Forum:Reference books - what do we cover?
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
We seem to have a somewhat inconsistent approach to reference works.
They all fall into a few broad categories.
Licenced works
- Licenced non-fiction these generally got the Doctor Who logo on them and they're published by licence holders such as Virgin Books, BBC Books and Big Finish Productions. Such works are Doctor Who: 25 Glorious Years, The New Audio Adventures: The Inside Story and Doctor Who: The Inside Story.
- Licenced fiction these also generally have the Doctor Who logo on them, but there's exceptions like The Adventures of K9 and Other Mechanical Creatures, but they're things like the The Doctor Who Illustrated A to Z, Doctor Who: The Monsters and Doctor Who: Aliens and Enemies.
Then after this we come to a in-between region of things. Some works explicitly state they're "unofficial" or "unauthorised", but these terms seem to be a legal one, rather than explicitly stating their information sources and there's some that don't state anything.
- Guides like Pocket Essentials: Doctor Who and Howe's Transcendental Toybox.
- Biographical works like The Nine Lives of Doctor Who don't state any licensing at all.
Analytical works
- These are works that seek to understand the Doctor Who universe, phenomena and to break down elements of the fan world. These do and don't state that they're "unauthorised". Those that don't state anything are such works as Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, Doctor Who and Philosophy and Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text.
- While those that do state they're unauthorised are works such as About Time and I, Who both of which we state in our Tardis:Resources as a valid source of information and we have detailed pages for.
- These and books like Memoirs of an Edwardian Adventurer and Running Through Corridors would vaguely fall into the "review and analysis" category of books.
I don't think a blanket approach of 'if it's not licenced by the copyright holder then it's out' is the best approach.
As books such as Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, Doctor Who and Philosophy and Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text are all essentially journals/essays and in the case of the Unfolding Text a long media text.
Also, while About Time and I, Who might state they're unauthorised they're all just texts of analysis. And while they both do have a Critique/Review element to them they're short compared to the rest of their text.
But all this said, I don't know where we draw the line on what we do and don't cover.
Do we go with something arbitrary like 'it has to be published by a recognised publisher' like Telos Publishing or Mad Norwegian Press? Which would discount Memoirs of an Edwardian Adventurer (published by Pageturner Publishing) and The Nine Lives of Doctor Who (published by Headline).
Or do we state they have to be published by "established authors" or "established authorities on Doctor Who", the latter could mean anything however.
Or do we come up with a criteria that it must fulfill? So that if it fulfills a certain amount it's in?
Or some other system, process or other method? --Tangerineduel / talk 05:18, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I am a great opponent of policies and a proponent of looking at things, analysing them intelligently and making choices on a case-by-case basis. I understand that is not a popular attitude. It sfeels like most people are far more comfortable pointing at some authority and, from my viewpoint, turning off their brains. That just doesn't work. You wind up putting just as much or more work in analyzing border cases, which is just what Tangerineduel is asking us to do right now. He is asking us to draw that border and then we get to argue over what happens to the riverine border when the river shifts.
- As I understand it, the current wiki policy is that the only canonical information is that imparted in narration (and that itself raises a mare's nest of problems, starting with the Doctor's age and Looms). Reference works, therefore, are never more than secondary works and are matters of opinions looking at the capital-T Truth. It may amuse us to look at, say, sketches of K-9 or discussion of how they wished him to be called Pluto, but couldn't get the wood. Current wiki policy -- do you hear my teeth grinding? -- is they are irrelevant.
- That being the case, setting up a ranking system strikes me as not just a waste of time, but encouraging a point of view that that contradicts the wiki's stated policy. If, for example, the speculation in The Brilliant Book 2011 is speculation, then it is no more authoritative than some fanboy criticizing some other fanboy's fanfiction on the basis that it contradicts some other piece of fan fiction. It's all opinion and contrary to this wiki's poloicy, both stated and executed, of taking only what we can see as fact.
- That said, do we simply blanket everything? That strikes me as a little harsh. I would note when something is authorised, as when it carries the BBC logo, or accepted, like L'Officier (sp?). However, I would plaster on every article about a reference work the warning from the policy page. Such reference works are non-canonical and should not be mentioned in the main body of the article, although they may be suitable for the behind-the-scene sections. I did tht with several fo them, only to have someone else remove them. I'd like to see them reinstated across the board on every work with a REF tag. Boblipton talk to me 14:57, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
