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)

While I'm the editor responsible for introducing usage of "sources" across the Wiki as a replacement term for "stories", I agree with @OttselSpy25 that changing this term to media or fiction is the way forwards.

Sources was meant as a quick fix, but I completely understand the position that this is alienating to readers. I think my preference would be fiction -> media, but I'm certainly fine with the adoption of media.

One thing I will ask for is a bot to bulk rename the category trees as I had to do a lot manually, a procedure I wish to not have to repeat. Epsilon ☎ 01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found "sources" a bit offputting in the navigation templates and categories. It is an important term to have, but it should really only be used in the context of something being written for the wiki. Even with that context, it doesn't really make sense for the categories and especially navigation.

I am strongly in favor of "media", as it's exactly the right word here. "Fiction", while technically correct, fails to get the point across. And I think it might lead to the same confusion as "sources". We here know Rule 1 on T:VS is concerned with "works of fiction", but a reader may not; and anyways, the point of these sorts of collections is that they are a set of related media, not the fact that they are fiction. e.g. "Dalek media" works a lot better than "Dalek fiction". Chubby Potato ☎ 02:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support changing "sources" to something else. Not sure which of the two options for the something else I'd prefer… "Media" is slightly too unspecific — a Dalek documentary could count as "Dalek media", after all… "fiction" doesn't quite put the emphasis in the right place, and almost implies there's supposed to be a Category:Dalek non-fiction right alongside. I'm not even sure the wiki wouldn't benefit from such a category. Regardless, either option is leagues better than continuing to use "sources", I think.

jsmith5504^{talk to me} 20:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to understand. Is it the case that the wiki originally covered only "stories". But now it also covers non-story fiction like encyclopedias like The Book of the War. So now instead of using "stories" as the generic term for everything we cover. We currently use "sources" instead?

Sure I think sources is bad and I like media. I also think we should keep the "stories" categories as a subcategory of sources/media/whatever. It is useful to group stories together even if they are not the only things that are covered. Opposite of "story" is "non-narrative Dalek fiction" I suppose. WarDocFan12 ☎ 14:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)