Talk:TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual (reference book)

This book definitely seems to be written in universe, like A Brief History of Time Lords, and not as an actual reference book. Is there an inclusion debate thread about it ?RingoRoadagain ☎ 18:15, December 2, 2018 (UTC)

Is it a story?
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   18:24, December 2, 2018 (UTC)

Well in the same way as A Brief History of Time Lords or The Time Lord Letters (novel) are, I would say.RingoRoadagain ☎ 19:02, December 2, 2018 (UTC)

"Using psychic printing techniques, this user's guide will - like the TARDIS itself - be presented to you in your native language"

"This manual is synced with your TARDIS's core systems, which means specific observations can be made about the continued operation (and non-operation) of this capsule."

"The case studies contained within this manual are drawn from real-world events from the relative timeline of this TARDIS Type 40 TT Capsule."

(The 'case studies' are events from episodes, written as if they actually happened.)

The above user is right in that this is just as non-fiction as A Brief History of Time Lords (that is to say, it isn't). OMEGATRON ☎ 12:59, December 26, 2019 (UTC)

I did not change my position, but i may have found another precedent for this case: The Book of the War (novel)

It is considered valid by the wiki although according to its article page it is described by its editor as "a continuity in a book, it's an encyclopaedia to the War Era universe. It's got a structure rather than a plot, the way history's got a structure or a Bible's got a structure. Some parts of the universe are cross-referenced with other parts, and it all comes together to make up this great big … vision."

IMHO it is not necessary but I admittedly don't understand when to start those: does the admin team think we need to start an inclusion debate?RingoRoadagain ☎ 15:33, December 26, 2019 (UTC)

Just need to point out Tardis:You are bound by current policy here. There are to be no changes to the page until an admin has ruled the discussion closed thanks Shambala108 ☎ 21:03, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, won't happen again. OMEGATRON ☎ 21:22, December 28, 2019 (UTC)

Having just read this book, I can say it's definitely in-universe and has a narrative. It provides the history of the TARDIS and examples of its functions. For example, rather than simply stating what a TARDIS component like the Eye of Harmony does, it goes into detail about how it was created and the events of the TV movie. There are several chapter-like sections (called "case studies") that detail events like "The Cryon Incident" or "The M4 Incident". It's basically a narrative explanation of the TARDIS created (by either the TARDIS itself or the Time Lords, it's unclear) using information from the TARDIS Matrix. It's in quite a similar vein to A Brief History of Time Lords. Chubby Potato ☎ 18:44, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

So, just curious, how long does it typically take for an admin to rule on these sorts of things? OMEGATRON ☎ 20:12, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

It can take… a long time, in my experience. But inasmuch as it's going to happen at all, this really should be taken to the forums. These things aren't customarily done on a talk page, but rather as a forum thread in Board:Inclusion debates. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:22, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Seeing as I have read the book, should I open an inclusion debate? (This question is for the admins also) Chubby Potato ☎ 22:40, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I definitely support the endeavour. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:47, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

When I edited the page initially, they told to take it up on the talk page rather than anywhere else. OMEGATRON ☎ 22:54, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

"Non-fiction in-universe"

Everything is non-fiction in-universe. The episodes themselves are non-fiction in-universe (as in, the events depicted would be considered non-fiction in-universe because they actually happened in-universe). The template is for things that are non-fiction out of universe, such as The Dalek Handbook which talks about Doctor Who as a tv series. OMEGATRON ☎ 15:52, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree this page should not have that tag. Its validity is still in contention which is where T:BOUND applies, but to have the non-fiction tag is misleading for readers because it's simply false. Chubby Potato ☎ 16:01, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

Thread:255740 is an ongoing thread on non-narrative vs non-fiction tags. Until it's resolved this situation cannot be changed either. The current policy is that books written as in universe non fiction texts are also given this tag. This does not apply to episodes, but would apply to this book, until it's ruled valid. Thus this page also qualifies for the non-fiction tag based on current policy, whether or not we agree with said policy. Najawin ☎ 16:35, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of that thread. Though, where in the policy does it say that non-fiction in-universe books specifically are given that tag and why doesn't that apply to something like Snowglobe 7? That's a book that depicts events that aren't fictional in-universe. OMEGATRON ☎ 16:42, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

T:BOUND is interpreted to mean "you are bound by the ways we currently do things", you don't need an official set in stone policy to be violated to be violating T:BOUND. Hence why you were violating T:BOUND above by editing the page when it wasn't yet agreed to be valid and you changed it. This is how people do things, this is how we are bound until that thread is resolved, or the inclusion debate is resolved. You also completely misunderstand the "non-fiction in universe" comment. It's a book, written from an in universe, non-fiction, perspective. Snowglobe 7 is not analogous. Conflating them is disingenuous at best. Najawin ☎ 16:50, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

I know it isn't agreed whether the page is valid or not (I'm aware of that thread), that's why I didn't edit the page to say it was valid. I don't see how I'm supposed to know what "the ways we currently do things" are if they're not written down, but I know for next time now.

I still don't get the distinction you're trying to make though. Both books are written from an in-universe (I.E. they treat the Doctor as real and not a character on a tv program) non-fiction (I.E. they say that the events they are talking about actually happened, rather than being imaginary) perspective. OMEGATRON ☎ 17:12, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

No, they're very much not. Snowglobe 7 is written as out of universe fiction. The "non-narrative" sources are written as if they're what we would take to be current non fiction books in our real world, just, about another universe. History text books, or physics books. A completely separate literary style from our fiction books. Najawin ☎ 17:19, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

I'm with User:OMEGATRON: where is it written that in-universe non-fiction items also get the non-fiction/reference work tag? I must have missed that one thanks Shambala108 ☎ 17:44, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

I concur with User:OMEGATRON and User:Shambala108. To us, the reader, it's a work of fiction depicted in a non-fiction style, and to the characters within the Doctor Who universe, it is a non-fiction documentation. It's a matter of perspective. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 18:00, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

There's literally a thread over this right now, for over a year. This is how the tag is currently being used, even if it's not explicitly stated in policy. Do I think this should be changed? Yes. Has literally everyone who's chimed in on that thread agreed? Yes. But that thread hasn't been resolved, even though it could have been closed for months now. Najawin ☎ 18:08, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear which policy or closed thread states that the tag is to be used that way, because to my knowledge it's only ever been used for reference books. Shambala108 ☎ 18:23, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

Said thread ostensibly gives examples of it being used the other way. If they're not examples, the thread should be easy to clear up, as it's just predicated on a mistake. Najawin ☎ 18:40, September 3, 2020 (UTC)