Trusted
2,122
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1 (view source)
Revision as of 11:43, 23 February 2023
, 23 February 2023whew
(whew) Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
: On the new prefix, which hasn't been much discussed, assuming this part of the proposal goes through, have we considered using [[PROSE]] for regular written features, and ''[[GRAPHIC]]'' for those pesky exceptions like diagrams?{{User:SOTO/sig}} 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | : On the new prefix, which hasn't been much discussed, assuming this part of the proposal goes through, have we considered using [[PROSE]] for regular written features, and ''[[GRAPHIC]]'' for those pesky exceptions like diagrams?{{User:SOTO/sig}} 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
As someone with a particular fondness for this topic, I've been meaning to chime into this thread and didn't yet get the chance due to business in my life. I'm cutting it close, but hearing what everyone else already said is helpful. I'll explain why I too agree on the "what" of this proposal, but I also want to get into the "how". So prepare for a long post... so long I haphazardly collapsed it. Please click that there "Expand" button on the right and Don't Panic. | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"><br><div class="mw-collapsible-content"> | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
== A probably-too-long analysis == | |||
Back when we were discussing this topic in the lost forums, I began a (collaborative) [[User:Chubby Potato/Sandbox/Non-narrative fiction|sandbox to list fiction that might be considered "non-narrative"]]. This list is by no means 100% comprehensive, but I read through every annual and various other books to gather information. I ended up categorizing them somewhat similarly to the above (more on that later), but I think my extensive notes demonstrate that trying to create some definitive line between what is "narrative" and what is not is a) extremely difficult and subjective and b) ridiculous. There are a fair few amount of sources we cover as a narrative because "technically, if you read it this way, it describes a series of events" for which while, yeah, you ''could'' say they're narrative, they're not really intended to be read that way. And some things just make no sense from this standpoint- I have no clue how ''[[Doctor Who The Official Annual 2019]]'' would be covered. So, I wholly agree that the distinction of "narrativity" needs to be done away with. It's impossible to define and makes little sense to editors and readers alike. | |||
What all these sources have in common though, with each other and with actual stories, is that they are meant to provide fictional information about the [[Doctor Who universe|''Doctor Who'' universe]]. Given that ''Doctor Who'' fiction is the entire focus of the major part of this site (the other part being real-world info ''on'' that fiction), the removal of a "narrativity" standard and replacement with a "fiction" standard seems ideal. It's prime wiki material and yet we just ignore it. | |||
=== The sources in question === | |||
Now onto the actual material that would be affected by this change. First off, I gotta say, this "Type A/B/C/D" categorization is confusing to me and I would discourage it being used anywhere outside this discussion, ''especially'' in policy. The following categorization ''is'' essentially the same system to a degree, but based more on what's currently used on my sandbox for clarity. So, I want to expand on what these things actually cover. | |||
As a bit of a preface, I will not be covering "branching narratives" such as choose-a-path books, stage plays, or video games. These are not solely invalid due to the current rule 1, because they ''are'' narrative, so changing it to "fiction" doesn't change the decisions of separate discussions. Relatedly, do keep in mind how the other three rules will still affect the following types of sources. Something might pass an amended Rule 1 but still fail Rule 4, for example. | |||
=== In-universe material === | |||
So, firstly are sources '''presented as in-universe material'''. This is where the source is intended to be some form of media that some individual living in the DWU could consume. These mostly are informational features (narrative or not), but there actually is some other stuff, such as an image, or a game. Yes, there actually games constructed as either a game a character can play (e.g. a crossword puzzle the Doctor made for Jo, or some info from the Matrix that happens to be a game). While the fact that a photograph of a Dalek existed or that the Doctor made a crossword for Jo is not particularly noteworthy, it's not particularly harmful to be valid either. Additionally, validating these should make the coverage of already-valid in-universe material with narratives a bit easier, since the sources will no longer necessarily be confined to the structure of a "story". | |||
=== In-universe perspective === | |||
Next is things merely using an '''in-universe perspective'''. This is something that's like most stories we already cover, except it happens to have no plot, or preordering as Najawin put it. This can come in many forms but the analogue is stories with a narrator that aren't actually being told to anyone in-universe. Of what needs to be ''validated'', these are almost exclusively in the third person because first-person accounts of facts can be and have been construed as "the narrative is they're telling us these facts." Again, a useless distinction that obfuscates coverage. | |||
Most of the sources of this type are what the annuals call "features", which is not always the correct term but quite a handy one. Generally they're prose, possibly infographics. I think a prime example is one of the earliest, ''[[The Phoenix in the TARDIS]]'', which offers one of the earliest descriptions of [[regeneration]]. There are also full-length books of this type, most notably the guides from the early (first) RTD era, like ''[[Creatures and Demons]]'' which casually drops the rather important idea that [[Pete's World]] might have diverged due to no one protecting [[Queen Victoria]] from the [[Lupine Wavelength Haemovariform|werewolf thing]]. It's true that some sources like this are mostly summaries of TV events, but especially when they do provide new information, what's the harm in validating them? The TV episodes are still the main sources for those events, we don't cite those events to every work that also says they happened as a reference. Citing facts to any informational source should be fairly intuitive. | |||
Also appearing for this bunch are simple images, which might arguably be [[And Introducing...|comics that are apparently too shrt t b nrrtv]] dspt th fct tht... sorry, [[Vrs (short story)|computer issue]]. Covering these is no different than citing info that only appears in one panel of a comic. Pretty straightforward. | |||
But I think games are an often overlooked aspect of this too, and I in fact excluded some of them from my list, which I will update. The early annuals especially featured games that provide some interesting world-building that happens to be a game. And guess what, we do cover things like this where the text for the game has a preordering, such as ''[[Problem of the Painted Planet (short story)|Problem of the Painted Planet]]'' and ''[[Peaceful Solution (short story)|Peaceful Solution]]''. (Though whether these should really be called "short stories" is another matter.) Newer annuals have more unique framing devices such as ''[[Davros Detected! (feature)|Davros Detected!]]'', which claims that Davros tried to escape the ''[[Crucible]]'' by using a clone decoy in the form of a spot-the-difference game. There are some with less feasible situations than this, but remember, Rule 4 can still apply for games which slap on DWU concepts for the sake of it rather than depicting an actual potential scenario. And just so they're not forgotten, there are also some generic dice-rolling board games that pretty much are narrative but have been overlooked. (No, whether the [[Anti-Dalek Force|ADF]] ship moved four units and got sent back to Earth or five units and destroyed a Dalek ship is not a "branching narrative", you can roll every space in a game and the ultimate outcome never changes, whether it's ambiguous or not.) In any case, these games are yet another source that could be cited, simply describing a single thing that happened, a thing that existed. | |||
Another thing I want to briefly address is merchandise. I'm aware info from merchandise is contentious, as it often is incorrect. But, there are some pieces of merch with unique info, such as this "[http://doctorwhotoys.net/dalekcybermanantitimedevice.htm Anti-Time Device]" with info about a war between [[Cybermen]] and [[Weeping Angel]]s. However, given that current policy does not allow sources with commercial intent, these will need to be discussed in another thread anyway. | |||
=== Invasion of the real world === | |||
Okay, finally is things where the real world starts to blur with the DWU. There are, of course, different ways this happens. First and foremost, I agree with Epsilon that having separate indicators of real-world info, from infoboxes to parentheticals, does not break the fourth wall any more than a footnote does, as there is a clear distinction between fiction and nonfiction. These should be treated like any other "in-universe perspective" material. | |||
With that out of the way, next is informative pieces on real-world facts with DWU references. For example, some of the Dalek annuals have educational features about space travel, astronomy, etc. Some of them have little remarks like "the Daleks might be interested in exploring this planet next." There are some of these features that do ''not'' make such references, and I think it's fine to ignore them on Rule 4 standards. But, even if something is mostly comprised of fact from the real world, if it implies the Doctor, the Daleks, or any such thing is real, that means it's fiction. Any such statement is inventive, which means it passes this amended Rule 1. Furthermore, this makes it clear such a feature is attempting to analogize the real world with the DWU, meaning it passes rule 4. We already have a narrative example of this in ''[[Tricky Dicky (short story)|Tricky Dicky]]'', which I think demonstrates the point well enough. | |||
Lastly, most contentiously, and thus briefly, arrives non-narrative material that does not completely have an in-universe perspective. Some of these are almost entirely fictional but are not afraid to seamlessly mention something like "as seen in ''[[The Deadly Assassin (TV story)|The Deadly Assassin]]''". On the other side of things is almost entirely real-world info that also brings up in-universe concepts. I am in agreement that this will require further discussion. I think even if Rule 1 is changed to "only fiction counts", while this is fictional ''information'' that would pass that rule, it arguably is not "set in the DWU" per Rule 4. Additionally, a current point on [[T:VS]] credited to Rule 1 is "word of god" info from a writer. Not only does this not pass Rule 4 for the same reasons, it also can be argued to fail Rule ''3'' because a mere statement by a creator is not an "official release". Some of this I hope to address in my proposed thread about validity in general, coming Soon™. But for now, I don't think it's even covered by the proposal of this thread. | |||
=== The suffix: prefixes === | |||
The last thing nagging is how citation prefixes would be applied to this newly valid material, especially since we want to do away with the distinction of narrativity. Personally, I am of the opinion that our prefix and citation system needs a bit of an overhaul. But until then, I think [[PROSE]], [[GAME]] and a rare [[COMIC]] should suffice, as well as a new [[FEATURE]] for things that are not quite any of those. But this is something I'm less sure on, and needs to be decided on. (Semi-relatedly, and because I don't know where else to put this, the use of "story" in some instances will need to be updated to "source".) | |||
</div></div></div><br> | |||
If you read all that, thank you very much. I hope this was helpful and not just a wiki-ramble. I am looking forward to hopefully expanding our coverage on the wiki. [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
