.
In much the same way, the original conception of Gallifrey is completely different from what we see in The Deadly Assassin is different from what is seen in Lungbarrow. But this continuous concept is all kept on one page. And FP took elements of the last depiction there, the gothic horror, Great Houses, etc, and took that to be their defining aesthetic.
As a wiki we care about this continuous concept, if we can clearly establish narratively that they're the same, we're done. That's the precedent that exists.
- Epsilon the Eternal
And User:DiSoRiEnTeD1, I also would like to know why you are against the current pages, and why you want them split.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
So, I will try to explain my points as clearly as possible:
The character of Bernice Summerfield came at a time where writers often retained their original concepts / characters. This meant that Paul Cornell owned the copyright for Bernice and has licensed her individually in all of her appearances. Therefore Bernice has been the same character throughout (unless said to be a parallel version, clone or other) and deserves a single page. I can only assume that this is the same case with Gary Russell and Irving Braxiatel.
The reason that this is different when it comes to The Homeworld and Yssgaroth is that these creations were not original, they were tethered to the already copyrighted concepts Gallifrey and Great Vampires. These separate names can be seen as unique enough to allow them to appear in other works, but they are by no means appearances of the original unless licensed to be so. It seems that Lawrence Miles and Lars Pearson, or whoever, contacted Marc Platt and Neil Penswick about obtaining their individual names for these properties as a way of getting round not being able to use them.
But the fact is... that these appearances are only licensed versions of those created by Marc and Neil, and not the original creations and therefore they should not be on the same page whatsoever.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Epsilon the Eternal wrote: And User:DiSoRiEnTeD1, I also would like to know why you are against the current pages, and why you want them split.
Because they have no rights to be on the same page whatsoever.
- Najawin
The wiki does not care about legal rights when it comes to demarcating pages.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Because they have no rights to be on the same page whatsoever.
But you don't represent the BBC, so you shouldn't worry about about the legal rights. Whatever happened to just enjoying a story, and why are you so against the pages being together? If you don't like something, simply ignore it. The whoniverse is big enough for you to find stories that bring you joy.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Literally the second rule in the “four little rules” says that these stories need to be commercially licensed by ALL copyright holders or the entire thing isn’t valid.
So the way I see it, we either count these as the separate prosperities The Homeworld and Yssgaroth (that have been individually licensed) or a debate needs to be reopened about counting Faction Paradox series as a whole. Because there is no proof that they were given the legal rights to use Gallifrey or the Great Vampires.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Did you know that in The Snowmen (TV story), that the appearance of the Great Intelligence was unlicenced? But never in a million years will The Snowmen (TV story) be invalid.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
That's the first I've heard that the Great Intelligence was unlicensed, can you provide a source for that? I'm genuinely interested. I know that Archibald Hamish Lethbridge-Stewart was unlicensed in Twice Upon a Time and the estates involved were pretty angry, swooped in and claimed the license.
- Scrooge MacDuck
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Literally the second rule in the “four little rules” says that these stories need to be commercially licensed by ALL copyright holders or the entire thing isn’t valid.
As has been pointed out before, T:VS regulates what stories we cover, not how we cover them. The Book of the War is licensed by all relevant copyright-holders, because it doesn't need the license to use the word "Gallifrey" to be able to say things about the rock previously identified as Gallifrey. Fercrissake. We've been over this. The legal entity "Gallifrey" is not the same thing as "the in-universe planet called Gallifrey", and it is legally possible to use what can only be the latter without having a license to the former.
What you have not been over is new. Rotting. 'Evidence. We have asked you several times what new facts you are bringing to the table that weren't discussed in the original debates which established the current policy regarding our treatment of "the Homeworld". Why do you not answer this extremely relevant question?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
It is not your job to demand new evidence from me, if you think that there's no new evidence - state that, and leave it to an admin. I didn't realise that The Homeworld had already been over, but regardless this page is about a much bigger problem with pages as a whole.
But, until told by an admin that I am not allowed to talk about the Homeworld / Gallifrey - I will.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I am not saying you are not allowed to talk about the Homeworld/Gallifrey thing. In fact I am begging you to do that very thing. I am imploring you to look at the earlier discussion and engage with it. Show me quotes! Show me admin citations from the old debate! Identify oversights and problems in reasoning in the old thread; go through what has already been established and, if there are mistakes, show me where they were.
In short, be constructive, instead of us wasting our time going in circles about things that were already discussed, heedless of those that came before!
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
The threads that you have shown me were for Faction Paradox as a whole, I don't believe the Homeworld / Gallifrey debate was looked at specifically in the ruling (certainly not in @CzechOut's closing announcement).
- Scrooge MacDuck
This post restates the basic rule-of-thumb, which is acknowledged as a "rule" by (now-former, departed) administrator User:Amorkuz in his reply. The thread was then closed by User:Shambala108 without any additional statement, confirming that as far as the admins were concerned, that was indeed the rule.
I also recommend you read through Thread:209869 — don't let the title fool you, this thread spends a significant of time establishing that yes, a FP story can and did in fact involve a character who, by logical implication relative to what is shown in a story licensed to use the Doctor, can only have been the Doctor. Ditto for the Doctor's TARDIS. The stories didn't themselves mention anything which constituted copyright-infringement, but contained elements which, when cross-referenced with the novel, allowed us to acknowledge that "the cuckoo pilot" is the Doctor. And, again with then-admin Amorkuz's blessing, we did.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
At risk of offending, I'm not quite sure if she still posts here, Nate was a hardcore Faction Paradox fan - I think it was, and still is, unwise to have him create the rules regarding that series' inclusion. And, Interference had the rights to use the Doctor so (while not explicitly stated) they were allowed to make those connections.
I challenge you to find any example similar to that of "The Homeworld" / Gallifrey and Yssgaroth / Great Vampires.
- Scrooge MacDuck
User:NateBumber is A) male, B) still active, just busy with RL stuff at the moment. And he did not create the rules. He proposed them as the OP of the first successful FP inclusion debate. But it is the fact that his suggestions were accepted by impartial admins Amorkuz, Shambala and (more broadly) CzechOut, which I think are relevant here.
At any rate, though, if "liking the thing under discussion" is now a conflict of interest on this Wiki, welp, better throw out everything in Tardis:Valid source written by User:CzechOut, because I'm pretty sure Czech is a fan of Doctor Who, so it seems unwise to have him create the framework of the rules about how to cover Doctor Who on this Wiki. Also I guess User:Shambala108 is now banned from closing any threads about Bernice Summerfield. And you should only create inclusion debates about stories you hate.
Please read the thread I linked you to. In the analogy, Interference isn't the The Book of the War equivapent, it's the Lungbarrow equivalent. The story that was under discussion in the thread was Toy Story.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Would you be able to present me your questions again, Scrooge. I always find your posts a tad long, nothing wrong with that, but I end up missing a few points and am later accused of ignoring questions. Your last few have mostly been about telling me to read things so I can't even remember what was being asked of me.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Being thorough is surely no crime, and it is incumbent upon other posters to reread the conversation before they post. Maybe threads wouldn't become so dashed long if they did. All the same, the main unanswered questions are:
- On what new evidence are you reopening this debate relative to the decisions taken in the old FP threads?
- Why do you believe merging or splitting pages should correspond to the number of copyrights at play, rather than to in-universe identity between two names (whether they are different copyrights or not) as established ina valid source?
- Why should being a fan of something prevent one from making a policy proposal, especially one that was objectively accepted by admins?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
In truth its not really the length of your posts, but you do have a habit to excessively edit - I don't mind a little edit, but you added over 200 extra words without me realising during my last comment. Alas, its not for me to moderate.
First question: I have no new evidence. I have said that I didn't realise a discussion on this topic had already existed, and looking back I don't believe this individual debate got a proper look in. Those were early days and Faction Paradox had only just been allowed onto the Wikia, so surely things were going to fall though the net and obviously this has - along with all the other instances I have mentioned; Kelsey Hooper, Auteur, etc.
I think that pages should only cover fully licensed information. The only time Gallifrey was stated to be the Homeworld was in Lungbarrow (I believe, there could be other instances). This story was licensed to make this connection, however none of the subsequent stories have had the license to make this connection - therefore have not been licensed appearances of Gallifrey, as such the information should be on a separate page and the appearances removed from the LOA.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
As you added another question in a subsequent edit I'll answer it here...
I didn't say being a fan of something should stop you from making policies. I said "hardcore fan", I know that Nate has written for Faction Paradox and worked on the FP Wikia before and so may have an invested interest. That may be wrong, but I think that a neutral admin (who hadn't written for FP) should have written out the concrete rules regarding topics like the Homeworld.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Right, they haven't been licensed appearances of the word/copyright "Gallifrey". But in-universe, it's the same planet. Not implicitly — it's sheer logic that it's the same planet. I mean, what would you proposing we do, implementation-wise? "According to one account, the Homeworld was another name for Gallifrey, home to the Great Houses of the Time Lords… whereas according to another account the Homeworld was the home of the Great Houses"? There isn't actually a textual contradiction here, so I don't even know how we could possibly write such a thing if we wanted to.
The "List of Appearances" is a point on which I'm willing to talk. We could have Homeworld - list of appearances and Gallifrey - list of appearances and a single in-universe history for both; because lists of appearances are real-world pages. But in in-universe terms, valid sources say the Homeworld and Gallifrey are one. I really don't see what a feasible way of splitting them would be, let alone what the point of such a thing would be.
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: however none of the subsequent stories have had the license to make this connection - therefore have not been licensed appearances of Gallifrey
Except each of them have licensed the Homeworld concept that appeared in Lungbarrow. Instead of funny hats and meddling incompetent bureaucrats you get gothic horror and the political machinations of the Great Houses.
This concept is part of the concept of Gallifrey thanks to the portrayal of Gallifrey in Lungbarrow. As such they are continuous concepts and belong on the same page.
- Scrooge MacDuck
As for the FP threads being old, please read Thread:275996. And they're really not that old as these things go.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
How is it the same planet? The cannot use anything relating to Gallifrey, so the only connection is through the licensed story because... it was licensed to make that connection. As things go forward these two entities will forever shift apart and will get more different and more contradictory, because they are not under the same licensing or control. They are not the same thing.
You can hardly separate the Homeworld's LOA and Gallirey's if you think they're the same place.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Najawin I saw you kudo'ed Epsilon's post about the Great Intelligence - does that mean you know anything about it being unlicensed for the Snowmen?
- Scrooge MacDuck
They can use plenty of things related to Gallifrey. To wit: the Great Houses. The anchoring of the thread. Looms. The caldera and entry-point of the Yssgaroth. The name 'the Homeworld'.
The fact that those things diverge and become "contradictory" has nothing to do with anything. The Eighth Doctor sure diverged quite a bit in the books compared to the audios compared to the comics, but unlike Big Finish themselves, we don't go raving about alternative timelines. We just report the facts, warts and all.
You speak of things having to be "under the same licensing or control", but, as pointed out at T:CANON, the beautiful thing is that in the DWU, ain't no such thing.
- Epsilon the Eternal
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
Every single one of those things you mentioned are allowed to be used because they are original creations and licensed by the copyright holders. Not comparable to Gallifrey itself, once again.
- Najawin
The Haisman Estate is also involved in the Great Intelligence and has historically felt snubbed by the BBC. It's deeply believable, but I don't have a specific source.
- Scrooge MacDuck
How many ways can I rephrase this? No one single person owns everything about Gallifrey. The BBC happen to own the name "Gallifrey" and the fact that it's orange. But per T:NPOV, you can't say the fact that it is peopled with the Great Houses, or that one of its main landmarks is the Caldera, is any less important to what Gallifrey is than "it's orange" and "it's called Gallifrey". (As it happens, according to equally-valid other accounts, it's called Jewel, instead.)
Ten different people can own different facets of the copyright, and every single of them will, in in-universe terms, be talking about the same sodding rock. Doesn't mean any of them are breaking copyright. You could just as easily say that the BBC aren't licensed to use the Time Lords, because they're not allowed to mention Omega without Bob Baker's say so and Omega is unquestionably an essential elements of who the Time Lords are.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
@Epsilon the Eternal thank you, that's genuinely news to me and I'm completely shocked. I'm guessing, like with Archibald, that they reclaimed the licensing?
- Najawin
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: The cannot use anything relating to Gallifrey, so the only connection is through the licensed story because... it was licensed to make that connection. [emphasis mine]
DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Every single one of those things you mentioned are allowed to be used because they are original creations and licensed by the copyright holders.
???
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
I am not in the slightest suggesting that The Homeworld is any less important than Gallifrey, but I am saying that they should be house on separate pages because they are extremely contradictory and this will only continue because they aren't intended to be the same thing (or the BBC would have allowed their name to be used!).
- Epsilon the Eternal
Discontinuity is not grounds for pages to be split, otherwise there would literally be dozens of pages for varying accounts of the Doctor (not including separate incarnations).
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
But the Doctor is all licensed by one entity?
- Scrooge MacDuck
No the Doctor isn't, I believe I have mentioned the point before.
But that's immaterial.
Either your argument is about licenses or it's about continuity.
There is no relationship between the two. Sure, the separately-licensed BBC Gallifrey and "the Homeworld" contradict each other a little bit, but BBC accounts of Gallifrey contradict themselves just as much, if not moreso.
- Najawin
Here's a fun one. I asked about this at Talk:List of recurring Doctor Who concepts not owned by the BBC, but how would we handle Vastra? Apparently Moffat owns Vastra as an individual character but the BBC owns The Paternoster Gang as a recurring group. Would we have one page dedicated to her appearance in A Good Man Goes to War as well as her solo appearances and then another dedicated to all of her other appearances with Strax and Jenny Flint?
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
What I have been trying to explain is that it doesn't matter how many parities have a share in a certain property; as long as they all agree and consent to the depiction.
Madame Vastra may be owned by both Moffat, as an individual character, and the BBC within the Paternoster Gang (I don't know for sure at all though). But so far all partities have agreed, consented and licensed all of her appearances - so it has been the same character throughout. No need for a split page. But if Moffat went off on his own and began developing Vastra as his own character - he could do so, and she would become a new character in her own (now with the added limitation of not being able to reference her DWU exploits).
This is the same for Gallifrey / the Homeworld. The licensees may have agreed in the depiction for Lungbarrow but since then Faction Paradox has developed the Homeworld on their own. This fundamentally separates the two.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh dear lord, back to this nonsensical "FP is a different universe" urban myth again? No. The original Faction Paradox debate was all about squashing once and for all the misguided notion that FP was intended to develop into its own universe, discontinuous with the DWU. FP did not change the orange piece of real estate any more or less than The Timeless Children did.
And are you seriously saying that if Moffat used his ownership of Vastra to create a book series about her that wasn't allowed to mention Jenny and Strax, we would then have to cover her as a separate character? I hate to be disrespectful but what in the name of sanity are you talking about? How does this differ from, again, Bernice Summerfield no longer being allowed to mention she used to travel with the Doctor, or any number of other past companions and enemies of the Doctor who got their own non-BBC spinoff which weren't allowed to directly mention the events of their Doctor Who appearances?
- Najawin
The problem is, you're simply wrong in saying that she would become a new character if Moffat went off and developed Vastra in a new spinoff. She'd be the same character. That would be the entire point. (CF: Bernice Summerfield)
The wiki would treat her as the same character. Nothing you've said can overcome this hurdle. The in universe wiki descriptions care about concepts, and how concepts can be continuously traced through narratives, not legal rights.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Actually, they can mention their DWU exploits, just without using copyrighted names, etc.
- Najawin
Look. This thread is approaching 90 messages as is, that's a lot for an admin to read. Let's leave it for now until one of them comments. Okay?
- Epsilon the Eternal
Sure, it's just going around in circles anyway. I honestly feel sorry for the admin who has to go through this thread.
- DiSoRiEnTeD1
You are being completely disrespectful - highlighting letters questioning my sanity? Ridiculous. So yes, I think it is time we took a break - as we should have long ago (and what I suggested you should have done the moment you believed that this thread was intended for "immediate deletion").
The end of the matter it - the Homeworld hasn't been a licensed appearance of Gallifrey since Lungbarrow.
- Epsilon the Eternal
It does not work like that. Not sure why it keeps going over your head.
- Epsilon the Eternal
Now let's shut up 'til an admin comes and clears this bloomin' mess.
Closing this thread per T:POINT. I encourage those who wish to pursue these specific cases further to visit Talk:Auteur and Talk:Kelsey Hooper. As with every other case, they must pass muster. Refer to the above (as well as Thread:208233#14) for the applicable standards to bring up in these discussions.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:280013
How can this wiki say a variety of characters are all "'the Monk"?
First, I am NOT saying that "the Monk is the Master". I use the Master here as examples.
So, this wiki has separate pages for The Master, Man with the Rosette, Stream (The Hollows of Time) and The War King. The explanation is that "this wiki uses narrative not authorial intent". Nobody can possibly deny that "The man with the rosette", "Professor Stream" and "the War King" were all intended to be the Master", but this wiki has ruled that there is insufficient narrative to combine them into a single article.
And, to the issue at hand..."The Monk". First, obviously Peter Butterworth clearly played the exact same character in two television serials The Time Meddler (TV story) and The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story).
But then the problems start.
First up, a character only ever identified as the Time Meddler appears in 4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story). Undoubtedly intent was that he be the same character as the character Butterworth played onscreen. But there is NOTHING in the narrative of this comic to link him as the same character. Seriously, watch the two serials, then read the comic. Nada. it's all intent.
Then, a character called "the Meddling Monk" appears in Follow That TARDIS! (comic story). Again intent is clear. But again, apart from the fact that "the meddling monk" was the name of an individual episode of a tv serial, NOTHING. This could be said to be a third character.
Next up, a character called "Mortimus" appears in No Future (novel), and... the only way we 'know' who "Mortimus" is is by...authorial intent. There is nothing to directly link him to any character that ever appeared in Doctor Who before. His backstory is certainly very different to any character that ever appeared in Doctor Who before No Future (novel).
Another(?) "Mortimus" makes an appearance in Divided Loyalties (novel). But, you may say, TWO Time Lords both called "Mortimus"..must be the same guy. However this wiki has two separate pages for The War Chief and Magnus (Flashback). And this wiki's policy is that even though we know that the War Chief was a friend of the Doctor's from the Academy who used the name "Magnus" while at the Academy...we can't combine the friend of the Doctor's from the Academy called "Magnus" into one article. And there is nothing apart from the fact that there are two Time Lords both called "Mortimus". One explicitly knew the Doctor from the Academy, the other explicitly did not. And the No Future (novel) Mortimus was stranded on an ice planet which motivated an entire Virgin New Adventures arc, something which never happened to the Divided Loyalties (novel) Mortimus. Oh, and there is nothing in-narrative that links either Mortimus to the character from The Time Meddler (TV story) and The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story). Next up, Big Finish Productions gave us two incarnations of a Time Lord called "the Meddling Monk". There was a Time Lord called "the Meddling Monk" in Follow That TARDIS! (comic story), which would mean that that could be the same character, except if Magnus(The War Chief) and Magnus (Flashback) can't be the same character despite having the same name, and both being friends at the Academy with the Doctor, then what narrative material to say that the Meddling Monk from Follow That TARDIS! (comic story) is the same Big Finish Meddling Monk? And, of course, the biography/backstory of Big Finish's Meddling Monk is completely contradictory to the character from The Time Meddler (TV story) and The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story). And, it is established in both The Book of Kells (audio story) and The Black Hole (audio story), that the Doctor and Big Finish's Meddling Monk never knew each other on Gallifrey. Whereas, in The Rani Elite (audio story), the Doctor speaks of his friend "Mortimus" from the Academy. Which means that "Mortimus from the Academy" and "the Meddling Monk" are two separate Time Lords.
So, if we have separate The War Chief and Magnus (Flashback) articles, and if this article uses narrative not authorial intent, then WHERE IS THE NARRATIVE to link 5 or 6 separate characters? 1) The character Peter Butterworth played in The Time Meddler (TV story) and The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story). 2) The Time Meddler in 4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story) 3) Mortimus from No Future (novel) 4) Another Mortimus in Divided Loyalties (novel) 5) The Meddling Monk in The Book of Kells (audio story) et el. 6) The Meddling Monk from Follow That TARDIS! (comic story). (Maybe the same character as #5).
Again, authorial intent was that this was one character. But the same is true of The Master, Stream (The Hollows of Time), The War King and Man with the Rosette. Authorial intent was that the War King, Stream and the Man with the Rosette were all the Master. But, depsite authorial intent, there is insufficient in-narrative to link them.
So, where is the in-narrative to link "the monk", "the Time Meddler", "Mortimus"(who was friends with the Doctor at the Academy),"Mortimus"(who never knew the Doctor on Gallifrey" and "The Meddling Monk" into one singular "the Monk" page?
And if the Doctor had two friends at the Academy on Gallifrey both called "Magnus"(The War Chief and Magnus (Flashback)), then why can't there be two "Meddling Monks" as well? Where is Follow That TARDIS! (comic story) referenced in any Big Finish story?
Certainly, if nothing else, there is nothing to link the character from 4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story) to any other character from any other story. And The Rani Elite (audio story) and The Black Hole (audio story) make it explicit that "Mortimus from the Academy" and "the Meddling Monk" are two separate characters.
- Najawin
- 197.83.246.23
Najawin wrote: Thread:278505#10
Please make comments on topic here.
Is there in-narrative that links these different characters together. We know authorial intent, but this wiki sues narrative not authorial intent. Do you have narrative that explicitly links these characters together?
- Najawin
Said thread was closed due to lack of narrative evidence for your view. T:BOUND applies.
- 197.83.246.23
Najawin wrote: Said thread was closed due to lack of narrative evidence for your view. T:BOUND applies.
So, what does that have to do with this? Please KEEP ON TOPIC. Your last posts here have been disruptive.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm not sure what exactly User:Najawin is saying when they say the earlier thread was closed due to "lack of narrative evidence for your view". The reason for this simple: I haven't the faintest idea what your actual view is.
You've created a number of thread, and with each new one the pattern repeats you throwing a bunch of (interpretations of) tangential facts at us, without a clear structure, let alone any sort of coherent suggestion. Not to toot by own horn, but look how I handled a somewhat similar topic in a much more orderly fashion at Thread:257167: clearly separating the evidence and my interpretation of it, separating the OP into several steps of the reasoning, and clearly spelling out what the material changes on the Wiki would be every step of the way.
I find your evidence shaky at best in a lot of cases — how does AUDIO: The Black Hole prove anything about whether the Meddling Monk is Mortimus-from-the-Academy, exactly? — but assuming for a moment if it is genuine, could you please give us a breakdown of how many pages you want created, and what info should go on what page? Then we might possibly get somewhere.
I think we can all agree that for the sake of anyone's sanity, the forum shouldn't be cluttered with formless threads full of hard-to-decipher facts, where no one seems interested in putting forward a practical, implementable solution.
- 197.83.246.23
In The Black Hole (audio story) Rufus Hound's Meddling Monk explicitly states that he first met the Doctor off-planet. Sorry I don't have the exact quote, but I'll maybe re-listen.
In The Rani Elite (audio story), while the Sixth Doctor and the Rani are talking, they both remember their friend Mortimus, who they were friends with on the Academy at Gallifrey.
Get it?
Meanwhile, if it's narrative, not authorial intent, then name ONE thing that is purely narrative from 4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story) that unambiguously means that the "Time Meddler" in that comic story is the same character who appeared in any other Doctor Who story.
That's why this thread is named what it is. It is well-known what the intent was. But that's not how this wiki works.
Using narrative, there is clear separation. What I am trying to find out, and what I hope others can/will help with, is using narrative, how many different characters there are, who are unable to be linked through the narrative. And then, the next step would be to decide what to do once that issue becomes clear and consensus.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:280033
Simple really. We know that the story contained in eg. a book, an audio, a graphic novel is the narrative.
But does the cover count as part of the narrative? If something is never stated within the actual story/narrative, but there is something on a cover which seems to indicate it, is that enough to include it as aprt of the narrative? Personally, I don't think it should, as this example illustrates.. [68]
![[68]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1405912255l/332284.jpg){kind=link}
(Perhaps another issue, maybe the same as this...should illustrations for a text story be used as narrative? As an example, in Birth of a Renegade (short story), the illustrations clearly depict the Anthony Ainley incarnation of The Master, despite that being impossible.. [69]
![[69]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/0/0b/Birth_of_a_Renegade_illustration_3.jpg/revision/latest/top-crop/width/360/height/450?cb=20160722222251){kind=link}
If this needs to be two separate issues, I understand. But can the "final word" be judged based solely on the illustration(s) on the cover?
- Najawin
Arguably this thread violates T:POINT, but no, covers aren't (inherently) narrative (obviously you can put a comic book on your cover and then it's narrative). However, covers can give us an interpretative stance into reading a text, or provide more evidence for a particular reading of a text. Similar to authorial interviews or publisher summaries, these things are not part of the narrative, but they do comment on the narrative, and help us interpret and understand the actual story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It's obvious that covers aren't narrative in a void, but there is an argument to be made that covers can be part of the narrative in some cases; certainly, illustrations can be part of the narrative of a novel or other prose story (we'd certainly be insane to think Dr. Twelfth primarily consists of the written text).
And while some covers are more like advertisements, featuring images of the characters' faces in an imaginary situation, there is the occasional cover which illustrates a specific event from the story, like any other illustration.
(Incidentally, T:NPOV and T:VS taken together should take care of your distaste for the Birth of a Renegade illustration's assertion that an early incarnation of the Master happened to look like Tremas. It's weird, but it's not impossible within a big strange universe like the DWU, and it seeming discontinuous with other stories proves nothing.)
- 197.83.246.23
However, another issue is : Do we accept that the illustration accurately portrays the character in said story? In addition to Birth of a Renegade (short story), there are other issues. For instance, in Nemesis of the Daleks (comic story), the Seventh Doctor appears. Looking like this [70]. Or in the text story The Sinister Sponge (short story) there is an illustration looking like this [71]. The text tells us that the Fourth Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan all appear in this story. So, from the narrative, this is a Fourth Doctor/Sarah Jane Smith/Harry Sullivan story. But nobody would accept that the three leads look the way the illustration depicts them.
Another problem(of many) is the infamous cover of Doctor Who and the Dinosaur Invasion (novelisation) [72]. Does that illustration mean that the dinosaurs all made that sound? Or that the Doctor was in black-and-white, while the dinosaurs were in colour?
Thus, covers are just that. I do not believe they just influence the way we "see" the text at all.
In addition, some actual illustrations are clearly "wrong". Even though they were the ones published, it opens up a whole lot of problems if that was what the Season 12 TARDIS crew actually looked like in The Sinister Sponge (short story).
- 197.83.246.23
^^Spellcheck made a mistake. That should read "I do not believe they MUST influence the way we "see" the text at all".
![[70]](http://alteredvistas.co.uk/assets/images/Seventh57.gif){kind=link}
![[71]](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/tardis/images/a/ab/Dr_Who_The_sinsister_sponge_2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150825170143){kind=link}
![[72]](https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/kklak.jpg){kind=link}
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:280326
So, I've been looking over the old Forums and I think it's time to retire the Howling.
There's not much posting going on there anymore, and with the addition of the Spoilers tag in the easier to access Discussions, I think it might be time to archive the old forum. Thoughts?
- Scrooge MacDuck
This Wiki has yet to come to any kind of decision as to what we'll do when FANDOM forces us to retire the Forum and moves its contents to Discussions.
However, I am of the opinion that it would be much, much, much wiser for us to return to the old wiki-style Forum (you know, like those), as far as serious discussions for creation of policy are concerned. In my capacity as Wikimaster of a different Wiki, I contacted FANDOM Staff to make sure that this was possible, and they confirmed that it would take a simple request for them to unarchive the old "talk-page-like" forums.
The Discussions app may be of easier access to casual mobile users, but it is incomparably worse for serious discussions where you want to be able to post long messages with complex formatting, several images interwoven with the text, test out templates, etc. We couldn't possibly have something like Thread:267362 in Discussions unless Staff fundamentally change the workings of Discussions in ways they never said they would.
It is flat-out not possible to write even halfway-complex template code in a Discussions post, and that alone should condemn Discussions to remain what it is — a place for users to chat more casually about Doctor Who, rather than have rational and structured discussions about Wiki policy.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Uh, Scrooge, I think you misinterpreted my statement. I'm not trying to shut down all the forums. I'm just saying that the HOWLING specifically, which was only used to discuss spoilers and such, might not be needed now.
If anything, I'd be fine with moving to the old forums. (Although I prefer the current version). But I'm only talking about the Howling, which USED to be the prime hub to talk about spoilers. But when discussions came, there was an easier route: Using the Spoilers! tag.
Again, only the Howling. Not the forums
- Scrooge MacDuck
I understand that, but I thought you were implying you thought that what we do on the current forum was going to Discussions as well, once the current forum was deleted by FANDOM. (Which, again, it will be whether we like it or not, likely within a month or two.)
If we were going to move all policy-making to Discussions anyway, I would see the sense in deciding that the Spoilers thread on Discussions take the place of the Howling. But if we're going to instead go back to the Old Forums, which I, for one, think is the only truly rational choice under the circumstances — then it would be really weird to archive the Howling for being harder to use than Discussions even though our forum is going to work exactly like that too.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Wait, they're deleting these forums? Huh, didn't hear about that. I'd be okay with moving the forums to the old type, as a place to discuss complex policy instead of the more lax discussions.
Even so, my point still does stand somewhat. Like, the discussions will still be up. Most people, if they're going to talk about Spoilers, won't go to the forums, but will go to discussions. Like, look at the Howling's activity. Barely anyone anymore.
The rest of the forums being transferred to old makes since, due to forum threads being more complex than typical discussions. But I personally think the Howling is kinda outdated and lays in an older time when Discussions wasn;t around and there was no where to discuss spoilers.
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's not wrong, but the Howling does have a use for Wiki-related matters, as opposed to merely "hey do you guys have any guesses as to who the next Doctor will be?". It is, in theory, a place where users can go to discuss how-we'll-handle-X-on-the-Wiki-once-it's-no-longer-a-spoiler. Even if it hasn't seen that much use in that respect either. For example, it'd be the only correct place to discuss some issue with a group of still-spoilered series pages.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Hmm, interesting. I'd never really thought of that angle before. Although, I'd like to put forth the motion that we should be allowed to discuss stuff like you mentioned in the Panopticon, as it can occasionally be odd to try and navigate wiki policy discussion without mentioning spoilers.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I think it would go against the spirit of T:SPOIL to allow spoilers in any old Panopticon thread. However, so long as the title itself doesn't mention any spoilerific info, it might be feasible to borrow a page from the Discuss playbook and introduce the option to create "spoiler threads" in the Panopticon with spoilers right in the title.
Let's say, for example, that we're in 2013 some time before The Name of the Doctor airs, and someone encountered the spoiler of the War Doctor's existence. Within the system I'm imagining, that someone could, weeks before the War Doctor's actual non-spoilered debut, have created a Panopticon thread called something like
"(SPOILERS) Necessary updates based on information from the end of Series 7"
on which to already put together a working model of an updated Template:Doctors, to compile a list of Time War-related pages which would need editing, etc. Hence allowing thorough coverage of the War Doctor practically overnight as soon as Day of the Doctor aired.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Yeah, threads tagged with spoilers sounds good. And especially if we're going to return to the old style of forums, then we could put in the spoiler template.
- Shambala108
I think User:Scrooge MacDuck covered most of the basics. There's no need to retire the Howling.
- Shambala108
And there will be no alteration to Tardis:Spoiler policy, as it's not fair to exclude from forum discussions anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:280957
At the moment, we have pages for:
Whilst I think that the Kovarian Chapter deserves its own page, there is certainly a lot of overlap for the other three. The Church and the Papal Mainframe are the same and the page for the Silence is about both the Church and the Kovarian Chapter, seeming rather confused.
How should we go about merging these pages and what actually is the Silence? The Church and the Papal Mainframe certainly should be merged.
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
If I'm correct, I think that the page about the Church is about the overall organisation, the Papal Mainframe is about that specific church ship, and the Silence is referring to the subgroup inside the Church.
But you're 100% correct. There's a lot of overlap between them and they might need to be merged or at the very least, somewhat cleaned up.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
I think that The Church and Papal Mainframe should be merged and The Silence needs a clean-up. Currently, it seems confused about whether it is about the Church following Tasha Lem's reform or the Kovarian Chapter.
- Xx-connor-xX
Yes, the Church and the Papal Mainframe should be merged - it’s all one title “The Church of the Papal Mainframe”. But the Silence and Kovarian Chapter should remain separate as the Kovarian Chapter was a sub-group.
- Najawin
It also seems wrong to categorize The Silence as a religious order, when in fact it's explicitly a doctrine in the episode. There's no offshoot happening, the entire Church has committed fully to the idea that a new doctrine, the doctrine of Silence, should be upheld. (The episode is actually rather clear on this.) But yes, this entire thing is a mess.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I disagree with the merge of The Church and Papal Mainframe. As the latter page makes clear, the specific term of "Papal Mainframe" applies to the giant spaceship-temple thing in The Time of the Doctor. The Church can be referred to as "the Church of the Papal Mainframe" because the location called the Papal Mainframe is its headquarters.
In other words, arguing that we should merge The Church and Papal Mainframe because of the usage of the phrase "Church of the Papal Mainframe" sounds, to me, like saying we should merge Church of England with England — or Catholic Church with Rome on account of a couple of accounts calling it "the Church of Rome".
I am, however, open to renaming The Church to Church of the Papal Mainframe. But we should keep the page Papal Mainframe about the actual physical thing in Time of the Doctor that they call "the Papal Mainframe".
Also, @Najawin, you write:
There's no offshoot happening, the entire Church has committed fully to the idea that a new doctrine, the doctrine of Silence, should be upheld.This is true, but the same episode also explicitly says that the Kovarian Chapter "went rogue", and that the organisation fought by the Doctor in S6 wasn't really the Church (now Church of the Silence) itself, but rather a particular renegade subdivision of the Church of the Silence. The Silence is the doctrine of the Church during the Siege of Trenzalore, but during the same timeframe, the Kovarian Chapter is acting on its own accord under the name of "the Silence". It's quite thorny and defies easy categorization.
- Najawin
Oh, I agree, Kovarian Chapter should remain its own page. I just think how The Silence is currently being handled is fundamentally a misreading of the episode.
- Jack "BtR" Saxon
Sorry, I went and confused myself.
I think the Papal Mainframe needs to be rewritten to be exclusively about the spaceship and that the Silence should be merged with the Church. It's the same church with a new mission statement.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:281339
I'd like to propose making separate character pages for the character from The Pilot Episode, such as The Doctor (The Pilot Episode), for a few reasons. First, the story is invalid, but it links to characters from valid sources, and second, I feel there's enough deviation from the transmitted An Unearthly Child to warrant it. Thoughts?
- Najawin
The story being invalid but linking to characters from valid sources isn't clearly sufficient. See Dr Who and the Turgids as a recently edited example. It's the deviations that we need to consider imo. Are these distinct characters, or just distinct accounts of the same characters, albeit one that is invalid?
- Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived
Well, there's also the differences in character and such. The Doctor's a lot more abrasive, for example.
- Scrooge MacDuck
He might not do or say the exact same things as he does in TV: An Unearthly Child — but is he materially different from the First Doctor? If it's just a valid character appearing, more or less as himself, in an invalid source, we don't really make a separate page, we just use the BTS section of the valid character page.
- Najawin
For instance, without bringing up the larger issue of the validity of the lockdown content, which, dear lord, is a larger conversation that we really need to get back to eventually, it's not immediately obvious that 13 in The Terror of the Umpty Ums or Doctors Assemble! acts as she does normally. But does that mean we think this is a distinct character? Or just different characterization on the part of the writers?
As both User:Scrooge MacDuck and User:Najawin point out, a character acting differently than usual is not enough justification to claim that it's a different person. As anyone who has watched television can attest, different writers can be extremely inconsistent with a character's, well, characterization.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:281628
I have noticed an inconsistency in the way that we handle describing the species of characters who are of the nature of fictions come to life, particularly in the case they are representations of other real world and/or DWU species. For example;
Mona Lisa has her species listed as painting.
Articles like Lemuel Gulliver and Childeric studiously avoid using a species entirely.
The article Streaky Bacon explicitly identifies its subject as a "pig".
Now, to get philosophical for a second, can a fictionally created representation of a species truly be said to be a member of it? What defines a "non-human". Certainly, the point of The Holy Terror is that the people in Eugene's World were indeed people, and their slaughter at the hands of the child is a tragedy. But, in the DWU, "people", doesn't always equal "human".
The way I see it, we have multiple options;
1. Call each one a "unique being" (seems a bit odd to me, but, hey, we're all individuals!)
2. Have each "variety" of fictional character as its own species (i.e. Land of Fiction creation, Living painting, etc.)
3. List stuff like "cartoon", "painting", and "novel character" as "species"
4. Have each sub-subversion be a separated species (i.e. Eugene's World humanoids, Crooked World porcines)
5. Treat "fictional character come to life" as a "species", placing Eugene's World people, crooked world creatures, land of fiction people, living paintings, etc. under one banner and as all of the same race (albeit a rather abstract one).
6. Simply studiously avoid any and all species references on any and all such pages
Which should we do? Because at the moment we seem to be inconsistently implementing various variations of the above from article to article. I see no argument for Streaky Bacon being any MORE of a "pig" than Childeric, O'Grady, and Lemuel Gulliver are humans. Maybe Mona Lisa is a little different since she openly balks at being called human and requests to be called a living painting, but, even then, we list CyberConversion victims with self-awareness like Sally Phelan and Yvonne Hartman as "Cybermen", and Oswin Oswald as a "Dalek", designations they would equally protest to. Perhaps there is some other option I haven't though of, but, whichever way it is done, it should at least be somewhat consistent, as, right now, its a free-for-all.
In a nutshell: What measure is a non-human, are living fictions still fictions, and is Panda REALLY a Panda?
- NightmareofEden
Another option I just thought of would to be have "fictional X" as a species, either its own one or a subspecies of X or of fictional being (where X could be any species of which we have seen fictional examples in the DWU; human, pig, witch, vampire, Time Lord, etc.)
- NightmareofEden
But I’ll let others discuss now before just spamming my own thread myself
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'm not quite sure what the difference between 2. and 4. is, but I'd lean towards some mix of those.
Certainly whatever makes Mona Lisa tick in that one SJA episode is a very different set of technobabble from what grants the Lemuel Gulliver in The Mind Robber his (debatably-sentient) existence. It would be disingenuous to lump all the various takes on "technobabble makes fiction real" into one catch-all category when from an in-universe point of view they'd likely quite different things.
Although mind you, this would not prevent the creation of an additional category, not treated as an equivalent of species, called something like Category:Fiction later turned into reality. Being turned from fictional to real, or the reverse, is clearly a valid in-universe mechanic, described in those terms — at least in The Mind Robber. And while it would be insufficient to stand in for regular species categorisation, it would certainly be an interesting category to have around.
It might, alternatively, be a root category all those "subtypes"-based subcategories propsoed by Proposal 2. and/or 4.
- Tangerineduel
I would err on the side of caution and if it's not mentioned we shouldn't try to interpret.
I think for the species of a fictional character to be defined as "real" either they have to define themselves as such or someone within the text has to designate them as such.
In some cases I think the infobox has been overused to simplify a complicated question, so best to keep definitions that are complicated like this out of the infobox and in the body of the article where it can be better explored.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:281925
So, I'd like to suggest adding to the code of templates for deletion and rename the automatic category "Category: Candidates for deletion" for deletion and "Category: Candidates for renaming" for renaming.
The reason you might not know about them is because they're hidden categories (as they are only truly useful for admins, and therefore there's no need to display them for casual reader). If you do want to see them, though, you can change the settings on your profile. Just go to "My Preferences", then "Under the Hood" and click the "Show hidden categories" button.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:282038
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.
- Najawin
A very brief recent discussion about this occurred in Thread:255740. Scrooge says that he has a draft of this discussion in a google doc, and since you pulled the lever on it, I suspect he's going to have a lot to say. Once he's finished, I'll chime in if the small amount of research I've done turned up anything he missed (which I doubt).
- Chubby Potato
Knowing his enthusiasm for this sort of thing, I suspected Scrooge would have something to say; I did not know he had already started on a draft. For the purposes of this discussion, I will provide what he wrote in that thread:
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: (For your personal information, the actual origins of Rule 1 are, as best I can fathom, a series of admin decisions at Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals and Forum:Canon policy: Items on which policy is unclear; the former by User:Trak Nar, who acknowledge that "features" in Dalek annuals were something different from reference works but unilaterally decided they shouldn't be covered as "canon" because the information in them was too silly by modern standards… which surely runs afoul of T:NPOV; and the latter by User:CzechOut who "explains" his reasoning with "I can't see the rationale for including the Technical Manual's ideas of what makes the sonic screwdriver tick in the main body of sonic screwdriver. Primacy must be given to narrative works on in-universe pages.", which is circular reasoning at its finest. Only stories count because… only stoires count??…
I don’t mean any insult towards any of the participants in those early conversations, but surely, in hindsight, we can all see that this isn’t exactly sensible policymaking behaviour. This isn’t a solid base on which to write the first of the four most important rules’’ of this Wiki’s validity policies! But again, that is a thread for another day.)
Well, I guess that's this thread.
- Epsilon the Eternal
This is a rule that has always bothered me for its seeming inanity. I'll be extremely happt to see the back of it.
On the reason why the wiki doesn't accept non-narrative but in-universe information, I think it was because there was an admin ruling that it would be too difficult a task for the admins to go through each non-narrative and decide which ones are valid sources. (Could be completely wrong though.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
If there was such a ruling as User:Epsilon the Eternal recalls, it must have been post-hoc, and it's… well, it'd be in such strident conflict with T:NPOV. Acting as though we can simply decide non-narrative fiction is invalid because it's more convenient is treating said non-narrative fiction as disposable, as somehow less worthy than narrative fiction.
And indeed, I think such a flippant and obviously biased attitude lies at the source of Rule 1, from the very start. If you will permit me to engage in a history lesson…
It is always useful, when trying to change law or policy, to look back at the origins of it. So I did some archeology on how Rule 1 as we know it got started, digging all the way back to the Panopticon Archives.
A Tentative History of Rule 1[[edit] | [edit source]]
Are the Dalek Annulas "canon"?[[edit] | [edit source]]
It all begins around Christmas 2008, in a forum thread called Forum:Canonicity_of_Dalek_Annuals, which should tell you all it needs to know about how archaic this stuff is. It’s over a decade old, for God’s sake, and from a time when not only did we still use “canon”, but it seemed plausible that the Dalek Annuals as a whole might not be canonical!
Of course, the sentiment was widely in favour of the Annuals being made “canon”, and someone even mentioned that strictly speaking there isn’t a canon in Doctor Who, even if it took some time yet for the Wiki to listen to them. It is in the closing statement from (then-admin? if not, that thread never actually had a closing statement) User:Trak Nar — the closing statement of a thread that wasn’t actually about that — that we find the unilateral decision to make non-narrative fiction invalid. To their credit, Trak Nar doesn’t just mean to invalidate reference material and let non-narrative fiction slip past; they genuinely, actively want to invalidate the pieces of non-narrative fiction from the Dalek Annuals. Why?
Oh, while reading through The Dalek World annual, there were some things mentioned that could be added to the Dalek article, but I am hesitant to do so as the information is really stretching it in terms of believeability. For example, page 70, panel 1 says "Did you know, due to the lightness of the metal, a DALEK weighs only two an a half Earth pounds?" I can see the mutant itself weighing only a couple pounds, they are roughly the size of a house cat. But with the casing combined? In the same annual, it says that the casing contains over nine-thousand components and eleven miles of wiring. And then in Daleks in Manhattan, when the two workers are shown struggling to lift three panels from Dalek Thay's casing, that seems to contradict that. Though, one could also say that the light-weight materials was a property of older Dalek models. Either way, some of the information just seems silly.
Strange to Tell… According to the Daleks (which remains invalid to this day) does say these things, but it isn’t more or less “silly” or “contradictory” than a given story in the Dalek Annuals. This is after all the same series that gave us The Small Defender, where Earth is saved from a Dalek invasion by a mole. Yes, you read that right.
It is a dull idea of Doctor Who indeed to which one would arrive, if one excluded every story that seems “too silly to be true”. There is no evidence at all that Terry Nation and David Whitaker meant for the non-narrative sections to “count” less than the short stories and the comics.
The Technical Manual and circular reasoning[[edit] | [edit source]]
Three years later, in 2011, Forum:Canon_policy:_Items_on_which_policy_is_unclear informs us that in those days, the “canon policy” (what we now know as T:VS) is still unsure of what to do with original in-universe information from invalid sources.
The relevance of The Doctor Who Technical Manual, the in-universe history presented in part of The Terrestrial Index, The Doctor Who Monster Book and similar items and their suitability for use in creating and contributing to articles in the TARDIS Index File is unclear at this time, and up for discussion.
User:CzechOut answers — and closes the ‘debate’ with no further ado — by asserting that these publications “contain material which could potentially be used on in-universe articles, but probably shouldn't be”. Half of his argument makes sense, but falls under what we covered in Part 1 of this thread: it goes that some “reference books” like The Terrestrial Index are rather like this Wiki itself: summaries of information given in TV stories, plus theories from the author to glue them together. If the Wiki started reporting archivists’ theories from other encyclopedias, the whole Doctor Who universe would risk turning into Chinese whispers.
All these reference books are one step removed from the source material, the episodes themselves.
But CzechOut admits that this is only true of some non-narrative sources (the “reference books”). There are in fact non-narrative works which aren’t meant to be “reference material” for TV Who, but rather new works of fiction in their own right. CzechOut, with all due respect, makes oddly short work of these:
They contain information about, for example, the technical specs of K9 or the operation of the TARDIS, or details about the sonic screwdriver — a substantial amount of which has never been confirmed in any narrative. (…) But I can't see the rationale for including the Technical Manual's ideas of what makes the sonic screwdriver tick in the main body of sonic screwdriver. Primacy must be given to narrative works on in-universe pages.
Again CzechOut just flatly… asserts that primacy must be given to narrative works; that new in-universe information doesn’t “count” if it appears elsewhere than in the context of a story. He holds this to be self-evident, and so the whole thing turns into circular reasoning — in-universe info that doesn’t come from a story is invalidated because… it doesn’t come from a story.
Growing dogma[[edit] | [edit source]]
The saga continues in October 2011 with Forum:Brilliant Book 2011: a valid source?, where we see that the earlier, unilateral decision from CzechOut chafes with one of the highest-profile Doctor Who releases that year: the Brilliant Book 2011, which, on top of comic stories and prose stories, also contains snippets of non-narrative fictional information. On the basis of CzechOut’s earlier decision, now enshrined in policy, information not from a story is decided to not be valid, despite the common-sense sentiment from newbies that it ought to “be canon”. This isn’t justified or anything. And there’s even a question of whether stuff not from the increasingly-narrow category of “invalid sources” should even have pages, though thankfully the Wiki thought better of this eventually.
In December 2011, a grim epilogue: at Forum:The_original_inclusion_debates#REF, OS25 tries to initiate conversation on this still-controversial subject, but it never gets off the ground.
…And… that’s it. That’s, as near as I can tell, how “only stories are valid” became an established part of policy. One user complained that they don’t think Daleks should weigh half a pound because (Graham Chapman voice) that is much too silly; and three years later, another said that information that doesn’t come from stories is automatically suspect because it doesn’t come from stories, and that therefore, information that doesn’t come from stories is non-canon.
I don’t mean any insult towards any of the participants in those early conversations, but surely, in hindsight, we can all see that this isn’t exactly sensible policymaking behaviour. This isn’t a solid base on which to write the first of the four most important rules of this Wiki’s validity policies!
Reference material vs. non-fiction: clarifying the difference[[edit] | [edit source]]
As I mentioned above, the only argument presented in those debates that doesn't flagrantly conflict with T:NPOV — the only argument that doesn't rely on "I personally feel that non-narrative sources are less important" — is the fear of Chinese whispers. The idea that reference books are, essentially, doing the same thing we do, and as a result, if we try to cover them, we're covering their coverage of existing valid stories, and it turns into an echo chamber.
So let's refute that, shall we?
There is an ongoing problem on this Wiki, reflected in another active thread, of conflating "non-narrative", "non-fiction", and "reference works", which are all very different concepts. When you look at something like Strange to Tell... According to the Daleks, it has basically nothing in common with something like AHistory. Strange to Tell is almost entirely a vessel for the reveal of new information about the DWU — it's doing something entirely different from AHistory, which is indeed a Wiki-adjacent sort of project, collecting and curating data from existing works.
(And, for that matter, AHistory, which tries to present a repository of in-universe information, is doing a rather different thing from, say, The Nth Doctor or Queers Dig Time Lords. It is as bizarre that we call all three of those "non-fiction reference books" as that we act like Strange to Tell is in any way the same thing as AHistory.)
My point is, it is very easy for anyone with a pair of eyes to tell the difference between a "reference work" (which compiles information about existing stories) from "non-narrative fiction" (whose purpose is to present new facts about the DWU, just as a story might). Even though it currently tags the latter to be invalid, the Wiki is already doing a pretty good job of telling these apart.
Incidentally, here's what the Oxford Learners' Dictionary has to say about "fiction":
1. A type of literature that describes imaginary people and events, not real ones.
2. A thing that is invented or imagined and is not true.And here's how it defines "non-fiction":
Books, articles or texts about real facts, people and events.
Things like Inside a Skaro Saucer are, by any reasonable definition, fiction. They are certainly not "non-fiction", and to call them "reference works" is equally inaccurate.
The conclusion is inescapable: Rule 1, as currently formulated, ends up excluding a significant body of Doctor Who fiction.
A proposal[[edit] | [edit source]]
So where do we go from here? "Three little rules" sounds wrong. And I'm not suggesting that. May I put forward the following wording as a possible rewriting of the Four Little Rules to correct the anti-non-narrative bias that has marred them from their inception?
1 Only in-universe fiction counts. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. I am open as to tweaks to the wording of this revamped Rule 1, of course. But the basic idea is that it would exclude random out-of-universe things that happen to throw in an in-universe tidbit — like, say, an offhand comment by Russell T Davies about the Woman, or a reference book which constantly cites the TV stories it's reporting on, like The Gallifrey Chronicles. Whereas it does rule in things like The Dalek Dictionary, which are presented from a completely in-universe point of view but just don't have a plot.
The Dictionary is in fact a shining example of the harm it does to our Wiki not to cover non-narrative fiction: as its lengthy BTS section will demonstrate, The Dalek Dictionary is an essential piece of the history of Dalek fiction, responsible for introducing major elements of Dalek lore like Yarvelling.
And yet, because of the diktat against non-narrative works, and the decision (questionable in its own right) that invalid works can't have a "Continuity" section, we end up unable to even cite it in the continuity section of Genesis of Evil. It is ridiculous.
- Najawin
Now that Scrooge has commented, let's see what little I can add to this thread.
Clarifying prior comments made in this thread.[[edit] | [edit source]]
On the status of Trak Nar[[edit] | [edit source]]
So, User:Trak Nar was not an admin at the time. This can be seen by looking at her edits, she asks User:Tangerineduel to do admin work both in November of 2008 and February of 2009. If she were an admin, she would have been an admin for an exceedingly short period of time.
Ease of Use[[edit] | [edit source]]
Epsilon is referring to this exchange here, where User:CzechOut does indeed say that, as the following:
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 [...]
[O]ur 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.[...]
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'll come back to this, but it's not exactly a ruling, rather, an admin talking and allegedly explaining the origin of policy to a normal user.
On the idea of "Three Little Rules"[[edit] | [edit source]]
Interestingly, there originally was only three little rules. This edit was added in two days after the new Valid Sources page was created, showing that this wasn't seen as an obvious demarcation or obvious rule needed at first.
Further elaboration[[edit] | [edit source]]
Ease of Use[[edit] | [edit source]]
In the prior discussion between Czech and Vultraz Nuva, Vultraz said, concerning Wookiepedia, "reference works are treated as valid sources depending on their content--in-universe or behind-the-scenes. The aforementioned books contain both". In effect here Vultraz mentions three types of works. Those that are entirely bts reference works (AHistory would count here, but also something like About Time), those that are entirely in-universe (The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic :>), and those that contain both (The Brilliant Book 2011). Czech responds by dealing with two of the three, ignoring those that are entirely in-universe. That is to say, even if his reasoning is correct, and the reasoning given for excluding The Brilliant Book 2011 is correct, that same reasoning doesn't necessarily translate to The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic. The only reasoning that can be found against these types of "fully in universe reference works" is the doxa that narrative sources are better.
It's usually quite easy to tell when there's a fully fictional reference source, and even if it isn't, do admins actually buy every piece of Doctor Who merchandise asked about on the forums? (I'm unaware, this isn't rhetorical) This argument just doesn't seem to hold up.
Let me note here that even if someone is hesitant to fully accept the main proposal or Scrooge's proposal, I think I compromise position can be worked out, wherein a non-narrative fictional work is valid if the entire text it's published in is fictional. So this would discount The Brilliant Book 2011 but would include some of the old Dalek Annuals.
"Nothing is lost"[[edit] | [edit source]]
A common refrain you might hear from people who are in favor of the current state of affairs is that nothing is lost by the way things are - we can just put the information in the behind the scenes section and move on with our lives. First of all, one issue has already been mentioned, the lack of continuity for invalid stories. Next, do we really believe that most users who read a page also read the behind the scenes section for that page? Simply by upholding this dichotomy you've made these sources second class. Which, as we can see by the history, appears to be the intent. And finally, just to see an example of how the wiki might very well be harmed by a source being ruled invalid, look at Thread:280332 and Yssgaroth. The information from Cosmology has been quite well incorporated into the body of the article, and imagine how the article would flow if it was removed and placed in the BTS. The article becomes actively worse if this occurs, but because I truly believe this source is non-narrative, and the rules of this wiki means that makes it invalid, that seems like what's going to happen.
- Scrooge MacDuck
@User:Najawin: ah, thanks for the sleuthing regarding User:Trak Nar. In that case, then as I suspected, Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals was never actually given a proper admin closing post. Not that rare an occurrence in the Old Forums' early days, of course, but still.
You ask:
(…) Do admins actually buy every piece of Doctor Who merchandise asked about on the forums? (I'm unaware, this isn't rhetorical)Indeed they don't, AFAIK. It has been established time and again since inclusion debates got going that although the user starting a debate must have read/watched/heard/etc. the works they are making claims about, there is no duty for anyone else to have bought the story before they can participate. That is in fact why it is the OP's duty to gather all the facts they can.
Granted, it's in my experience often considered best practice for the closing admin of a contentious inclusion debate to have experienced the story. But I don't believe that's ever been a requirement.
- Chubby Potato
Although I think everyone agrees with this so far, I want to say that I think completely in-universe sources should be valid even if they're contained alongside real world information, as long as the separation is clear. Like I said, The Doctor: His Lives and Times alternates between clearly in-universe material and behind the scenes info from producers, like what you would find in Doctor Who Magazine. The former should still be valid because they are presented as their own "features", separate from production information.
- Epsilon the Eternal
That is a good point, as there are hundreds of valid, narrative works contained next to real world info, so non-narrative works should still be valid regardless of if they're next to real world content.
It's only fair, and it would be unreasonable to say that the Doctor Who Magazine comics are invalid becuase they're presented next to out of universe information.
- Chubby Potato
I have started making a list of these types of sources so we can look at them on my user page User:Chubby Potato/Sandbox/Non-narrative fiction. Anyone who knows more that should be listed, please feel free to add to it.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, anything in Category:Non-DWU features is a potential candidate, although some of that material is invalid for other reasons too (such as being parodical, breaking the fourth wall, or both).
- Chubby Potato
I know I'm kind of preaching to the choir, but that's another example. These materials were all intended to be a part of the DWU, but because they're not stories, we have to categorise them as "Non-DWU" when they're arguably more a part of the DWU than a regular story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
True — although that's more a function of category names being "behind" in the switch from "Non-DWU" terminology to "Invalid" terminology. (The invalid tag itself used to say "Non-DWU" until it was changed for precisely this reason — that some things are invalid for other reasons than because they're not set in the DWU — and the thread which changed it also, I believe, said that the categories would be renamed in time.)
- Najawin
Given the state of affairs in Thread:267931 and other similar threads, I would strongly encourage admins or older users who were present during these original discussions who are disinclined to think the case here is strong enough to voice their concerns before the closing post so that people can have a chance to respond, and we can actually hash out whether this is workable or not.
- Chubby Potato
There's another thing I think should be mentioned. There are some reference books that, while not presented as an in—universe document, are written entirely from an in–universe POV. Two I definitely know fit this case are Doctor Who Character Encyclopedia and The Visual Dictionary, and any updated/combined versions of them. (There are probably others.) Although I don't think these provide that much new information anyway as they're basically recaps of episodes, they still present solely DWU info and nothing on the show. Both could ostensibly be in-universe documents, especially the former as it poses itself as a collection of "data files", but they don't present themselves as such outside of their perspective.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, absolutely. When I speak of "in-universe", I mean only that it doesn't break the fourth wall, but it doesn't need to be any more in-universe than any given novel.
- Scrooge MacDuck
An addendum to my earlier archeological research: in 2010's Forum:Are there Time Lords in Parrallel Universes?, User:CzechOut, who the very next year would formulate the argument-less dogma that non-narrative stories are "secondary", still seemed unsure of the 'canonicity' of Doctor Who: Creatures and Demons, and, indeed, rested his answer to that thread's actual question on the basis of information from the aforementioned book.
So we find that before he participated in the executive decision to exclude these sources from T:VS, CzechOut considered it at least viable that they might be included, and furthermore, found for himself that in practical terms they can be useful sources for information not stated in preexisting stories.
I can but echo User:Najawin's earlier plea for him, and other people involved in the original discussions, to take part in this thread and explain their side of the story at greater length. I have accordingly left a message on User:CzechOut's talk page.
- Chubby Potato
For what it's worth, Creatures and Demons is one of those books which does provide in-universe information, but is about the series itself. It mentions episodes, and has script extracts and behind the scenes info on things like how costumes were designed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Are you quite sure? The direct quote given in the thread in question certainly seems to be written from an in-universe point of view.
The parallel world from which the Cybermen came was possibly split from our own when an event took place on that world but not ours: the death of Queen Victoria, killed by a Werewolf. This event was averted on our own world by the intervention of an alien wanderer in time and space — the Doctor.
It's probably another case of a book which contains BTS articles and fiction, not unlike, well, an issue of DWM.
- Najawin
From the amazon reviews:
Previous editions, presented the fictitious material in a sort of "non-fiction" manner. This time around the publishers include more pre-production and script related material, conceptual drawings and all, which is cool, but does break the guide-book illusion created successfully by the first two volumes.
So it seems this particular book would merit an inclusion debate if we're going with the broad proposal (which is where in-universe non narrative content within a non fiction reference book can be included anyhow) or be excluded if we're going with the narrow proposal (where the entire book has to be fictional).
- Chubby Potato
Looking again, I think you're right, especially considering the "our world" point of view. That means there are a lot more of these types of books than I thought.
- Najawin
I think this overstates the case. The review I mentioned makes a clear distinction between this book and the ones prior. Are there some we would have to litigate if we went with the broad proposal? Certainly. Are there a massive amount? I'm less than convinced.
Regardless, even if this would be a damning indictment of the broad proposal's effectiveness, the narrow proposal seems perfectly fine.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:282779
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:282885
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:283201
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:283832
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:284214
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:284245
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:284366 Template:Archive