Talk:TARDIS Wiki (in-universe)

Validity of The Zygon Isolation

shouldn't Zygon Isolation be treated as invalid? Rollface in 3d spac (GarfielfStuff) ☎ 16:49, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

No. There was an open thread about this before the Forum froze, blew up, unexploded, and was frozen again. But the short version is, The Zygon Isolation doesn't do anything other stories didn't do first; an in-universe Doctor Who is well-documented in valid sources even setting aside that particular webcast. It's just more brazen about it than previous stories. And Peter Harness's later comments about the webcast in DWM make it clear he considers it a valid continuation of the Osgoods' story.

Of course, there is no such thing as canon: our validity policies are choices the Wiki makes for the purposes of the writing of its articles. No one's asking you to treat it as valid in your headcanon if you don't want to. But unless some really startling new evidence is added to that Forum thread once it's open again, I don't see any scenario where we're likely to invalidate The Zygon Isolation. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:05, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

At some point there becomes such thing as ridiculously obscure pages.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainbowdestiny (talk • contribs) .

Rename

As the initial creator of the page under its original name, I would like to formally support the rename tag. Specifically, I would like it to be retitled "TARDIS wiki", as per this story, which I was unaware of when I created this page. After that information, information from said story should be added to this page. Followup question: are there any other stories I'm missing that also mention our wiki? I know fourth wall breaking but VALID stories have become all the more common as of late so I suspect this is very possible. NightmareofEden ☎ 19:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, forgot that I wasn't signed in when I created that page. Well, that IP is me. Also, I created it some time before we even had a page at all for the story I linked, which explains why I wasn't aware of it (seeing as i don't regularly read DWM myself anymore). Oh well, my general point still applies even if I forgot some of the details; my general point being that I would be fully in favour of changing this page's name seeing as there's a VALID source for one that doesn't require a disambiguation name. NightmareofEden ☎ 19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually maybe the specific capitalisation might have to be debated since Zygon Isolation uses "Tardis" but Lady Peinforte uses "TARDIS". Of course, we use the former in reality but this is an in-universe page so... that bit might require some debate. But I am certain that this page name should without doubt be either "Tardis wiki" OR "TARDIS wiki", and I was incorrect to have initially created it under the name I did. NightmareofEden ☎ 19:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

TARDIS Wiki is clearly the superior choice to my mind — it avoids dabbing and is clearer than Tardis (The Zygon Isolation) was (although that will of course be retained as a redirect), and the difference in spelling from the real world is not something we should correct, but rather embrace as a means of clearly signaling to our readers that this is the somewhat mysterious in-universe counterpart to our Wiki, not a real-world page about ourselves/the home page of the Wiki. "Tardis Wiki" would be both speculative, and more confusing. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It may be prudent for an admin to edit Tardis:TARDIS, as this page is cited as an exception to the rule there and with this change it no longer is. -- Metz77 ☎ 07:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, because in-universe "Tardis" is still a name for the site. If we have a page about Osgood's computer, and we're listing off what we can see on-screen, we'll say "she had a tab title "Tardis | Fandom" open", so the lowercase name still gets usage even though it isn't the page's name anymore.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The FANDOM incarnation, and its relation to this page

Ok, to try and mitigate a whole edit war starting (continuing?), I'm going to say that there may be merit to noting the history of this wiki as having been Fandom - and that original incarnation is the reference being made in the relevant sources. - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. My objections laid with the direct link to the Fandom Wiki and how it was presented in such a way it implied the references were to the Fandom Wiki whilst the fork existed, which is misleading; if the bts section is rewritten to provide historical context for the references, then that's fine.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)