Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
37,247
edits
Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein (view source)
Revision as of 05:05, 25 July 2023
, 25 July 2023no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tags: thread closure 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]][[Category:Inclusion debates]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
==Opening post== | ==Opening post== | ||
| Line 331: | Line 331: | ||
:Thank you for such a brilliant OP! There really is no reason why we shouldn't cover something like [[Night of the Kraken (novel)|Night of the Kraken]], and I'm glad that we can now (hopefully!) rectify this. :) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) | :Thank you for such a brilliant OP! There really is no reason why we shouldn't cover something like [[Night of the Kraken (novel)|Night of the Kraken]], and I'm glad that we can now (hopefully!) rectify this. :) [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|📢]] 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
=== Introduction === | |||
==== The elephant in the room ==== | |||
The sheer magnitude of this thread is hard to overstate, both in terms of scope ''and'' of sheer size. [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s opening post was one for the ages, making the very thought of writing a fitting closing post daunting even ''before'' the community rose to the challenge and discussed the proposal's ins and outs at great lengths. I'm sorry to begin this closing post with comments on form rather than content, but, if you'll forgive the expression, one must address ''the elephant in the room''. | |||
When an opening post rises to the level of intimidating the admins who are supposed to close it — and of clever hacks being necessary to allow editors to ''successfully load the page editor in their browser'' — one might worry that there is a problem. Certainly I wouldn't want to have to deal with too many threads like this in the future. But here is the thing: there ''was'' a big problem. The problem was that we, as a Wiki, systematically failed in our coverage of an area of licensed DWU fiction. ([[Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1|Again.]]) | |||
==== Why we're validating this stuff ==== | |||
In a way, this proposal spent its entire sandbox-gestation, and lifetime within the actual Forum: namespace, becoming less of a radical policy proposal and more of a "so ''how'' do we do this, given that we clearly need to". The diktat against branching fiction and video games died not in one fell swoop but of a thousand papercuts: the long-overdue rethinking of Rule 1 and the dismissal of the idea that a second-person "POV character" is the same thing as fanfic or a fourth-wall-break, already dismissed two of the main arguments against sources of this type. Practicality remained, and while high-minded statements in recent closing posts of my own devising put paid to any notion that such culpable institutional ‘easy outs’ would ever be tolerated again, the honour of introducing a ''practical'' solution — {{tlx|Cite source}} — rests firmly with [[User:Bongolium500]]. | |||
So, then: I shan't bore you with extensive restatements of ''why'' we must do this. If you read through this whole thread and do not understand why we need to do this, you may be beyond help. Early on, [[User:Najawin]] quoted a claim from [[User:Shambala108|another admin]] that "Sometimes [admins] have to vote against something [being valid] because including it isn't worth the trouble it could/will cause", but, uhm… the fact that [[User_talk:NateBumber/Archive_3#Re:_10000|the context]] was a restatement of the invalidity of ''[[The Outer Universe Collection]]'' — one of the most shameful and infamous miscarriages of justice in the Wiki's recent policy-making history! — should be something of a deterrent, though of course I'm sure many other citations could be found. | |||
I have said it before and I will say it again with the full force of policy behind me, '''ruling something to be out of bounds because covering it ''sounds difficult'' should never ever ever fly again'''. It's irresponsible; I'd even say it's unethical. And perhaps it wasn't fifteen years ago, but we've grown, since then. We are more exhaustive and more respected than we were then. More serious, perhaps. And what that means is that '''there's nobody to pick up our slack, because we cover so many other things that we take up all the oxygen'''. If we then shrink from one particular task which by all rights ''should'' be within our remit, and then try and justify ourselves with "it's hard, and we're not getting paid for this, it's our site, leave us alone"… well, then we're a little like a volunteer fire-brigade who fulfill 99.5% of our expected duties, but have decided that ''one'' particular house can be left to burn for all we care. I do not think the inhabitants of that house would be very convinced by the "hey, we're only volunteers, and we've decided that we protect every other part of this city block, but not you; which is our right. Free country". | |||
Hyperbole? Well, perhaps a little bit, but not ''that'' much. Our recklessness in this matter seems to have led to ''actual information becoming irretrievably lost'' because we did not preserve it in time. Substitute the burning house for a burning library, and it's a difference of degree, but ''not'' of kind. | |||
Alright, so that's coverage. Why validity? Well, why ''not'' validity? Rule 4 has never been seriously doubted for most of these ''except'' in terms of variability. Practicality, as OttselSpy25 and Najawin's historical reviews largely corroborated, was the key sticking point; they were non-valid because we didn't, and ostensibly "couldn't", cover them properly. Now that we have found a way, we are free to examine them by the ''normal'' Four Little Rules, and inevitably find that the vast majority of them can and should be covered ''as valid''. | |||
=== Role-playing games and modules === | |||
The main area where, even with this thread's extended lifespan, some people felt that further discussion would be needed, was unsurprisingly with the more freeform games that are role-playing and/or table-top games. As per [[User:Bongolium500]] and several others' opinion, '''a broader thread on how to cover "non-narrative" RPGs should be held at a later date'''. In the meantime, we should boost {{tlx|invalid}} coverage of such material as the various generic ''Doctor Who'' Role-Playing Games — from FASA to NuWho — or ''[[Battle for the Universe (game)|Battle for the Universe]]'', but refrain from validation. | |||
I do not, however, accept the same as regards fiction modules, ''contra'' the wishes of a few participants in this discussion. True, something like ''[[The lytean Menace (game)|The lytean Menace]]'' is a very different animal from a CYOA game. What it is actually like is ''a video game''. The more I looked into them, the clearer it became that the FASA fiction modules are nothing more or less than "analog video games", relying on the GM and one's own visual imagination to act as a game engine and convert the plain-language "code", including the plot synopsis, into a fully-realised interactive gaming experience. Yes, the Plot Synopsis talks about how "this adventure" goes and who "the characters" are, but it's a mistake to try and treat it as ''a piece of prose'', because it's not — it's part of the make-up of a [[GAME]]. The OOU flourishes are of no more concern than a video game's opening tutorial explaing "your player character is the Sontaran warrior Thurg; his backstory is XYZ; you can control his actions by pressing such-and-such buttons…". | |||
(The resemblance to old-school, printed video-game manuals is also startling, and there is longstanding precedent relating, among others, to ''[[Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror (video game)|Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror]]'' for considering such things to be valid as extensions of the video game itself.) | |||
So yes, in a very real sense, [[User:OttselSpy25]] was on the right track in suggesting that… | |||
{{quote|(…) we are actually covering the fiction produced during gameplay rather than the module itself. It's simply convenient that the modules in these cases tend to give a very detailed description of the unified portions of every single campaign. So we'd be covering said campaigns under the "shared elements" logic used when creating [[Human (Attack of the Graske)ØØ and [[Companion (Worlds in Time)]] etc.|User:OttselSpy25}} | |||
I think the difference relative to off-hand quotes from screenwriters is very clear. Something like ''[[The Legions of Death (game)|The Legions of Death]]'' has a ''title'' and everything; it's a complete book, which allows you to experience a ''Doctor Who'' adventure (just by playing it instead of reading it — just as a video game requires you to play it instead of just watching it unfold!). It's trivially ''a work of fiction'' in a way that an off-hand quote simply isn't. Whether it's a ''complete work of fiction'' is a somewhat more subtle point, I will grant [[User:Najawin]] that much. But I do think an unplayed, raw module is ''as much'' a complete work of fiction as an unplayed, raw video game. Both are in a certain sense abstractions; you have to play them and add your own input to truly experience the adventure as intended. But if we can separate the story content from the infinitely-changeable gameplay in ''one'' case, we can do it in the other. The Plot Synopsis as written may not pass Rule 1 — but the ''overall book'' does. | |||
This, again, does not apply to the main ''[[The Doctor Who Role Playing Game]]'' book, nor the more recent efforts discussed by e.g. [[User:Poseidome]]. Lacking a single throughline or bespoke story-title, how to approach them is significantly harder to intuit, and we need to have a thread seriously examining their "whole work" credentials and forming a robust ''theory of coverage''. | |||
=== Practicalities === | |||
I keep trying to restate what I'm ruling in favour of, and finding myself just wanting to quote wholesale from [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s opening post, whether for justifications or statements of policy themselves. I don't know what this is a sign of, but it surely means ''something''. Either way, it was getting silly, so I won't bother. Please just reread the opening post in detail, and assume that '''its detailed theory of coverage is broadly endorsed unless I state otherwise below'''. One major point is of course that coverage of possible paths should now be done via {{tlx|cite source}}, since it [[Forum:Cite source, a new citation template|is now live in the main name-space]] — not through the various inferior solutions Ottsel suggested in the meantime, which have become moot. | |||
But perhaps, after all these mammoth discussions, a bullet-point summary of major points might be helpful. So, aiming more for skeleton than exhaustiveness, the changes to policy: | |||
* The Wiki should henceforth strive to cover licensed DWU video games, branching novels, role-playing games, and all other interactive or branching fiction of either of the types outlined by Ottsel ("interactive fiction" and "fiction modules"). | |||
** Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, absent other reasons for invalidity under [[T:VS]], these sources should be considered valid. | |||
* Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which ''may or may not play'' depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment. In a role-playing-game module, the character biographies or worldbuilding background is valid, and, if one is provided, the summary of the overall plot; but any details which a game-master might make up during a particular playthrough is obviously beyond our remit. | |||
* {{tlx|Cite source}} can be used to give precise citation for elements which might vary between playthroughs, or derive from ancillary material e.g. a game manual. In the case of CYOA books which do not give a specific name (e.g. "paragraphs") to their segments, but do not use page-numbers, we should default to the term "marker", e.g. "''Marker 1''". | |||
* Many games have unserious "game over" animations, like Amy regenerating, or other game mechanics dressed up as fictional content in an ostentatiously illogical way. These are not valid, any more than massive letters spelling "INTRODUCING JOHN HURT" appearing in [[the Doctor's time stream]] is a valid fact citable to ''[[The Name of the Doctor (TV story)|The Name of the Doctor]]''; for the same reason it does not impinge on whether the source otherwise constitutes a "complete work of DWU fiction" as per Rule 1 and Rule 4. | |||
* Distinct from the above, although ''Choose-Your-Own-Adventure''-type novels (for example) typically have a clear "intended path", they also have possible alternate endings which should also be covered as valid, in-universe events. However, these should be phrased in terms of "alternative possibilities" or the like (with specific wording liable to be tailored to the wording used in the source itself, e.g. "in a timeline which was then rewound…"). | |||
* Unnamed player-characters should be covered as [[Companion (Video Game Name)]] or other such neutral names. | |||
* CYOA novels and the like, being largely marketed as novel lines, should for the time being be kept as "(novel)"s. In contrast, being essentially "print video games", fiction-modules should use the dab term "(game)", as other printed games such as Annual games already do. | |||
I will additionally endorse [[User:Bongolium500]]'s note regarding future debates: | |||
{{quote|. While there is currently a decent backlog of these sources to get through, once this backlog is cleared, new multi-path/"multi-path" sources don't release that often so debating them when that happens should be fine. Specifically regarding any future sources that would warrant a discussion under this, I feel that the editor creating the page should use their best judgement to look at similar cases and decide whether the source should start out as valid or invalid. If people disagree on this judgement, only then should a debate be started.|User:Bongolium500}} | |||
As regards plot summaries, it seems a technical solution has been generally agreed upon. I think it may need iterating upon, but it is not clear that we can get anywhere in particular without knowing what sorts of issues actually crop up. [[User:NateBumber|n8]]'s concern about not being so granular that our summary becomes playable in itself is well-taken, and we should not necessarily strive to represent every minor choice and every strand of possibility, just the main possible plot developments. | |||
As regards trees/graphs, they're a very exciting possibility but the coding doesn't seem up to scratch yet. They shouldn't be implemented in the main namespace for now, but people are welcome to iron out the kinks and present a more worked-out practical proposal as its own thread later; I do not rule against the principle but against the state-of-the-art prototypes currently available. | |||
=== Other matters === | |||
In addition to the above points, ''[[LEGO Dimensions (video game)|LEGO Dimensions]]'' should not see its coverage altered as yet. Its structure brings up several problematic points in terms of Rule 1 and how ''much'' of it we ought to cover; and although the "interactive" aspect, which was the eventual grounds for invalidation under Rule 4, has become moot, there is worth in hashing it out once again given the new evidence, in both directions, which has arisen since those days with regards to the LEGO universes' diegetic status relative to the likes of the "real", live-action [[N-Space]]. | |||
=== Final thoughts === | |||
I'm honestly pretty drained now, so I'll be even briefer than I often am. But once again, thank you to everyone who participated. This closing post isn't exactly brief, and still I feel I am not doing all your efforts justice to the full extent I wish I could achieve. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 05:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
