Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Reference books - what do we cover?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Reference books - what do we cover? (edit)
Revision as of 15:53, 7 February 2012
, 7 February 2012no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::::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. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">14:45: Tue 07 Feb 2012 </span> | ::::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. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">14:45: Tue 07 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
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 1597475277), 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. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:53: Tue 07 Feb 2012 </span> | |||
