Talk:The Equations of Dr Who (feature)

Valid source?

Should this really be valid? It's not a story as such, rather an explanation of time, space, and the Tardis. It's from an in-universe perspective, but it fails rule 1 at T:VS by virtue of not being narrative. The page summary certainly manages to spin it as a story, but the prose itself reads as nothing of the sort. Danochy ☎ 13:36, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Open an exclusion debate if you think otherwise, but I certainly think it's narrative, as the summary demonstrates. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:42, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think it's a story. The only way I can see someone regarding it as invalid is because of what it says about the Doctor's backstory. However, such reasoning would blatantly disregard Tardis:Neutral point of view. --Borisashton ☎ 13:52, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

No.. I don't have a problem with the backstory. Even if I did, valid sources ≠ "canon", so the piece being valid would hardly be a concern. If it were up to me, being a story wouldn't be a requirement - plenty of information can be displayed in a non-story format - but it as it stands it is a rule. To me, it seems more of an article/documentary piece about the Doctor and the universe, and so I decided to log my concerns. I don't really have time at the moment to start any forum debates, so I'll leave it at that for now. Danochy ☎ 14:15, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Let's put it into the inclusion debates and see what comes up there. It'd be helpful if someone could post the full text though, since not many of us own an annual from 1965.

Also, let's keep Borishaston and Danochy's points in mind. We should focus more on if it is a narrative or not, as opposed to how it 'fits' in some kind of continuity, since the DWU's supposed 'canon' has been a ball of confusion since day one. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 14:01, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely can't put the whole text up. This Wiki cannot afford to break copyright like that! And let's wait and see if Danochy insists, before we burden the Wiki with yet another inclusion debate even though only one person every voiced the pretty odd opinion that it wasn't actually narrative. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:15, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Well, not on the main page, just in the inclusion debate/talk page/etc. Or at least an excerpt, a small one in quotes. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 14:37, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Since you've called my opinion "odd", I felt the need to justify myself. Considering the definition of a narrative as "an account of connected events" here is a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown.

Paragraph 1/2 - Descriptions of space/time (no story)

Paragraph 3 - Sentence 1: "when he built his Tardis.." (vaguely narrative?) Sentence 2 onwards: Description of what happens when the TARDIS demats. (non-narrative)

Paragraph 4 - Vague description of dimensions, then statement that Dr Who has visited them all dimensions. (Non-narrative)

Paragraph 5 - Religious allusion and description of size at the universe-scale. (non-narrative)

Paragraph 6 - Exaltation of the titular "Equations of Dr Who." (non-narrative)

Paragraph 7 - Three sentences on how the Doctor is a curious lad. (I guess it could vaguely be considered narrative, but is this enough alone?

Paragraph 8 - Rhetorical question.

So the only "event" is the allusion to Dr Who having built the Tardis and that he once visited dimensions. Yes these are events, but they're hardly connected within the piece without the non-narrative elements. You can respond to this if you want, but as I said, I really don't have time for a proper debate right now, what with exams approaching and all. Nor am I sure it matters all that much, I just brought it up here as I would with any other minor concerns I have with pages. I wouldn't want to enter the forums over Talk:High Street, for example. Danochy ☎ 14:47, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

I really wouldn't characterise the statement that Dr. Who has been visiting some places, and a description thereof, as "non-narrative". I think this is narrative the same way City of the Daleks (the comic, not the video game) is narrative — clearly the story is mostly there as an excuse to gab about the in-universe mechanics. But it is a story, just a thin excusey one. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:58, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about this wee discussion until I stumbled upon it just now. I have to say that there is no "description thereof" - here's the full paragraph seven:

"Dr Who faces the awe-inspiring reality of Space and Time and with wonderful human courage has set out to explore the Space-Time Universe in every shape and place and time he encounters. He is human curiousity personified. He must see for himself; he must go there; he must learn all there is to know."

I really don't see how that's in any way narrative. That's only paragraph 8, and the rest of the paragraph piece is entirely non-narrative, as I detailed above. Danochy ☎ 10:51, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Bearing in mind I haven't read the story, and fully admit this from the get go, the paragraph Danochy is referencing is straightforwardly non-narrative but instead descriptive of who the Doctor is. Najawin ☎ 14:56, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

You can't judge narrative status based on an individual paragraph; if that were the case, we would be throwing out every story that includes any exposition! Not to be "that guy" with the dictionary, but here's the definition of "narrative":

• A narrative, story or tale is any account of a series of related events or experiences, whether nonfictional or fictional.

So does The Equations of Dr Who describe a series of related events or experiences? I think that the summary makes that quite clear. Yes, it's written as if it's discussing facts / nonfiction, but per the definition, narratives can be nonfictional; equally, it uses the present tense, but this is a known form of narrative tense. In this light, paragraph 3's account of the TARDIS' dematerialisation process isn't "non-narrative" at all. I'm open to the case that this story is invalid, but the current arguments aren't getting me there. – N8 (☎/👁️) 16:54, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Of course we can't judge a work based on a single paragraph. The concern was that it was the the odd paragraph out, in Danochy's interpretation. Danochy, of course, did not discuss Scrooge's argument that paragraph 4 was narrative, in spite of saying 'I have to say that there is no "description thereof"'. I'm sure coming back to this discussion after some time made things less clear, so I'm not too concerned with this, but still. (I also note that the summary has been discussed above, so it's not relevant per se, just the text. Which is where I bow out, unless other people are characterizing the text, as I've not read it.) Najawin ☎ 17:20, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just misinterpreted which paragraph Scrooge was referring to, because the only relevant line in paragraph four is that "Dr Who, in his wonderful Tardis, has visited and seen them all" (referring to the many different universes). I must thank Nate, though, for his clearing up of the definition of the word "narrative", and I now acknowledge that the third paragraph, in its description of the process of dematerialisation, is likely enough to call the piece narrative. That said, I still maintain that the summary is highly inaccurate in its portrayal of the story, with its implication that the Doctor is carrying out any action whatsoever within the story, when that is simply untrue. Danochy ☎ 21:47, October 1, 2020 (UTC)