Forum:Reference books - what do we cover?

Index → Panopticon → Reference books - what do we cover?

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
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)

I would make it clear in my question I'm not advocating, or even asking that these works be used in our canon policy (I never even mentioned canon), nor will I get into an argument concerning canon here.

I'm also not stating anywhere that information from these reference works gets used in in-universe pages.

What I'm really asking is do we have a page for all reference works, and if so where is the line drawn? As our current state of articles that are present on the wiki suggests we don't have a policy. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:31, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a fair and open, yet restricted policy, which can be read here.

I've tried to strike a balance between allowing things like About Time and Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, and now allowing every single book that's been written about Doctor Who. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:00, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn I responded to this thread. Anyway, I was kinda confused what you're trying to accomplish, and I'm even more so now that I've read your draft copy. Is this meant to be an addendum to T:CAN, or T:SOURCES? Cause they're different things. Are we talking only what we cover or what we allow? You make a point to say that the books must be only about Doctor Who, but I can't imagine we'd disallow a quote from a book about televised science fiction in general, would we? Also, if an above the line creative, like Phil Ford or Jane Espenson appears on a non-official podcast, like Radio Free Skaro, surely you're not disallowing the possibility of pulling a quote from there? And we can quote from The Frame or Nothing at the End of the Lane, can't we? Fanzines they may be, but they've got proper interviews with key professionals, and they sometimes scoop even DWM, as they have with the April Walker interview.

Seems to me on the non-fiction side of the street that official, BBC sanction is less important than it is on in-universe pages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">14:45: Tue 07 Feb 2012 

Okay, I've re-read. And I see now that you're making a distinction between "what's cite-able" and "what we might have a page about". I think the problems I'm having are these:

• What's this "must" and "can" business? You've totally lost me there, because we've no other policy framed in that manner. I get that we're not trying to have a page about every book that references DW, but that first sentence is so hesitantly phrased it actually says nothing. Better phrasing might simply be:

Our reference book policy tells you what books are eligible for their own page on this wiki. Although we wish to have a page for — or cover — any book that offers significant understanding of Doctor Who and its sister shows, we are not attempting to cover all works of non-fiction that merely mention DWU series.

• I don't personally see a useful distinction between "analytical" books and what you're calling "non-fiction". That's not to say I don't see the difference, just that I don't see the useful difference. Maybe, though, that's because "analytical" isn't the word you want. You're looking for "criticism". The Making of Doctor Who analyses the production of DW, but it doesn't critique it. Books like Triumph of a Time Lord, Chicks Dig Time Lords and Timeless Adventures: How Doctor Who Conquered TV are legitimate criticism. I think a switch from "analysis" to "criticism" would focus things for you there.
• Not sure if I immediately grasp the fiction/non-fiction distinction. Well, I am sure. I didn't immediately grasp it. I still don't really. So it's not clear. I don't even have a suggestion to make, cause I'm not getting the thrust of what you're saying. How is a non-fiction book fictional? I don't get it.
• I'd strongly challenge the "must be about DW only" rule. I'd have no problem admitting a book like Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Star Trek and Doctor Who (ISBN 0-415-06140-7) or even Geek Wisdom (ISBN 1594745277), because both put Doctor Who in context of the wider genre. Doctor Who isn't a passing reference in these books, but something to which the authors return time and again to compare to other franchises. This offers an insight not available to the DW-only reference books. I think the rule on this should be more subjective. The book, to get a page here, must contain "significant" coverage of Doctor Who, and leave it at that.
• I'd also vigourously dispute "must either be written by someone who has a connection with DW or someone who is an education professional". I think you've written it awkwardly like that because you're trying to exclude certain things. I can't quite divine what you're trying to exclude, though. Maybe if you just wrote the exclusion, things would be clearer. But I don't have a problem with taking the opinions of passionate fans, or media critics, or just a housewife in Peoria who watches television regularly — as long as they've managed to get their works professionally published in print.
• I do think we need to specifically disallow things that are e-publications only, at least until that particular publication route has become less of a "wild west frontier" of self-publication.
  czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:53: Tue 07 Feb 2012