Forum:Abandoning 'sources' in favor of 'media'

Index → The Panopticon → Abandoning 'sources' in favor of 'media'

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

... New domain, that's weird.

So I figured I'd move over the only forum that's started since tardis.wiki moved over the contents of the site.

Opening post

So this will be a very quick opening post.

Not too long ago, we decided as a website to abandon favoring 'stories' or 'narratives' when it came to our attempts to cover fiction. Because of this choice, we have had a structural change done to our templates, categories, and navigational tools. This, for the most part, involved replacing the word 'stories' with 'sources'.

I strongly dislike this. I think that depicting the wiki in this way encourages an unhealthy mindset that our wiki exists exclusively as a tool to build our in-universe pages. In reality, a lot of people use Tardis as a way to research real-world information as well - which is why deprioritizing "non-valid" topics in things like appearances lists was contentious in my view.

In the same vein, I think when the average non-dedicated reader sees the phrase "Dalek sources", they probably think... What the hell is a source? To us, a source is something we use to cite in pages. But that term doesn't have meaning outside of our wiki, no one at a Who convention says "Hey, did you see a new Dalek source came out?"

My solution is simple. I think we should make "media" the new replacement for stories/source in these places. Media has flexible terminology but is also easily understood by most people. A template of Dalek media makes a lot more sense to the average visitor than a template of Dalek sources. I think this would be good for deprioritizing the "meta" aspect of our site which makes us unapproachable for the average fan.

As an alternative, I could also see 'fiction' being appropriate if some thing that 'media' is actually too broad a term. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. OS25🤙☎️ 18:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

For the life of me, I've been trying to figure out the discussion you're referring to, because stuff like {{invalid}} has used "sources" forever. Literally since the formation of T:VS. (I mean, I'm sure it's somewhere and I saw the discussion at one point, I've just completely forgotten it.) And I'm not entirely sure I've tracked it down fully, but I did find Template talk:Benny which suggests this was all motivated by Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1. Which, well, fair enough motivation. But I think even the change that has gone through so far might have to be walked back. See the top of Category:Bernice Summerfield sources. Najawin ☎ 19:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the total abandonment of using the term 'sources'. I am arguing that sources as a term is not a good replacement for the use of 'Dalek stories', etc. It's fine to use sources in niche places like the forums or site rules, but I am specifically protesting things like this template, which is called "Toymaker sources" and at one point displayed that title on the main space. I think that categories and templates have no reason to use the "sources" title, because it's just confusing and far too meta for a basic navigation function. OS25🤙☎️ 20:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I... Don't think I suggested you were calling for such an abandonment? I understand the proposal. My comment is that the proposal seems to have a flaw, per SOTO's move template at the top of Category:Bernice Summerfield sources, and I'm not actually sure where Epsilon's moves that you're citing as precedent were discussed. Najawin ☎ 20:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, a change would be made to the GoR source code to replace 'stories' with 'sources' rather than the category - Is that possible? We could also retain Stories as a subcategory of Sources. Other than that, I agree that Media is the superior term. The MW definition for media of "a means of effecting or conveying something: such as... a mode of artistic expression or communication" seems appropriate. Danochy ☎ 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

afaik GoR is being held together by string and duct tape. Maybe it's possible. Maybe it's not. I did say "might" in my original comment. Najawin ☎ 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly in favor of just ignoring the GoR until it's just removed by FANDOM one day. I don't think the effort of trying to change it is worth our time. OS25🤙☎️ 21:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, now we know this issue isn't worth fretting over as our new site, the One True Wiki, doesn't even have the GoR! OttselSpy25 ☎ 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)