[[:#if:]]
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon III XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:180403
There is apparently a dispute at wikipedia over the exact title of the newest DW episode. Some claim it's Prologue, while others claim it is New Series Prologue.
If anyone has information that would help get this name right, please post it here, including any sources/reasons. Thanks!
- Mewiet
Prologue is clearly shown on the title card when you watch the webcast. The most recent Doctor Who Extra also has a title card of Prologue for the obvious reason that it is about the Prologue webcast. The only place where "New Series" comes into play is on the BBC website, but not the webcast itself. I believe Prologue is therefore the correct title.
- Bold Clone
Agreed. However, the disputer at wikipedia claims that the BBC website is the authoritative source, not the episode.
- Danniesen
So, hypothetically if we say that if the episode shows the Doctor being shot by a Dalek, but the BBC website says that he was deleted by a Cyberman, then it is the Cyberman deletion that counts?
- Bold Clone
Based on the other Wikipedian's opinion, I suppose so. It doesn't make any sense to me either. The episode specifically and explicitly gives itself the title "Prologue". IMO, there is nothing more authoritative about the episode's official title than the title which appears in the episode itself, in its official premiere.
- Danniesen
I think that either someone didn't think it through when they wrote it, or it's some vandalism of sorts. However I think the first one is more likely as no one seem to deliberately ruin the page.
- Bwburke94
The story's title is "Prologue" - the onscreen title wins out.
- Digifiend
AlexTheWhovian's edits got reverted and the pages temporarily protected. They do now correctly just say Prologue.
- Shambala108
Danniesen wrote: So, hypothetically if we say that if the episode shows the Doctor being shot by a Dalek, but the BBC website says that he was deleted by a Cyberman, then it is the Cyberman deletion that counts?
This thread is about the wikipedia page's title. No one is claiming that the rules have been changed here.
- Shambala108
Bwburke94 wrote: The story's title is "Prologue" - the onscreen title wins out.
Yes, everyone who has posted on this thread knows that. We are discussing the name dispute at wikipedia, not trying to figure out what we call it here.
- Danniesen
Shambala108 wrote:
Danniesen wrote: So, hypothetically if we say that if the episode shows the Doctor being shot by a Dalek, but the BBC website says that he was deleted by a Cyberman, then it is the Cyberman deletion that counts?
This thread is about the wikipedia page's title. No one is claiming that the rules have been changed here.
I know that. I'm not implying a change of rules.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:180448
Error in links to the Doctor Who Reference Guide, starting from http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Let's_Kill_Hitler_%28TV_story%29 - should be http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_tv63.htm, not who_tv62.htm - and at least up to http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Girl_Who_Waited_(TV_story).
- CzechOut
I'm afraid that this is not something a bot could easily fix. This can only be solved through manual editing of the page.
- Digifiend
I've dealt with this. It turned out that The God Complex onwards didn't have that link, nor the locations guide one, at all, so there was only three episode pages with the wrong link. I've added them, up to The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe. Looks like all of series 7, 8 and 9 needs those links adding.
EDIT: Done the reference guide links up to The Snowmen - that's as far as that site was updated. And added the locations guide links for series 7, Deep Breath through Robot of Sherwood, and Last Christmas through The Witch's Familiar. The rest of seasons 8 and 9 don't have pages on that site yet. Unless any earlier episodes, or SJA or Torchwood episodes are missing such links, we should now be up to date.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:180452
Now that The Complete History partwork series by Hatchette is out, how do we go about numbering individual instalments? The first issue released (Gridlock, Daleks in Manhattan, Evolution of the Daleks, The Lazarus Experiment and 42) is chronologically referred to as the fifty-fifth volume on the book's spine, for instance.
- Digifiend
That issue is the first released but will be 55th when you place them in order by TV airing of the stories covered. It's still issue 1, as I'm sure is probably mentioned somewhere in the book.
- Tybort
Not really on the book. There's a sticker on the plastic covering distinguishing the issues, and the barcode on the back cover (next to the pricing) has 01, 02, 03 at the end of each of them, but within the book itself the nearest thing to a title is simply Doctor Who: The Complete History, and then the titles of the stories covered. I don't have a scanner on me right now to show, but if I can do that, that might be easier to illustrate.
Once the entire series is released, you could look at the series in terms of issues (order The Complete History has been released in), but the collection in terms of volumes (beginning of Doctor Who to present day).
I suppose one important question would be about referencing, though. Would we reference the issue or the volume? If I wanted to source some information from the first issue, would I write TCH 1 or something like REF: TCH V1? TCH Volume 1?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:180524
The On Target website appears to be gone, which kills a major external link on every Target novelisation page. http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/general/main.htm
"404 Not Found"
- Shambala108
To remove those sites would probably best be done by bot, so hopefully one of our bot admins will see this post and take care of it, unless someone knows about a possible replacement.
- Tangerineduel
Disappointingly it was also covered by a robots.txt so not even the Wayback machine is an option for us.
I had a quick look around and it exists here http://archive.is/www.personal.leeds.ac.uk But it's in bits and it's no where near what the original was.
- Shambala108
It looks like at least some of the links have been removed (I haven't checked them all, just did a few random ones).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:180640
Hey All,
Never really posted on the site before, though I've often referenced it. I was looking at the page for Series 9 and noticed it had "Last Christmas" marked as part of Series 9 instead of Series 8. This seemed strange for me, as the plot of the episode was dealing with fallout from the Series 8 finale. Also, the Christmas Specials under Moffat tend to have more to do with the preceding series, rather than the following series (a trend that started with Russell T. Davies' and David Tennant's final series, and continur=ed through the 2009 specials).
Thematically, "A Christmas Carol" matches Series 5 more than Series 6; "The Doctor, The Widow, and the Wardrobe" ties up the plot threads of series 6; "The Snowmen" is obviously part of Series 7, and "The Time of the Doctor" wraps up the remaining threads left from Smith's tenure.
I understand that some of this organization is based on DVD/BluRay releases... but surely the story is more important than marketing? Could a note at least be added for people who come to this site for story and continuity questions? Each series of Doctor Who has had a series-long arc, and these Christmas specials tie into those arcs, and if you treat episodes in a series as chapters in a book, it wouldn't make sense for Series 7 to have two chapters in a row about the Doctor reconciling with the Ponds, and Last Christmas feels so much like a conclusion rather than a prologue...
- Danniesen
I totally understand what you're getting at, and honestly I've never really understood this either. But I just go with and accept it as it is. In fact I've never really seen the specials as part of the specific Series' But rather a connecting episode between them.
- Bwburke94
Per the prior decision on Time Crash, we deal with production series exclusively, not "what fits better where" in each series.
So the question is, what production series was Last Christmas a part of?
- Digifiend
That would logically be Series 8, because it aired around six weeks after the rest of that season. However, the production codes listed on the articles are 4.12 for Death in Heaven and 5.X for Last Christmas. Which wouldn't place them in the same season (though I must say, those production codes don't make sense, since The Stolen Earth is also production code 4.12).
- Bwburke94
So Last Christmas is Series 9, then.
(note on production codes: the Moffat era restarted the production codes for whatever reason)
- Shambala108
Admin note: Bwburke94's comments in the above post are his opinion only. This discussion is still open.
- Danniesen
I just don't see why they would make one episode of a series and then wait half a year to show the rest of it. I see it as a final stroke to the previous series.
- Digifiend
Like I said, logically, that's true, it should be part of Series 8. But the production code indicates Series 9.
I've noticed another complication. Logically, The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor are series 7 episodes, especially since they feature Matt Smith as the main Doctor rather than Peter Capaldi (though he is in both episodes). Their production codes are not listed on their articles. Why is this? The reason I tried to check that, is that series 7 (due to airing across two years) had TWO Christmas specials, The Snowmen and Time - and thus if Time is 4.X, it would explain why Last Christmas has the 5.X code which seems to belong to series 9, despite being a series 8 episode. There's no way you can claim Time is part of Series 8!
- RogerAckroydLives
Those production codes are attributed, not actually used on any production documents for the series. Production codes were abandoned after the 2011 Christmas special.
- Bwburke94
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Those production codes are attributed, not actually used on any production documents for the series. Production codes were abandoned after the 2011 Christmas special.
That just throws up even more questions.
- Digifiend
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Those production codes are attributed, not actually used on any production documents for the series. Production codes were abandoned after the 2011 Christmas special.
If this is true then any stories after that shouldn't have a code on their articles at all.
- Danniesen
Do you even have a proof that they were abandoned?
- RogerAckroydLives
Danniesen wrote: Do you even have a proof that they were abandoned?
I don't own any production documents, no, but it is cited as such by numerous sources.
- Danniesen
Just want to know where this comes from, because I've never seen it.
- RogerAckroydLives
I believe it has been detailed in a few reference books, and was stated within either DWM or a DWM special. The Wikipedia list of serials reflects the statement, but provides no citation.
- Mewiet
I've been trying to look into this. Unlike some of the previous Christmas specials (i.e. A Christmas Carol is included on the series 6 boxset and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe is included on the series 7 boxset), Last Christmas isn't included on the series 8 boxset or the boxset for the first half of series 9. The second half and complete series boxsets for series 9 haven't been released yet and I can't find any information about their content. However, while I was poking around on the BBC Shop, I noticed that the Last Christmas DVD and Blu-rays are listed as being part of series 8. Oddly, it's the only Christmas special they list a series for.
- Danniesen
So... the special should be moved to Series 8, along with its content seen on Series 9. And the Christmas special itself should be said to be part of Series 8.
- Bold Clone
That's jumping to conclusions, IMO. I think we need a bit more than just that.
- Mewiet
- RogerAckroydLives
Yep. This info is all over the web. Is this basis enough to place the upcoming special on the Series 9 page and adjust our "current" template to become the obverse of before? I personally think it would be a fine solution.
- Danniesen
Just wanna point out that spoilers should be avoided. Using initials of the next Series 9 Special is also spoiling.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:181121
Since the decaying, angry Daleks in the Dalek sewers are old Daleks that have been abandoned down there during the rebuilding of Skaro, can we conclude that these Daleks are all the Daleks that have been seen through the 52 years of Doctor Who history that have been featured on Skaro? And if so, should we add this information about these said Daleks, if they have their own articles that is? --DCLM ☎ 16:58, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Shambala108
If the story doesn't say so, we can't conclude it. A similar thing happened with the "dead people converted to Cybermen" thing last series, and we made sure to only allow what the story told us.
- OttselSpy25
Some stories will show Daleks dying in various ways. We can't try to justify this futher than noting the differences in the stories where appropriate.
- Danniesen
OttselSpy25 wrote: Some stories will show Daleks dying in various ways. We can't try to justify this futher than noting the differences in the stories where appropriate.
We are not talking real world-perspective, y'know. From that viewpoint, yes that is a new idea. But from the in-universe perspective these sewers will always have existed. And we can assume that these Daleks are the old Daleks seen in the previous Skaro-set episodes, but as Shambala108 said perfectly, we can't conclude this on the pages, as none of this is seen or mentioned in the episode.
- OttselSpy25
Yeah, and from a story perspective not every Dalek story will support this.
- Danniesen
I'm talking about the Daleks that didn't get shot or killed by an enemy. Daleks that didn't end up dead, Daleks that lived on.
And only the stories with Daleks that are set on Skaro.
- OttselSpy25
It's still speculation to connect every Dalek who ever was featured in a story set on Skaro to be still alive. It should also be noted that it's suggested in the episode that this is not the original Skaro.
- Danniesen
I never said it was anything else. But if they weren't killed by someone, then they would still be alive, as, as confirmed in this story, Daleks have no natural means of dying.
In your Skaro-notation it should be noted that it's still the same Skaro, just made anew. One clue could be the mountain behind the Dalek City in the Series 9 opener, which is also seen behind the Dalek City in the Season 1 serial "The Daleks".
But I say again, I'm only speculating. And it has been none else than that. The "Threads" are in part used for this purpose.
In the aspect of that I think I would be right about my theory on the Daleks that ever featured and didn't get killed. But as it has never been said in a story, it cannot be featured.
- OttselSpy25
The word "theory" is a hint as to why this won't work on this wikia. WE can add info on the story stating that Dalek mutants can not die, but we can not add it to random story pages about other Daleks. For instance, Lumpy does not need a statement about his immortality.
- Danniesen
Why are you trying to make it into something more than what I'm saying? I am saying that I already know it can't be featured, but still can be correct. (that's the same with unbroadcast stories)
And I already know that it would be pointless to add it onto every story page, and I'm not saying it should be either.
As far as I'm concerned, the original question has been answered, and the forums are no place for theories and speculation. Therefore, this thread will be closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:181344
I know that we had this discussion long ago, and it was decided that the Curator has no proof to actually being a future incarnation of the Doctor besides the harsh innuendos of the scene. But I figured that we should reopen it as a comic released today seems to shine new light on the subject. In the comic, the Eleventh Doctor and Alice encounter a being puts temporal pressure on the pair and a new member of the team, we see the group shifting in time. To the left of the Eleventh Doctor we see the First Doctor, suggesting it's shifting his timelines that much. To the right we see... The Curator. This lasts a few panels at least. So I ask, is this now enough to qualify him as a future incarnation? Or maybe just an incarnation at all?
- BananaClownMan
Considering it's pre-Day, meaning it can't be a memory trick they plant on the Doctor, I'd say yes, this does prove the Curator is a future Doctor.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Undoubtedly. I'd already changed the page to reflect this before seeing this thread. The intent of the image is clear, and there's no other context his appearance can really take. It's even printed twice in the comic.
- MystExplorer
I see that in DWM 487, Steven Moffat says that the Curator is meant to be a future Doctor and that the Eleventh Doctor would not remember the specifics of his conversation with the Curator but will leave the Under-Gallery "with the strange, groundless conviction that Gallifrey is still out there". If so, this would explain why in Time of the Doctor he still believed he would die on Trenzalore. Since he doesn't remember the encounter with his future self, he had no way of knowing that he would survive.
- JulietF1
I've read that Osgood got her scarf from the Curator, which means he's a later incarnation of the Doctor. (The Doctor is the master of the third option, so we should be prepared for interesting revelations.)
- MystExplorer
JulietF1 wrote: I've read that Osgood got her scarf from the Curator, which means he's a later incarnation of the Doctor. (The Doctor is the master of the third option, so we should be prepared for interesting revelations.)
Out of curiosity, where did you read that?
- JulietF1
TVTropes dot org. I don't know where that contributor got the information. The entry says 'Word of God', which means that someone connected with producing the show said that. (Perhaps Moffatt, who originally intended her to be Sgt. Osgood's daughter, but held off on making it official.)
- MystExplorer
I see. Thanks!
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:181963
It has been brought up on various discussions that the interpretation that the Crispy Master and the Delgado Master is somewhat flawed and possibly contradicted by other sources.
I partially wanted to bring this up to a larger forum, but I more mainly wanted to pitch that even if from an in-universe perspective they're the same incarnation, from an out-of-universe p.o.v. they're very different in style, look, and direction. Thus I think that on Template:Master stories we split up the Delgado/Pratt/Beavers section into Delgado and Pratt/Beavers. This is what the readers will expect, what they will need to find info, and since the entire template is based off of actors and out-of-universe conceptions, then we can split up the two incarnations.
- BananaClownMan
I agree
- Bwburke94
Bump.
This is an out of universe template, so we aren't bound to treat them the same as if it were in-universe. - OttselSpy25
I don't even think we really need a discussion. We keep theme as totally separate in our category system as well.
- OttselSpy25
- Bwburke94
It's a major change to a template, of course we need a discussion.
- OttselSpy25
Well, I mean ya, we need a discussion, but it's still a precedent we've set. Saying dumb stuff like "this discussion isn't even needed!" was sort of a hyperbole I guess.
- Schreibenheimer
It seems that this change has since been made to the template. Unless anyone is arguing for it to be reverted, should this be closed?
- RingoRoadagain
Considering that audio and comic stories have put them as different incarnations since then. I don't think we should fuse them back.
- OttselSpy25
Yeah, I agree. Honestly, having read the Legacy of the Daleks, I think the claim that Delgado and Pratt/Beavers were the same even in that text is somewhat questionable. But yeah, forum defunct.
- Bwburke94
In a sense, this involves the larger question of what counts as an "incarnation" of the Master. It's a relic of when "incarnation" and "regeneration" were synonymous.
- Scrooge MacDuck
OttselSpy25 wrote: I think the claim that Delgado and Pratt/Beavers were the same even in that text is somewhat questionable.
How so? Having recently reread it myself, I find the claim that it doesn't lead directly into The Deadly Assassin beyond belief. Or are you saying that while he does act generally like Delgado and have the beard, we don't technically know if it's really the same regeneration?
At any rate, I think this should all just be a matter of separate accounts. We consider the decayed Master(s) "different incarnations" as sections/templates go, but acknowledge that in terms of how they came to be, we don't know whether the Decayed Master was the result of the 12th or 13th incarnation of the Master being damaged. (Legacy of the Daleks is if nothing else clear that Delgado isn't the Master's last incarnation, the damage dealt to him by Susan is just so severe that it disables regeneration.)
Incidentally, I think not enough credit is given to the possibility that the Pratt Decayed Master is not the same as the Beevers Decayed Master. I find it plausible enough that the Pratt Decayed Master was post-Legacy of the Daleks Delgado, who then found a way to restore himself to normal, regenerated into non-decayed Beevers as per Big Finish, and was later reduced to a similar decayed form.
- Schreibenheimer
An interesting perspective. Are you proposing, then, that we separate the two Crispy Masters in the template, or are you good with how things are?
- RingoRoadagain
As far as I know here is all we have regarding the Delgado/Beevers/Pratt debate:
- The Delgado Master regenerated in a DWM 12th doctor comic. Furthermore, in the book "Harvest of Time" the third doctor mentions that the Delgado Master could regenerate.
- A Beevers incarnation was damaged beyond repair in "The Two Masters" audio and became crispy. No regeneration.
- A crispy Pratt, after his twelfth regeneration appeared in "The Deadly Assassin"
- ENGIN: After the twelfth regeneration, there is no plan that will postpone death.
- DOCTOR: He had a plan.
- But Pratt was partially healed by the Eye of Harmony: "There was a good deal of power coming out of that monolith, and the Sash would have helped him to convert it."
- The 4th Doctor noted that the crispy master became "less putrescent" during their next encounter in "Trail of the Worm".
- In the Keeper of Traken, Beevers states: "I am now nearing the end of my twelfth regeneration."
On the other hand we have a single valid book "legacy of the Daleks" which states that it went directly from Delgado to crispy master when Susan killed him on Tersurus.
I'm afraid it would just be speculation that Pratt and Beevers are different regeneration. I guess he could be a stolen body that decayed and reverted back to Beevers after 'deadly assassin'?Your suggestion is as follows, right?
Delgado (12th) > Pratt (12th; crispy) > Delgado (12th, not crispy) > Beevers (13th, pre-crispy) > Beevers (13th; crispy)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Basically. Not that I'm asking us to outright say this (it is pure speculation that Pratt-as-Crispy-Delgado manages to outright revert the damage to himself in time to regenerate into Beevers), but it is a possibility that should be made room for.
And again, Legacy of the Daleks no less "implies" it shows the origin of the Deadly Assassin Crispy than The Two Masters does. And Legacy also allows for Delgado to be able to regenerate in the general case; there is no conflict on whether he was the 12th Master.
Ultimately, what I'd suggest would be to add a section to the Master page. Or, rather, to dissociate the accounts of not-yet-crispy Thirteenth Master played by Beevers, from the "A body in decay" version. That way, you'd have the Delgado section, which ends with a fork between "maybe this leads directly into Deadly Assassin, maybe he regenerates in Doorway to Hell"; then you'd have the section about non-crispy Beevers, which ends with The Two Masters’s account of him being turned into the Crispy Master; and then you have the "a body in decay" section, now limited to the actual Crispy Master(s) and acknowledging that the timeline is very murky.
I mean, the {{Pratt}} template as it stands is a mess. A section titled "A body in decay" is saddled with all information about not-yet-decaying Beevers, making its title less than accurate — and what's more, Beevers again plays the shade of the Master post-TV Movie, and yet that template cannot point to both sections at once.
So in terms of the template, we ought to make {{Beevers}} to the non-crispy instances of his Master, and not the various times he plays the decayed wraith. Then a {{Decayed}} for Pratt/Beevers as such, and a {{Wraith}} or something for the post-Roberts reversion to Beevers.
…Although in my opinion it would be so very much easier to just re-split The Master into individual pages. That way you'd have:
- The Master (Terror of the Autons) for Delgado (12th Master);
- The Master (The Two Masters) for pre-Crispy Beevers (13th Master):
- The Master (The Deadly Assassin) for Pre-TV Movie Crispy, whoever he is;
- The Master (The Keeper of Traken) for Ainley;
- The Master (First Frontier) for "Rathbone" in the VNAs;
- The Master (Dust Breeding), the "second" Beevers after he loses his stolen Trakenite body;
- Old Master (Doctor Who) for Tipple, who for anyone worried that his page would just consist of "he died" is also the guy in the final Master section of The Eight Doctors;
- The Master (Doctor Who for Roberts;
- The Master (The Glorious Dead) for the DWM post-Roberts Master;
- The Master (Mastermind) for the third Beevers, the shade who is eventually granted a new regeneration cycle in Day of the Master.
Past that (and before that) it's all relatively straightforward and uncontroversial.
But even if we don't do this, I hope the above has made it clear that there's something very wrong with the current state of events where things we might want to call "Beevers' Master" don't belong in the section A body in decay to which {{Pratt}} is stuck linking.
- Schreibenheimer
I'm pretty sure the majority of that was far beyond the scope of this thread, so I'm only going to respond to your suggestion in regard to the template. Unless Monday has made my brain feeble, "The Two Masters" is the only non-crispy Beevers appearance, and it's only for a few moments before he gets sautéed. Does that really justify its own section in the template? All other sections you mentioned seem to be covered, although maybe not by the names you suggested to give them.
- RingoRoadagain
I wonder if we are getting off topic, are you arguing for meging Delgado and Crispy back together in the templates?
EDIT:i did not see Schreibenheimer answer before typing
(If I'm being perfectly honest my belief is that we should have a grand section/page for Beevers with under it subsections about all the bodies he stole instead of putting them on the same level.
basically, the idea being for the Master article to follow this structure with the corresponding redirects:
- Delgado
- Beevers
- Pratt
- Ainley
- Roberts
in stead of:
- Delgado
- Pratt
- Ainley
- Roberts
I would do the same basic structure with the Master Stories Template.
Personally, I would like to adopt something akin to your naming and tried to find a proper one for a while, but here are a few issue I could see:
- should we also create a page for the possessed Yee Jee Tso Master (Don Maestro) from Masterplan?
- Should we for the possessed Mikey in "And You Will Obey Me"?
- Same with all mentionned possessed body from Masterplan.
- Who would be "The Master (Utopia)": Jacobi or Simm? Similarly is "Master (Last of the Time Lords)" Hughes or Simm?
- Are we sure that everything before "Destination Wars" happened to the 8yo Hughes incarnation? Is Dreyfus the same as Hughes incarnation? Should we make a page for each time a pre-renegade Master is mentionned?
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't like this proposed at all, because again, it's blatant EDA erasure. Per Legacy of the Daleks, it is equally true that the Crispy Master is a deformed Delgado (12th Master) as a deformed Beevers (13th Master). Making all the Crispy Master business a subdivision of the section about the Beevers Master is wrong if only for that.
Also, as discussed at Talk:I Am The Master (audio story), Ainley is also explicitly called a "regeneration", and nor does it make much sense to treat the Tzun Master as the same guy as Beevers.
As for disambiguating Jacobi and Simm, part of me wants to answer "Shalka should be valid and that way Jacobi is The Master (Scream of the Shalka)". But more seriously, Jacobi is given the title of "War Master" by Big Finish to match the War Doctor, so why not use War Master for him, thereby leaving The Master (Utopia) for Simm and The Master (The Sound of Drums) for Hughes.
As for "is Dreyfus the First Master?", I wanna say no, but the reason is the elephant in the room when it comes to early Master incarnations: we have yet to reconsider the The War Chief/The Master link in light of the "novelisations are valid" thing. Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon is quite clear that they're the same guy, in addition to all the hints; thus far Divided Loyalties’s treatment of the Master and War Chief as distinct trumped this, but now that novelisations are fully valid in their own right… That's a mess that deserves its own thread, unless we want to rename this one and make it more generally about straightening out our coverage of the Master's incarnations. Which doesn't sound too bad, actually.
- SOTO
The topic of whether or not to split or merge our coverage of the Master has already been discussed at length, and concluded in the one unified page we have today. All the concerns brought up above are some of the reasons why.
To steer this conversation back to its central thread, allow me just to point out that any discussion of overturning that decision (if there is truly some new angle that changes everything) would be taking place in a different thread. Instead, let's try to concern ourselves with how best to cover various points of the Master's life (on the page The Master, and keeping in mind T:NPOV) as faithfully as possible, without, as Scrooge McDuck has noted, erasure of older sources in favour of newer material/only certain mediums alone.
- RingoRoadagain
I'm genuinely interested in the subject as a whole and not against making a new thread about it or try and discuss it with each other on our own talk pages if you wish.
Maybe we have one on this very subject in september 2015 (by going through the page history) given that it was apparently decided that we don't explicitely put Delgado as being the 13th despite Legacy of the Daleks anymore at the time.
Back to the OP topic: should we keep Delgado separated from the crispy husk one(s) in the Master Stories template which is a real world section and not an in-universe one?I see three sensible options so that we don't lose information:
1) We keep the distinction as it is as of now (other unrelated changes not withstanding):
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- Pratt
- Ainley
- "John Smith"
- VNA
- Roberts
- Mastermind
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear (tipple, ...)
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
2) We put them like I proposed already above, with Beevers distinct from Delgado and all his attempts at prolonging life as being subsections (following what appears to be the way BF see it but which you don't seem to agree with due to the apparent conflict with John Peel's book)
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- Beevers
- Pratt
- Ainley
- VNA
- Roberts
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear (Tipple ...)
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
3) We put ALL the Beevers and Pratt stories in the Incarnation unclear section because of the conflict between some accounts. Would that be ok with you?
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear
- Pratt
- Ainley
- "John Smith"
- VNA
- Roberts
- Mastermind
- Others (Tipple, ...)
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
- Bwburke94
There's little to no reason to separate crispy Beevers from crispy Pratt. What sources, if any, have stated the two to be separate incarnations?
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but I can't think of any evidence of it. I really can't think of any non-Crispy Master stories set between "The Deadly Assassin" and "The Keeper of Traken". I think it's just a way of trying to fit Legacy of the Daleks with later stories that blatantly disregarded Legacy of the Daleks.
EDIT: After going back to Legacy of the Daleks, I want to add to my previous statement. I believe that a bit of this revolves around one somewhat vague sentence. When Susan uses the tissue compression eliminator on the Master, it says,
- There was no respite for him now, no way to regenerate from such a death.
It's unclear whose viewpoint this statement is from. Under one possible reading, it's from the Master's point-of-view or an omniscient narrator's and, if they're the Master or omniscient, why don't they mention that the Master is out of regenerations anyway? Since they didn't, that means this must not be the Thirteenth Master!
To me, that seems like a VERY tenuous hook to hang a belief on when nothing else I can think of seems to support it. I'm always open to new information, though!
- Scrooge MacDuck
@Schreibenheimer: I'm not sure what you're arguing here, Schreiben. That Legacy presents Delgado as the Thirteenth Master, or that it actually features a non-Delgado 13th Master?
If it's the former, my reasoning isn't so much "this line is definitive proof that Legacy still considers Delgado the Twelfth Master" as "this line means what Legacy says about Delgado is ambiguous, so in light of later evidence that he's the Twelfth Master, we go with that".
If it's the latter… have you read the book? Everything from his just coming off of Frontier in Space, to his speech patterns, to his ownership of a beard (which Beevers' Master famously lacks) points towards this being the Delgado Master.
And even if that didn't convince you, Beevers-as-a-separate-incarnation-from-Delgado hadn't yet been thought up at the time John Peel wrote Legacy of the Daleks, so this becomes a similar discussion to the "two Romana IIIs" one: if two stories unrelated come up with a new incarnation of a Time Lord, which supposedly occupy the same number, but have different faces and histories, do we consider them the same or not? (Leaning towards a resounding "not".)
@User:Bwburke94: Beevers and Pratt's Crispy Masters look different and are played by different actors (who sound hardly anything like each other). Were this any other situation, we wouldn't break a sweat to call them two different incarnations. And even in the hypothesis where they are technically "the same", Beevers is still a version of Crispy who has been significantly enlivened by the influence of the Eye; there has been a transformation of some sort. So whatever version one goes with, it makes some sense to handle them as two different subsections.
@User:RingoRoadagain: Seems a bit weird to have all the post-Delgado pre-Macqueen Masters after Missy. Couldn't we do basically your second solution, but call it "Out of regenerations" or something like that, and place it wholesale between Delgado and Macqueen?
- Schreibenheimer
I was only addressing the argument of whether the Pratt and Beevers Masters were the same and was not touching on Pratt being Delgado at all, which may have been doing your argument a disservice, I'll concede.
Overall, I think trying to reconcile Legacy of the Daleks with any of the Master stories (or Susan stories, for that matter) that have come after is a fruitless task; there are too many contradictions. That isn't to say that Legacy is an invalid source; of course it's valid, and its account of what happened should be included on the Master's page (which it currently is). But the page does need to be structured around an overall narrative, and I believe its necessary for that narrative to be the ongoing one presented in all other sources I can think of. "All sources are equally valid" does not necessarily mean that one source is equal to multiple others. I think how the page is currently laid out is pretty good.
On a final point, while I do agree that the Master in Legacy is the Delgado one, we have no idea if the Beevers Master had a beard before being burned.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The current layout of the page is fine, it's the templates that I take issue with. We should have a better system in place than a template called {{Pratt}} linking to a section filled to the brim with info about a Master played by Beevers, even though there is a possibility in at least some valid sources that Pratt isn't in fact playing Beevers' Thirteenth Master, but rather Delgado's Twelfth Master.
- RingoRoadagain
Here is a thread discussing whether Delgado and Pratt are the same incarnation based solely on Peel's book: Thread:167204
Also discussed there: Talk:The Master (Tersurus)
Honestly I find it quite unclear. You convinced me that it is ambiguous which incarantion would be the crispy Master in "Legacy of the Daleks" and as reminded to us by T:NPOV we should not discard it. The description of him being found by Goth clearly shows him to be the TV portrayal of Pratt and not the one of Beevers.
The skin was burnt and blackened, parts of the skeleton exposed. The face was blistered and warped, the eyes large and studying him unblinkingly.
If I understand your point correctly, then I may have found a new proposal, putting only Pratt's stories in the unclear section (with or without my proposal of putting all attempts at unnatural survival under Beevers as I understand it from BF's stance):
4)
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- Beevers
- Ainley
- "John Smith"
- VNA
- Roberts
- Mastermind
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear (tipple, ...)
- Pratt: Legacy of the Daleks * Deadly Assassin
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
OR
5)
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- Beevers
- Ainley
- VNA
- Roberts
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear (tipple, ...)
- Pratt: Legacy of the Daleks * Deadly Assassin
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
OR, my 2nd proposal with your tweak (although i would prefer to avoid the "no regeneration" since you reminded us of some regeneration-like phrasing for both Ainley and the Tzun Masters):
6)
- Early
- Dreyfus
- Delgado
- {{Beevers|Out of regeneration}} / {{Beevers|Survival}}
- Pratt
- Ainley
- VNA
- Roberts
- Macqueen
- Titan
- Jacobi
- Simm
- Gomez
- unclear (Tipple ...)
- AU
- Kisgart
- Inferno
- NOTVALID
- RingoRoadagain
(by the way i recall a conversation between Beevers and MacQueen in "the two masters" where Beevers claimed that until he was disfigured by the bald incarnation, he had a beard)
- Danniesen
It's really quite simple. He didn't regenerate into a disfigured form. He regenerated as a normal looking individual and was unfortunate enough to be disfigured by his future self.
- RingoRoadagain
Danniesen wrote: It's really quite simple. He didn't regenerate into a disfigured form. He regenerated as a normal looking individual and was unfortunate enough to be disfigured by his future self.
Well according to "Legacy" he probably did not: the Eighth Doctor states that Delgado is "two and a half" bodies ago which is difficult to reconcile in with the rest of known stories. The book has Susan kill Delgado of her own hands with no possibility to regenerate, this alone contradicts the "disfigured by his future self" account.
That's why i am now arguing that Pratt should become an "incarnation unclear": he could be Delgado (Legacy of the Dalek's account) or he is Beevers (Big Finish's accounts).
- Danniesen
Pratt and Beevers are meant to be the same and when Beevers portrays the Master pre-The Deadly Assassin in stories that are MADE afterwards it is simply because he is a better fit to call back to do it. It is in no way because he changes from Beever variation to Pratt variation and back to Beevers variation. Beevers' pre-TDA portrayals are as the normal-looking regeneration after Delgado and portraying him as Crispy Pratt's version. The MacQueen incarnation totally disfigured him. Beevers portrays him as Pratt would. Then this version was healed by the Eye, the result of which we see in The Keeper of Traken.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Fair enough on this erasing much possibility of Beevers!Crispy and Pratt!Crispy coexisting, but the fact remains that Legacy either features Delgado or (very tentatively) an alternative Thirteenth Master, but simply cannot feature SeparateIncarnation!PreCrispy!Beevers, as that character had yet to be created — and sees that turning into the Crispy Master.
- Danniesen
This paragraph is taken directly from The Master page:
"However, this may be reconciled as Legacy does not explicitly feature the Delgado Master 'regenerating' into the Pratt/Beevers version, as the novel depicts him being blown out of his TARDIS when Susan destroys a key piece of equipment and he is later shown being rescued by Goth, creating the possibility that he was not badly injured by the explosion and was able to retrieve another TARDIS to continue his depicted adventures as the Delgado incarnation, such as Doorway to Hell, until he regenerated and was disfigured in Two Masters."
- Scrooge MacDuck
That's inaccurate. Even if Legacy did not fairly explicitly show the explosion burning away the Master's flesh, his mind has, by this point, already been severely damaged by Susan's attack, all the charm and refinement burned away to reveal the impervious hatred lurking below. The Master in Doorway to Hell simply cannot be a post-Legacy!explosion Master. All that paragraph sounds like Howling material.
- Danniesen
It's not inaccurate. Just because you turn turn insane due to it does not mean you turn into a different incarnation. Simm's version was vastly different between Series 3 finale, Series 4 special and Series 10 finale, but he was all the same incarnation. This scenario is exactly the same, but with two different versions of the Master.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I protest! It is theoretically possible to reconcile Legacy of the Daleks with just The Two Masters, though that's pretty far-fetched already. But what I mean is that the Delgado Master's behaviour in Doorway to Hell specifically is not consistent with a post-Susan-attack Master at all.
- Danniesen
It is very possible that he had time to calm. We can't say how much time passed.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, come on. It's overwhelmingly clear that the maddened state reached by the Master due to Susan is the very same mental state in which we find him in Deadly Assassin.
All in all, this entire "but what if Delgado somehow survived the explosion unharmed, and somehowgot his mind back, only to later be reverted to the exact same maddened state when his future self fried him again" thing is at least as much speculation as my earlier "what if Pratt is fried-Delgado who turned back to normal in time for Doorway, regenerated into Beevers, got fried again, and became the Keeper of Traken Crispy?", which was rightfully shot down.
- SarahJaneFan
We also can’t claim anything other than “According to one account Delgado was the Thirteenth Master and was disfigured by Susan” and “According to another account he regenerated and Beevers was the Thirteenth Master who was disfigured by his future self”
It’s pointless to even speculate how the accounts could fit together because we don’t have any sources that even suggest that they should fit together. Fact of the matter is, Pratt and Beevers are not separate incarnations because we don’t have a source that suggests that. Doorway isn’t post-Legacy, because again we don’t have a source that suggests that. This kind of speculation is all well and good on the timeline pages but on the articles we have to be impartial and treat all sources equally.
- Schreibenheimer
This is all getting very far away from the matter at hand, which is the layout of the template. My feelings are that separating Pratt and Beevers on the template is problematic because the distinction is unclear. Beevers plays the character immediately post-flambéing in "The Two Masters", which, yes, is only one account of what happened, but still makes it rather difficult to separate the two as distinct incarnations.
Also, it's a rather small subset of stories to create their own category when the need for a separate category is debatable to begin with; Pratt only appeared in "The Deadly Assassin", Legacy of the Daleks is primarily a Delgado story, and he's played by Beevers in "The Two Masters" despite not being healed by the Eye of Harmony yet.
EDIT: The context of my initial statement is based on having started typing before SarahJaneFan's most recent post.
- Scrooge MacDuck
SarahJaneFan wrote: We also can’t claim anything other than “According to one account Delgado was the Thirteenth Master and was disfigured by Susan” and “According to another account he regenerated and Beevers was the Thirteenth Master who was disfigured by his future self”
As we covered upthread, Legacy of the Daleks, while it's consistent with such a proposal, does not spell out Delgado to be the Thirteenth Master, instead hedging its bets and saying that "no regeneration could save him from such a death". Since Doorway, for its part, definitively establishes Delgado as #12 (whatever else it may do), I see no reason not to stick with the "Delgado is still the Twelfth Master but the T.C.E.+Dalek Artifact explosion cancels regeneration" possibility that Peel left us.
- Danniesen
Scrooge, it is in no way the same thing tho.
- Danniesen
BTW, why the "oh come on". Isn't that a bit hostile?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Sorry, didn't mean it to come across as such. It's a colloquial "come on now, fellow reader, you know as well as I do", not an angry "come on" as I now realize it may have read as.
In what way does it differ, though? In both cases, a story has Delgado go through a seemingly-irreversible, dire transformation of which no signs whatever are apparent in Doorway to Hell, and we were speculating as to the possibility that through unknown offscreen mechanics, he could have restored himself to normal in time for Doorway.
- Danniesen
One talks about his mind, the other talks about his appearance.
And as I also covered, this scenario is similar to the Saxon Master transformation. He is 3 different versions of himself in all 3 appearances, but he is still the same single incarnation. One had him insane, one had him total mental psychopath and one had him calm and collected evil genius mind.
Delgado's Master could easily have gone through the same transformation, with the blast out the TARDIS and picked up by Goth (no regeneration confirmed stated) turning him a mentally unstable wreck of a psycho while the other one (showing a regeneration happening for him) not stating when it takes place and how long time could have gone.
- Danniesen
The latter doesn't show his following incarnation either. And we can almost be certain he regenerated as a normal-looking man as it would be pretty much implausible that he regenerated as a burnt out corpse, also confirmed by the fact that before being attacked by his future self, he was a normal-looking person.
- RingoRoadagain
In case I did not explain my reasoning properly, I am not asking to explicitely separate Pratt and Beevers at all.
Taking all accounts either we have:
Delgado > burnt ALL remaining regenerations if any > Crispy Pratt > Crispy Beevers; whether Pratt is the burnt Delgado or a new but immediately burnt incarnation seems unclear in the text
or we have:
Delgado > (maybe a few others unknown ones) > pre-crispy Beevers > crispy Beevers > Crispy Pratt > Crispy Beevers
Without more material reconciling Susan shooting Delgado to death on Tersurus and McQueen shooting Beevers MUST possess some degree of speculation.
As of now, I argue that it is impossible to know 100%.
That's my reasoning to why I believe we should put both Pratt stories (Legacy and Assassin) in the "incarnation unclear" section.
This is not saying that Pratt is not Beevers but, much like we do with Tipple in the template, just admitting that we simply don't know.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Good analysis; I hadn't actually considered that it's possible the guy Delgado regenerates into in Doorway to Hell is not immediately Beevers. Your solution mostly sounds good, but is there any way to put all the unclear Masters before the Macqueen-Gomez NuWho regeneration cycle, to maintain a semblance of chronology?
- Danniesen
There cannot have been "a few others unknown". It has been pretty much known since the 70s that Delgado's was "at the end of the line", which does not mean that he IS the last, but pretty much states that there can only at most be one more.
And why do we not know if Pratt and Beevers are the same? That is pretty much confirmed outright by multiple instances...
- Scrooge MacDuck
As I said, even if Pratt "is" Beevers, he still changes face and voice thanks to the Eye of Harmony partially healing him, which you could construe as a separate version of the Master. But that's a minor point.
What are you referring to regarding it "having been pretty much known since the 70s that Delgado was 'at the end of the line'"? I recall no such thing, on television at least.
Also, can we please address my concerns regarding the War Chief?
- Schreibenheimer
Hold on. I know of no sources that specify anything about what regeneration Delgado is. Where are you getting that from?
EDIT: Sorry, Scrooge posted at the same time I was typing. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that there should be a section noting the possibility that the Master and The War Chief are the same character, just like there is one on the War Chief page.
- Danniesen
Oh we are not in disagreement on the transfer from Pratt's walking corpse to Beevers' slightly healed body. There is a clear change. But even though he's a different version, he is still the same incarnation.
Ever since I first got into Doctor Who and got knowledge of the Master (that was well before I first got to experience him in the show), everything I heard from everywhere talking about the first version to ever appear of the Master was that he was at the end of his cycle.
What about the War Chief?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The thing about the War Chief is that there is currently a very very plentiful BTS section on The War Chief about how a bunch of sources in and out-of-universe agree he's an earlier incarnation of the Master, but none of it comes through in the in-universe sections of either page.
This is, as best I can tell, because Divided Loyalties, an original novel, has the Doctor have a partially-unreliable dream about his Academy days in which the young Master and the young War Chief are separate characters. Whereas the only narrative works which make the War Chief/Master connection explicit are Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon and Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons, which are both novelisations. And until a few years ago, information from novelisations that contradicted fully original works was invalid.
But that is no longer the case, so it's about time we revised our habit of so neatly separating the two.
Besides the fact that this would put him in the Master stories template, the reason he's mildly relevant to this "which incarnation is Delgado?" discussion is that Timewyrm: Exodus all but states that after another regeneration post-War Games, the War Chief regenerates into a young Delgado. So even assuming that Dreyfus is an older Hughes, that would make Delgado the fourth incarnation at the very, ludicrously earliest.
- Schreibenheimer
I won't lie; while I personally already considered the War Chief to be an incarnation of the Master, I thought there were more contradictions than that. I'm not sure that's within the scope of this thread, though; I'm pretty sure most people would consider that a big change and would want it to have its own debate.
- Danniesen
We need more voices on this than just us to give their view.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It does probably deserve its own thread, it's true. Still relevant to this one in its capacity as "how do we update the Master stories template?", since such a decision would impact said template as well.
The only other outright contradiction I'm aware of regarding the War Chief=Master link is A Brief History of Time Lords, although that book didn't exist yet at the time the section was written, so hey.
- RingoRoadagain
We are getting off topic from OP's question about the Crispy Master, I'm afraid. It should probaly be best to discuss characters who may or may not be the Master like the War Chief, "The War King" (aka the Magistrate from The Infinity Doctors), "Man with the Rosette" and "Professor Stream (The Hollows of Time)" in its own thread.
Although there are many hints for each that they are the Master, it has never been confirmed outright in a valid licensed story. (to my chagrin as i was a contributor to this BtS section) One possible reason might be copyright? War Chief probably belongs to the Dicks & Hulke estate for instance.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think you realize that Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon and Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons are in fact the work of Malcolm Hulke and Terrance Dicks. They were totally at liberty to use the War Chief, copyright-wise.
And they did! The only way for these books to be more explicit about the link would be to have Delgado hold a big neon sign flashing “I USED TO CALL MYSELF THE WAR CHIEF AND HAVE A WEIRD MUSTACHE JUST SAYING”.
The only reason they don't do this is that they aren't infected with the fandom superstition that "the War Chief" is a Time Lord name to which the character answered, as opposed to just his rank within the War Lords' army. So all they can do is say in no uncertain terms "remember that Time Lord who allied with the War Lords and whom the Master called the other Time Lords in to try, and then he was supposed to have his TARDIS revoked and timestream erased, but he escaped? now he calls himself the Master".
So all in all, quite a different discussion from the War King, the Man with the Rosette, and Professor Stream, all three of whom are cases of characters coded to be the Master, but who cannot be considered to be the Master by the Wiki because the stories weren't licensed to use the Master.
So I support a separate thread to get the War Chief business cleared up, a thread whose final decision would also influence this one somewhat. But Stream, the War King and Rosette don't belong in that thread.
- Danniesen
I don't see and never saw the War Chief as the Master. Personally I also think that the whole of the fandom (with that I mean everywhere outside this Wikia) is in agreement that these are not the same character.
- Danniesen
But should we get back to the topic, which was not the War Chief...
- Scrooge MacDuck
Danniesen wrote: I don't see and never saw the War Chief as the Master. Personally I also think that the whole of the fandom (with that I mean everywhere outside this Wikia) is in agreement that these are not the same character.
Even if this is true (and it's not at all my experience, for the record), what the fandom thinks is neither here nor there. The fandom also tends not to think the Doctor is half-human, and a large proportion is also against Looms; yet here we are.
Which gets us cleanly back on-topic: the fact of the matter is that even if most of the fandom tends to go with Big Finish over the EDAs in these matters, Legacy of the Daleks is equally valid to later accounts, and we can't simply mangle its storyline in a speculative effort to fit it together with The Two Masters. So I still think putting all the "arguable" in-between-cycles Masters in one big subsection of the template, and calling it a day for now.
- Danniesen
Never said we could use speculation. Of course, no speculation should be used on the articles to neatly connect them. That would be outrageous to do. I was just pointing out a very likely possibility that could potentially turn out true eventually.
But given that all we can provide is speculation on what could and could not be false and true, we can keep discussing this forever without actually being able to reach a conclusion on The Master until stories are actually made that fill in these holes.
- Schreibenheimer
That sounds like the opposite of the problem we have. The problem is that different stories filled the holes in different ways. We have two different, valid ways that the Master got poached with significant differences between the details.
- Scrooge MacDuck
In fairness, a story confirming that it is Beevers into whom Delgado regenerates in Doorway would bring some measure of clarity.
- Danniesen
I meant the hole that makes the stories contradicting. Like when the different stories talked about different origins of the Cybermen. All the stories providing different origins which were very clear contradictions until the Twelfth Doctor in one sentence removed the notion of contradiction completely in The Doctor Falls. A similar thing needs to happen here if the stories are to be connected into one.
- 95.150.162.39
I think the master story template is fine as is as it is simple and conforms most What most people would expect.
- Chubby Potato
Regarding the original topic, I was always under the impression that it was the following: Delgado is most likely not the thirteenth Master, since Legacy of the Daleks isn’t explicit, and Doorway to Hell shows Delgado regenerating. Either way, the Master reaches his thirteenth incarnation, and through some event (the Macqueen Master fries him, correct?) becomes decayed. (This Master is played by both Beevers and Pratt, interchangeably. Simply because they are different actors does not mean they are different incarnations.) Eventually he takes over the body of Tremas, and hops between bodies. What happens is unclear, but he is given a new set of regenerations starting with Macqueen.
There is also a quote by Missy in the short story Girl Power! (which admittedly in universe may not be 100% reliable as it's Missy’s account, but may show authorial intent):
Born, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Died, Took over some bloke's body, Died, Died, Died, Became a human, Stopped being a human, Died, Died, Became a woman, Ruled!
I’m not sure if “took over some bloke's body" refers to Tremas or Bruce, but I take this as:
Hughes/Dreyfus > several other incarnations (maybe those speculated, such as the War Chief) > Delgado > possibly others > Pratt/Beevers > Ainley, Roberts, and other bodies > Macqueen > Titan > Jacobi (Time Lord > Human > Time Lord) > Simm > Gomez.
- Scrooge MacDuck
It's mostly this, but again, if we agree that Legacy doesn't upset the placement of the Delgado Master as earlier than thirteenth, then we have the possibility that it is the Twelfth (or earlier!) Master, that is to say Delgado, who turns into the Crispy Master, with there never being a "proper" thirteenth incarnation in the original regeneration cycle.
- Bwburke94
That Missy quote also further establishes Simm > Gomez, though I don't believe that part's really up for debate.
- Danniesen
If you count what Missy says she says died 13 times in a row ("born" being counted with the first "died" (as that's one body)) (I haven't exactly figured out why 13, tho). That makes "took over some bloke's body being Tremas. There are 3 "died" afterwards too. Then "became a human, stopped being human, died" must be Yana. Then the next "died" is Saxon. And then she mentions herself.
- RingoRoadagain
I'm not sure girl power shed much light on the matter:
If we go by girl power, Missy died 18 times. 13 of those being before starting to possess bodies, not 12 like you would expect for the 13th incarnation. I have no clue how the author actually intended it to be understood tbh. Does becoming crispy counts as death for this account? Who is the possessed "bloke"?
Also, in The Bekdel Test (audio story), Missy claims to have died and resurrected 85 times instead.
- Schreibenheimer
The only rationalization I can come up with is that the "bloke's body" is Bruce, and the thirteenth death is the one portrayed at the beginning of the TV movie.
- Danniesen
Then what are the following 3 deaths?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The "Bruce" Master's, Macqueen's, and the War Child's.
- 95.150.162.39
That makes seance as in the movie the Doctor sails the masters final incarnation was killed by The Daleks.
- Chubby Potato
Or the thirteenth death is
Ainley to BeeversBeevers to Ainley? - SarahJaneFan
There’s also the death of the Ainley Master and subsequent regeneration into the "Tzun Master".
- Danniesen
Chubby, Ainley came after Beevers and it wasn't a regeneration, it was a body swap.
- Danniesen
I'm pretty sure Tzun was a body swap as well.
- Chubby Potato
My mistake. I knew that. But I did not know for sure it was a body swap as I haven’t seen The Keeper of Traken yet. Then the thirteenth death likely refers to the one in the TV movie, played by Gordon Tipple.
- Borisashton
According to the article, The Light at the End calls Beevers to Ainley a regeneration and the "Tzun" incarnation a product of regeneration after being shot by Ace.
- SarahJaneFan
Yeah he had his DNA altered from Trakenite to Time Lord by Tzun Nanites which granted him a new regeneration cycle.
- Danniesen
But that can't possibly be true as we know Pratt/Beevers was the final incarnation and it was clearly shown that Beevers into Ainley was merely stealing a body. Both Pratt/Beevers and Ainley were said to be the final incarnation of his cycle in the TV show.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Danniesen wrote: (…) it was a body swap.
…a what? "Body swap" usually assumes that Mind A goes into Body B while Mind B goes into Body A. This isn't what happens with the Beevers-Ainley "regeneration" at all: the Mouldy Master somehow merges with the body of Tremas, resulting in the creation of the Ainley Master, who doesn't look quite like either. Where that leaves Tremas's mind is anyone's guess, but it sure doesn't look as though it ends up in any version of the decayed body previously inhabited by the Master.
And while it's not a standard regeneration, Beevers-Ainley is called a regeneration by several sources.
I also don't see how the Basil Rathbone Master wouldn't count as a regeneration. What happens is that since Tremas's body has never regenerated before, turning into a genetically Gallifreyan body means it is on the very first body of its regeneration cycle; the 12-regeneration cap is tied to the body, not the spirit (which is, of course, the entire reason the Master tries to steal the Doctor's body in The TV Movie).
Both Beevers-Ainley and Ainley-Tzun are, in other words, "rogue" regenerations, not purported to be part of the Master's original twelve-fold regeneration cycle, but regenerations nonetheless.
With all that said, I don't think we should worry overmuch about these potentially-unreliable, extremely-up-to-interpretation Missy quotes.
- Danniesen
You know what I meant.
- Bwburke94
In any case, what this thread has proven is that it's very hard to outright assign a number to any adult Master incarnation. So unless something obvious is being overlooked, we can't use numbering to solve the debate laid out in the OP four years ago.
- Danniesen
We didn't need this discussion to figure that out. 😂😅👍 I think even BBC Doctor Who has a hard time figuring out the Master... 😂
- Chubby Potato
My point with that quote was to help support the order of the Master's incarnations as discussed earlier. In fact, my main points joining this discussion were about the subject that
1: we have one unclear account about Delgado being the Crispy Master, and one that rejects it outright;
2: Pratt and Beevers play the same incarnation.
It didn’t help that the quote I provided was confusing.
- BananaClownMan
Here's the closet the numbering can get at this stage;
Delgado (12?) > Beevers/Pratt (13) > Crispy (13.2) > Ainley (14) > Tzun (15) > Tipple (16) > Roberts (16.2) > Mastermind (16.3) > Macqueen (17) > (It's possible that any number can come here due to lack of an on-screen transition, but I'm to continue with what's been presented) > Titan (18) > Jacobi (19) > Simm (20) > Gomez (21)
- BananaClownMan
And that's assuming that the Master didn't have to use any regenerations to survive the black hole from The Dark Path.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Again, that's almost right except for the possibility that Crispy is a burned Delgado, and all post-Delgado incarnations of the original regeneration cycle, while possible (as Delgado was not at the end of his cycle), never actually come to exist.
- Bwburke94
Keep in mind that not all sources include all Masters in their numbering. In the same vein as there being two different Romanas numbered III, there could be multiple Masters for any number. (For instance, the aforementioned Girl Power! appears to place Gomez at 19.)
- SOTO
Day of the Master is perfectly clear that both Beevers and Roberts belong to the Master's final incarnation in his original regenerative cycle. Well, a Beevers anyway. This Beevers (who comes from later in his timeline than Roberts) is surprised to have been resurrected after dying because "I died. I am the end of the line". On finally regenerating (with the help of future incarnations), he is given "a new body, at last".
- SOTO
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent in Girl Power, in listing 13 deaths before Roberts, is to include that one supposedly final death at the start of the TVM. That would have been the death of his 13th and final incarnation (in the sense of distinct regeneration), but that life was revived and prolonged, and then found a new body in Bruce.
This means, according to Missy, the Master died three times after inhabiting Bruce and before becoming (well, being brought back by the Time Lords as) the War Master. But this one source does not trump all, and she's only going off memory and giving a short account, anyway. The Eighth Doctor failing to mention certain companions before his regeneration (in TNOTD and the TDOTD novelisation) does not mean that other sources featuring different companions no longer truly happened. And Missy gives a completely different number in The Bekdel Test, as noted.
- Chubby Potato
I think it's meant that the three deaths after the "bloke" and before becoming a human are the new set of regenerations granted by the Time Lords: The bald one (Macqueen), the child one (Titan Comics), and the War Master (Jacobi). Also, the number in The Bekdel Test says resurrected, not regenerated. (Just one example being in The End of Time.) But once again, my point with supplying that quote was mostly for the discussion of the Master's thirteenth incarnation.
- Danniesen
It's been my belief that the Master had the original 13 incarnations used, with Delgado being 12 and Pratt/Beevers being 13 and everything afterwards being stolen bodies, with the death of Rogers (sucked into the Eye) being the ending of him until he was resurrected by the Time Lords and given the MacQueen body who travelled back in time to continue to mess with the Seventh and Eighth Doctors. Afterwards he regenerated into his "asian child" incarnation and fought alongside the War Doctor and at some point changed into Jacobi who fought in the War too and then transformed into a human. Then Simm, then Gomez.
- SarahJaneFan
Well it’s confirmed that Macqueen is the first of the new cycle at least, and that he comes directly after Mastermind Beevers.
- Danniesen
Slight rewrite. The Eye seperated him from his Roberts body, and his mind was eventually rescued from within the Time Vortex. He eventually got transferred into his Preacher body. He eventually suffered from a damage that transformed him back into his partially healed crispy form (Beevers) forcing him to wear a golden mask to conceal his identity until eventually revealing himself to the Doctor.
He was then eventually granted a new cycle, triggering a regeneration, of which the MacQueen version was the first.
That's how I would explain it, anyway.
- SarahJaneFan
I think what actually happened was that Roberts escaped the Eye and went on living for a while, until he gets his memory wiped and thrown into the Time Vortex by his future selves. This presumably leads into The Preacher stuff.
Then he ends up back in the Eye of Harmony where he remains until Edward Grainger releases him. He then lives on earth for 100 years as a deathworm morphant until he got to the 21st century and was able to recover his TARDIS. He then goes on living for an unspecified amount of time and ends up regaining his memories of his Roberts body, before being killed by the Ravenous on Parrak and then resurrected by his future selves on behalf of the CIA and regenerates into Macqueen.
- Danniesen
The Master says himself that it was the Time Lords that revived him for the Time War.
- SarahJaneFan
This is all what happens in Ravenous 4. Plus it’s already been established anyway in the Gallifrey series that Narvin went back in time and sanctioned it before the Time War even began.
- Schreibenheimer
This is all great discussion, but I believe we all agreed that assigning numbering to the incarnations is impossible. So, in terms of the topic of this thread, we just need to figure out how to separate and label the incarnations on the template, and, honestly, I think it's mostly good as it is.
We have no idea if the Master ever regenerated before leaving Gallifrey, so grouping those appearances as "Early Life" makes sense. Then we have Dreyfus' Master, who could possibly be grouped with "Early Life", but we have no in-universe evidence of him being the First Master, so I would leave it as it is.
War Chief has already been decided to be a debate for another thread, so we'll move right past that one. Next is Delgado, wherever he falls in the numbering.
The original focus of the debate was on this next part. As stated above, I believe the template should follow the consistent narrative presented by most sources, and that we shouldn't let a single conflicting source force us to label everything as "Uncertain". I repeat my opinion that all sources are equally valid, but one source is not equal to many, at least in terms of structuring the wiki. So I support the next section continuing to be "Pratt" (unless we want to change it to "Pratt/Beevers"). "Pratt" eventually becomes "Ainley".
If any section deserves to be "Uncertain", I would say it's the next one, because "Dust Breeding" and First Frontier both feature the Master losing his Trakenite body. I like the order they are in currently, though; if you're going to bend over backwards and fit both stories into one narrative, you can interpret it that "Dust Breeding" merely damaged the body, it was healed . . . somehow, and it regenerated in First Frontier, so I'm good with putting "John Smith" before "VNA".
It's unclear if Gordon Tipple is supposed to be the Tzun Master or an unexplained incarnation, so I'm good with the next section being "Roberts". "Day of the Master" finally gave us a consistent narrative here, so we know "Mastermind" comes next, then "Macqueen", "Titan", "Jacobi," "Simm," and "Gomez" is generally free from debate.
- BananaClownMan
Schreibenheimer wrote: This is all great discussion, but I believe we all agreed that assigning numbering to the incarnations is impossible. So, in terms of the topic of this thread, we just need to figure out how to separate and label the incarnations on the template, and, honestly, I think it's mostly good as it is.
We have no idea if the Master ever regenerated before leaving Gallifrey, so grouping those appearances as "Early Life" makes sense. Then we have Dreyfus' Master, who could possibly be grouped with "Early Life", but we have no in-universe evidence of him being the First Master, so I would leave it as it is.
War Chief has already been decided to be a debate for another thread, so we'll move right past that one. Next is Delgado, wherever he falls in the numbering.
The original focus of the debate was on this next part. As stated above, I believe the template should follow the consistent narrative presented by most sources, and that we shouldn't let a single conflicting source force us to label everything as "Uncertain". I repeat my opinion that all sources are equally valid, but one source is not equal to many, at least in terms of structuring the wiki. So I support the next section continuing to be "Pratt" (unless we want to change it to "Pratt/Beevers"). "Pratt" eventually becomes "Ainley".
If any section deserves to be "Uncertain", I would say it's the next one, because "Dust Breeding" and First Frontier both feature the Master losing his Trakenite body. I like the order they are in currently, though; if you're going to bend over backwards and fit both stories into one narrative, you can interpret it that "Dust Breeding" merely damaged the body, it was healed . . . somehow, and it regenerated in First Frontier, so I'm good with putting "John Smith" before "VNA".
It's unclear if Gordon Tipple is supposed to be the Tzun Master or an unexplained incarnation, so I'm good with the next section being "Roberts". "Day of the Master" finally gave us a consistent narrative here, so we know "Mastermind" comes next, then "Macqueen", "Titan", "Jacobi," "Simm," and "Gomez" is generally free from debate.
Here, here.
- Shambala108
- Scrooge MacDuck
Schreibenheimer wrote: It's unclear if Gordon Tipple is supposed to be the Tzun Master or an unexplained incarnation, so I'm good with the next section being "Roberts".
Whatever he is, I think it's extremely unlikely the Tipple Master is the Tzun Master, as A] he doesn't physically fit the description of the Tzun Master given in the VNAs, and B] Happy Endings apparently establishes that the Tzun nanites eventually fail the Master and he ends up reverting into Ainley. (Which is very convenient for writing the Master's biograhy in a chronological way, as it allows for Ainley's final end which turns him back into Beevers to be placed after the VNA Tzun Master, as is done on “The Master”.)
And as for keeping the section entitled "Roberts"… meh. It doesn't matter if we do not quite know what the Old Master was: we know it's a different body than the Bruce Master, and played by a different actor. Ergo, the Roberts Master simply does not appear in The Eight Doctors, and it therefore feels weird to have said book in the "Roberts" section of the template.
Also, future-proofing, people. I think it's only a matter of time before Big Finish, or someone, have a marketing coup of hiring Gordon Tipple again and finally making his Master a major presence in a story. If they don't do it, some novel will, someday. The point is that it's extremely improbable we've seen the last of the Old Master, in the long run; he's too famous an oddity not to be revisited.
- Danniesen
But isn't Gordon Tipple just meant to be Anthony Ainley's version, due to unavailability of Ainley himself?
- Scrooge MacDuck
No, that was a common assumption back when, but since then, more behind-the-scenes information and photographs came out, and as it turns out the supposed resemblance to Ainley is very superficial (basically just the cut of the beard).
Different costume, different face, the "glowing eyes" look nothing like they did in Survival and so are unlikely to be meant to be the same thing… and in his cut opening monologue (which can be found online somewhere, IIRC), Tipple didn't sound even remotely like Ainley.
So between all that and the fact that there's little in-universe room for it to be Ainley, I think we can consider this particular myth to be soundly refuted.
I also seem to recall Ainley saying that, far from being unavailable, he would have loved to return, but was simply never asked to do so.
- Danniesen
Okay. Didn't know that.
I just assumed because he is given somewhat a resemblance if you only see him from afar, which is what we do in the movie, that it was meant to be him.
Even more because Ainley's cat-like eyes appear in the beginning of the McGann monologue.
- Danniesen
Of course he doesn't look like him up-close.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I meant less in terms of physical resemblance, and more in terms of the fact that he has different make-up and a different costume. The voice thing, and Ainley not even being asked, are also fairly strong arguments against.
I think if anything they just wanted "generic Master", not expecting viewers twenty years on to be scratching their heads as to precisely which Master that was.
All in all, if you want to imagine it's Ainley in your headcanon, fine, but it's way too muddled both in terms of what's on-screen, and in terms of what the authorial intent may have been, for such an opinion to be anything more than speculation.
- Danniesen
No, no. I want the facts straight. If there's something that HAS an explanation given, I take that over "I want this to be true", which is what many people out there don't want (just look at the "Not My Doctor" fools that outright refuse S11 and Jodie). But if there is something that doesn't have a clear factual explanation as to "this is how it is" I am keen on giving my own explanation to fit things together.
- Schreibenheimer
I agree wholeheartedly that The Eight Doctors should be removed from Roberts; I didn't even notice it was there. It's also listed in the "Incarnation Unclear" section, so I think this is just an honest mistake.
It's been a good while since Happy Endings for me, but I don't remember it being quite as specific about what was going on with the Master as our Master article makes it out to be. I think it said that he was looking for a better body, but I don't remember it saying there was much wrong with the current one. Does anyone have a copy they can check? I definitely don't remember there being an implication he'd revert to Ainley, although that would make for a much better narrative through-line with "Dust Breeding" than the one I came up with, albeit in the opposite order.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I again feel as though it would be better future-proofing to just make a Tipple Master row in the template. It would include two stories already (The Eight Doctors and The TV Movie), and let me remind you that the Dreyfus Master has a row all his own even though it only contains one story.
But… wait. Could it be The Eight Doctors was in the Roberts section due to the trap that sets off in the TARDIS at the very beginning and makes the Doctor lose his memory, which is the work of the Master? It's, I suppose, possible that it was the Bruce Master who left the trap, though I'd previously assumed it was part of the Deathworm Morphant Master's interference with the TARDIS console prior to stealing Bruce's body.
Pity about the possible misreporting of Happy Endings, at any rate. We'll have to check.
- SarahJaneFan
There’s about three Masters in the Eight Doctors.
Delgado during the Sea Devils
Ainley shortly after Survival (not Tipple)
An echo of Roberts immediately following the TV Movie
- SarahJaneFan
Also about Happy Endings, hes specifically trying to clone an indestructible body and refers to the body as one stronger than his own, which of course it would be if it’s indestructible. So the Tzun incarnation is still Happy and healthy by the end of the novels, he’s just looking for a long-term form of Survival as knowing him he’ll burn through his new set off regenerations.
- Schreibenheimer
I honestly wouldn't object to giving him his own category if no one else opposes it. My preference stated above remains the same since his behind-the-scenes physical appearance is not a valid source, but it's really no different from giving Dreyfus his own category despite having no evidence that he's regenerated since leaving Gallifrey.
EDIT: Removing my opinions on The Eight Doctors, which I obviously don't remember as well as SarahJaneFan.
That fits my memory of Happy Endings as well. Seems the Master page should be fixed regardless of any decision in this thread.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Okay, well, that's that for the "Tzun Master reverts into Ainley" factoid, even though I'll still keep the fact in my personal headcanon and invite others to do the same, it makes much more sense of everything.
But, regarding The Eight Doctors… did we read the same book here? I very distinctly recall a scene that obviously leads straight into the TV Movie, wherein which an unspecified Master travels to the planet of the Morgs, buys some Deathworms from them, and experiments on one of them until it is strong enough to support his Time Lord mind while also possessing a bunch of neat superpowers on the side. He then ponders where to go to get himself pseudo-executed in such a way that his Morphant-occupied ashes will end up in the Doctor's TARDIS, and hits upon the idea of getting himself killed by the Daleks. That has gotta be Tipple, surely.
@Schreibenheimer: I agree that it's worth remembering that Template:Master_stories isn't exactly in-universe to begin with. It's a list of stories, and wherever available, the Masters are identified by the last name of the actor who portrayed them… not to mention there are some invalid sources in it!
…Speaking of which, however, is it fair to characterize Curse of Fatal Death as "deliberately being set outside the DWU"? AFAIR Moffat actually went to great lengths to make it work as a plausible continuation of the TV series, continuity-wise. It's invalid to us because we disallow parodies in general, but that's different from making any statements as to the authorial intent itself. Is there any chance we might update that text alongside the other edits to the template, while we're at it?
- SarahJaneFan
The Doctor hears the Master laughing as the traps springs, indicating that he’s present in some form, but that’s up for debate.
- BananaClownMan
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Okay, well, that's that for the "Tzun Master reverts into Ainley" factoid, even though I'll still keep the fact in my personal headcanon and invite others to do the same, it makes much more sense of everything.
But, regarding The Eight Doctors… did we read the same book here? I very distinctly recall a scene that obviously leads straight into the TV Movie, wherein which an unspecified Master travels to the planet of the Morgs, buys some Deathworms from them, and experiments on one of them until it is strong enough to support his Time Lord mind while also possessing a bunch of neat superpowers on the side. He then ponders where to go to get himself pseudo-executed in such a way that his Morphant-occupied ashes will end up in the Doctor's TARDIS, and hits upon the idea of getting himself killed by the Daleks.
I thought that was Ainley. Is there a way it could not be based on the evidence of the book?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Give me a moment, I'll go check.
- SarahJaneFan
"While the Doctor was battling depression, his greatest enemy, the Master, was teetering on the verge of madness.
His descent into savagery on the Cheetah planet after his last encounter with the Doctor had tipped the balance of a mind always prone to paranoia over into uncontrollable obsession. Having now regained enough control to make his escape, the Master was determined to destroy the Doctor once and for all, even if it meant he had to die in the process."
This is an extract from the scene where the Master swallows the Deathworm Morphant. He then travels to Skaro and goads the Daleks into putting him on Trial.
- Schreibenheimer
I definitely agree that Tipple appears in The Eight Doctors; I'm just unsure on Roberts.
BananaClownMan, what are you basing that on? If you are suggesting that the Tipple Master is just the Ainley Master, there's very little to support that, and the entire EU against it since both the VNAs and Big Finish had him lose that body prior to the TV movie.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Hm… SarahJaneFan beat me to tracing the passage. Well, the novel does state that Survival was the Master's last encounter with the Doctor, which is bothersome if you want a unified timeline that includes the VNAs… But let's not forget that it does not say how much time has passed since Cheetah World for the Master, just that he hasn't run into the Doctor since.
So while I obviously don't think that's what Uncle Terry had in mind when writing the sequence, it's plausible that the Master has stolen a different, temporary body in the meantime, possibly in an effort to get rid of the Cheetah Virus.
- Schreibenheimer
I guess he could have had the deathworm in him the whole time since then. He obviously didn't completely die in the meantime, and I don't think there's any suggestions that he switched bodies at any point since then, just did a lot of jiggery-pokery with the one he had.
That last bit does seem to suggest that he went right to Skaro, though, which is a nightmare to reconcile with the VNAs. Wow, that was salty of them; writing off their continuity in the very first novel.
- SarahJaneFan
Mastermind says that the Daleks ambushed the Master in Egypt anyway rather than the Master going to Skaro intentionally so it was never gonna fit.
- Schreibenheimer
Well, going with the words-as-written, it's definitely clear that it has to be shortly after "Survival," but not 100% clear that he's going straight to Skaro (even if that's clearly the intent, they don't outright say it, unless it's after your quote). I guess that's our wiggle room?
- Scrooge MacDuck
The word "Skaro" isn't even mentioned in The Eight Doctors; it's only said that the Master decides that "all he had to do now was get killed".
Yes, come to think of it. That works beautifully. Since Dicks tells us that he comes up with the "get myself killed so I can be reborn in the Doctor's body" scheme under the influence of the Cheetah madness, i's entirely possible for him to give up on this plan temporarily once he gets cured of the Cheetah Virus as per other offscreen sources. He'd then keep the Deathworm Morphant throughout his later existence as Ainley (and possibly the Tzun regeneration). He eventually end up as the half-decaying Tipple Master, either as the last incarnation of the cycle started by the Tzun, or through Morphant-aided body-hopping after Ainley is reverted to Beevers, depending on what account you're going with. That Master is then coincidentally ambushed by the Daleks in Egypt, and since he still has the Morphant, goes "what the hell, guess I'm going through with that scheme after all".
- SarahJaneFan
“With a grimace of distaste, the Master picked up the glass dish, tilted his head back, opened his mouth and let the deathworm slither down his throat.
His TARDIS landed. Opening the doors, the Master stepped out into a metal plain, surrounded by metal towers. Behind him, his TARDIS, obeying pre-set instructions, dematerialised. It would be safe in the space-time continuum until he recovered it. Alone and unafraid, the Master stood in the centre of the metal plain and watched the metallic creatures gliding towards him. They gathered around him in a menacing circle, still too astonished to speak. The Master threw back his head and laughed. 'Yes, it's me - your old ally, the Master! What have you got to say for yourselves, you stupid tin boxes!"
And then his reappearance near the end of the book. Granted Skaro isn’t named but it’s defintielg Daleks that he’s surrounded by when he lands wherever he does.
- Danniesen
The wiggle rooms are the great spots when there are disputing evidences, as when something is not outright stated, we can easily wiggle it around so that the conflicting things connect anyway. :)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Bugger. There is that.
But note: the story tastefully cuts there. It is not theoretically impossible for the Master to make it out of this Dalek encounter alive. What say that unexpectedly, the Daleks actually do want to rekindle their old alliance for a new scheme?
- SarahJaneFan
If we were talking on a timeline page, I’d agree 100% and say that’s gold. But on the main article it’s just speculation and conjecture, the same sort that’s led people to believe that the Tzun Master was dying in Happy Endings when the actual novel suggests nothing of the sort.
I just don’t think we should be knitting together contradictory narratives on the main page unless there’s some kind of source that makes sense of things, like for example Planet of Dust and Day of the Master pretty much clarifies the Master's Post TV movie timeline and makes sense of all the seemingly contradictory accounts of what happened to him following the movie.
As I say, personally I’d agree with you, but looking at things from the point of view of what’s best for the accuracy of the article and what fits best in line with the rules of wiki, I think the “according to one account” solution, is the best one until further notice.
- Danniesen
I'd say the article could be worded in such a way that it makes a jump from one factual source to another, making the stories sort-of connected to one another without actually adding in any speculations.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I wasn't especially suggesting we use this theory for the "Biography" section of the page, I was instead justifying that it's still perfectly possible for Tipple to exist separate from Ainley in-universe, thereby further justifying a separate "Tipple" row in "Master stories".
(About which suggestion I again wish to remind you all of the fact that it's practically a given, unless he dies tomorrow, that Big Finish, or someone, will someday hire Gordon Tipple back. That's just what they do. For God's sake, we just got a standalone Sil movie.)
- SarahJaneFan
I think if we can identify clear evidence that Tipple is a distinct incarnation/body/Master in his own write and that wasn’t just a body double for a pre-existing Master then he should certainly have a section of his own, and it’d be wrong not to. However as far as I’m aware so far, the only clear evidence we have of him being a distinct Master is from behind the scenes content, which we can’t use as a source.
There’s certainly nothing preventing him from existing, but there’s also not a lot to suggest that he does. Again from an in-Universe perspective as I myself personally consider Tipple to be Beevers in a stolen body.
- Schreibenheimer
I mean, Beevers in a stolen body would count as an incarnation just as much as the other stolen body incarnations we already have. We just don't have enough in-universe information to say it's not the same body as one we already have an incarnation listed for.
Regardless, I think we'd be safe to move The Two Masters out of "Uncertain" and into "Ainley", as none of us debated the text on that.
- SarahJaneFan
I wasn’t saying he wouldn’t count, I was saying that I consider him to be Beevers in a stolen body, but there’s no in-Universe evidence to say Tipple as a Master, whether a regeneration or a stolen body actually exists or if he’s Ainley or another incarnation we know of. So we’re on the same page about it.
And yeah, I agree that the Eight Doctors (assuming that’s what you meant rather than Two Masters which involves Pre-Deadly Assassin Beevers and Macqueen) should go in the Ainley section.
Post-Survival should go something like this:
"According to one account the Master was driven insane by his experience on the Cheetah Planet and sought revenge on the Doctor. He acquired a Deathworm Morphant and made his way to Skaro where he was put on trial by the Daleks and subsequently executed" (PROSE: The Eight Doctors (novel), The Novel of the Film)
"According to another account, the Master lived signficantly longer following his escape from the Cheetah Planet, instead seeking ways to prolong his life and cure himself from the Cheetah virus. He had many more encounters with the Doctor and Ace. Etc etc (The PDAs and any other Post Survival Ainley story that doesn’t fit with the EDAs or VNAs)
"One account suggests that the Master was transported to Earth immediatley after escaping the cheetah planet and was stranded. He later made a deal with the Tzun and had his Trakenite body transformed into a Time Lord one using Tzun nanites. He was then killed by Ace and regenerated into a new body. (PROSE: First Frontier
Then we have the Tzun Master section that recounts the rest of First Frontier, Housewarming and Happy Endings. After that we have a section for "John Smith", which again says "According to one account the Master lost his Trakenite body to the warp core etc".
Which is pretty much how the article is already set out, but there’s some bits that could probably be improved especially as there’s a whole bit that says “either this happened or that happened after Survival” which could probably be removed entirely.
It’s particularly important that we make sure the information we present on the page is accurate too, as the Happy Endings entry says that the Tzun Nanites fail, which as we’ve established doesn’t happen at all.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd write that first section differently to allow for the fact that The Eight Doctors doesn't explicitly say the Daleks put him on trial and killed him immediately after his arrival. Something like:According to one account the Master was driven insane by his experience on the Cheetah Planet. Seeking revenge on the Doctor, he hatched a scheme to leave his corrupted body for the Doctor's own, which would also grant him the Doctor's remaining regenerations. He acquired a Deathworm Morphant and made his way to Skaro, where he intended to goad the Daleks into executing him. (PROSE: The Eight Doctors)
Although another account does state that an incarnation of the Master was put on trial by the Daleks on Skaro and executed, subsequently escaping in the form of the Deathworm Morphant, (TV: Doctor Who, PROSE: The Novel of the Film) many show that the Trakenite Master's adventures continued for a long time after his experience on the Cheetah World before his body was killed by the Daleks.
- Schreibenheimer
Yes, I meant The Eight Doctors. Thank you for understanding.
Going back to the template, this refresher on said novel has changed my opinion on a Tipple section. Without a "full" appearance in The Eight Doctors, he essentially becomes equivalent to the Clements Master from "Sympathy for the Devil", who says a single line then regenerates. We don't give him a section, so we shouldn't give Tipple a section either. Not only that, but I don't believe we should even list Doctor Who under "Incarnation Unclear". The story is already listed as a Roberts appearance, so I don't feel we need to devote space to Tipple at all unless he shows up in his own legitimate appearance in the future.
In violation of policy, BananaClownMan has made edits before this thread has been closed. I have undone them. However, I will open one of the edits he made up for debate: the placement of "I Am the Master". Big Finish's production notes for it state it happens after "The Keeper of Traken," which means that the Doctor and Master are meeting out of order for no good in-story reason, but I believe we should respect stated production intent. However, I don't believe we have any way of knowing whether the Master in this story is the "Dust Breeding" or "Mastermind" Master, hence its original placement in "Incarnation Unclear".
BananaClownMan moved the story to the "Dust Breeding" Master. Is there any strong evidence supporting this over "Mastermind"?
- SarahJaneFan
The placement of I am the Master is completely ambiguous. I believe that some people speculated that despite Big Finish’s intention that it comes after Keeper of Traken it actually took place beforehand as he considers stealing a body and some believed it seemed as though he hadn’t done it before.
I don’t recall having that belief when I listened to the story myself, but I’ll have to give it another listen just to check.
Technically speaking, if we assume that a post-Traken setting is indeed accurate, it could in theory take place in a number of gaps where the Master is back in his crispy form:
Between The Five Doctors and The Velvet Dark - The Time Lords stripped him of his Trakenite body after his failure in The Death Zone and then in the Velvet Dark he steals a little bit of Regeneration energy from every incarnation of the Doctor to regenerate back into Ainley again.
Between Planet of Fire and A Town Called Eternity - The Master is crispified at the end of Planet of Fire, then uses the Fountain of Youth to heal his injuries in A Town Called Eternity.
After Dust Breeding
Between Mastermind and Planet of Dust
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, I'll check "I Am the Master" as well if I have time this weekend. Honestly, if there is even a bit of in-story evidence indicating it's OG Crispy, I think we should take it, as it's likely the only answer we'll ever have.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Did not know about those yet other temporarily post-Ainley Crispies. Good lord, but this is getting ridiculous.
- SarahJaneFan
Just checked through The Velvet Dark again and it seems to set an interesting precedent for the Ainley Master. I’ll let you make of it what you will, but it appears that Ainley goes from being a stolen body to a new regeneration between The Five Doctors and Planet of Fire.
‘I went to Gallifrey to help you, Doctor,’ he said with iron in his tone. ‘Begged by the Time Lords to rescue you and your past selves from the Death Zone. They promised me forgiveness. A new regenerative cycle.’ He paused and then spat, ‘But they exiled me instead!
They had ripped his last body from him, and he had only managed to hold on to himself with a barely conceivable strength of will. He consisted only of dark now. He had raged at the indignity of it all, at the unfairness.
They took back his TARDIS and tried to reprogram her. But she remembered him, searched him out. He had been so relieved when he’d found the old grandfather clock in the woods one day. Unfortunately he had not been able to cross the threshold, some limiting program that held. He’d pushed and pushed, and had nearly died in the attempt. But to his amazement, when he came to, he’d been confronted by the deathly grinning visage of his last life. His TARDIS had created a construct which was, in some sense, his Watcher, a form he could manipulate and, partly, inhabit. He’d realised how he could use it as a vessel. So he sent it in his TARDIS to watch for advantages, to search for help.
I need a corporeal body, Doctor. This dark is merely what I could remember.’ There was a terrible pause. ‘So I’m going to steal one of your lives.’ He stopped to let the fact register, like a man who has perfected his megalomaniacal statements. ‘There may even be enough of a connection between us for me to reoccupy a physical resemblance of my old body.
Suddenly realised how the Master intended to do this. Twelve mirrors in total; 12 regenerations. He couldn’t just steal a regeneration from a Time Lord, he had to channel it through all his previous lives until it came to what he was now. It was quite a risk, but also quite ingenious. The Master had lost none of his cruelty or shrewdness. He realised with horror that this might actually work.
As soon as he fell it shot straight into the Master on his throne. He seethed and hissed with electricity, his body steaming and crackling. The metal phoenix behind the throne, wings spread grandly, watched the Master’s rebirth from the shadows
He tried to steal one of my remaining lives.’ He looked down at the velvet-clad man. Those saturnine features and that trimmed goatee were unmistakable.
The Doctor managed a smile. ‘Actually, he stole a small piece from every one of his past regenerations. That’s what maintained him.’ He tapped both his hearts. ‘I think I’m all still here. Quite healed.’ He paused to consider. ‘And if I didn’t know better, I’d suspect he knew that this wouldn’t work. That he expected to lose. It rejected him, you see.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Aaaaaargh! why, writers? why?
Anyone's guess how the frick this can in any way be made to fit with Dust Breeding.
- SarahJaneFan
Actually I think might have found a potential solution, that comes in "A Town Called Eternity". The Master, after suffering from major burns during the events of Planet of Fire, discovers the Fountain of Youth and restores Tremas's body.
The Master stood in the fountain of youth, the flow of water passing over his entire body. He could feel the invigorating properties of the water working their way through him, strange energies even a Time Lord could not understand. He sighed ecstatically as his body, that feeble humanoid body too weak for a being such as he, was restored to full health.
Could it perhaps be that the Fountain of Youth restored him physically back to a point in his timeline where he still had the Trakenite body? I don’t think that’s the intention (in fact this was written several years before The Velevet Dark) but considering the Master himself doesn’t understand how it works, who knows?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nah, I don't think so. The very fact that a Time Lord doesn't understand it, combined with the description of what the Fountain does as "invigorating properties", make it clear that the Fountain isn't literally turning back time in any fashion, it's just healing magic/life-force/what-have-you.
- Schreibenheimer
I mean, it's still Ainley, so I see the story as essentialy zero-sum. Yeah, the mechanics are wonky, and it's weird that he still has Trakenite DNA afterward, but we've seen a Time Lord regenerate into a bird. I really don't believe we should overthink this.
- RingoRoadagain
Given how many times the master keeps reverting back and forth between his crispy appearance, i would suggest making Beevers the main section and all possessions a subsection (like suggested above, although maybe a generic name "out of regeneation"/"end of cycle"/"fight for survival" or something).
One advantage is that we can put all the conflicting/unclear case under Beevers still without having to clarify more than that. (Five Master's crispy, Tipple, Eight Doctors, I am the Master, Master(To confirm but I don't think it must be before the movie), ...)
Regarding the Tipple debate, although it conflicts with established continuity by VNA, Eight Doctors really seems to imply that Ainley=Tipple; and furthermore, the game "destiny of the doctor" was intended to lead directly to the TV movie with Ainley sent on trial.
One note: until last month, all appearances following the movie were put in the Roberts sub. That's why you could still see the DWM preacher or some Morphant Beevers.
One example whould be:
- Delgado
- Survival
- Beevers [1] (Two Masters, Assassin, Legacy, Dustbreeding, Mastermind, I am the Master, ...)
- Ainley
- VNA
- Tipple [2]
- Roberts
- DWM
- MacQueen
...
- unclear: (Harvest of time) [because of the female Master written a decade before Gomez was cast]
And inside the template, much like we do with Template:Regeneration_stories, we add something like the following:
According to one account, the incarnation portrayed by Roger Delgado may be the same as the one portrayed by Peter Pratt.
According to one account, the incarnation portrayed by Gordon Tipple is the one portrayed by Anthony Ainley.
While fighting to extend his life after the end of his regeneration cycle, many bodies were possessed by the Beevers incarnation but all kept somehow reverting to his real being.
The last bit is a phrasing used by Big Finish
(e.g. Dust breeding part 4:
DOCTOR: It stripped his borrowed body from him. Degenerated him. This is the Master as he really is.")
I don't want to impose my opinion but I hope it could address all concerns in this thread (related to the cripsy master raised as per the OP's wishes)?
- Scrooge MacDuck
RingoRoadagain wrote: and furthermore, the game "Destiny of the Doctor" was intended to lead directly to the TV movie with Ainley sent on trial.
No, not buying that. There's a common fan rumour to this effect, but I don't think it's corroborated by anything in-universe, and doesn't make any sense as such: getting himself executed by the Daleks after having swallowed the Deathworm is clearly a scheme of the Master's; he's planned all this through as a way to get into the TARDIS and steal the Doctor's body. Whereas he sure doesn't look happy about being arrested at the end of Destiny. So this looks like speculation to me unless there's any official confirmation that it was intended to lead into the movie.
(Besides which, it completely conflicts with the much more explicit account given in The Eight Doctorss of how the Ainley Master gets put on trial by the Daleks.)
That aside, your solution mostly sounds good as the template is concerned, though for the biography section on The Master and the linking templates, we'd have to brainstorm something else (but that is technically beyond the bounds of what this particular thread is about).
Do you agree about implementing my suggested slight rewording of the invalid section's header, also?
- Schreibenheimer
Yeah, I really don't hate grouping everything between "The Deadly Assassin" and "The Two Masters" into one big category, then subdividing. I stand by Tipple not needing a subcategory due to not having a story unique to him, though.
I have not read Harvest of Time. My instinct, though, is that it's not necessary to list her on the template, just going by some quick research on the novel. From what I'm seeing, there are a bunch of alternate Masters in it, and the only notable aspect of the female one is that she's female (although this was actually published only one year prior to Missy, not ten). If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.
- RingoRoadagain
@Scrooge, just so we are on the same page, you would like
- From stories set outside the "mainstream" DWU
instead of
- From stories deliberately set outside the "mainstream" DWU
is that correct?
(I am not using Destiny as a narrative source on Tipple in the thread, it was just for some more food-for-thoughts/background: i think Dicks stated it somewhere but I never tried to source it tbh. You are perfectly right to call me out on this.)
(My bad about Harvest, I misread it as "2003" iso "2013", thanks for the correction)
- Scrooge MacDuck
RingoRoadagain wrote: @Scrooge, just so we are on the same page, you would like
- From stories set outside the "mainstream" DWU
instead of
- From stories deliberately set outside the "mainstream" DWU
is that correct?
Not quite; I would like it to be "From stories not considered part of the DWU by this Wiki", with a link to T:VS. Again, Curse of Fatal Death is not in any objective sense set outside of the DWU, since Moffat meant for it to be part of the DWU. And statements like "mainstream DWU" are very relative. It is simply that we as a Wiki choose to tag it as "invalid" and not mix its information with other stuff because it suits us.
- RingoRoadagain
Thanks for the clarification, I would agree with that.
- Chubby Potato
Having read the replies since my last, I'm quite confused. This is both because I am somewhat unfamiliar with most of the material being discussed, and because of the confusing nature of the contradictions themselves. If it isn’t too much too ask, I think it would be helpful if someone could summarize what the conflicting accounts are. (This would probably be beneficial towards the editing of articles/templates in the future too.)
- Scrooge MacDuck
Contradiction Area #1:
We don't know what incarnation of the Master's original 12-shot regeneration cycle the Delgado Master was. In The Deadly Assassin, we are introduced to a skeletal “Crispy Master” played by Peter Pratt, and who was later redesigned and recast as Geoffrey Beevers, though it's usually understood that Beevers and Pratt are playing the same guy.
Question: did Delgado's Master decay into the Pratt/Beevers Master, or was there a regeneration in-between that existed as its own thing for a while before turning into a spooky scary skeleton?
The comic story Doorway to Hell shows Delgado beginning to regenerate, though it doesn't show into who. The Big Finish audio The Two Masters shows the Master being burnt into the Pratt Crispy Master by his future self, and what's more, it's clearly shown that the Master who gets burned isn't Delgado, but a different incarnation already played by Beevers. Ergo Delgado is either the Twelfth Master or earlier, while the Crispy Masters are various stages of decay of the Thirteenth Master.
On the other hand, the Eighth Doctor Adventures novels, in Legacy of the Daleks, show the Master being burned into the Pratt Crispy Master in completely different circumstances not involving his future self but rather Susan Foreman. And that Master is not a non-Delgado Thirteenth Master, but rather Delgado himself. One might think this means the novel says that Delgado is the Thirteenth Master, but that's not actually the case, as a line mentions that the injury is such that "no regeneration" would save him from it, allowing that he still could be the Twelfth Master or earlier.
Ergo: are the Crispy Masters a decayed form of the Delgado Master (with there not actually being a "proper" Thirteenth Master?), or of a Thirteenth Master into whom Delgado regenerated long before coming to Tersurus?
- Danniesen
Does Legacy actually show him get burned crispy?? Because according to the paragraph I originally posted, he does not, but rather is blown out of his TARDIS and gets rescued by the Goth.
- Danniesen
Or is that purely speculation. I don't own Legacy, so I don't know.
- Scrooge MacDuck
There's two things.
First Susan flays his mind with her psychic powers, reducing it to the ball of concentrated hatred (devoid of Delgado's silky charisma) portrayed in The Deadly Assassin, and blows him out of his TARDIS and onto Tersurus.
Then, in a separate scene, as they stand together on Tersurus, Susan asks the Master to surrender the Dalek weapon he's stolen, lest she be forced to destroy it with him still clinging to it. In his diminished state of mind, the Master refuses to let go, so Susan shoots the device while the Master's still holding it, causing an out-of-control explosion that warps and burns the Master's flesh into Crispy form in a way from which regeneration cannot save him.
Then, after Susan leaves aboard his TARDIS, he is found by Goth in precisely the state in which he begins The Deadly Assassin in yet a separate scene.
- Danniesen
Hmmm... doesn't make sense then.
We would need a separate new Master story that takes place after he is rescued which shows him regaining his health somehow if it is to make sense with Doorway to Hell. If not we conclude that Doorway is an alternate timeline, that is.
- Danniesen
Because according to Goth's own page he finds the Master decayed and dying and the next paragraph on the article jumps right to the events of The Deadly Assassin. But who is to say something didn't happen to the Master in-between and he just happened to return to decayed crispy form at the time of TDA...
- Danniesen
Time occurs differently to you when you're a time traveller, mind you.
- Scrooge MacDuck
We don't do "alternate timelines", we do "other accounts".
- Danniesen
Lots of pages have "alternate timelines" in them.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Yes, but that's when we're officially told that something is an alternate timeline. An alternate timeline is an actual in-universe thing; you can't go speculating about something being an alternate timeline any more than you can go speculating that this or that individual is secretly a Time Lord.
- Danniesen
Now I was merely saying that if it happens that we find out it is alternate, not that I would say it was.
- RingoRoadagain
CONTRADICTION #2
in "The Velvet Dark", the Matser lost his Trakenite body after the events of "the Five Master" and manages through a Crispy Watcher to steal enegery from the Doctor and actually regenerates into an Ainley incarantion.
In the New Adventures range of stories, the Tzun race rebuilt his Cheetah race-corrupted Trakenite body into a pure Time Lord with full cycle using nanomachines. He regenerates into a new incarnation after Ace killed him in First Frontier.
In Dustbreeding audio, he lost his Trakenite body to the monster of the
weekmonth and goes back his "real self" Beevers.The Eight Doctor Adventures discard it entirely and has the Ainley Master still insane from the Cheetah race get a Deathworm Morphant immediately after the Classic Serices without meeting the Doctor in the meantime and goes to see the Daleks, leadin to the TV Movie shortly after.
- RingoRoadagain
Paragraph #3 (not really a contradiction)
The Planet of Dust audio states that no matter how many body he wears he always reverted to he Beevers husk. Among the way he tired to extend his life are mentioned the Traken Source, The Cheetah race (first time i hear it would be a postivie thing tbh), the Tzun and a Deathworm Morphant.
That's the closest we have to the Tzun body failing too as far as i know.
Eventually it is Beevers who got killed, received a new regeneration cycle and resurrected into McQueen.
That's why i believe it would be simpler to count all of those as subsection of Beevers.
- Danniesen
So basically every time he gained a new form he always seemed to revert back into the Beevers form?
- Danniesen
Could that be a result of his (I think I remember this being a thing) desire to always find new ways of regenerating, basically wasting his original cycle by burning through his incarnations. Could that not mean that it took a massive toll on him as a whole and therefore inevitably always resuming his burned form no matter how many times he tried to regain his healthiness.
- Schreibenheimer
We should probably get back to this thread's topic: the template. I am good with Ringo's proposal of grouping the entire crispy/body-hopping part of his life. Does anyone have any objections to this?
- Danniesen
I don't see any problem with this. Fact is that he was hopping from body to body, basically just shapeshifting. His actual incarnation is the one portrayed by Pratt/Beevers.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Danniesen wrote: His actual incarnation is the one portrayed by Pratt/Beevers.
Well, that's only true in some accounts. Again, TV calls Ainley a "regeneration", The Velvet Dark thinks he originally wasn't but shows him turning that body into a proper regeneration, and the Tzun Master is unquestionably a regeneration. But yes, on the broader point, I agree that this probably the best way to order the (already partially OOU) template.
- Danniesen
How can he turn a shapeshift non-regeneration into a regeneration later on?
- Scrooge MacDuck
He loses his Trakenite body, turning back into Beevers, then uses regeneration energy stolen from the Doctor via a complicated process to properly regenerate into a body identical to Tremas's form, which he's gotten pretty used to.
Also, I of course get what you mean, but please try to use more precise terminology for how the Master gets bodies, this is all confusing enough as it is. Even if the Doctor calling Beevers->Ainley a "regeneration" doesn't convince you, it's not shapeshifting, but body-hopping. Shapeshifting, in fact, means precisely the opposite of what you mean: it's usually employed to mean warping the shape of one's body around, precisely as opposed to transmigrating from one physical body to another. It's not usually described in those terms but regular Time Lord regeneration is shapeshifting.
- Danniesen
Thanks. I only have restricted knowledge of other medias' stories since I only have the TV show to fully go by. It helps to have you people explain what exactly happens between TV stories.
- RingoRoadagain
I expended my proposal on my sandbox.
I put the pre-TVM incarnation of "The Eight Doctors" novel in both Ainley and Tipple, I think the opening stement of the template is clear enough on the matter.
Of course I am open to remarks.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Looks very good to me. Perhaps the opening statement could explain why the "keeps reverting to Beevers" bit is relevant to the template more explicitly? (i.e. "Hence, this table cannot be strictly chronological", or something like that.)
- Chubby Potato
First off, thanks for concisely explaining what the different accounts are. I appreciate it. Secondly, I think RingoRoadagain's table looks good, and Scrooge MacDuck's suggestion is too. It's very good at conveying what is generally supported, which is that the Master was on his last incarnation, but kept changing bodies.
By the way, if this is what we're going to do, how will this affect the templates that link to different Masters (e.g. {{Roberts}} )? I do think it's reasonable to keep separate links to the different part of the page due to how drastically different they are. Also, I noticed the child Master from Titan comics doesn't even have a template. And maybe we want a Beevers template that could function the same as Pratt's?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Well, regarding a {{Beevers}} template, I personally wouldn't mind separating Pratt from Beevers but when I suggested it earlier, the overall sentiment was that there's virtually no evidence that they should be treated as separate versions of the Master. Beevers is a recast of Pratt, no different from Bradley's First Doctor, is the general idea.
Of course, since Pratt played the role once (albeit as its originator) while Beevers has played it a gajillion times, shouldn't the (singular) linking-template for Crispy be {{Beevers}}? Ehh… maybe. But for something buried in source code, I don't know if it's worth the effort to go change all that.
- RingoRoadagain
Not that I don't want to discuss Category:The Master templates redirects, but these are worth a thread of their own like done here or there.
As written there by a caretaker: "No master templates should be created without community discussion" and this one is specifically about the Master Stories one.
- Chubby Potato
Alright. I mentioned that because the decision of this thread's issue could affect that too.
- Danniesen
Pratt and Beevers being the exact same incarnation with Pratt only ever portraying him once, I fully agree that the template should stay as Template:Beevers, given that he portrays him many times.
It would have been a harder decision if both had only portrayed him once.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Ah, but there's the thing: there is no such thing as {{Beevers}}. The template used for the Mouldy Master(s) is, in fact, {{Pratt}}, at the moment. And while it indeed doesn't one-hundred-percent make sense, I don't think it's worth the trouble of changing all the instances of the template even though its a BTS convenience thing that readers never have to see.
Besides, someday Big Finish may create stories with their not-yet-crispied Thirteenth Master played by Beevers is featured; if that happens, I think the sanest thing to do would be to create a new section on The Master separate from “A body in decay”, allowing for a reader to either move directly from “UNIT years” to “A body in decay” to get the Legacy of the Daleks story, or to read through the "Thirteenth incarnation" (or whatever we call it) first so as to get the Big Finish experience.
And in such a case, we'd be very clever to have kept {{Beevers}} available to link to that section, where {{Pratt}} can only mean Crispy.
- Danniesen
One thing is for certain. The BBC haven't made it easy for us.
- Schreibenheimer
Alright, so it sounds like templates should be considered a separate discussion. Does anyone have any dissenting opinions against/constructive criticism toward Ringo's suggestion? I, at least, am happy with that outcome.
- TheChampionOfTime
I'm of the opinion that making Ainley and others subsections of Beevers isn't particularly helpful for readers or for our overall archiving of Dr Who. The problem with the current singular [The Master] page, IMO, is that it forces all stories involving the Master to be covered in a single, linear "History" section. Relevant to this discussion, there is an unmentioned story which features for a time the Ainley Master reverting to Crispy before gaining his body again.
Being knocked unconscious by the temporal acceleration hadn’t given him the chance to immerse himself fully in the healing pool of the Source of Traken, and now the fleeting initial effects had worn off... with all that that entailed. Once again, he was forced to deal with the familiar side-effect: the acceleration of his decay and devolution, his inevitable, final end. Within his ink-black suit staggered the withered, emaciated creature that was all that remained of his Time Lord body, Tremas’s form long rotted and gone.
He gets better.
In all accounts of the Master is there still a distinct enough difference between their various forms? Regardless of whether "Crispy" is wearing the same body that once housed Delgado, there is still a clear dividing line between the two. Ainley isn't a different regeneration, yet there is still a clear difference between him and Crispy. Same with Roberts, especially in recent years now that Roberts has had several stories by himself.
If the Master were as an overall entity covered not in an entirely linear fashion but according to each distinct "form", "incarnation" in the general non-Time-Lord-sense (for as a result of desperate survival the Master isn't always a Time Lord)... well, at the very least it would solve the problem of I Am The Master (because the story could just be placed in the "undated events" section of "The Master (The Deadly Assassin)".
A thought.
- RingoRoadagain
Sorry if I am misinterpreting your message but it appears to me that you are talking about the main Master page while we are only talking about the Master Stories template.
Or are you suggesting that we keep it as it is since we already have "I am the Master" in incarnation unclear? (if we do, then I believe "the five Master / Horrible Showmen" and "Master" should be added to this section)
Do you think we would need a section dedicated to the Yee Jee Tso master from "Mastermind"? Should we make one for each known possessed bodies similar to the Roberts one?
- TheChampionOfTime
I should be the one saying sorry; this is a very long discussion to be barging into. I was mistaken that this thread was in part about the other big Master template, and thus slightly more relevant to the The Master page. Nonetheless, I still think the fused nature of this wiki's Master coverage is a relevant point because it makes Template:Master stories the only available lists of appearances for many specific characters (such as The Master, The Master, The Master, Missy, or The Master). And therefore, well, this thread is important, lol.
In terms of the story template, I believe the current formulation is fine. The matter's already been thoroughly examined, but--to use a new analogy--I believe that keeping/making "Pratt" a subsection of "Delgado" would be equivalent to using The Lying Old Witch in the Wardrobe to remove Destiny of the Daleks from a template listing all Romana stories, not an overall helpful distinction.
If we are, I do, thinking of the stories template as equivalent to a "lists of appearances", I would argue that The Quantum Archangel belongs in the "prose" section of "Pratt" due to the Master temporarily reverting to that form for a sizable chunk of the novel, but that rather goes against how Dust Breeding is treated. ...
- RingoRoadagain
At the moment my proposal for addressing the issues raised in this thread (delgado vs pratt, ...) is available on my sandbox page:
I am not suggesting making pratt a subsection of delgado but making Pratt/Beevers and each of the main possessed bodies a subsection of a new "end of regeneration cycle" one. As you noticed, some stories are difficult to pin down precisely on Beevers timeline.
I don't know if we should do something similar with the other Master related topics but I don't think it should be debated here.
My proposal would have a short explanation of the different accounts at the top, much like Template:Regeneration stories explains why "The War Games" is not included in it. Whatever the conclusion of this thread, i believe some explanation would be required for the template being debated.
- 95.151.207.71
Looks good
- OttselSpy25
I am thoroughly against including all of the Ainley appearances as part of the Pratt/Beavers lineage, it feels reductive to say the least.
- Chubby Potato
Looking at the proposed template box, I think it might be a good idea to make it more clear in the top section that there are conflicting accounts. Right now, it just says "one account".
- Schreibenheimer
OttselSpy25 wrote: I am thoroughly against including all of the Ainley appearances as part of the Pratt/Beavers lineage, it feels reductive to say the least.
But that's not what Ringo's proposal does. The overall heading for the section makes no reference to Pratt/Beevers. It's simply grouping that entire time period together because,
- 1) The Master keeps getting deep fried, then healing/getting a new body. I think we were up to five different times at our last count? (Not counting each of the "Mastermind" bodies as a separate instance, or there would be a bunch more.) Two of those times were in the middle of the "Ainley" period, and one of them was even called a regeneration; it just happened to end up with the same appearance as his previous stolen body. So, all sources being equal, there's not just one Ainley incarnation. This lets us just group them all by recognizable appearance and be done with it.
- 2) It is unclear what order some incarnations occur in. This shows that our ordering is, at best, an educated guess.
- 3) The entire existence of some incarnations is contradicted by some accounts. The Eight Doctors implies that Ainley goes straight into the TV movie, ignoring the New Adventures and, in turn, being ignored by Big Finish.
So, yes, it may be reductive, but it's because the actual narrative we have is so convoluted as to require reduction.
- RingoRoadagain
One alternative I have would be to have the same as my current proposal, still grouping by appearances due to all complicated accounts on this part of the Master's timeline.
BUT we get rid of the "end of cycle" section and put its subsections as main sections (i.e. Pratt/Beevers; Ainley; VNA; Tipple; Roberts; DWM). I think the current top description would still explain this well enough to the common reader.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Concerning Ainley, I have just realized that if this whole thing wasn't complicated enough, Birth of the Renegade shows that the early regeneration of the Master who existed when the Doctor and Susan left Gallifrey already, coincidentally looked like Ainley.
- RingoRoadagain
@Scrooge, to stay sane, i am touching his pre-renegade days. "The Toy" have him look like Delgado instead. Not counting Dreyfus and the Hughes incarnations who could also be the one to become a renegade.
To keep it sane, I imagine that the illustrator just chose to use Ainley in a similar way we have Capaldi in the flashback of "the Witch's Familiar" (or he messed up?). Plus, if he looked like Ainley, there is no way the First Doctor would not recognise him in "the Five Doctors". All speculations on my part, of course.
- SarahJaneFan
The Ainley Master does actually appear in the story separately to the past Gallifrey one though, unless I’m missing something.
- RingoRoadagain
@SarahJaneFan, the illustration of the past Master shooting the Lord President uses Ainley's likeness instead of an original look.
- Scrooge MacDuck
And there's Flashback to take into account, too… or, I mean, there will be once we have the War Chief thread.
- Chubby Potato
In regards to Birth of a Renegade, I think we should just say something like "according to one account, the Master's appearance on Gallifrey was similar to that of when he inhabited Tremas' body." (I haven’t seen The Keeper of Traken yet, but isn’t Tremas old and he becomes younger when the Master fuses his body? Is there a given reason for this?)
Actually though, does the story make it clear that was an earlier Master and not Ainley's? Because currently the page for Birth of a Renegade links to Ainley's section, but the Master's page contains info from that story in the early section as well as having a "needs info from this story" tag in the Tremas section. From an outside perspective, I also don’t see why the writers/artists of this comic strip would depict an early Master identical to Tremas.
- RingoRoadagain
The picture in question. The narrative is clear that it was a younger and inexperienced Master right before the First Doctor and Susan leave Gallifrey.
File:Birth of a Renegade illustration 3.jpg
The story has the Master telling these events to the Fifth Doctor who has a wiped memory of the events.
Most of this story is completely ignored by most writers, but it still is considered valid.
- Chubby Potato
Well, even if he happens to look like Ainley, if the story makes it clear this is intended to be an early Master we should accept that.
- Schreibenheimer
To me, it just seems like a narrative convention: rather than inventing a new appearance, they just showed the Master who was telling the story, even though it almost certainly wasn't him. Going beyond that, illustrations from non-visual media have consistently been treated as a "secondary" canon by this wiki. This would fall under the same grounds as cover art that doesn't match its own story.
Also, it seems that this story is easy to "ignore" due to the Master not being the most reliable of narrators.
- SarahJaneFan
"Doesn’t matter which face he was wearing, they’re all the [Insert Time Lord] to me"
- Chubby Potato
Oh, I didn't realise this was being told from the Master's point of view. (Now reading the story's summary I see.) So in the early Master section we can describe that he claimed this.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Thinking that this was a "doesn't matter which face" thing would, I think, be speculation.
And if it even is codified policy anywhere (is it? I know covers are a "last resort", but fully-integrated illustrations like this?), the idea of illustrations being secondary sources would surely, only come up if this notion conflicted with anything. And it doesn't really. The Master's past is murky enough that for all we know one of their past incarnations could have looked like Ainley; we know the Master burned through regenerations quickly in their youth, so it should be no wonder that other stories taking place in approximately the same era give him different faces.
The point that this is all viewed through the prism of the Master's storytelling, however, is much more relevant. We can definitely moderate this sentence with "An account the Master once gave of his early life depicted the regeneration who killed the Lord President around the time of the Doctor's departure from Gallifrey as greatly resembling the body the Master later inhabited after possessing and merging with Tremas", or something like that.
All in all this business is only a minor point; it's just yet another example of accounts explicitly showing that some faces of the Master's (Beevers, Ainley) actually do recur throughout their lives, and thus that one cannot simply order the faces chronologically and expect that to coincide with the chronological order of how those stories happen to the Master in-universe.
- Schreibenheimer
It's all also very off-topic; "Birth of a Renegade" is correctly listed in both sections of the template.
Continuing forward, OttselSpy has not responded to either my rebuttal or Ringo's alternative, but it has only been two days. Unless anyone else has any substantial objections they wish to voice, perhaps we just wait for them to weigh back in? The only other feedback we've had lately was Chubby Potato's wish for more clarity in the top section, which I agree with.
In regard to Ringo's alternative for OttselSpy, I don't prefer it, but think it's acceptable if that's where the consensus lands.
- Shambala108
Objections to what specifically? And weigh back in on what? This thread has been all over the place with questions, suggestions and contradictions - not the fault of any poster here, but rather the writers' tendency to ignore what each other writes (and sometimes themselves).
This post is about cleaning up the Master template, but there are so many different opinions here that I can't really untangle it myself, especially with over 200 posts.
- Schreibenheimer
That’s fair. We really could do with a summary.
Consensus seemed to be moving toward a proposal of grouping everything from when the Master got baked to when he received his new set of regenerations in “Day of the Master” into one section, which each “portrayal” having its own subsection. Ringo put a proposal into his sandbox here. One of the main benefits of this approach is that it absolves us of having to determine which Crispy Master is which in each of his appearances and covers up small bits of continuity weirdness like Ainley going back to Crispy for a hot second after “The Five Doctors” only to steal regeneration energy and regenerate . . . back into Ainley. This proposal would mean the template wouldn’t have to accommodate five different Crispy Masters and two different Ainleys.
Since that proposal, I believe we have had two objections. The first was TheChampionOfTime, who stated that they thought how the template currently appears is fine and that making Pratt a subection of Delgado was a bad idea. However, the proposal didn’t put Pratt as a subsection of Delgado, so it’s unclear if they actually looked at the proposal. They have not responded back since they were informed of this, but that was only three days ago.
The other objection was OttselSpy, who said, “I am thoroughly against including all of the Ainley appearances as part of the Pratt/Beavers lineage, it feels reductive to say the least.” I submitted a rebuttal, while Ringo suggested a slight alternative. This was only two days ago.
Basically, if we’re aiming for consensus, we’re waiting to see if the people who objected still object.
- Chubby Potato
I think the reason there have been so many tangents is that there is concern on how the arrangement of this template could affect other parts of the wiki (for example the page for the Master). After all, we want to be consistent with how we handle the incarnations. But I suppose it’s a bit early to do that and we should wait until after this thread is decided.
- RingoRoadagain
I took the liberty of adding the Delgado and Ainley appearance for a pre-Gallifrey Master in the header of my proposal.
It's getting lengthy but I am afraid it's getting necessary due to the many existing and often conflicting accounts discussed here surrounding the span of who exactly the Crispy Incarnation may be (Delgado, Ainley, the Tzun, possessed bodies and so on).
I am not sure we need to align this template with the rest of the wiki since it is from the real world POV while the Master page allows more lengthy details than a template header and the Master redirect templates are aimed as a BtS help for editors iiuc.
PS: they are not currently aligned anyway: the story templates does not have a section for the DWM body while the redirect for it exists. The story template has a different order between VNA and Beevers II than the main article. The story template has a section for the Titan incarnation while he does not have a redirect. The story template also has alternate universe and non-DWU coverage.
- Schreibenheimer
I am satisfied with this. Both of the objecting users have made edits on the site since responses to their objections have been made, so we at least know they have been online to have a chance to continue their objections. Anyone else have anything to add?
- Scrooge MacDuck
Nothing in particular. Possibly we could add the Licensor from Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet? (Nigel Fairs) to the Non-DWU section, but that's really a random detail I thought of. I mean, there isn't a Template:Doctor_stories, but for the closest equivalent, the Chiropodist is in Category:Non-DWU_Doctors, so equally it would stand to reason for the Licensor to be counted among the non-DWU Masters.
That aside, I think we're about good to go. The really big thing that remains to be discussed is the War Chief, but that'll be a thread all on its own, which will only affect the template if it goes one particular way.
- Schreibenheimer
I had no idea this existed and have no opinion. Seems like it doesn't have any impact on the overall shape of the template, though. Anyone else?
- RingoRoadagain
Never about the Licensor before, inmy opinion he is like Professor Stream (The Hollows of Time) or War King which in myopinion should maybe go in a brand new "see also" section but i do not think it should be argued in this thread.
I think we should ajust with the decision that would be reached with the future War Chief thread.
On another note, i am note sure what to do with non-DWU stories that use an established Master (eg the Pinball machine game uses Delgado, Lego Dimension uses Missy, ...)Should we put a NOTVALID subsection for each master self's section or should we put each Master self as a subsection of the existing non-DWU section.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Either the former, or just a section in the existing "non-DWU" section titled something like "Preexisting incarnations". The template will get quite ungainly if we have to double everything.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I don't think it will alter how we do things in the template, but for completion's sake, I should note that 1993's Police 5: The Master (TV story) considers both Pratt and Ainley to be distinct regenerations, and that is the word they use.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Sigh.
Uh.
This was heading for a resolution, but then—um…
Sigh, sigh, sigh. Back to the ol'drawing board.
Or, to put it more practically, I suggest we delay closing of this thread until the second part of Spyfall is out and we know beyond reasonable doubt what is up with the chap above, at which point we can properly decide how/whether to add him to the template.
- Danniesen
There is absolutely no reason to freak just because a new incarnation, seemingly, showed up and we have to discuss him also. By the way this isn't the last time we'll be discussing. There is also the future audio release.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Oh, sure, I was being a bit overdramatic. I just mean that we can't very well close the thread now since there's now a bunch more updates to the template to discuss and it would be a bit silly, I think, not to talk them out here, so long as this thread remains open.
…So, getting round to it, I see that an entry marked "O" and linking to The Master#Undated events has already been added to Template:Master stories. This should probably be added to the sandbox mockup of our edits to the table, if it's going to stick.
- Danniesen
I don't know anything about that.
What I will say is that due to the events of Spyfall: Part One, the Master should probably be a pipe all the way to that reveal at the end, meaning the majority of it should keep referring to him as "O" for as long as he's fooling them.
- RingoRoadagain
I suggest to wait in the unlikely case he is somewhere between delgado and macqueen. But otherwise i don't think he would influence our discussion regarding how to handle the crispy master.
- RingoRoadagain
wait a minute. BananaClownMan changed the whole thing before the end of the thread yet again...
- Scrooge MacDuck
The Crispy Master himself, probably not — although I have seen speculation from some people that he might actually be a classic Master wearing one of the perfect rubber masks, rather than a new incarnation; he could conceivably be Ainley, even if it's unlikely.
But more to the point, the thing is that despite its more limited title, this thread as a whole has clearly grown into being "how do we fix the Master Stories" template. If you think the question of whether, where and how to do the Dhawan section is better-served by another thread, I suppose that would be possible, but it seems to me that with this one still going we would do better to kill two birds with one stone and get all the necessary talks about the Master stories template over & done with.
- Scrooge MacDuck
RingoRoadagain wrote: wait a minute. BananaClownMan changed the whole thing before the end of the thread yet again...
Eh? Missed that post. What do you mean?
- Borisashton
There is absolutely no point is discussing Dhawan until Sunday. What use is talking about him if we don't know what incarnation he might be, where that is in the order or if he actually lying about his identity?
BananaClownMan's recent T:BOUND violating edits (and Dhawan's section for now) should be removed right?
- RingoRoadagain
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Eh? Missed that post. What do you mean?
https://tardis.fandom.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMaster_stories&diff=2826271&oldid=2822372
Also, the Master's page is on lockdown due to the new incarnation so i am unsure we should touch this until Sunday
- Scrooge MacDuck
Agreed. Precisely what I meant with my first post on this issue was "hang on, we'll have lots more to talk about on Sunday, so let's keep this open awhile long". (Yet another possibility that would yet again change where we'd put Dhawan on the template is the chance of his being from a parallel universe, which would explain why he's back to being evil, and alive, after Missy's redemption and death.)
And yes, BananaClownMan's edits should probably be removed for now, especially as it wasn't even handled right in my opinion — the section has no more business being titled "O" than Jacobi is titled "Yana" and Simm "Saxon", let alone Delgado as "Col. Masters". The version currently present in RingoRpadAgain's sandbox, where it's "Dhawan", is much better.
- Schreibenheimer
I agree that we shouldn't do anything concerning our newest Master until after the Spyfall story actually ends. However, if Part 2 gives no substantial indication whether he is post-Missy or is a previous regeneration to her, I believe we should proceed as if he is the latest incarnation until other evidence shows otherwise (if it ever does).
Unlike the EU, the TV show does not have a strong history of having characters meet out of order, River Song (and, by their nature, multi-Doctor or Master stories) being the only major exception. There are very few cases where TV episodes take place out-of-order for any characters. Just because we have evidence that it's possible he came before Missy, doesn't, to me, justify ignoring the TV show's long history of keeping things in-order.
All that being said, unless the plot keeps the Doctor and the Master from having a decent-length conversation in Part 2, I feel like it would be very poor writing to not have the Doctor address the change-in-personality from the redeemed Missy, so this is all probably very academic.
- Schreibenheimer
Schreibenheimer wrote: All that being said, unless the plot keeps the Doctor and the Master from having a decent-length conversation in Part 2, I feel like it would be very poor writing to not have the Doctor address the change-in-personality from the redeemed Missy, so this is all probably very academic.
Well, my last paragraph either didn't age well or aged like fine wine depending on your level of cynicism.
Regardless, I stand by my previous comments that assuming incarnations happen out of the order they're presented in is speculative and, as such, believe that his section of the template should come after Missy (as has already been done, apparently).
I still feel that having an "Incarnation Unclear" section just for the female Master in Harvest in Time is unnecessary as there are a multitude of possible Masters in the story, and the novel is well-represented in the template by the known incarnations present in the story.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I dunno, the Doctor did half-address it, didn't she? "Doesn't this ever stop?" Don't forget that the last the Doctor saw of Missy, she had refused the Twelfth Doctor's offer to stand with him, and left on her merry way with the Simm Master. It stands to reason for the Doctor to be only slightly disappointed, but not that surprise, to see the Master up to his/her old tricks again.
And as for the actual answer to the question, it's implicitly that whatever the Master found out on Gallifrey threw him into a murderous rage all over again, I think.
- Danniesen
Missy definitely had turned good by the end of her era before being struck down. So whatever Sacha's Master did discover about Gallifreyan history and the Timeless Child, it was definitely what made him a murderous psycho once again. I highly and strongly doubt Missy just changed into Sacha's Master and decided to be an insane lunatic again.
But of course until something like this gets explained in-universally, we can't add that to their history/timeline.
- Schreibenheimer
I agree, but, playing devil's advocate, if a later episode were to reveal that he is a previous incarnation, nothing in this story would explicitly contradict that. I highly doubt that will happen, though; O having his temper tantrum on Gallifrey, then regenerating and nudging 12 to rediscover the Gallifrey they'd already destroyed in the future would be odd.
- Danniesen
What Sacha's Master does is also just to get the Doctor's attention because he's desperate for her to realize the truth as he did. He is not out to bring the Doctor down. The Master just always has had a wicked way of getting a message across. They have never just sat down with the Doctor and explained something to them.
This is evident in the last bit of the hologram message he sent her. "Why should I make it easy for you? It wasn't for me."
- Schreibenheimer
Regardless, it seems all three of us who've commented today are in agreement on the practical outcome of Spyfall, and this isn't the forum for discussion of the character beyond that.
Aside from my Harvest issue, are there any other heading-level issues that need to be discussed in this thread? Or is there anyone who still feels that Sacha's placement on the template should be anywhere other than directly below Gomez?
- RingoRoadagain
I still believe thzt Dhawan is the latest. Mostly because the BBC always uses the latest incarnation; they are not Big Finish.
Regarding Harvest, there are about 470 dfferent incarnations of the Master in there and it states they are ALL his incarnations including those from other time streams. So of course it's unclear who could be there, even the Kisgart one could be there.
- OttselSpy25
I think Dhawan is the latest incarnation, and any inconsistencies occur because Chibnall clearly hasn't watched the show he's writing for since 2013.
- Danniesen
It's not an inconsistency just because you don't get a clear explanation. For all we know, Missy could easily have had a backup plan that the Simm Master didn't know about.
- Chubby Potato
It doesn't really matter. We have no evidence pointing to Dhawan being before or after Missy. Because he's the latest we (and the Doctor) have seen, he should be placed at the end.
- OttselSpy25
I mean the inconsistency is mainly that Missy had a satisfying arc that made her a better character and Chibnall is ignoring it because he didn't even watch the Missy episodes
But yeah, it's our job to ignore inconistencies and cover the show in the simpliest way we can.
- MystExplorer
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Chibnall hasn't watched the Missy episodes. As a fan, I would've liked to see some acknowledgement of Missy's arc and an explanation for how (s)he survived a supposedly final death. But at the same time, I understand that Chibnall has to keep casual viewers in mind and do his best not to alienate them. Plus there's nothing stopping him from writing an explanation into a future script if he wants to.
- Schreibenheimer
So we're still all in agreement on the O front. That's good. We can probably forgo continuing with the Chibnall-bashing, then, easy as it is.
I guess I'm good with Ringo's proposal as it is then.
- RingoRoadagain
Food for thoughts: I noticed recently that my proposal of grouping the Master's instances by likeness --at least from a real world point of view-- actually already has a precedent on the wiki: Category:The Master images. Most interestingly for our thread, the Pratt/Beevers ones are not distinguished at all.
- Scrooge MacDuck
The precedent is not uninteresting, but image categories are very much out-of-universe, even moreso than the template in question here, and infinitely moreso than the Biography section.
- Chubby Potato
I would like to provide this wonderful timeline for the Master made by LegoK9, which takes nearly everything into account.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I mean, I'm all for spreading good LegoK9's theorising, but the Wiki is not a place of theories. We can't say, for example, that the James Dreyfus master and the William Hughes Master are definitively the same incarnation, for example. And anyway, this thread isn't really about timelines.
- Chubby Potato
The reason I brought up the timeline was not for the theorising, but for the evidence it 'does' provide from various sources about the incarnations of the Master. Which, pretty much, lines up with what we have so far in this thread anyway.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182006
Moved from previous thread.
- To avoid starting yet another thread, I wanted to bring up the issue here that it is apparently in our policy to not include invalid stories in appearance lists. I find this extremely bizarre, as those lists are blatantly out-of-universe and we have no reason not to list stories that we as a site deem invalid mostly for technical reasons. I see absolutely no reason not to list the Graske's first appearance as Attack of the Graske, or to include all appearances of Zog, Crystal, or Jason on their separate pages. The Ainley Master still appears in Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror no matter how we decide to look at it. Since appearance sections are, by definition, a list of stories, they're all out-of-universe and thus should include all stories regardless of weather of how this site deems them to be.
- I find it very ironic how this wikia currently works very hard to clarify that "validity" is what we care about, and that it's a separate concept from "canon," yet we stick pretty close to the system based off the later instead of preaching the gospel we preach.
The majour problem here is that we're removing info from pages for little reason and thus alienating readers. We should include all stories because most readers won't give two cents about if Attack of the Graske is a coherent story by our policy, or if we thing Worlds in Time just really let you choose too many names in your adventure, or because we think that the VHS Shada is a bit underdone, or if we just have trouble justify narratives in those role playing books from the '90s. Those stories all still exist, and the characters still appeared in them. We have no reason not to include them in out-of-universe listings.
- Bwburke94
In the case of the Graske, we could split it and say Attack of the Graske is its first appearance of any kind, and Whatever Happened To Sarah Jane? is its first appearance valid to the DWU.
- Quest?on
I think there should be a separate section on lists of appearance for sources this wiki considers non-valid. That way, the information is featured, but it is still divided the way this wiki is.
- OttselSpy25
I could support that idea, but it still leaves pages that don't have a separate list questionable. The Valiant, for instance, appears in Lego Dimensions but doesn't have its own seperate list. Also confused at the "first" and "first mentioned" variables, which change if we include invalid stories are not. Did Zog first appear in The Ultimate Adventure or Face Value? Was Spock first mentioned in The Complete Guide to Doctor Who or in The Face of the Enemy?
And even ignoring that issue, I'm still note sure. Will the average reader care if Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror isn't valid here when they're hunting for video games with the Master? I think not. I would say not.
- SOTO
Perhaps a separate variable in the infobox for invalid appearances? Invalid stories would not, then, be candidates for "first" or "first mentioned", but they would be mentioned in the infobox even without a separate list page. I'm on board with invalid stories being listed on list pages, but only if they're in a separate section at the end.
- OttselSpy25
I could see that working in some ways.
- 185.69.145.52
I think we should still add it within the info box. It'd help.
- Глючарина
Maybe have some kind of sign that would denote invalid appearance?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Ooo. Sounds like a good idea, can we sort of make this happen?
- Shambala108
We do have a sign that denotes an invalid appearance - it's the prefix NOTVALID that appears at the beginning of nonvalid story citations.
The issue that everyone seems to have missed is that, because we have a strict policy regarding what can and can't go on Tardis:In-universe perspective, it's just easier maintenance to keep the nonvalids out of the infoboxes.
Sometimes the rules on this wiki are just for easier maintenance and cleaning up. We have dozens of editors who contribute new material to the wiki, but only a tiny handful (including admins) that regularly clean up the mistakes. Some of our rules are in place partially to minimize mistakes in the first place.
- TheChampionOfTime
It's not like this thread has been proposing we mix the invalid stories with the valid stories in the lists of appearances. Infoboxes already contain out-of-universe information by stating the actor and the stories the character appears in. If it is obvious that the notvalid stories that the character has appeared in are notvalid, then what harm can it do? If anything, it'll point out that the notvalid stories are notvalid.
It would be beneficial to acknowledge notvalid stories on in-universe pages so that editors who want to add information from notvalid stories can see that these stories haven't just been passed over or ignored.
- Shambala108
Incidentally, this has long been an issue on this wiki, and was discussed over three years ago in Thread:129125, with User:CzechOut giving a pretty sensible reason for keeping NOTVALIDs off the appearance lists.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I see what you mean but appearance lists are totally different to infoboxes, the appearance lists can stay as they are but the infoboxes should, I think, contain the information, and like The Champion of Times states, it would help other/new users think, "oh, they're not countered here, fair enough" and then they'll be on their merry way.
It'd clearly tell users what's what and it'd be a real help, also like they say, the Infobox already feature real world info, as it should rightfully.
- OttselSpy25
Shambala108 wrote: The issue that everyone seems to have missed is that, because we have a strict policy regarding what can and can't go on Tardis:In-universe perspective, it's just easier maintenance to keep the nonvalids out of the infoboxes.
The infoboxes are out-of-universe tho. They include actors and, spoilers, stories. That's out-of-universe, unapologetically. There's not that big of a difference between infobox lists and appearance lists. It's just that one is longer usually.
Appearance lists should be entirely factual and unbiased in nature. Someone wanting to research the show shouldn't *need* to read a 70 page essay on our inherently confusing policies to hunt down simple facts. When I go to Twelfth Doctor - list of appearances, I should have every story that includes the Capaldi Doctor -- weather we consider it valid or not. The average reader won't *care* very much if Worlds in Time or LEGO Dimensions fits our meticulous standards for what Game narratives we accept. They're there to read a list of things that the Doctor has been in, not things that *TARDIS wiki has decided to label as valid*.
If we're going to ditch canon on this site, as we've been claiming that we have for years, we need to be consistent. If we were arguing that those stories weren't canon, it would make sense to not include them. It would make sense to separate VALID and INVALID stories in infoboxes if VALID meant "canon" and we could easily draw the line on the everyone's interpretations of both of those things. But as the only thing that we can argue is that *we can't write about them,* it's ridiculous to keep this charade up. If it's out of universe information, weather the Wiki finds the story to be "valid" or not shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it's discussed.
- OttselSpy25
Shambala108 wrote: Incidentally, this has long been an issue on this wiki, and was discussed over three years ago in Thread:129125, with User:CzechOut giving a pretty sensible reason for keeping NOTVALIDs off the appearance lists.
If it's being suggested that this is a piece of previous consensus on the site, I disagree. It seems to be the forum you link to *barely* holds a real discussion at all, most of it seems to be Czech clarifying the site's policy on canon and continuity. This was also notable before NOTDWU was fixed to NOTVALID, which is one of the reasons that there's so much confusion on it over the topic at hand. Also important to note that the conversation never ended -- that thread is still open to posts, it's just that it died off rather than coming to a conclusion. An older opinion isn't always better, it's just older.
Alright, more specifically Czech says that NONVALID stories should be scrapped to make it easier on the managerial editors of the wiki. "There's nothing wrong in making an editorial choice — particularly if it benefits clarity." The issue is that removing the DWU label doesn't make things more clear, is makes things far less clear.
It's suggested even in *that* discussion that these stories still need to be *included*, just not with all of the others. But realistically there's no need to split them off from all of the other prefixed links --the prefix notating our policy on the story already kinda does that. Either way we can't keep butchering these articles like this without clarifying what has happened to them.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Couldn't agree more OttselSpy25. Unless there are categories for say "Non-DWU Twelfth Doctor stories" and so on, people will have to search the whole invalid "database" just before they've collected their information.
- OttselSpy25
A good idea, but I want to clarify that if I recall correctly, we did agree to ditch the term "NON-DWU." If the categories haven't been changed it's because everyone's been too lazy to do it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Ah ok, the following could work;
Invalid First Doctor stories - Invalid Twelfth Doctor stories
and so on...but they have to be their original actors or based on for comics, games and novels - when I say based I mean that incarnation not a parody.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182170
I want to put forward that we include Mason Bennett and Alice O'Donnell at Template:Companions of the Twelfth Doctor under 'Narratively ambiguous'? In other words, I'm suggesting this:
| ||||||||||
- Bold Clone
Personally, I find the whole "narratively ambiguous" label to be total garbage. People either are or they are not a companion. There's no in-between or middle ground. The tricky part here is that the episode itself leaves the question open-ended. Of course, the fact that there isn't really any definition of a companion doesn't help. I would say just leave them off the template unless Moffat or a BTS source confirms their status one way or the other.
- OttselSpy25
The NA section is for people who aren't obviously "companions" but fill the narrative purpose or for companions who haven't been officially called such by the BBC but are clearly of equal measure to others. Good examples are Jackson Lake, Chang Lee and Jackie Tyler.
- Bold Clone
So? They still aren't companions, officially or not.
- Mentuhotep I
Me neither. I dont see the point of "narratively ambiguous", but besides that I would say yes, they are narratively ambiguous companions.
- Mewiet
They should be added to the template.
- 81.135.63.183
Companions are the Doctor's closest friends, not just people who've been in the TARDIS. & if we included everyone who filled the 'companion role' in a story there would be hundreds one time characters that the Doctor, and the audience, has probably forgotten about. Bennett & o'Donnell aren't companions.
- Bwburke94
"Narratively ambiguous" was intended for one specific case. I think we've been over this before.
- SOTO
As of January 2016, those characters are still not listed in the companion template. Anybody want to make a case for why they should be before I close this discussion under the consensus that they should not be added?
- Bwburke94
I don't think there's a serious case. Just because they travelled in the TARDIS doesn't make them companions.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182175
What are we meant to make of that pre-titles sequence? A lot of fun, of coarse, but what was it narratively?
This is what the Doctor Who Twitter had to say:
- "So there's this man, he has a time machine..." Wait, the Doctor is talking to us!!!
So can this scene be valid then? How do we interpret it? Can we just take the info given for pages without questioning the narrative, like a monster narrative or an early strip with the Fourth Doctor telling a story?
- OttselSpy25
Now that I think about it, it's a lot like those early DWM strips...
- Sabovia
Incidentally, how did we deal with the First Doctor wishing a happy Christmas to all of us at home?
- MrThermomanPreacher
If I remember correctly the ending implies that its him explaining it to Clara after it's all resolved.
- OttselSpy25
nah, I think that it's clearly a fourth wall thing. In fact, I vaguely recall Capaldi looking down at the camera when he mentions Beetoven at the end bit...
I'd say that it's best to ignore it and move on I guess. I just thought that I'd ask.
- 90.221.128.67
The way i'd interpret it is the Doctor talking to himself like he did at the start of Listen.
- Vbartilucci
He could also be talking to Clara, as seen from her point of view, after the whole thing is over, which would explain why he (re-)mentions the Beethoven reference to her at the end, expecting her to understand what he's talking about.
- Danniesen
It IS him explaining it to Clara. That IS what he's doing.
- CustardTheAngryBird
I don't think he's talking to Clara, because one minute he's looking at the railings of the TARDIS, then the console, then somewhere else in the TARDIS, so unless Clara can teleport, I think it was just a fourth wall break.
Also, the Doctor at one point says "This didn't happen by the way," implying it is just a fourth wall break as this would make no sense to say to Clara.
- Danniesen
Um... Yes it would.
And this is the ending of the episode shown at the beginning as he starts to explain the bootstrap paradox to her in the actual ending.
We are Clara at this point. The way the scene unfolds is made in this fancy way, because otherwise it would look boring.
- CustardTheAngryBird
Explain to me how it would make sense for him to say "This didn't happen by the way," to Clara.
- Danniesen
Um... It's not that hard. He's explaining the bootstrap paradox to Clara on how it works, but tells Clara that his hypothetical example is just that, an example. It didn't "really" happen. He's telling her to "imagine" that it happened, but that to not give her a new impression of Beethoven, to not change what knowledge she had ever had of him, he's telling her that it didn't really happen.
That this "time traveller" didn't really become Beethoven, that a real Beethoven does exist. It's just an example. How should such a sentence not make sense?
- RogerAckroydLives
It's extremely likely that it's an explanation for the sake of Clara, either given by the Doctor prior to the story (and as such, why he references it at the end of the story) or an explanation of his reference. There is also the possibility he is explaining it to someone unknown, or that he is in fact breaking the fourth wall. But the potential for it being metafictional interaction is barely greater in this sequence than when any character speaks with no-one present.
- Danniesen
If this explanation is for Clara, which is much likely (almost bound to be), then it will have to happen after the events of this episode as she's not in the TARDIS before those events.
- Danniesen
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but what is metafictional interaction?
- RogerAckroydLives
Interaction that acknowledges its fictional nature. In this case, the Doctor discussing something with members of the audience he knows is viewing him.
- RogerAckroydLives
Danniesen wrote: If this explanation is for Clara, which is much likely (almost bound to be), then it will have to happen after the events of this episode as she's not in the TARDIS before those events.
I mean at some unknown point in their earlier travels when the Doctor chose to explain the concept of the bootstrap paradox. Therefore, he could be alluding to an earlier explanation of similar events with his final line.
- Danniesen
Thanks. :)
- Danniesen
Danniesen wrote: If this explanation is for Clara, which is much likely (almost bound to be), then it will have to happen after the events of this episode as she's not in the TARDIS before those events.
It could however also have happened pre-Under the Lake, if this is indeed for Clara.
- Danniesen
But this doesn't explain why the Doctor wouldn't know why the TARDIS arrived in the underwater base in the first place. So that is probably unlikely.
- RogerAckroydLives
Danniesen wrote: But this doesn't explain why the Doctor wouldn't know why the TARDIS arrived in the underwater base in the first place. So that is probably unlikely.
Why not? Couldn't it just be that he is encountering yet another bootstrap paradox? The pre-title sequence and final, dialogue-less scene don't reference UtL or BtF.
- Danniesen
But why would he choose exactly that point to tell her about the paradox if he didn't know what they were going into? Why not any other time?
And why would Clara not ask why he was telling her this in the first place?
- RogerAckroydLives
He presumably had his reasons, whenever this was (I'm not suggesting it was immediately before the two-parter).
- Danniesen
As for me, at least, it makes most sense that he was explaining it to Clara at the end of events, as to blend it in with the mention of Beethoven's 5th at the actual end of the episode.
- RogerAckroydLives
That is the simplest explanation.
- Danniesen
And the flashback of the Doctor from the very beginning of the episode as well as the sounding of the guitar will lead us back to that explanation, making us understand that this explanation was given to Clara shortly after the episode ended.
- RogerAckroydLives
Mirroring the paradox itself. This does seem to be the authorial intent, but it wold be an assumption to say that this must be what occurred.
- Danniesen
Of course. I'm just saying that this is what would make the most sense.
- RogerAckroydLives
That's fine. Any of the explanations posed by this thread are reasonable. None, as you know, must be true.
- Danniesen
The only way one of them can be fully true is if Steven Moffat confirms.
- RogerAckroydLives
As long as he does so in narrative.
- Mentuhotep I
90.221.128.67 wrote: The way i'd interpret it is the Doctor talking to himself like he did at the start of Listen.
I too. It would make sense tho and (!) then its not confusing or fourth wall breaking.
- Exterminateallhumans
I don't think it's necessary to explain it. It's not the first time the Doctor has broken the Fourth Wall. I recall three other occasions. In one story Hartnell wishes the audience a merry Christmas. In The Invasion of Time Baker grins at the viewers. In another story Martha also smiles at the camera. There may be others. It's just a clever narrative device, done particularly well I might add. For those who need explanations perhaps the Doctor is aware he is a fictional character in an alternate universe.
- Thefartydoctor
The Doctor's always talking to himself. I haven't got time to read this whole thing but in case it's not been mentioned: Terrance Dicks explained the First Doctor's "Merry Christmas" as him toasting Ian and Barbara who had very recently left the TARDIS. He provided the explanation as part of one of his novels. He's well known as the person who patches up numerous holes - just read The Eight Doctors to see what I mean.
Furthermore, he made it "canon" (or whatever you wish to call it) that things like "A Fix With Sontarans" and the Children in Need EastEnders and Doctor Who mash-up were just nightmares that the Doctor had. Both of these were addressed in official pieces of prose.
As I see it, we just accept that he's either talking to Clara, or he's talking to himself. It's no biggy, and it certainly doesn't make it automatically invalid. That's my take on it.
- OttselSpy25
I would say that it's best to treat it as we do the DWM intros, it's not clear who he's talking to so don't try and guess unless we're given direct info.
- Danniesen
Why shouldn't we try to guess? We can theorise it all we want as long as we don't put it on the pages.
I'm with "TheFartyDoctor" on this one. That makes good sense. However, I'm still saying he's talking to Clara.
- RogerAckroydLives
I'm just beginning to wonder about the relevance of all this anymore: it could be Doc-Clara pre-story, Doc-Clara post-story, Doc-himself, Doc-persons unknown or even Doc-audience. But there is no way to confirm or deny any of these. Given we will hardly need to add this info to many, if any, in-universe articles, we really can only use this thread to theorise, not decide which ideas are "better" or "worse."
- RogerAckroydLives
Thefartydoctor wrote: The Doctor's always talking to himself. I haven't got time to read this whole thing but in case it's not been mentioned: Terrance Dicks explained the First Doctor's "Merry Christmas" as him toasting Ian and Barbara who had very recently left the TARDIS. He provided the explanation as part of one of his novels. He's well known as the person who patches up numerous holes - just read The Eight Doctors to see what I mean.
Furthermore, he made it "canon" (or whatever you wish to call it) that things like "A Fix With Sontarans" and the Children in Need EastEnders and Doctor Who mash-up were just nightmares that the Doctor had. Both of these were addressed in official pieces of prose.
As I see it, we just accept that he's either talking to Clara, or he's talking to himself. It's no biggy, and it certainly doesn't make it automatically invalid. That's my take on it.
Indeed, Dicks does often "correct" production and continuity errors. What actually occurs is down to personal taste, but novelisations are not relevant to this wiki. Yes, First Frontier can be construed to dismiss DiT, and similar things can be construed same from various references. But errors are errors, and choices are choices, so no retroactive changes are "better" than the original. Everyone can have their own opinion, but this wiki cannot decide that an adaptation can act as a "correction," it can only include new info. And therefore this thread is becoming a little irrelevant.
- Shambala108
Danniesen wrote: Why shouldn't we try to guess? We can theorise it all we want as long as we don't put it on the pages.
Per Tardis:Forum policy and Tardis:Discussion policy, these forums are for discussing editing concerns. Theorizing and speculating do not belong on these boards. If you must speculate, bring it to Howling:The Howling.
- Danniesen
Shouldn't this whole thread be closed off then? I mean, all everyone does is discussing what the scene of BtF meant from a perspective of the fourth wall...
- Thefartydoctor
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Indeed, Dicks does often "correct" production and continuity errors. What actually occurs is down to personal taste, but novelisations are not relevant to this wiki. Yes, First Frontier can be construed to dismiss DiT, and similar things can be construed same from various references. But errors are errors, and choices are choices, so no retroactive changes are "better" than the original. Everyone can have their own opinion, but this wiki cannot decide that an adaptation can act as a "correction," it can only include new info. And therefore this thread is becoming a little irrelevant.
You seem to misunderstand. Dicks' act of writing these patch-ups makes it an official explanation. Official novels write in stone what actually happened. I'll give you an example. The novel The Eight Doctors sees the Eighth Doctor losing his memory and so he has to go up and down his timeline to meet himselves and restore it.
He bumps into the First Doctor during The Unearthly Child episode 100,000 BC. One of the cliffhangers during this episode is that the First Doctor lifts a rock and is prepared to cave a caveman's head in with it. The following episode, we're just expected to believe that the Doctor has simply put it down and all's okay?
Dick's writes in a scene where the Eighth Doctor meets the First Doctor during this scene. The First Doctor mind-links with the Eighth Doctor and the First Doctor gets a chance to reflect on the path he's going down. This reflection causes him to remember who he is (which, on retrospect is a nice metaphoric link to the adventure the Eighth Doctor's going through) and he puts down the rock.
That's an official plot from an official novel. Between those two televised scenes, that event happened in the Doctor's timeline. Unfortunately with Doctor Who, people seem to pick and choose what they wish to believe but this scene happened. This Wiki doesn't treat the numerous scenes as a "correction", rather a valid event from a valid source. It was never wrong in the first place haha.
Where does that relate to this discussion? We've wandered off a bit. It relates to this discussion because just because something looks like it's breaking the fourth wall, it doesn't mean it is. It's just a visual representation of something else. It could be that the Doctor's putting us in Clara's place and giving us a glimpse at what it's like to hold a "conversation" with the Doctor from the companion's perspective rather than us being the fly on the wall.
Or, it could be him talking to himself and we represent that other part of his brain that he's talking to just to satisfy himself. He does it a lot. Such as in Partners in Crime and in The Mark of the Rani. Until we know, and until we're given a valid explanation from a valid source, we can't treat this an a breaking of the fourth wall.
That's how I see it.
- Thefartydoctor
Also your "novelisations are not valid to this Wiki". Do you even know how this Wiki works?! Novelisations are a vital part of this Wiki. For example, the short story Business as Usual acts as a much needed sequel to the novel Business Unusual. Furthermore the novelisation of Remembrance of the Daleks gives us important and vital scenes that didn't or couldn't make it to television. The extra information is important to understand the full picture.
The fact that you're suggesting that an official novel can't explain/rewrite the original is an invalid suggestion. It does explain, it does fill in gaps and it does, sometimes, rewrite. Get over it. That's what happens in big franchises like Doctor Who.
- Danniesen
As far as I see it "TheFartyDoctor" have given the most valid points so far. Except that seem to avoid that it could in fact be Clara the Doctor is talking to. That's what I would say what's going on.
- Thefartydoctor
Despite disputes or debates here, I think we all reach the same conclusion. Some think we're a replacement for Clara. Some think we're a part of his one way conversation. But our joint conclusions seem to be that we have insufficient evidence to simply say, as RogerAckroydLives suggests, that it's an "error". An error that Withouse apparently wrote in knowingly and that Steven Moffat and script editor Nick Lambon went on to allow in the final production... okay then.
- Danniesen
I don't think we're a replacement for Clara. I think that he actually is talking to Clara. That we're seeing this through Clara's eyes.
- Thefartydoctor
That's what I said. We are a replacement for Clara in their conversation. He's talking to us because we're being Clara. I agree with you.
I've allowed this thread to go on long enough to establish that it is quite possible that this is not a fourth-wall breaking moment. So there's no need to consider it "invalid", which was the original question of this thread. Therefore, this thread will be closed to prevent more speculation/theorizing.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182223
"Need to catch up with Doctor Who while we're in the off-season?" - we're not in the off-season. I think it's time to update that.
- SOTO
Good catch. What would you suggest should go in its place?
- Digifiend
Something about while you're enjoying the latest adventures, why not look into Doctor Who's past? It's only the "while we're in the off-season" bit that needs to be changed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182284
Can you add this to the standard preloads list alongside DWM and DWA's please? Template:DWCT_issue/preload
It's for Titan's Doctor Who Comic. I just had to override the next and prev issues on the pages for Volume 1 Issue 8 and Volume 2 Issue 1 and figured that a preload with the right parameters (prev override, next override) on it would prevent the same problem in future.
- SOTO
It has been added. I also fixed the category in the template so it would only put articles in that category, and not the template itself. (T:PRE)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:182378
I would like to raise debate on the requirement of a section within each Doctor page's biography entitled "Alternate Timelines". It has been established on numerous occasions that the DWU features the concept of an omniverse: that is, an infinite number of universes which feature every possible outcome for every possible event. Therefore, a section such as this is quite irrelevant, as it would need to feature every single one of these to be complete. However, these sections instead feature events seen within valid sources which detail potential events which never ultimately occurred to the Doctor in the supposedly final timeline. However, this just gives raise to many more problems: these sections feature both alternate timelines accessed as such, as well as timelines which were reverted by the Doctor himself, as well as timelines seen by characters which feature different events to the ones the "real" Doctor experienced. This amount of variation simply compounds the problem, potentially causing unfamiliar readers to be unable to understand the content.
We deem all licensed works to be valid, and rightly so. However, certain works have been unsupported by all others, and therefore seem irregular or "alternate". But these works are just as valid as others, so we do not place them within sections detailing alternate timelines. However, when the Doctor alters events of his own past, we seem to have no policy. Either in the case of events such as those of The Light at the End, we feature the alternate timeline and the Doctor's reversion of it in the main bio, or we create a short, often almost nonsensical statements, referring to the final events, and provide no easy link to the events which acted as cause and effect for this change. In the case of Klein's Story, we feature identical information in both sections! How can we state that Flip-Flop occurred to the "real" Doctor in both instances (as it must have done), but then relegate the events of Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS to the alternate section, leaving simply a statement claiming that the Doctor was given a button by himself and therefore solved a problem? It becomes impossible to understand when read in chronological order.
I believe that two alterations could render the problems less prominent. The most drastic would be to completely remove the alternate timeline section, but then events not featuring the Doctor but showing characters encountering alternate versions of him (primarily the Gallifrey series) would not be able to find a home. Instead, an easier solution would be to only feature events which do not feature prominently in the plot of a valid source, or do not affect the Doctor in any extensive way, and to reintegrate all other "alternate" details to the Doctors' main bios. If necessary, a paragraph of the main bio could refer to "(insert adjective here) alternate timelines," and these could be described in detail within the alternate section. But events which act as cause and effect to the Doctor's main timeline do not suit being relegated to a section with very little prominence.
- OttselSpy25
I agree.
- Brianpanda
Indeed. The eleventh Doctor clearly stated that all the Dalek invasions of Earth in the RTD stories have been rewritten from time and no longer happened, explaining Amy's lack of knowledge of who the Daleks were. However it would be nonsensical to write the main timeline as though those stories never happened since from the audience and the Doctor's perspective they did. The treatment of stories where the rewriting of time happens within the narrative of the story should not be any different to a longer time-framed example like the one I've given above, otherwise the Doctor's chronology makes no sense whatsoever.
- Digifiend
The First Doctor once said "You can't change history, not one line!" - unfortunately, the Silence don't agree. They made the cracks, and erased the events of The Next Doctor, The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, and several other episodes. But the Doctor still remembers them and is affected by them (he doesn't degenerate to a previous incarnation if the event that prompted his regeneration is averted, The Stolen Earth being one such case).
- OttselSpy25
Well, I'd actually label directly saying that those stories were erased as barely speculation. It's not directly explained in the episode, and I'm sure that Moffat would like us to forget about it even if it was him doing his best to explain some universal inconsistencies.
Better examples of the issue at hand are Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, The Light at the End, and others.
- Bwburke94
I agree with OS25 on not referring to stories as being erased unless in exceptional circumstances. We treat narratively discontinuitous (is that a word?) stories as valid to each other, so there is no reason we should consider stories to be erased in the vast majority of cases.
In the specific case of the Series 5 cracks, they do not erase events, they erase physical objects, usually beings of some kind. All beings erased by the cracks were returned to existence when the universe was rebooted, so no events were erased by the cracks in the rebooted timeline.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183096
We've seen on this site recently the infobox to be expanded so that we can still have multiple secondary voice actors and regular actors whilst still keeping to the custom search options that are on the site (yet no one uses). So we can have 'other TV actors' be searchable whilst having multiple links listed there.
I would thus like to put forward that we change the 'Doctor' variable to be able to feature multiple Doctors. Let's face it, that a huge problem with Multi-Doctor story pages and should be a quick fix. Any thoughts?
- Bwburke94
I support this idea.
- SOTO
The idea is to point out the main Doctor of the story. If another Doctor appears in a single scene, he should not be listed in the infobox as a second main Doctor, because only the central cast should be there. If we did decide to include a secondary Doctor variable, it will likely be misused. Are there any stories out there where a main Doctor cannot be named?
- OttselSpy25
Oh yea. Prisoners of Time, Four Doctors, every Big Finish multi-Doctor story...
- Mewiet
SOTO wrote: The idea is to point out the main Doctor of the story. If another Doctor appears in a single scene, he should not be listed in the infobox as a second main Doctor, because only the central cast should be there. If we did decide to include a secondary Doctor variable, it will likely be misused. Are there any stories out there where a main Doctor cannot be named?
Time Crash has to list the Fifth Doctor as "featuring" even though both Ten and Five play equal roles in the story. The Day of the Doctor also features Eleven, Ten, and War with equal roles in the story. Four Doctors features Twelve, Eleven, and Ten in equal roles. I'm sure there are more, but those are off the top of my head. Really the only difference is who happens to be the incumbent actor/Doctor at the time the story is released. And that doesn't even work for things like Big Finish releasing multi-Doctor stories where the incumbent Doctor doesn't feature, because then who should get to be listed as the "main" Doctor?
- SOTO
Eleven is definitely the main Doctor in The Day of the Doctor, because what we see in the plot mostly centres around his narrative. I see your point about other stories, though, especially Big Finish audios. In any case, we've decided to slowly move towards auto-linked variables, so if anything, a doctor2, doctor3, etc will be added to the story infobox template. If we do go through with this, it will say "Main Doctors" once more than one is added, so if a Doctor is not really in the primary cast, they should not be listed there. In other words, if we do extend it to allow for multiple Docs, Eleven does not get listed in Deep Breath's Doctor variable, and can stay in Featuring, if anywhere.
- OttselSpy25
I agree. Same for flashbacks.
- Side Rat
Mewiet wrote: Time Crash has to list the Fifth Doctor as "featuring" even though both Ten and Five play equal roles in the story. The Day of the Doctor also features Eleven, Ten, and War with equal roles in the story. Four Doctors features Twelve, Eleven, and Ten in equal roles. I'm sure there are more, but those are off the top of my head. Really the only difference is who happens to be the incumbent actor/Doctor at the time the story is released. And that doesn't even work for things like Big Finish releasing multi-Doctor stories where the incumbent Doctor doesn't feature, because then who should get to be listed as the "main" Doctor?
Tennant is the main Doctor in "Time Crash" because he is the current Doctor at that point whose adventures the audience is following through it from "Last Of The Time Lords" into "Voyage Of The Damned." Davison shows up in Tennant's console room because Tennant was rebuilding the TARDIS and forgot to put the shields back up, and Tennant provides the solution because he remembers seeing himself do it through Davison's eyes. The loop begins and ends with his actions.
Likewise, Smith is the main Doctor in "Day," and the others are guests. Again, the audience is following him at that point and the story begins and ends with his perspective on things. It is indeed a function of him being the incumbent, sure, but that's the way the story is structured.
However, I do agree that this doesn't necessarily apply to Big Finish stories such as The Sirens Of Time, for example.
- CzechOut
The {{{doctor}}} variable is meant for the current or most recent Doctor — or, in the case of stories using past Doctors, the one with the most prominent role. If that's not easily discernible then the variable should not be used.
It seems to me that those who are arguing it should be for other, guest-starring Doctors are in fact misinterpreting the variable. Obviously, cases like the ones that have been pointed out were considered in the creation of the variable but rejected. Think of the variable as meaning "main Doctor" or "current Doctor", but using far few characters to achieve that meaning.
The cases where the current/main Doctor is indiscernible are very few and far between, and would almost certainly cause disagreement among users. In those cases, the quickest path towards conflict resolution is simply to omit the variable. If you don't know who the main Doctor is, don't use {{{doctor}}} in the infobox.
Indeed, such cases never exist on TV because one actor's name always comes first. In Time Crash, it's Tennant before Davison. In Day, it's Smith before Tennant. In Three, it's Pertwee before Troughton. In Five, it's Davison before the rest of 'em.
And I'd take issue with what SOTO has said above. I certainly have no plans at all to move towards multiple variables, because, again, that confuses the meaning of the variable.
What we've done in the past, through discussion here in the forums, is to use {{{featuring}}} as a place to stow multiple Doctors, and, indeed, you'll find many examples of that on the wiki. It's a bit unsatisfactory at the present, however, in that there aren't multiple instances of {{{featuring}}}, and that'll be corrected shortly. The reason we went this way is so that we could have a more nuanced approached to the data. It's inarguably more useful to know that the Second Doctor in The Three Doctors is something other than the main Doctor. Newbies to Doctor Who — who comprise the bulk of our readership, after all — are served better if they understand which Doctor is the current one in a story, and which the guests. It's awfully easy for us to assume that "everyone must know The Three Doctors is a Third Doctor story", when there's ultimately no reason to make such an assumption. Why would someone watched Doctor Who for the first time last week know a damn thing about a story that happened more than 40 years ago?
Keeping {{{doctor}}} a singular variable allows it to work as a vital clue to the average reader. And if it doesn't work on stories we can count on a hand or two, that's more than okay.
- OttselSpy25
It just doesn't work on a hand full or two, I'd say it doesn't work on most non-televised multi-Doctor stories. And I don't really see how "it's that way because it's meant to be that way" is in any way a strong defense of the issue at hand. The multi-Doctor variable doesn't work on these pages and it would be an easy fix to allow multiple Doctors to be listed in that box just for that one sort of story that needs it.
It is odd for us to say 'that variable is for one character only' or that it is for 'only the main Doctor' whilst we are bascially doing guess work on most of these stories. Four Doctors, for instance, claims that the story is a Twelfth Doctor story with Clara as the only companion. That's not us listing the most important Doctor, that's just us being blatantly wrong. It's also bizzare that you dictate that the viable must only include one Doctor when you then say that the variable shouldn't be used for the stories that have been suggested. So you're saying that instead of having a fix for the stories where multiple Doctors and companions be used in the story, then we should not use the 'Doctor' or 'companion' variables. Then what's the point of not fixing it if you acknowledge that there's a huge problem? If we add multiple variables to the Doctor box, it will only affect the pages you're suggesting we don't use the variable on, and will not bleed over onto other pages. So there's no problem! I really don't understand why this little change is a huge issue.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183102
Isn't DAN amoung the outdated prefixes that we abandoned years ago? Surely it should be deleted and removed from pages.
- SOTO
Nice catch. You're right, we don't use prefixes related to series as opposed to medium. I'll wait a bit to see if CzechOut, the creator of the prefix and initiator of the whole prefix change, shows up to say anything, but if he doesn't I see no reason not to delete that prefix and get rid of all its uses throughout the wiki. Those stories should be COMIC and PROSE the way I see it, but perhaps Czech had a reason to keep it alive.
- Bwburke94
There are still a small number of links to DAN, which is why it isn't deleted yet.
- SOTO
Perhaps.
- OttselSpy25
It another forum, Czech has refereed to the item as a mistake needed to be deleted, along with SP.
Czech wrote: I think DAN still exists too, and is, I think, on SOTO's removal list. Existence is not the same thing as policy.
So I think that that makes his take on the prefix pretty clear -- it was meant to be removed long ago but got missed. If this has already been noted or discussed elsewhere, I apologize.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183166
Recently, User:Bold Clone and I came into a disagreement about the necessity and, more importantly, were the line in drawn in the "Near Misses" section of the Doctors' biographies. I asked him if he would like to start a thread about it. He declined that start one himself and implored me to open the case myself. So, here I am defending the need for the "Near misses."
The main defends for the sections being taken down is that they "have nothing to do" with their respective Doctors. Personally, I am inclined to disagree with this statement, as each time the Doctor's regeneration is about to start is no different that his actual regeneration, only differing in that the near misses do not enter completion. The ones that do end up completed still have build up on the biographies.
Also, as a matter of discussion is where the line between a "he started to regenerated but didn't" is drawn. Take The Touch of the Nurazh, which is kept up, and The Indestructible Man, which was taken down, were the regeneration proses is started but then negated by different circumstances.
The Stolen Earth near-miss is not even given a reason to have been taken down from the Eleventh Doctor's page, but still was despite The Touch of the Nurazh being an identical situation.
All in all, I'm very confused about what should and what shouldn't be considered a "Near Miss" and would like to have this mess sorted in a debatable manner.
- Mewiet
I don't think they should be included. Near misses clutter the page and since they're part of the previous incarnation's bio, they have nothing to do with the subsequent one. Unless they have direct impact on the existence of a new incarnation--The Stolen Earth would therefore be relevant to mentioning on the Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor's page but not the Eleventh Doctor's page--they shouldn't be listed.
- Skittles the hog
And by Mewiet's logic, which I agree with, The Touch of the Nurazh should be included in Four's bio as he is, temporarily, a product of that regeneration.
- Bold Clone
Simple. The only stuff which belongs on any Doctor's page is events actually involving that incarnation. Having a section on the Third Doctor's page which says "The Second Doctor almost regenerated but didn't" doesn't make any sense. As Mewiet said, a "near-miss" is really part of the previous incarnation's bio. It doesn't belong on the subsequent Doctor's page.
Specifically, in the case of "The Touch of the Nurazh" (if you had actually taken the time to read the section), you can see it explains that 3 actually regenerates into 4, but then the not-quite-finished-regeneration is undone. So the stuff stays on 4's page, since it involved 4. In "The Indestructible Man" (which apparently you didn't read) 2 did not actually regenerate into 3. So the material is removed, since 3 wasn't involved. The exact same goes for "The Stolen Earth", which is why there was no reason given for it. 10 really does go through the regeneration process, but he does not regenerate into 11. 11 is not involved (and the situation has absolutely nothing to do with "The Touch of the Nurazh" in any way because only one form of the Doctor is involved), so the incident is removed from 11's page.
- BananaClownMan
Bold Clone wrote: Simple. The only stuff which belongs on any Doctor's page is events actually involving that incarnation. Having a section on the Third Doctor's page which says "The Second Doctor almost regenerated but didn't" doesn't make any sense. As Mewiet said, a "near-miss" is really part of the previous incarnation's bio. It doesn't belong on the subsequent Doctor's page. Specifically, in the case of "The Touch of the Nurazh" (if you had actually taken the time to read the section), you can see it explains that 3 actually regenerates into 4, but then the not-quite-finished-regeneration is undone. So the stuff stays on 4's page, since it involved 4. In "The Indestructible Man" (which apparently you didn't read) 2 did not actually regenerate into 3. So the material is removed, since 3 wasn't involved. The exact same goes for "The Stolen Earth", which is why there was no reason given for it. 10 really does go through the regeneration process, but he does not regenerate into 11. 11 is not involved (and the situation has absolutely nothing to do with "The Touch of the Nurazh" in any way because only one form of the Doctor is involved), so the incident is removed from 11's page.
I'm going to be the mature one here and overlook that offensive comment about not reading them, which I did.
Anyway, I can see the point your making and I concede with your logic. So, I'll just love you and leave then.
- Bold Clone
Offensive and maturity is relative. Personally, I'm offended about your "I'm going to be the mature one here" remark. I really don't care who is offended, so long as I am honestly expressing myself and blunt in making my point. If you can't handle it, then get out of the kitchen.
On another note, and yet after reading the pages, you still argued against me?
- BananaClownMan
No, I was agreeing with; it is taking up space and more about the previous Doctors than the current ones. Truth be told, I was only upholding them because the Fourth Doctor's one was inexplicably still intact. Now that I understand the reason for it, I'm all for bygones being bygones.
- Bold Clone
Ah. Fair enough. If I'd realized that (sorry--my bad there), then I'd have given you a cup of tea instead of the hammer. Jumped the gun there.
- BananaClownMan
Ah, that's okay. In fairness, maybe I read it in an offensive manner. Sorry about that; I've recently been put under pressure about being blocked again for being unintentionally offensive to a user I think it would be in poor taste to identify. So I guess I was trying to find someone who was being offensive to me to tattle on and make myself seem like a lesser evil. But, the civilised way this was handled has renewed my spirits and I think I can now move on from this paranoid feeling, knowing that I am doing some good. Thank you, User:Bold Clone. Thank you.
- SOTO
I'm glad you two were able to move past the conflict. On the topic of the thread: I agree with Mewiet and Skittles, in that the only info on specific Doctors' pages should be information related to that incarnation of the Doctor. If it doesn't involve that incarnation, it doesn't belong on that particular article. On an article on regeneration, or the Doctor's regeneration? Sure! It might be cool to look at all the regenerations and near-regenerations in one place. But the only info about the previous Doctor that belongs on a given Doctor page is the leadup to the regeneration into them.
- Bwburke94
The near-miss in "The Stolen Earth" is only relevant to the Eleventh Doctor when talking about the fact Eleven was the final incarnation of the Doctor's original regeneration cycle.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183434
It's been put forward that none of the home video releases have had the correct dab term added to them. Either they have had none added at all (Downtime, Dæmos Rising, Auton II: The Sentinels, etc) or they have the wrong one (Clara and the TARDIS (TV story), Rain Gods (TV story), First Night (TV story), Last Night (TV story), etc). Now the obvious way to fix this is to have the correct bad term added. The issue that is more worrying is that we have a confusion on what dab term is right.
Dab terms are meant to be structured in a way that if you remove the parenthesis and add 'images' to the end you got the category.
The issue here is that T:DAB TERM makes it clear that (home video) is the correct dab term for all stories listed in the first paragraph, but the categories are not suggestive of this.
- Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough (home video) DN= Category:Zygon: When Being You Just Isn't Enough BBV video images
And obviously there's also:
So basically either our dab term is wrong or our categories are wrong. I'm guessing categories, because you don't see Regeneration (Stewart & Wall Entertainment TV story) around here. Either way, something needs to be fixed real badly.
- Mewiet
The incorrect categories are probably a byproduct of the incorrectly applied dab term. We should've been using (home video) but I think a lot of people didn't realize we even had a (home video) dab and just either didn't dab or dabbed what they thought was the next best thing and as a result created the categories to match as best as they could. Now it's a big mess that needs to be fixed.
- OttselSpy25
I would agree that the categories come from us waiting far too long to fix the dab terms. If we had fixed them all the day that we fixed the TV story dabs this problem wouldn't exist.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Sorted it :D
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183627
I would like to address two issues recently raised in Thread:164173#35 concerning TARDIS policies that need community attention:
1. Should we view episodes that end with "to be continued" cards as automatic multi-part episodes that must be linked to the episode that follows it?
2. Should we view return cards ("Doctor Who will return in..." / "Coming..." / "the Doctor will be back..." / "Coming Soon" / "The Doctor and Clara will return..." / variations) as the same thing as "to be continued" cards and therefore hold them to the same standards?
While trying to determine whether or not A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler are a two-parter in Thread:164173#35, User:Shambala108 asked if AGMGTW ends with "to be continued" and whether that could determine its status as a two-parter. This question led to discussion that "to be continued" is inconsistently applied: every story we recognize in Series 1 as a two-parter, for example, does not end with "to be continued." Conversely, The Almost People and The Name of the Doctor do end with "to be continued," but we currently do not recognize them as multi-part stories with AGMGTW and The Day of the Doctor, respectively.
User:CzechOut stated that it has been established since 2010 that "to be continued" automatically links a story with the story that succeeds it, citing the following Panopticon archived discussions:
Additionally:
CzechOut wrote: So, as far as this thread is concerned, we are left with only one question: is "the Doctor will return" truly, materially different than "to be continued"? Personally, I think you'd be splitting truly fine semantic hairs to think so. After all, "to be continued" on Doctor Who necessarily means that "the Doctor will return".
If we accepted that the return cards mean the same thing as "to be continued" cards that would mean not only would we have to count AGMGTW and LKH as a two-parter, but we would have to amend numerous other stories into multi-parters as well, since many series finales and specials end with return cards. Multi-part episodes would look like this:
2-parters
- The Runaway Bride / Smith and Jones
- The Wedding of River Song / The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe
- The Name of the Doctor / The Day of the Doctor
3-parters
- A Christmas Carol / The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon
- Last Christmas / The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar
4-parters
- Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways / The Christmas Invasion / New Earth
- The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People / A Good Man Goes to War / Let's Kill Hitler
5-parter
- Utopia / The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords / Voyage of the Damned / Partners in Crime
6-parter
- The Stolen Earth / Journey's End / The Next Doctor / Planet of the Dead / The Waters of Mars / The End of Time
Extensive story re-numbering on individual pages and appearance page reorganizing would be involved by choosing to count "to be continued" and return cards as the same thing.
CzechOut wrote: And remember another truism of proposals on wikis. If it's agreed to, someone has to make the change. This isn't something that can be done by bot. So if you argue in favour of splitting these two episodes, please think realistically about how much time you personally can commit to making the change.
To reiterate the questions posed at the top of this thread:
1. Should we view episodes that end with "to be continued" cards as automatic multi-part episodes that must be linked to the episode that follows it?
2. Should we view return cards ("Doctor Who will return in..." / "Coming..." / "the Doctor will be back..." / "Coming Soon" / "The Doctor and Clara will return..." / variations) as the same thing as to be continued" cards and therefore hold them to the same standards?
Taking CzechOut's reminder from Thread:164173#35 into serious account, I am firmly against Point 2. Keeping AGMGTW and LKH linked and therefore setting a precedent that return cards count as "to be continued" cards would require an insane amount of confusing and needless editing. Stories upon stories that frankly have no business being considered mutli-parters would have to be linked. There is far less work involved in separating AGMGTW and LKH and recognizing that return cards are distinct from "to be continued" cards.
Point 1 doesn't cause as much havoc as Point 2, but I don't think we should count AGMGTW as the end of a three-parter with TRF and TAP or TNOTD as the first half of TDOTD. "To be continued" is so inconsistently applied (sometimes two-parters get "to be continued" cards, sometimes they don't, sometimes random episodes like TAP/TNOTD get them when the episodes that follow them have nothing in common except for basic continuity) that I don't believe it should be accepted as a strict rule.
- Bwburke94
I'll bring out what CzechOut said on Forum:Story Numbering to try and prove my point. (formatted as in original thread, including American English spellings)
CzechOut wrote:
Shada definitely is 109. Numbering is a production thing, and from a production standpoint, Shada exists. It has a production code which remains honored to this day, so therefore it is a "real" story in the order. That's why our "made next/made prev" navigation honors Shada.
This rule can't be adapted strictly to cover the BBC Wales era because BBC Wales two-parters had two production codes, including The End of Time being 4.17 and 4.18, before codes were scrapped for the 2012 series. However, we can honour the intent of this rule by not declaring two linked episodes to be a two-parter without unambiguous production intent.
- OttselSpy25
This is an absolutely odd rule. A rule of thumb that was created before the Matt Smith era had even started based off of the stories of the 9th and 10th Doctors.
To Be Continued means only that the episode ended on a cliff hanger and that it would be resolved next week or "this Autumn" or "in December", etc. It doesn't mean "this episode and the next one are two praters" or anything of the sort. That rule of thumb certainly works for most cased pre-2010 but since then the rule has been broken many times.
Name of the Doctor and Day of the Doctor are not a two parter. I don't think that this a think that we need to debate. It's just not. Neither are The Almost People and A Good Man Goes to War. They're inherently separate, stand alone stories that are connected in that one follows after the other and the first one has quite a good cliff to hang off of.
When you then attempt to add in 'The Doctor will return in' as fancy 'to be continued's, then you enter into a new plain of insanity. By that means, almost every series finale, Christmas special, and series opener are three parters. At at that point, what's the difference between 'The Doctor Will Return in' and 'Next Episode'? There is not really, one's just fancier.
By that logic, to be continued = the Doctor will return in = Next Episode. Episodes aired months apart are two and three-parters, episodes with different production teams, actors, and Doctors are two-parters, and the first Hartnell season is one serial!
Standing by the policy is standing by something which is destined to be wrong all of the time!
- RogerAckroydLives
The policy applied almost universally within fandom is that, for the BBC Wales revival, any two episodes which air on consecutive weeks, are written by the same writer and are separated by a "To Be Continued" are part of the same story. Whilst this policy isn't definitive, and does support the classification of occasional three-part stories which have been stated by the writer not to be so, it is a less controversial starting point for TARDIS policy than what we have at the moment.
- Bwburke94
RogerAckroydLives wrote: The policy applied almost universally within fandom is that, for the BBC Wales revival, any two episodes which air on consecutive weeks, are written by the same writer and are separated by a "To Be Continued" are part of the same story. Whilst this policy isn't definitive, and does support the classification of occasional three-part stories which have been stated by the writer not to be so, it is a less controversial starting point for TARDIS policy than what we have at the moment.
There is precedent for non-consecutive weeks being a two-parter, but that was only a two-week gap between The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky, and the gap was not a deliberate production decision.
What there is not precedent for is a story sharing no elements with a traditional two-parter to be called a two-parter. Both A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler had previously-on segments, but unlike the traditional two-parters of the era, the previously recapped the entirety of Series 6 rather than the previous episode.
As a sidenote, Utopia had its next-time trailer after the credits similar to other two-parters, so it can be inferred that it is Part 1 of 3.
- OttselSpy25
Now three of qualifiers is a lot more sane of a concept, for it does (basically) sort out any troubles that we have with "is it tho" story sets. To check it tho, have there been any two or more parters where different parts were written by different people?
- RogerAckroydLives
Bwburke94 wrote: There is precedent for non-consecutive weeks being a two-parter, but that was only a two-week gap between The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky, and the gap was not a deliberate production decision.
What there is not precedent for is a story sharing no elements with a traditional two-parter to be called a two-parter. Both A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler had previously-on segments, but unlike the traditional two-parters of the era, the previously recapped the entirety of Series 6 rather than the previous episode.
As a sidenote, Utopia had its next-time trailer after the credits similar to other two-parters, so it can be inferred that it is Part 1 of 3.
TSS and TPS may be the only problem for my proposed basis. However, if we extended it to "consecutive weeks or stories within a successive run of the show", or made some similar such adjustment, the distinction between AGMGTW/LKH (two episodes with a break of several weeks) and TSS/TPS (two episodes with a break of a single week) would be obvious.
And yes, we can infer that Utopia is Part 1/3, as we and most other groups do. But it has been stated that this is not true by the writer, whereas no such statement has ever been made about any other two-part stories classified as such in DWM. Our current policy seems to support the 1/3 assumption, but if a user chooses to debate this point, it would be a valid argument, whereas if somebody stated that TSS/TPS was not a two-part story, they would not have any backing by authorial intent.
- RogerAckroydLives
OttselSpy25 wrote: Now three of qualifiers is a lot more sane of a concept, for it does (basically) sort out any troubles that we have with "is it tho" story sets. To check it tho, have there been any two or more parters where different parts were written by different people?
In the BBC Wales series? No. The only argument that could be made here are the stories of Series 9, but we already seem to have a consensus amongst articles that the two "linked pairs" of the series are separate stories.
- RogerAckroydLives
Anyway – Bwburke, are you referring to American broadcast? Because I don't recall hearing of any such break in British broadcast, and I can't spot anything online to indicate such at the moment.
- Bwburke94
Seems like TSS/TPS actually was only a one-week break, I thought it was two. So that point's moot.
- Mewiet
RogerAckroydLives wrote: The policy applied almost universally within fandom is that, for the BBC Wales revival, any two episodes which air on consecutive weeks, are written by the same writer and are separated by a "To Be Continued" are part of the same story. Whilst this policy isn't definitive, and does support the classification of occasional three-part stories which have been stated by the writer not to be so, it is a less controversial starting point for TARDIS policy than what we have at the moment.
Is Utopia the only outlier in this proposal? If not, what other story sets wouldn't fit this definition?
- OttselSpy25
I don't think so.
A simple way to fix issues like that is that if a story does not fit the criteria suggested, we need definative evidence that it was meant as part of a multi-part series of stories. Utopia, I'm sure, has evidence of the sort.
- RogerAckroydLives
Mewiet wrote:
Is Utopia the only outlier in this proposal? If not, what other story sets wouldn't fit this definition?
I don't believe that Utopia would stand apart from those episodes categorised by this definition. It would, as per my original statement, be categorised as a first part, continued in TSOD, which in turn is continued in LOTTL.
- OttselSpy25
RogerAckroydLives wrote:
Mewiet wrote:
Is Utopia the only outlier in this proposal? If not, what other story sets wouldn't fit this definition?
I don't believe that Utopia would stand apart from those episodes categorised by this definition. It would, as per my original statement, be categorised as a first part, continued in TSOD, which in turn is continued in LOTTL.
Yea but Utopia has a different writer
- RogerAckroydLives
OttselSpy25 wrote: Yea but Utopia has a different writer
Director definitely, but writer? Who else wrote those three episodes other than RTD?
- OttselSpy25
Does it end in To Be Continued then?
- RogerAckroydLives
Indeed.
- Mewiet
RogerAckroydLives wrote: I don't believe that Utopia would stand apart from those episodes categorised by this definition. It would, as per my original statement, be categorised as a first part, continued in TSOD, which in turn is continued in LOTTL.
I was referring to Utopia being an outlier because of the point you made about Davies refuting it as the first of a three-parter:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: And yes, we can infer that Utopia is Part 1/3, as we and most other groups do. But it has been stated that this is not true by the writer
I'd actually never heard that before, but it wouldn't really change anything about that episode here because we currently consider it 1/3 anyway.
Your suggestion sounds very reasonable to me. As far as two-parters go, it would keep everything basically as we have it:
The Almost People and A Good Man Goes to War would not be considered a two-parter because they are credited to separate writers.
The Name of the Doctor and The Day of the Doctor would not be considered a two-parter because over six months passed between their premiere broadcasts.
The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived would not be considered a two-parter because they are credited to separate writers.
If we went with this definition and rejected the notion that TBC cards and return cards are the same thing, the only change we would have to make is the separation AGMGTW and LKH.
- RogerAckroydLives
All sounds perfectly reasonable.
I personally have no problem with presenting Utopia as part one of three. Davies has never stated that it is not, but he has stated that it wasn't his original intention for it to be considered as such. Collinson, on the other hand, has affirmed that it is 1/3. And given that, even if one or the other did state that it wasn't supposed to be considered the first episode of a three episode story, the final intention does appear to be that it is such, rendering all of this moot. By my proposed policy, then, it would most definitely not be reclassified.
Anyway, it's good to see us making some headway on this longstanding issue. Hopefully we can establish something concrete through our efforts.
- Mewiet
A question I do have is this: if, for example, Catherine Tregenna and Steven Moffat had teamed up to write TGWD instead of JM/SM and then Catherine Tregenna wrote TWWL by herself, how would this policy count such a scenario? Would the Tregenna being a credited writer on both be enough to cement them as a two-parter?
- RogerAckroydLives
Yes, as co-writer credit, especially in the case of the showrunner, should not be able "contradict" the fact that the writer has written both parts of the story. If, for some exceptional reason, a writer chose to write one part of their story with a partner, and another on their own, it is still extremely likely that it could be classified as a two part story. But in your hypothetical, as in the upcoming Zygon two-parter, the fact that an episode has been "co-written" with the showrunner, a person with great creative influence over the final script regardless, should not discount that it is one writer's story, and they therefore have created a cohesive whole.
- Bwburke94
Whatever policy we adopt should explicitly say "Utopia is the first episode of a three-parter" to completely remove ambiguity on what the policy says.
- RogerAckroydLives
If necessary; however, this policy is pretty clear, but when it comes to writing it down, we can surely add a footnote just in case someone misunderstands it.
- OttselSpy25
I think what we've come to is pretty reasonable. Now we either need more people to discuss the pros and cons of the policy along with admins or do we just need to keep agreeing on it back on fourth until the forum is closed.
- Mewiet
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Yes, as co-writer credit, especially in the case of the showrunner, should not be able "contradict" the fact that the writer has written both parts of the story.
I'm of the same mind, but I wanted to bring up the point anyway so it wouldn't become a point of contention at a later time.
OttselSpy25 wrote: I think what we've come to is pretty reasonable. Now we either need more people to discuss the pros and cons of the policy along with admins or do we just need to keep agreeing on it back on fourth until the forum is closed.
Whatever we do, I don't want this to be a topic that falls to the wayside like most. The issues, especially the second one if it were to be ignored and the AGMTW/LKH problem is allowed to a standard, would cause enormous problems over a multitude of episodes. It should be dealt with now.
- Bwburke94
There's no reason to wait. All we need is approval.
- Mewiet
So right now (anyone who took part above correct me if I've listed your position wrong or you've changed your mind) this is where we stand:
1. Should we view episodes that end with "to be continued" cards as automatic multi-part episodes that must be linked to the episode that follows it?
Four editors (so far unanimously) say no.
Proposed (and thus far agreed upon) alternative: an episode that ends in "to be continued" can be considered a multi-parter if 1) the next part(s) share(s) the same writer and 2) they air over consecutive weeks.
2. Should we view return cards ("Doctor Who will return in..." / "Coming..." / "the Doctor will be back..." / "Coming Soon" / "The Doctor and Clara will return..." / variations) as the same thing as "to be continued" cards and therefore hold them to the same standards?
Four editors (so far unanimously) say no.
- Bold Clone
Just want to throw my two cents into the matter and agree with the others. I think it's ridiculous to claim every episode with "to be continued" is automatically a two- or three- parter.
- Quest?on
I also agree with what the others say. "To be continued" is used too often to be the decider on whether a story is a two-parter or not.
- CzechOut
Please describe the conditions under which something could be labelled as "to be continued", but not actually continued in a second part.
Also, please describe how the "must be written by the same writer" thing would work? Are you seriously suggesting that The Zygon Inversion is not the second part of The Zygon Invasion simply because Moffat gets a co-writing credit only on Inversion?
Also, I'm not for writing a blanket policy by which we demand the eps be aired over consecutive weeks, because Doctor Who sometimes has week-long transmission gaps for special events. I could live with the community voting on an explicit exception, such as determining that Let's Kill Hitler is not the second part of A Good Man Goes to War.
- OttselSpy25
Mewiet wrote: Conversely, The Almost People and The Name of the Doctor do end with "to be continued," but we currently do not recognize them as multi-part stories with AGMGTW and The Day of the Doctor, respectively.
- Bwburke94
CzechOut wrote: Please describe the conditions under which something could be labelled as "to be continued", but not actually continued in a second part.
The obvious examples are The Almost People (which was itself a second part) and The Name of the Doctor. The former did not share any writers with the following episode, and the latter had an exceptionally long gap before the following episode.
CzechOut wrote: Also, please describe how the "must be written by the same writer" thing would work? Are you seriously suggesting that The Zygon Inversion is not the second part of The Zygon Invasion simply because Moffat gets a co-writing credit only on Inversion?
Peter Harness is credited as a writer for both, so both episodes share a writer and this rule is not violated.
CzechOut wrote: Also, I'm not for writing a blanket policy by which we demand the eps be aired over consecutive weeks, because Doctor Who sometimes has week-long transmission gaps for special events. I could live with the community voting on an explicit exception, such as determining that Let's Kill Hitler is not the second part of A Good Man Goes to War.
A consecutive-weeks rule would not be the best course. It can be written as "two consecutive episodes within the same series, with a gap of 28 days or fewer between their airdates" to avoid special events from breaking up an intended two-parter.
- Bwburke94
Also, Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords were all written by RTD, so no problem there.
- Mewiet
I need to be up early tomorrow, so I can't reply as in depth as I'd like to at the moment, but exception? It's been pointed out in both this thread and Thread:164173#35 that AGMGTW does not end with "to be continued." AGMGTW does not need an exception from connecting to LKH through a "to be continued" because it doesn't have one. Currently, AGMGTW is only connected to The Almost People through a "to be continued."
AGMGTW and LKH are relevant to the second problem of the return cards, not TBC cards. So far the community discussion is leaning towards the view that they should not be considered the same thing because of the many problems that would create. If we allowed AGMGTW and LKH to remain connected, it would set a precedent for several other episodes (listed in the OP) that we would then have to go around making explicit exceptions for.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote:
CzechOut wrote: Also, please describe how the "must be written by the same writer" thing would work? Are you seriously suggesting that The Zygon Inversion is not the second part of The Zygon Invasion simply because Moffat gets a co-writing credit only on Inversion?
Peter Harness is credited as a writer for both, so both episodes share a writer and this rule is not violated.
A topic which was raised and discussed back on October 30 and 31 of this thread:
Mewiet wrote: A question I do have is this: if, for example, Catherine Tregenna and Steven Moffat had teamed up to write TGWD instead of JM/SM and then Catherine Tregenna wrote TWWL by herself, how would this policy count such a scenario? Would the Tregenna being a credited writer on both be enough to cement them as a two-parter?
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Yes, as co-writer credit, especially in the case of the showrunner, should not be able "contradict" the fact that the writer has written both parts of the story. If, for some exceptional reason, a writer chose to write one part of their story with a partner, and another on their own, it is still extremely likely that it could be classified as a two part story. But in your hypothetical, as in the upcoming Zygon two-parter, the fact that an episode has been "co-written" with the showrunner, a person with great creative influence over the final script regardless, should not discount that it is one writer's story, and they therefore have created a cohesive whole.
Mewiet wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Yes, as co-writer credit, especially in the case of the showrunner, should not be able "contradict" the fact that the writer has written both parts of the story.
I'm of the same mind, but I wanted to bring up the point anyway so it wouldn't become a point of contention at a later time.
- OttselSpy25
Also note that part of this policy would be that exceptions could be made with a simple citation. Most two-parters are clearly made out to be that -- and most ones that we have to debate probably aren't, because the evidence would be right there on the BBC homepage or the official DVD. But if Moffat said "X episode and Episode Y, written by two different writers and made a months apart with no 'to be continued' stamp are both part of a two-parter," that would stand.
Are there examples of two parters where the first episode doesn't end with 'To Be continued'? I presume that there are a lot...
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: Are there examples of two parters where the first episode doesn't end with 'To Be continued'? I presume that there are a lot...
This discussion only deals with 2005 onward, so no, I don't believe so.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote:
CzechOut wrote: Please describe the conditions under which something could be labelled as "to be continued", but not actually continued in a second part.
The obvious examples are The Almost People (which was itself a second part) and The Name of the Doctor. The former did not share any writers with the following episode, and the latter had an exceptionally long gap before the following episode.
Just what I was going to say. The Name of the Doctor as an example of a story that currently does end with "to be continued" (even though we currently do not recognize it as the first half of a two-parter on this wiki) unlike AGMGTW. TNOTD is a completely different story to The Day of the Doctor. TDOTD has nothing to do with Clara's echoes or the Great Intelligence. There even appears to be a time jump between them, as we don't see how the Doctor and Clara get out of his timeline, but Clara is now teaching at Coal Hill. The only thing connecting them is the appearance of the War Doctor, making his debut and second appearance. It's like Rose first appearing in Rose and then making her second appearance in The End of the World or Amy first appearing in The Eleventh Hour and then making her second appearance in The Beast Below. There's basic continuity of a character appearing for the first time and then making their second appearance, but that can be said any episode where a new recurring character is introduced. The End of the World continues more clearly from Rose (literally the first scene of TEOTW takes place after the last scene of Rose and directly follows it on a clip recap of that episode) than TNOTD does from TDOTD.
- Bwburke94
Mewiet wrote: The only thing connecting them is the appearance of the War Doctor, making his debut and second appearance. It's like Rose first appearing in Rose and then making her second appearance in The End of the World or Amy first appearing in The Eleventh Hour and then making her second appearance in The Beast Below. There's basic continuity of a character appearing for the first time and then making their second appearance, but that can be said any episode where a new recurring character is introduced. The End of the World continues more clearly from Rose (literally the first scene of TEOTW takes place after the last scene of Rose and directly follows it on a clip recap of that episode) than TNOTD does from TDOTD.
It's more analogous to Adam Mitchell in Dalek and The Long Game, two episodes which are clearly not a two-parter.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote: It's more analogous to Adam Mitchell in Dalek and The Long Game, two episodes which are clearly not a two-parter.
Yes, that's another example.
- Mewiet
Bold Clone wrote: Just want to throw my two cents into the matter and agree with the others. I think it's ridiculous to claim every episode with "to be continued" is automatically a two- or three- parter.
Quest?on wrote: I also agree with what the others say. "To be continued" is used too often to be the decider on whether a story is a two-parter or not.
So since my last tally, more editors have voiced their opinions against automatically connecting stories just because of a "to be continued" card. We're now at six who are opposed and one in favor.
- CzechOut
Well, as has been said many times, a consensus is not the same thing as a vote. You can't build a consensus around the notion that the moon is made of cheese, no matter how many people vote for the idea.
And I'm quite prepared to rule on one apparently popular aspect of this debate, right now, in light of the events of Raven.
- Authorship shall have no bearing on whether episodes are part of the same story.
Next week's episode is quite obviously a continuation of this week's, and yet they are going to be credited to different writers. Moreover, what if the next show runner adopts something closer to an American "writers' room", where people are assigned credits, but really everyone is pitching in on each script. A rule on this wiki must have a decent chance of being applicable in the future, and it's reasonable to expect that at some time a more "generalised" approach to writing might be adopted, since it's pretty common in the television industry.
Also, we're not going to strike down a rule without having a viable replacement. The "to be continued rule", for lack of a better term, at least gives us something to hang our hats on. We're not going to strike it down without having something else in its place. And that "something" cannot include a "must be authored by the same writer" clause — not in the light of the very obvious cliffhanger we were delivered this week.
So while it's vaguely interesting that six people have voted against the "TBC rule", it's not actionable.
- Bwburke94
Yesterday's episode ended on a TBC, but for reasons I can't discuss yet per T:SPOIL, it seems to be standalone by these rules. Considering the BBC announced it as standalone, it seems like the proposed rule is working well.
- Mewiet
How does this wiki define "consensus"?
Tangerineduel wrote: But on the other hand Turn Left doesn't, end on a 'to be continued' I mean. I understand on a narrative level that Turn Left leads into The Stolen Earth (but the same can be said for a majority of Hartnell stories), but there's nothing I can see linking it to the others (in the same way that Utopia is linked via the 'to be continued' which signals it as a continuing story).
The Thirteenth Doctor wrote: Well, it's the same events it is based around, with the stars going out and Rose returning, and trying to stop the Daleks by sending Donna back.
Tangerineduel wrote: Well perhaps with the 200 bus, but then there's the Midnight bus, wasn't there something at issue about that?
Are' Those three number like that?! (I say with some puzzlement)...oh they are. Err...why have we done that?
I understand the stories of The Trial of a Time Lord being numbered in that manner, (actually I think I just answered my own question), Utopia, The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords all end on to be continued don't they?
Yes, but, speaking that generally you can say the whole of Series 5 is one long story because most of the stories are linked to one another by which ever arc. The distinction I was making above is that those stories that end on a 'to be continued' are signalling they're part of an on-going story, much like The Trial of a Time Lord, whilst Turn Left doesn't make that distinction. Or to put it another way, those stories that end on a "to be continued" have something definable that we can point out and classify and reference back to other examples. Turn Left on the other hand is how you interpret the narrative of the story, it sets up / mirrors upcoming events but it's more part of the arc than a linked story.We got the "TBC policy" based on one editor stating their belief in response to someone else and the small number of posts getting archived as having no resolution. Now multiple editors have taken issue with the flaws in that belief, challenged it, and discussed it. I'm a little puzzled how policy is created with hardly any discussion but the community cannot seem to change this with ample discussion at a later time. This topic has been returned to the community's attention and discussed seven times more than the original thread and with very different results.
- Quest?on
Maybe we could use the earlier-suggested three-pronged test, just minus the bit about author. That would satisfy everyone I think.
- OttselSpy25
I'm also very confused about how that not-discussion from the days of old is enough to create a policy but this discussion featuring near three times as many contributors and actual evidence and debate does not?
I guess to make this policy we just need to start stating it as fact in other forums until people forget that it definitely isn't policy and it becomes policy.
- Bwburke94
Quest?on wrote: Maybe we could use the earlier-suggested three-pronged test, just minus the bit about author. That would satisfy everyone I think.
That would break The Almost People/A Good Man Goes to War, because our easiest way to disqualify it is through the different writers, and would also alter the status of The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived among others.
- Bwburke94
I object to CzechOut's statement that episode 11 "obviously" continues from Raven, on the grounds that we cannot confirm it at this time. We should wait until Series 9 in its entirety has aired before making an outright decision on the status of Raven.
- OttselSpy25
Furthermore it continuing from the last story does not qualify it as part of a multi-part story.
- Saints'Hoodie
OttselSpy25 wrote: Furthermore it continuing from the last story does not qualify it as part of a multi-part story.
But...what? If it follows up pretty much directly where the last episode left of, surely that qualifies it for being a multi-part story.
- Mewiet
Saints'Hoodie wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: Furthermore it continuing from the last story does not qualify it as part of a multi-part story.
But...what? If it follows up pretty much directly where the last episode left of, surely that qualifies it for being a multi-part story.
The way I took Ottsel's post is pointing out that we haven't and currently do not take that view across the board. At present, we have The Almost People ending with a TBC but we do not count it as a three-parter with A Good Man Goes to War. Strangely we do count AGMGTW as a two-parter with LKH even though they are not connected by a TBC. Then we have stories like The Name of the Doctor and The Girl Who Died which end with TBCs, but the stories act as standalones, having nothing except the reoccurrence of a character between them. Since next week's episode is still considered a spoiler, we can't say what direction it will take despite FtR ending with a TBC. Like I've said many times, TBCs have been randomly applied across 2005+ DW.
- Bwburke94
Saints'Hoodie wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote: Furthermore it continuing from the last story does not qualify it as part of a multi-part story.
But...what? If it follows up pretty much directly where the last episode left of, surely that qualifies it for being a multi-part story.
We have a counter-example of Turn Left/The Stolen Earth, which are not part of the same story.
- OttselSpy25
The story ending on a cliff and having the story continue into the next episode does not qualify it to be multiple parts of one narrative or story. Compare it to the classic series -- where it would be very common to show the start of the next story at the end of what came before.
- Saints'Hoodie
..Fair point.
- Shambala108
In Thread:164173, User:Tangerineduel said:
"I believe that for the new series unless a story actually contains the in-titles titling of "Part 1 / 2" as occurred with The End of Time then all should be treated as separate stories.
As all the others are presented with separate titles and are covered separately."
This to me is the simplest solution: only stories that have the same title would be considered multi-parters.
The drawbacks are that it won't be an easy change to make and it will mess up any kind of numbering system that depends on things like making Planet of the Dead the 200th episode.
However, it has the advantage of being easy to enforce and will be applicable in the future, as User:CzechOut states a new rule must be.
- Mewiet
Shambala108 wrote: In Thread:164173, User:Tangerineduel said:
"I believe that for the new series unless a story actually contains the in-titles titling of "Part 1 / 2" as occurred with The End of Time then all should be treated as separate stories.
As all the others are presented with separate titles and are covered separately."
This to me is the simplest solution: only stories that have the same title would be considered multi-parters.
The drawbacks are that it won't be an easy change to make and it will mess up any kind of numbering system that depends on things like making Planet of the Dead the 200th episode.
However, it has the advantage of being easy to enforce and will be applicable in the future, as User:CzechOut states a new rule must be.
It's not my first choice, but I think I could agree to that as a last resort. Not only does it free us of the erratic application of TBCs, but it's a far better option than unreasonably forcing standalone stories together just because an episode ends with, "Doctor Who will return in..." or similar.
Since these issues have major impact across multiple stories/episodes, I think this should be a highlighted topic.
- Bwburke94
Wording for a "separate episode titles = separate stories" policy would go something like this:
- A "story", for the purposes of televised Doctor Who, is one or more consecutive episodes... (continue to define term as it is currently defined)
- From An Unearthly Child to The Gunfighters, a "story" refers to any run of consecutive episodes with the same production code.
- From The Savages onward, a "story" refers to any run of consecutive episodes with the same title.
- There are a few unusual circumstances concerning story titles:
- The first episode of Invasion of the Dinosaurs was titled Invasion, to hide the identity of what was invading Earth. We treat Invasion as the first episode of Invasion of the Dinosaurs.
- Season 23 was broadcast as The Trial of a Time Lord in 14 episodes, composed of four serials. We treat this as one story for numbering purposes but as four stories for all other purposes.
- (add information relevant to Torchwood, SJA, K9, and various other televised stories)
- RogerAckroydLives
We seem to be going in circles. Are there any actual objections to the rule of three qualifiers? So far I have only seen a number of people join recently and make points of debate long-since resolved in the earlier stages of this thread. So far, I don't believe anybody has actually made a valid objection to the aforementioned rule other than CzechOut, who feels that stories which continue on from each other should be continued regardless of authorship. However, this very thread makes it clear that this is not a policy followed by us in the past or any other sources.
- RogerAckroydLives
CzechOut wrote: So while it's vaguely interesting that six people have voted against the "TBC rule", it's not actionable.
So are you arguing that the potential of change should make a policy invalid? That would pretty much mean the end of any strict policies on this wiki, period. The "TBC rule" has never been followed by anyone who we have currently cited, and we have most definitely not acted as trailblazers. On the other hand, the three qualifiers proposed much earlier are almost universally used, meaning that, regardless of our individual opinions, any person visiting this wiki has a good chance of being able to find information based on this almost universal system. Even if everyone on the wiki refuted the fact that, for example, Invasion (Part One) was part of the serial Invasion of the Dinosaurs, would applying this policy make it accessible to anyone who was new to the wiki or the universe as a whole? Is there any point making arguments for a original system followed by no-one else? I've seen an amount of dismissal and occasionally mocking of DWM's "anal" naming system for the earliest serials and TToaTL, so what is encouraging users to mirror that approach and create a universally inapplicable system?
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: So far I have only seen a number of people join recently and make points of debate long-since resolved in the earlier stages of this thread.
Are you claiming that only users who have been involved since the beginning can have any input? As long as the discussion is open, anyone is welcome to join in. And technically speaking, nothing is resolved until ruled on by an admin.
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Are there any actual objections to the rule of three qualifiers? So far, I don't believe anybody has actually made a valid objection to the aforementioned rule other than CzechOut,
I believe I spent quite a bit of time on my suggestion (which is really Tangerineduel's), giving the pros and cons. Since this is clearly not the same as this three qualifier rule, it should be obvious that I don't favor the three-qualifier rule. And I personally think my suggestion is a valid one.
RogerAckroydLives wrote: However, this very thread makes it clear that this is not a policy followed by us in the past or any other sources.
It's a common mistake that users make, thinking that just because a policy isn't followed, it either isn't or shouldn't be valid. This is a big wiki, and there are dozens of people editing every day, and they make mistakes. There is only a small handful of users that regularly correct the mistakes, and plenty of mistakes get overlooked. That doesn't invalidate any policy.
- Skittles the hog
I also favour the Tangerineduel/Shambala suggestion, if only because of its simplicity. There are too many caveats otherwise.
- Shambala108
One thing I should point out, while Tangerineduel's original idea only mentioned The End of Time as a two-parter, his suggestion obviously applies to the entirety of the SJA.
- Bwburke94
Shambala108 wrote: One thing I should point out, while Tangerineduel's original idea only mentioned The End of Time as a two-parter, his suggestion obviously applies to the entirety of the SJA.
Well, the entirety of SJA except Invasion of the Bane, but we get the point.
Also, Children of Earth would be one story under Tangerineduel's proposal, but Miracle Day would not... which seems right to me.
- Shambala108
Bwburke94 wrote: Well, the entirety of SJA except Invasion of the Bane, but we get the point.
Yeah, I had forgotten about that one.
Bwburke94 wrote: Also, Children of Earth would be one story under Tangerineduel's proposal, but Miracle Day would not... which seems right to me.
Actually, Forum:Nomenclature debate for Children of Earth episode pages established that each Children of Earth episode has a different title, "Day One", "Day Two", etc, and is handled like "Trial of a Timelord.
- RogerAckroydLives
Shambala108 wrote: Are you claiming that only users who have been involved since the beginning can have any input? As long as the discussion is open, anyone is welcome to join in. And technically speaking, nothing is resolved until ruled on by an admin.
No I am not. Nothing I wrote suggested anything of the kind.
Shambala108 wrote: I believe I spent quite a bit of time on my suggestion (which is really Tangerineduel's), giving the pros and cons. Since this is clearly not the same as this three qualifier rule, it should be obvious that I don't favor the three-qualifier rule. And I personally think my suggestion is a valid one.
My point was about objections. Yours was not an objection, but a counter-suggestion.
Shambala108 wrote: It's a common mistake that users make, thinking that just because a policy isn't followed, it either isn't or shouldn't be valid. This is a big wiki, and there are dozens of people editing every day, and they make mistakes. There is only a small handful of users that regularly correct the mistakes, and plenty of mistakes get overlooked. That doesn't invalidate any policy.
Let me put it like this: the "policy" we are debating here has not been followed at all. I'm not concerned about whether it is or was a policy, I'm stating that this wiki has never followed this policy. Therefore, I suggest that it might be a good idea to firmly establish a policy, and also ensure beforehand that that policy is what the community currently agree upon.
- RogerAckroydLives
I think we should all stop and think for a minute. Sure, episodes designated as episodes/parts of a whole are part of the same story. That's why we have them covered on one article. But suddenly treating stories intended to be Part One and Two to each other as separate stories simply because the do not feature such labelling? Again, I ask, why do we want to adopt a system never before imagined? This wouldn't be a problem if it were an internal wiki matter, like citation or linking, but as a format which, in different variations, will be used across all sources covering this particular aspect of the show, why would we make ours completely original and therefore inaccessible to anyone unfamiliar with this particular thread?
Again, I will go back to my original idea: in order to determine whether a story is comprised of more than one part, we first see whether it concludes with a "To Be Continued", then we ensure that the episode following it is written or co-written by the same writer, and then we ensure that they are consecutive in a run of the series (with gaps between series halves being equal to those between series or series and Christmas specials). When this is concluded, we are left with a list of stories which agrees with demarcations of "200th story", "250th story" and so on, one which currently mirrors DWM's classifications, those found on this wiki currently bar one case which is being debated on a separate thread, and numerous other physical sources and on-line sites.
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: My point was about objections. Yours was not an objection, but a counter-suggestion.
Ok then I will make myself perfectly clear: I object to the proposal.
It doesn't have "a decent chance of being applicable in the future", as User:CzechOut stipulates.
It is more complicated than User:Tangerineduel's suggestion, and my experience on this wiki is that a majority of people who edit don't read our rules, so the simpler the rule, the easier to enforce/clean up. (This is basically the same reason why we ruled a while back to simplify prefixes, so that's at least one precedent for the simpler choice.)
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: But suddenly treating stories intended to be Part One and Two to each other as separate stories simply because the do not feature such labelling? Again, I ask, why do we want to adopt a system never before imagined?
I wouldn't say it's "never before imagined"; after all, the two different parts of any supposed two-parter are already on separate articles. So this wiki does treat them as separate stories.
- RogerAckroydLives
What makes it particularly "vulnerable" to future changes?
My personal experience of editors on this wiki is that they are, for the most part, Doctor Who fans who will be viewing more than just this wiki as part of their interest. So, rather than "going for" simplicity, I would imagine they would make edits based on what they understand as common systems or ideas within groups of thought. The idea that Aliens of London is a standalone story is a brand new one. I doubt any fans who have watched it will understand our "need" for "simplicity", or rather our decision to treat it as a story which can be watched alone, evaluated alone and therefore featured alone in lists of stories. And even if they did, we would promptly be flooded with information about stories' "other halves" in page sections for continuity, notes, etc., rather than have episode info in one place, and story info spread in most cases of the "New Series".
- Mewiet
RogerAckroydLives wrote: When this is concluded, we are left with a list of stories which agrees with demarcations of "200th story", "250th story" and so on, one which currently mirrors DWM's classifications, those found on this wiki currently bar one case which is being debated on a separate thread, and numerous other physical sources and on-line sites.
Since AGMGTW doesn't end with "to be continued" the current "TBC policy" isn't even applicable to that episode with regard to linking it to LKH. They should not be linked under current policy because we have no policy on "the Doctor will return"/variations, which is half of what this thread was created to address.
- RogerAckroydLives
Shambala108 wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: But suddenly treating stories intended to be Part One and Two to each other as separate stories simply because the do not feature such labelling? Again, I ask, why do we want to adopt a system never before imagined?
I wouldn't say it's "never before imagined"; after all, the two different parts of any supposed two-parter are already on separate articles. So this wiki does treat them as separate stories.
I would. I believe many other would agree. You don't. That's your prerogative.
And whilst we do treat individual episodes as "TV stories" on their own, this is a case where simplicity is key. If we were to squeeze to episode names into one title, or come up with an original "overall title" we would be alienating anyone new to the wiki with choices never before seen.
- RogerAckroydLives
Mewiet wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: When this is concluded, we are left with a list of stories which agrees with demarcations of "200th story", "250th story" and so on, one which currently mirrors DWM's classifications, those found on this wiki currently bar one case which is being debated on a separate thread, and numerous other physical sources and on-line sites.
Since AGMGTW doesn't end with "to be continued" the current "TBC policy" isn't even applicable to that episode with regard to linking it to LKH. They should not be linked under current policy because we have no policy on "the Doctor will return"/variations, which is half of what this thread was created to address.
Even simpler. We have no exceptions to this rule which are part of a previous policy, and one case of linking done based on no policy ever established on this wiki which contradicts the rule, which is being debated on another thread on the grounds of exception or policy change.
- Bwburke94
The other question here is how to handle The Name of the Doctor, which ended on "To Be Continued November 23rd" but was the last episode of its series. It and The Day of the Doctor are technically consecutive in that no full-length episodes aired between them, but Day was not part of any regular series run.
- RogerAckroydLives
Bwburke94 wrote: The other question here is how to handle The Name of the Doctor, which ended on "To Be Continued November 23rd" but was the last episode of its series. It and The Day of the Doctor are technically consecutive in that no full-length episodes aired between them, but Day was not part of any regular series run.
Unless we want to make an exception, your answer is already there: Day is not part of the consecutive run of episodes nicknamed Series 7 Part 2 or Season 7B, therefore is not part of a larger story.
- Bwburke94
No, I don't want an exception.
Also, as a reminder, we should write this so episodes shorter than 20 minutes can't be joined to episodes 20 minutes or longer. They would more likely be tagged as prequels even if they include TBC.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote: Also, as a reminder, we should write this so episodes shorter than 20 minutes can't be joined to episodes 20 minutes or longer. They would more likely be tagged as prequels even if they include TBC.
That's a good point I hadn't even considered. Moffat did say pre-series 8 that there would be more "short episodes" (minisodes in varying lengths) due to the popularity of Pond Life and The Night of the Doctor. It's conceivable they could add a TBC to prequels/minisodes/short episodes in the future. They randomly apply them to full length episodes, so I wouldn't be surprised, but I also would not want to count something like that as a multi-parter with a full length episode if they got an itch to do so.
- Bwburke94
Mewiet wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Also, as a reminder, we should write this so episodes shorter than 20 minutes can't be joined to episodes 20 minutes or longer. They would more likely be tagged as prequels even if they include TBC.
That's a good point I hadn't even considered. Moffat did say pre-series 8 that there would be more "short episodes" (minisodes in varying lengths) due to the popularity of Pond Life and The Night of the Doctor. It's conceivable they could add a TBC to prequels/minisodes/short episodes in the future. They randomly apply them to full length episodes, so I wouldn't be surprised, but I also would not want to count something like that as a multi-parter with a full length episode if they got an itch to do so.
As a sidenote, is Space joined to Time by TBC, and if not, can we treat it as one story due to the unusual format in which it aired?
We're probably not coming up with the exact wording until after the Series 9 finale, in any case.
- Bwburke94
On the topic of Face the Raven, it merely continues narratively onto Heaven Sent with no direct ties between the two episodes, other than the thematic element of Clara's death. This is no different from the situation with The Almost People and AGMGTW, or between Turn Left and The Stolen Earth.
With that being said, we still have an episode to go. If any elements from Raven are referenced in episode 12, there will definitely be debate toward the status of Raven.
- OttselSpy25
With series 9 it's clear one of two things must happen:
1. We will put in this new policy which doesn't try and identify multi-part stories
2. We wait to see what the home video DVD lists the stories as.
- Quest?on
Why don't we have a policy that states that, if the production team say that it's a multi-part story, it's a multi-part story? Having a zero-tolerance policy would kind of go against their intent.
- OttselSpy25
Quest?on wrote: Why don't we have a policy that states that, if the production team say that it's a multi-part story, it's a multi-part story? Having a zero-tolerance policy would kind of go against their intent.
I actually think this is the go-to solution. Until we get production proof, the word from the Moff, or the DVD release they remain separate but once there is clarification we combine them as multi-parters.
- Bwburke94
With Series 9 complete, it isn't entirely clear how to handle Raven/Sent/Bent. Do we assume Raven is standalone unless production states otherwise?
- Digifiend
In retrospect, it looks like a three parter to me. The "previously on" segment on Hell Bent referred to both of the previous two episodes and Hell Bent directly followed on from Heaven Sent for the Doctor and Face the Raven for Clara.
- Bold Clone
I would assume Raven is standalone unless the production states otherwise. I think our current rule of thumb is something like "if the episodes are written by separate writers they are considered separate"? That rule (assuming I remember it correctly) would also preclude Raven from being the first of a three-parter.
- RogerAckroydLives
Digifiend wrote: In retrospect, it looks like a three parter to me. The "previously on" segment on Hell Bent referred to both of the previous two episodes and Hell Bent directly followed on from Heaven Sent for the Doctor and Face the Raven for Clara.
If that qualifies Face the Raven as part one of three, then we would be obliged to make Closing Time part one of two, as it suits your template for determining episode status.
- Bwburke94
I don't think there can be any one rule that DOESN'T have production intent involved. We have clear production-intended two-parters without a TBC and clear standalones ending on TBC, and that's not even bringing AGMGTW and return cards into the mix.
- Mewiet
Bwburke94 wrote: We have clear production-intended two-parters without a TBC and clear standalones ending on TBC, and that's not even bringing AGMGTW and return cards into the mix.
Yeah, it's already a very complicated problem and then to try and force together totally unrelated stories just to keep standalones like AGMGTW and LKH together would cause a tidal wave of editing problems. The Stolen Earth through The End of Time is not one story and that's what we would be saying by equating return cards with TBC cards and mandating they automatically be linked as multi-parters.
- SOTO
What does it say at the end of those episodes? The Stolen Earth through the Specials, I mean. Does it say to be continued specifically?
- Mewiet
SOTO wrote: What does it say at the end of those episodes? The Stolen Earth through the Specials, I mean. Does it say to be continued specifically?
No and that's one of the two problems this discussion was created to address:
Journey's End: "Coming Christmas 2008 the Return of the Cybermen"
The Next Doctor: "Doctor Who will return in Planet of the Dead"
Planet of the Dead: "Later this year The Waters of Mars"
The Waters of Mars: "Doctor Who Coming Soon the biggest adventure yet The End of Time"
The End of Time: Part 1: "To Be Continued..."
No return card for The End of Time: Part 2.
In the previous thread (and quoted in the first post of this one):
CzechOut wrote: So, as far as this thread is concerned, we are left with only one question: is "the Doctor will return" truly, materially different than "to be continued"? Personally, I think you'd be splitting truly fine semantic hairs to think so. After all, "to be continued" on Doctor Who necessarily means that "the Doctor will return".
If we made this argument policy, we would have to change multiple stories ending with return card variations into multi-parters because we're counting them the same as TBC.
I am opposed to counting them as the same. We would just be creating a policy that sweeps standalone stories into confusing conglomerates.
- KingOrokos
From what I've seen here and elsewhere, there doesn't seem to be a definitive litmus test for what makes a certain episode categorically part of a two-parter. The 'To be continued/the Doctor wll return' argument seems to have played out as far as I can tell - they're used way too inconsistently to be used as the basis for policy. As for production intent, that's been ignored in the past in this regard - i.e. Utopia being counted as part 1 of 3, despite RTD's opinions and intentions.
When it comes down to it, the only way to establish a definitive stance on ambiguous stories like AGMGTW/LKH might be to discuss them on a case by case basis. I'm fairly certain that the first story to be similarly uncertain in terms of classification since LKH is Face the Raven - that's a four year gap, so this is hardly a regular occurence. It wouldn't be ridiculously time-consuming to have problems like this solved by group debate, rather than with a standard policy of classification, would it? Posting this in two seperate threads since I'm not sure which one is 'correct' for this discussion.
- Bold Clone
One rule I would suggest in regards to Face the Raven, Heaven Sent, and Hell Bent (in addition to The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived) is that if the episodes have different writers, then they should be considered different stories. This allows for a simple and objective standard for this wiki to use.
- KingOrokos
I quite like that rule.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
What About The Ultimate Foe Bold Clone???? That doesn't work especially how TGWD/TWWL have been released as a whole story.
- KingOrokos
Since the two parts of The Ultimate Foe were released under the same title (not to mention under the broader same title of Trial of a Time Lord), I'd say that the 'different writers' problem wouldn't apply there. If two episodes are titled 'Trial of a Time Lord part 13' and 'Trial of a Time Lord part 14', there isn't really any need to debate their status as being part of the same story. Whereas for some of the stories mentioned in this thread (i.e. TGWD/TWWL, Face the Raven, Let's Kill Hitler etc), there's an obvious need for debate.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Yes but The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived is the story title, separately they are episodes but never individually stories when it's a two-parter.
- Bold Clone
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Dench. The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived are episode titles, not story titles. Part of the reason there is debate over the matter is actually because there is no multi-part story title.
- KingOrokos
Your argument assumes that the TGWD/TWWL is a two-parter, which sort of precludes the whole discussion we're having here.
- Bold Clone
Um, his or mine? If me, then I apologize for the confusion. I'm actually against having them together as a two-parter.
- KingOrokos
Ah sorry, I meant Dench. I realise now that I was a bit ambiguous there.
- Mewiet
KingOrokos wrote: When it comes down to it, the only way to establish a definitive stance on ambiguous stories like AGMGTW/LKH might be to discuss them on a case by case basis. I'm fairly certain that the first story to be similarly uncertain in terms of classification since LKH is Face the Raven - that's a four year gap, so this is hardly a regular occurence. It wouldn't be ridiculously time-consuming to have problems like this solved by group debate, rather than with a standard policy of classification, would it? Posting this in two seperate threads since I'm not sure which one is 'correct' for this discussion.
This thread was spun off from the other because we weren't allowed to continue talking about the additional problems that arose in the initial thread over there. But as you can see, they're tied into one another. According to posts up-thread, currently a TBC card automatically means we have to consider the following episode a continuation of the episode with the TBC. But AGMGTW has no TBC card, so it is not a two-parter with LKH under current policy. Although under the same policy it is considered the next part of "The Almost People" because that one does end with a TBC card. It was suggested that we should count AGMGTW as linked to LKH anyway because it has a "the Doctor will return" card and that was contested, so one of the questions this thread was created to answer is should "the Doctor will return"/related cards count the same as TBC cards. No proof has been provided that they are considered a two-parter by production. The only thing that's been held up to argue they are is "the Doctor will return" card and since that isn't covered by existing policy, we have no valid reason to count them as a two-parter.
- KingOrokos
Mewiet wrote:
KingOrokos wrote: When it comes down to it, the only way to establish a definitive stance on ambiguous stories like AGMGTW/LKH might be to discuss them on a case by case basis. I'm fairly certain that the first story to be similarly uncertain in terms of classification since LKH is Face the Raven - that's a four year gap, so this is hardly a regular occurence. It wouldn't be ridiculously time-consuming to have problems like this solved by group debate, rather than with a standard policy of classification, would it? Posting this in two seperate threads since I'm not sure which one is 'correct' for this discussion.
This thread was spun off from the other because we weren't allowed to continue talking about the additional problems that arose in the initial thread over there. But as you can see, they're tied into one another. According to posts up-thread, currently a TBC card automatically means we have to consider the following episode a continuation of the episode with the TBC. But AGMGTW has no TBC card, so it is not a two-parter with LKH under current policy. Although under the same policy it is considered the next part of "The Almost People" because that one does end with a TBC card. It was suggested that we should count AGMGTW as linked to LKH anyway because it has a "the Doctor will return" card and that was contested, so one of the questions this thread was created to answer is should "the Doctor will return"/related cards count the same as TBC cards. No proof has been provided that they are considered a two-parter by production. The only thing that's been held up to argue they are is "the Doctor will return" card and since that isn't covered by existing policy, we have no valid reason to count them as a two-parter.
So if there's no valid reason to consider them a two-parter, should we start altering the wiki to reflect that? Or is anybody still contesting the point?
- Bold Clone
I think right now it's just a matter of double-checking that we're in agreement and establishing a consensus.
- KingOrokos
Ah, fair enough. I'll leave it a while and see if any conflicting opinions pop up before changing them, then.
- Bold Clone
It may be a good idea to ask some of the admins to weigh in also.
- SOTO
You may not edit with regards to this matter until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached.
Just because few people are around right now does not mean there's consensus. As long as this thread continues, you would be in violation of T:POINT if you edited based on your opinions here.
- KingOrokos
SOTO wrote: You may not edit with regards to this matter until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached.
Just because few people are around right now does not mean there's consensus. As long as this thread continues, you would be in violation of T:POINT if you edited based on your opinions here.
Right you are boss. Sorry if this is explained elsewhere, but what constitutes a consensus? Who determined the discussion being closed, and how?
- SOTO
When the discussion is closed, this thread will, technically, be closed. That is, you cannot reply further to it. When it's felt a consensus has been reached, and admin will likely write out one final message in summary, stating clearly what actions the community—or perhaps necessity—has chosen for us to take, and whether or not the current propositions are being carried out or not.
This discussion has been going on since the end of October; just because people lost interest for a while does not mean it's now come to a conclusion. We will certainly need some more voices to come by before we can get much further with this.
You might want to take a look at T:FORUM and T:DISCUSS if you have any more questions, as well as T:WRITE POLICY.
- Mewiet
SOTO wrote: This discussion has been going on since the end of October; just because people lost interest for a while does not mean it's now come to a conclusion. We will certainly need some more voices to come by before we can get much further with this.
How many more people do we need? Policy was made previously with a handful of comments from only two people and the passage of time. We've had several times more contribution than that during this discussion. But I would be happy to have the discussion highlighted to alert more editors to the issues.
- SOTO
Maybe if somebody made a summary of all the arguments made, people would be more inclined to join and voice their opinions.
When I said we should wait for more people, I did not mean that quantity of participants is necessary or even important to making a decision in the forums. I simply meant that lots of people have participated, and those so strongly vocal about this subject should not be excluded from the final discussion.
I'll come back to this when I have a clearer head, and can remember everything we said here, to make sense of all this. This is messy business with linking stories together and "to be continued" and all that.
- Bwburke94
There are at least three things being debated in this thread.
- Are TBC cards automatic two-parters? (TAP/AGMGTW) - current opinion appears to be near-unanimous with no.
- Are return cards automatic two-parters? (AGMGTW/LKH and various finales/specials) - current opinion appears to be unanimous no.
- How should certain oddities like TGWD/TWWL and FTR/HS/HB be handled? - current opinion is mixed.
- KingOrokos
SOTO wrote: You might want to take a look at T:FORUM and T:DISCUSS if you have any more questions, as well as T:WRITE POLICY.
I will do, cheers. Sorry for jumping the gun on this a little bit.
Bwburke94 wrote: There are at least three things being debated in this thread.
- Are TBC cards automatic two-parters? (TAP/AGMGTW) - current opinion appears to be near-unanimous with no.
- Are return cards automatic two-parters? (AGMGTW/LKH and various finales/specials) - current opinion appears to be unanimous no.
- How should certain oddities like TGWD/TWWL and FTR/HS/HB be handled? - current opinion is mixed.
Gotcha.
- Bold Clone
So just to clarify where I myself stand about this stuff:
- Are TBC cards automatic two-parters? My answer: no. TBC (in my opinion) just means that some story elements will continue into the next episode, not that the current story extends into another episode.
- Are return cards automatic two-parters? My answer: no. That rule leads to just bizarre conclusions, such as Last Christmas being the beginning of a three-parter with The Magician's Apprentice and The Witch's Familiar.
- How should certain oddities like TGWD/TWWL and FTR/HS/HB be handled? A simple and objective method I have suggested above is that if different episodes are written by different people, then they should be considered different stories. If anyone has any other ideas about this, then I would love to hear it.
- RogerAckroydLives
I do think we're starting to go in circles. Before this debate was resumed, I think there were only two potential policies being considered:
a). We use a three part system: if an episode ends with TBC, is followed by another story within the same run of episodes, and that follow up is written by the same person (with co-writing counted), then those episodes are part of the same story.
b). We use a basic system: if an episode is "X (part y)" then we merge it like all other serials.
These were the ideas being considered when we "took a break". What seems to be resurfacing is half-formed versions of these. I believe that the majority were supporting a), but a number of admins had expressed support for b).
- KingOrokos
RogerAckroydLives wrote: I do think we're starting to go in circles. Before this debate was resumed, I think there were only two potential policies being considered:
a). We use a three part system: if an episode ends with TBC, is followed by another story within the same run of episodes, and that follow up is written by the same person (with co-writing counted), then those episodes are part of the same story.
b). We use a basic system: if an episode is "X (part y)" then we merge it like all other serials.
These were the ideas being considered when we "took a break". What seems to be resurfacing is half-formed versions of these. I believe that the majority were supporting a), but a number of admins had expressed support for b).
The problem with B) is sort of the inverse of the using-TBC-cards-as-automatic-proof problem, where it breaks apart stories that have always been considered multi-part stories, with no evidence to the contrary (i.e. Empty Child/Doctor Dances) just for the sake of having a consistent system (unless I've misunderstood the system).
A) sounds much more workable, but leaves AGMGTW/LKH as a single story (again, unless I've misunderstood), which I'm still unsure of - mainly because every other source calls it two seperate stories. Out of interest, do we know on what basis other sources (wikipedia, radiotimes, etc) class it as two stories?
- RogerAckroydLives
You have misunderstood: a) was devised as a way of definitively classifying AGMGTW and LKH as two separate stories. It fails two out of three tests: AGMGTW doesn't end with TBC, it's got a "will return in", and the pair aren't part of the same run, as this was a split series.
- KingOrokos
Ah of course, sorry. In that case I'm fully in favour of A.
- Bwburke94
I am in favour of A, with a slight change to cover The Empty Child and similar stories. My wording is as follows.
- If an episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who ends with TBC, and is immediately followed by another episode written by the same person (with co-writing counted) within the same run of episodes, then those episodes are part of the same story.
- Community discussion may override this rule, either to declare two consecutive episodes within the same run as a two-parter or to declare them standalones.
- Bold Clone
Bwburke94 wrote: I am in favour of A, with a slight change to cover The Empty Child and similar stories. My wording is as follows.
- If an episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who ends with TBC, and is immediately followed by another episode written by the same person (with co-writing counted) within the same run of episodes, then those episodes are part of the same story.
- Community discussion may override this rule, either to declare two consecutive episodes within the same run as a two-parter or to declare them standalones.
Sounds good to me.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
What if an established two-parter doesn't say "To Be Continued", that means certain two-parters not two-parters?
- Bwburke94
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: What if an established two-parter doesn't say "To Be Continued", that means certain two-parters not two-parters?
That's why I included a "community discussion" part in my proposed rule.
So here's the community discussion: Is there any objection to Aliens of London, The Empty Child, and Bad Wolf all being the first episode of two-parters?
- SOTO
Do those not say TBC?
- Bwburke94
I don't believe they do.
- SOTO
I think a better way to assess this would be by official statements.
Also, if we're talking about series 9, it's notable that, from a production standpoint, Under the Lake/Before the Flood, The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar, The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived and The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion were all (not collectively, but as groups of two) filmed together in a single production block, and were all directed by a single director. Yes Girl/Woman, too. Different writers, sure, but they were both directed by Ed Bazalgette.
Heaven Sent and Hell Bent also share a director, but had a production block in between them. Same situation with Face the Raven and Sleep No More, so I'm wondering if Moffat has actually made any statements about the finale being two-part, rather than Heaven Sent being more of a Turn Left or Utopia.
- Bwburke94
The problem is that vague official statements led to the AGMGTW/LKH issue that started this debate in the first place.
- SOTO
What do official statements say about AGMGTW/LKH? Also, this shouldn't be a discussion with the aim of lining up our definition of a two-parter arbitrarily with individuals' notions of what should or shouldn't "count". You (general you) might feel something can't "count", but if there's no unified rule to those feelings that's certainly nothing we can adopt.
- Bwburke94
As explained in the LKH thread that preceded this, official statements about AGMGTW/LKH did not actually state the two episodes were a two-parter, but a few editors misconstrued the statements and believed they were a two-parter.
- SOTO
Well I'm wondering what kind of language is used in statements about certain two parters, like the series 1 stories you mentioned, Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel, etc. all the way until The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People.
One thing that seems to be in common between all two-parters is a common cast. That is, most if not all of the guest stars for the first episode feature in the second, and also I don't think there's a single two-parters whose individual parts are directed by different directors.
This makes for an interesting case of Girl/Women, which only features one guest character in common (understandably so because the others are dead). Yes, different writers, yes not necessarily the same story, but it's definitely a narrative which continues on from the last one. Again, official statements should rule here. Are there any other prospective two parters written by different writers, by the way, or is this a one-time oddity?
- Bwburke94
Assuming that The Almost People and Face the Raven are not joined to their respective following episodes, then Girl/Woman is the only time this has happened.
However, Raven is one of our debated episodes, given its plot connection to Hell Bent. This is an odd case because episodes 10 and 11 would both be standalone if episode 12 did not exist, yet they're a prospective three-parter.
- Bold Clone
Regarding Good Man and Kill Hitler, I've tracked down some scans of the 2011 DWM issues. I've looked through a couple of them, and I haven't found anything (so far) to indicate the pair are a two-parter. To be updated later...
Although from a production standpoint, Almost People is definitely viewed as separate from Good Man.
- KingOrokos
SOTO wrote: Heaven Sent and Hell Bent also share a director, but had a production block in between them. Same situation with Face the Raven and Sleep No More, so I'm wondering if Moffat has actually made any statements about the finale being two-part, rather than Heaven Sent being more of a Turn Left or Utopia.
"Heaven Sent and Hell Bent were two wildly different episodes. Both unique, bold and startling they combined to create a two-part adventure – a hybrid, you might say – that brought Series 9 to an unforgettable finale." That's from the BBC website, on an announcement releasing the scripts for the story. So officially, definitely a two-parter.
Also as I mentioned above, even though RTD said he considered Utopia a seperate story, it's counted everywhere as part 1/3, including here. Does anyone know on what basis that decision was made? I'm not arguing with it, I agree with it; I'm just curious to see how these sorts of problems were resolved previously.
SOTO wrote: This makes for an interesting case of Girl/Women, which only features one guest character in common (understandably so because the others are dead). Yes, different writers, yes not necessarily the same story, but it's definitely a narrative which continues on from the last one. Again, official statements should rule here. Are there any other prospective two parters written by different writers, by the way, or is this a one-time oddity?
I think the point you made earlier about them being in the same production block, and filmed by the same director, is a valid one. Plus, unlike AGMGTW/LKH, these two are counted as a two-parter by most sources. Does anybody happen to know on what basis, say, regular wikipedia decides that it's a two-parter or not? Girl/Woman is the only story out of the ones we're debating which I'm still unsure about, one way or the other. I would argue that it's obviously not a single, multi-part story - Woman is a sequel to Girl, in the same way that Closing Time is a sequel to The Lodger - but that we're intended to take these two seperate stories as a single piece, like a miniature anthology.
- RogerAckroydLives
The thing about classifying stories based on "official statements" is that the BBC really don't spend time explaining creative choices. The fact is that, once the format of single part stories and two part stories was established, both the corporation and the showrunner/s stopped saying "this is a two parter" or "this isn't". We don't have anywhere near enough "official statements" to make our classifications based on them.
Production block classification is similarly flawed. Since Series 6, all episodes from series or half series runs have been filmed in blocks of two. Not all by the same director, sure, but then are we going to use directorial commonality as well? If so, then SNM and FTR suddenly become a story also, and we begin to go completely against authorial intent.
Finally, Bwburke, I think that you are misremembering. I'm all for your disclaimer, but the stories you list do have TBC cards.
I think this debate is going off topic again. We now have three competing solutions, the three-part rule, the "only part x" rule, and SOTO's newly proposed "official statements/production blocks" rule. Like AGMGTW/LKH, TGWD/TWWL and ever FTR/HS/HB can each be debated, per Bw's disclaimer, on another thread. I think it might be useful to bring the debate to its conclusion with a vote relatively soon, as we've been discussing this productively for while a while, and have multiple options to consider.
- KingOrokos
I agree that official statements aren't the best way to do it. I think bwburke's modified version of the three-part rule is the only real solution out of those presented. If we can come to an agreement on that, we can restart individual debates on any stories which are felt to be exceptions to those rules, a la all of the stories we've been talking about.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It's just the ending will be continued (the resolution) not the story.
- Bold Clone
Reading through the Production Notes in DWM 437, the magazine says this about Let's Kill Hitler: "Recorded mostly in March, this one-part story promises to be as unusual as it's title!" That seems to settle the matter for good, I suppose.
- SOTO
I think production blocks are one of the only authoritative sources we can use here as evidence. Putting aside series 9 for now, no "real" two-parters by the usual, intuitive definition have been produced in separate production blocks. Heck, even statements by the BBC are meant to sell the episodes, and marketing something as a grand two-part story rather than as two individual episodes, set apart from each other, just sells better.
So you better understand, I will now make a complete list of NuWho two-parters, by a very simple system. Three rules:
- The two episodes must follow each other in broadcast order, in the same consecutive run of episodes. In other words, if there's an episode in between, it cannot be a multi-parter even if there is a strong narrative link.
- The two episodes must have been in the same production block, as well as directed by the same director.
- The two episodes must have a minimum of one guest actor in common, playing the same character, between them, typically one who does not appear in at least the episode before or after the two-parter. They must appear in a consecutive run—if a three-parter, this character must appear in the subsequent episode; episodes 1 and 3 of a potential three-parter do not count.
Here's what we get: (list in production order)
Series 1
- Aliens of London/World War Three
- The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances
- Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways
- - Rose is in the same production block as AOL/WW3 (it's a conspiracy!), but was not broadcast immediately before them, so it's disqualified on grounds of broadcast order.
- - Other production blocks, like The End of the World/The Unquiet Dead and Dalek/Father's Day, so not have guest characters in common, and hence are standalone.
- - While Boom Town is part of a consecutive run with BW/TPOTW, part of the same block and has the same director, it does not have any guest characters in common with the subsequent episode. Jack Harkness is not a guest character; he is part of the principal cast at this point in the series. Mickey Smith does appear in TPOTW, but as stated in the rules, he would need to appear in the consecutive episode, not just episodes 1 and 3.
Series 2
- The Rise of the Cyberman/The Age of Steel
- Army of Ghosts/Doomsday
- The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit
- - The Christmas Invasion/New Earth share a director, same production block, and follow each other, but they do not belong to the same run of episodes (christmas special isn't main series) and they do not share a guest character. DT and Billie are not guest actors in the slightest.
- - Again, you have examples like Tooth and Claw/Girl in the Fireplace, and The Idiot's Lantern/Fear Her, where they're filmed together by the same director, but fail on grounds of broadcast order and a lack of consecutive guest characters.
Series 3
- Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks
- Human Nature/The Family of Blood
- The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords
- - Quite notably to this discussion, as was the intent of the head writer, Utopia is not part of a three parter with the finale. It's not even the same director as with Boom Town, which also belonged to the same block as the finale. Yes, it shares a guest character, but Utopia and the two-part finale were filmed in different blocks, by different directors (and thank god for that, because Graeme did a fantastic job with Utopia), so we cannot consider those three to be, together, a multi-part story. And now you can see that production intent plays into this. If a story was intended to be a two-parter, it follows the requirements stated above. Otherwise, it's just like applying Doctor-lite to The Crimson Horror.
- - Smith and Jones/The Shakespeare Code makes two of the rules, but fails immediately on the consecutive guest character requirement.
- - This series, the Christmas special was in its own production block.
Series 4
- The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky
- Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead
- The Stolen Earth/Journey's End
- -Though it follows on from TSS/TPS and has a guest character from then, The Doctor's Daughter is a standalone because it has a different director, and belongs to its own production block, with Midnight. TDD and Midnight are not a two-parter, of course, because there's an episode in between in production order, and they don't share a guest character.
- -Just like in series 1 and 3, there is a penultimate story (and third to last episode) which ends on a cliffhanger that leads to the two-part finale. However, as before, Turn Left is not part of a three-part finale, even though it hits almost every box. Same director, guest character in common and in the same consecutive run of episodes. Why does it not meet the requirements, then? Different production block, which also means different producer. RTD seems to have a thing for penultimate stories followed by a two-part finale.
2009 specials
- The End of Time parts 1 and 2, if it counts
- -TEOT aside, all episodes were filmed individually, by different directors. The Waters of Mars sort of has a guest character in common if you count that Ood, and again, ends on a cliffhanger like other penultimate episodes before it, but has a different director to TEOT.
Series 5
- The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone
- The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood
- The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang
- -Though Victory of the Daleks and The Beast Below were produced in the same block, by the same director, they do not feature any guest characters in common. Also, Victory seems to have been filmed first of the two, yet was broadcast second.
Series 6
- The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon
- The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People
- -Finally, we can clear this up with this rule. AGMGTW is a standalone mid-series finale, not connected to TRF/TAP because they belonged to different production blocks, and had different directors.
- -Let's Kill Hitler is also not together with AGMGTW in a two-parter, because different directors and different blocks. LKH was actually produced in a block with The Wedding of River Song, and of course those two can't be a two-parter because the two do not follow each other in broadcast order, and were also done by different directors within the same block.
- -Night Terrors and The Doctor's Wife, though same block and same director, do not have a guest character in common, and were also produced out of order (Night Terrors first)
Series 7
- Moffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
- -Dinosaurs and Mercy do not have a guest character in common
- -The Bells of Saint John and The Rings of Akhaten have different directors, and I don't think any guest characters in common
- -Nightmare in Silver and The Name of the Doctor have different directors, but do have guest characters in common as well as belong to the same production block
2013 specials
- All standalones
- -All episodes, including Name even, have different directors, and were produced at different times.
Series 8
- Dark Water/Death in Heaven
- -Sigh. Okay, I'm not counting Missy as a guest character in episodes where she appears very briefly, because she probably appears in most episodes, and that simply doesn't count. She does not play a role that actually takes part in the plot of any episodes before the finale, and she is a recurring character which, I don't think counts as guest. Heck, if we included the Great Intelligence in the last series, that might change things. (On a more careful inspection, it would not affect the status of any series 7 episodes)
- -I think the same applies to Kill the Moon/Mummy on the Orient Express. Danny appears very briefly in both, but he's a recurring character in the series, and not a guest character who plays a major role in those two stories as a whole. But hey, I guess this one's up for discussion, but based on the rules I explained above, not based on any evidence which is solely narrative.
So as you can see, from series 1 all the way until series 6, at the very least, it is very very clear that all two-parters fit my three rules, and no two episodes which also meet those requirements are not obviously two-parters. If it does not fit those rules, but seems to you to be a two-parter, that can perhaps be acknowledged in the story page, if notable (considered by some fans to be the first episode in a three part story[1]), but there's simply nothing to back that up. We need a rule which is clear, which has no exceptions and no room for debate.
Here's how series 9 pans out with my three rules:
Series 9
- Under the Lake/Before the Flood
- The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar
- The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived
- The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion
And, if we tweak the rules slightly, so that episodes produced alone in single-episode production blocks, with an absolute maximum of one episode in between them, also count under rule 2:
- Heaven Sent/Hell Bent
That would also require us to view either Clara after her death as a guest character. Or if that's too much of a stretch, to extend the "guest character in common" rule to allow for specific settings in common as well, if they do not appear in both the previous and subsequent stories, and are unique to that two-parter.
Do I think that's two too many stretches for one story (or two stories, depending on your interpretation)? A bit. After all, those two changes would not have much impact on previous series, but would be made exclusively for the last two episodes of series 9. Personally, I'm thinking maybe we should wait it out and see if the next series does anything of the sort as well (two episodes publicised as a two parter, with no guest characters in common, and not produced in the same production block).
Under no circumstances would Sleep No More/Face the Raven be considered a two-parter. Yes, they share a director, but they most certainly do not have any guest characters—nor settings—in common between them. So even if we allowed for one episode in between, the status of Sleep No More and Face the Raven would not be affected.
- Just to be perfectly clear, the production blocks for the final four episodes of series 9 were as follows
- Face the Raven
- Heaven Sent
- Sleep No More
- Hell Bent
The only reason I'm included to include Heaven Sent/Hell Bent at all is because I recognise the naming scheme which is present in all other series 9 two-parters, so it does seem like the intent.
By this, I mean:
- Under the Lake/Before the Flood
- The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar
- The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived
- The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion
- Heaven Sent/Hell Bent
Lots of word relations in all of those cases, including the finale(s), and that's notably not present at all with:
- Sleep No More/Face the Raven
Which are the only absolutely clear standalones in this series.
- -Face the Raven is most certainly not part of a three-parter with Heaven Sent and Hell Bent, because it has a different director. Period.
- -Yes, I know people seem to be uncomfortable about counting Girl/Woman as a two-parter. Yes, it is somewhat of a different two-parter than most we've encountered in the past. It's certainly the first time we've seen a two-parter whose two episodes were penned by different people. But you can't logically count the finale as a two-parter, but not those two. This series has two examples of really weird two-parters, done in ways very differently from those in previous series. But you have to realise that Moffat and the production team were playing with something new this series. There were no two-parters at all for a while, and now this series mostly consisted of them. And starting this series, or perhaps only this series (only time will tell), some two-parters are, as quoted just above, "wildly different episodes [...] combined to create a two-part adventure".
While I can't tell you why certain decisions were made, whether it was to allow for more writers, etc, it is quite clear, by the rules that I set out at the beginning, by the rules which have underpinned two-parters since they first started, that The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived is a two-parter. It doesn't really matter how particular editors "feel" about this to our actual classification of stories, any more than it matters what individual editors think about "canon". We have T:VALID and four specific rules to go by, and, with my proposition, we might have T:MULTI or T:STORY COUNT, with three clear rules to go by there as well.
The point of any policy is to have something clear and concise to point to, so when somebody asks "is this a two-parter?", we don't need to go into a 3-month-long discussion debating everything we already know. All we say is, yes, it meets all three requirements, or no, it fails that one. I do not think the credited writer is all that significant to "multi-part" designation, because all of it is commissioned by the executive producers. The writers themselves don't decide what gets to be a two-parter. If something is considered to be a two-parter by those in charge of production, it will never fail these three rules. The two (or more) episodes will always:
- Follow each other directly in broadcast, as a consecutive run, which almost always means 1 week in between each (1 week is not a requirement, but tends to be the case).
- Belong to the same one (1) production block, with the same one (1) director in charge of all of them. (In an alternative version, if the two episodes are produced individually and alone in their own production blocks, and there is only one singular episode in between them, those two stories might count as well.)
- Have a minimum of one (1) guest character in common between the two or more episodes, almost always played by the same guest actor. (In an alternative version also proposed to allow for the series 9 finale, a specific setting in common between the episodes is also allowed.)
- If Clara is accepted as a guest character for the two episodes, that last modification will not be necessary, at least not until and unless next series does something similar.
- If those two modifications, nor the Clara proposition, are accepted by the community at this time, then Heaven Sent/Hell Bent will not be considered a two-parter by us by currently proposed policy.
- Bold Clone
Quick question: what about Adam Mitchell, who appeared in both Dalek and The Long Game?
- SOTO
We really need to cover production blocks better here at Tardis. Do they even have a page? Production block.
Mkay. Adam Mitchell is a guest character in common between those two episodes, but guest character is only rule 3. It passes rule 1 as well, but fails immediately at 2—Dalek was produced in a block with Father's Day, directed by Joe Ahearne. The Long Game was directed by Brian Grant, in the following production block. Those cannot be counted as a two-parter by these suggested rules.
- Bold Clone
Ok, that's what I was thinking. Thanks for the clarification there.
- Bwburke94
I'm still hesitant to use production blocks as a means to disqualify Utopia, because as mentioned above RTD has never stated that it is not Part 1 of 3. Also, this breaks the "Planet of the Dead is 200" thing that the LKH thread hinged on.
Also, HS/HB were intended by production as part of the same story, no real debate there.
- Bwburke94
Would it be possible to include a "community discussion clause" similar to my proposal, to allow HS/HB and possibly Utopia? Given that the very issue we had here is based on an oddly-worded policy decision from six years ago, stretching Rule 3 to cover HS/HB might lead to issues come Series 13 or whatnot.
- Bold Clone
Actually, I think that brings up a good point, Bwburke. How do official sources fit in to this system of story reckoning? Would we simply disregard the BBC, DWM, Radio Times, and the like (maybe keeping a note explaining our method)?
- Bwburke94
Bold Clone wrote: Actually, I think that brings up a good point, Bwburke. How do official sources fit in to this system of story reckoning? Would we simply disregard the BBC, DWM, Radio Times, and the like (maybe keeping a note explaining our method)?
As much as I hate relying on DWM for numbering, it might help us in cases like Utopia or FTR/HS/HB. Keep in mind that we'd be relying on whether the sources count them as one story, not on what the sources number the stories as.
With that in mind, our actual policy shouldn't directly depend on the DWM or Radio Times numbering.
- SOTO
Wait, did I not send my reply yet? Anyway, DWM and Radio Times numbering is not something we should be depending on at all. You say it "helps" us, but it only "helps" insofar as giving us a circular source for numbering things exactly the way they do.
Let me try to find my response now...
- SOTO
Ah, here it is.
I don't think that would be wise, but I'll think it through further. Also, if you're hesitant to disqualify Utopia because he "has never stated it is not", when it comes down to it, that's a personal opinion. Considering Utopia to be part one of three — even if it's general consensus among Doctor Who fans and DWM staff — when
- RTD does not consider it as such, as we've pointed out
- It very clearly fails our three rules, and if we're going to be making exceptions, rules mean nothing
- If we include Utopia for some reason, then people will ask, "Well what about Turn Left? What about Boom Town? It is very, very important for me to stress that the two-parter designation is not strictly a narrative one. It's not in the hands of the fans to decide what seems like it should, and what seems like it shouldn't, be considered a two-parter. It might be academically notable to bring up, but we need to be clearer when defining it ourselves.
would simply be ludicrous gymnastics on our part.
Please remember that we have no duty to copy and/or mimic numbering used by others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us not having Planet of the Dead numbered as 200. It'll still be noteworthy that some sources consider it as such, but any system which considers that story 200 has been shown to be flawed.
Please, I implore everyone here and who might come by not to make this discussion "how I can make Tardis policy reflect my personal headcanon on what is and isn't a two-parter". I will expand further once I've gathered my thoughts, because it was 2 hours ago when I started writing this, and I clearly got distracted.
- Bold Clone
I may have simply missed your reply, SOTO. Apologies if I did. My question is just whether or not we should rely to some degree or another on official sources.
EDIT: Never mind. You posted your reply while I was writing that. Gah. Also, just out of curiosity, how exactly is a system which counts Planet of the Dead as story #200 flawed?
- SOTO
Apparently it's been three hours since I started writing this. Whoops.
The point of this thread should be to standardise what it means to be a two-parter. You cannot deny that cases like Utopia, etc, if not quite clearly not two-parters on any official level, are certainly disputed cases. But that's a dispute to be had within the Doctor Who fandom. On a Doctor Who forum, you can debate what you think might be a two-parter, or what's really Doctor-lite, what should and shouldn't count as a multi-Doctor story.
But we are an online encyclopaedia. We can't have this debate for each and every story. Believe me, if we didn't have specific rules set at T:VS, etc, we would be having a "is this valid?" argument for every story which any fan questions. Thankfully, we have a clear system, and we can say either, "yes it passes" or "no it fails this rule".
Above, I devised a series of three qualifications which must be ticked off in order for two or more episodes to be considered a multi-parter. It's a lot clearer now that I've specified this, and Utopia definitely is not part of a multi-part story. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. You can't win all of 'em, I'm afraid. Not only will you not be able to find official statements labelling it as such (as it was not RTD's intent), but it was also not given the same director as the subsequent two-parter, nor was it produced as part of the same production block. Those two qualifications are unanimously true across all valid two-parters, certainly those from the RTD era. We're talking Aliens of London/World War Three here, not "I'd really like for this to be considered the first part in a three-episode story."
It is part of a continuing narrative, yes. It ends on a cliffhanger, yes. But as I have brought up, RTD does this a lot with his penultimate stories, and we see the very same thing this past series with Face the Raven. Actually, Closing Time leads directly into The Wedding of River Song as well, and actually anticipates its eventuality throughout. Turn Left is yet another penultimate episode which sets the scene up for the finale. But these examples are all standalone stories, at least from a production perspective.
You can argue that any number of stories are narratively linked, and you might say it's notable than one story ends on a cliffhanger that leads to the next one, as with The Almost People. But we cannot have the mess of "I think this should be considered a two-parter", because then the precedent of Utopia would necessarily lead to the inclusion of all stories mentioned above in this post as also part of the story to follow. And then suddenly The Rebel Flesh/Human Nature/A Good Man Goes to War/Let's Kill Hitler is a thing.
We cannot allow that. We simply cannot make rules which allow for these things to happen, which users are ultimately allowed to exploit to link together any two stories. And the battle will go on forever. Now before the entirety of BBC Wales Doctor Who is one massive 133-part story, I would really suggest that we adopt a simple, straight-forward and all-encompassing policy on what does in fact count as a multi-part story. What we can and should do is make use of the three qualifications which I put forward, so that this isn't a debate in the future, weird new oddities like HS/HB aside.
- Bwburke94
Why exactly are you of the opinion your three qualifications are the only qualifications that can be used? Is there any actual reason to use directors and/or production blocks instead of writers?
We're far from a resolution here.
- Bold Clone
Agreed, Bwburke, but I think we're far closer to one, thanks to SOTO's level-headed advice. At this point, my only real qualm about shifting over to SOTO's system is how it disregards various official sources.
- SOTO
Bold Clone wrote: Also, just out of curiosity, how exactly is a system which counts Planet of the Dead as story #200 flawed?
I did not mean to imply that the simple fact that Planet of the Dead lines up with 200 makes it flaws. It is notable that it has been interpreted as such. Now I haven't personally made a numbered list to see where it would go with the now more precise requirements for a two-parter, so I can't tell you for sure where the inconsistency lies.
But what I meant to say is that if our system—which has consistency, and follows clear production intent through the hiring of guest actors, one director for the complete story and the filming of the story within one production block—does not line up with those lists given by other sources, there is nothing wrong with that. What we cannot do is adopt a system which does not make sense simply to allow for a clearly flawed numbering scheme to show up on our wiki as well. Again, we are not duty-bound to reflect the opinions of the DWM editing team or any other source in that area.
As for official statements, as has been said above, the BBC simply doesn't always make official statements on whether or not something is a two-parter. That's not something we can rely on, necessarily. But the intent is always clear. Putting any disputed cases aside, all clear two-parters follow the rules I describe above.
So it seems we've now found out that any claims made by fans to the effect of "This is part of a multi-part story", when that story does not share a director and production block etc with the episodes it's supposedly linked with, are quite simply that—the opinions of fans, and opinions perhaps reflected in (and/or perpetuated by) DWM. We need to be clearer than that. :)
- Bold Clone
Ok. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the help there. I'm fully on board with your method now. :)
- SOTO
Bwburke94 wrote: Is there any actual reason to use directors and/or production blocks instead of writers?
Well, yes. First off, we're considering a two-parter here to be something inherent in the production of Doctor Who. Writers are related to script, and the script is not a definitive source for what counts as a single story. Here's the thing. Take a look at series 8. Missy appears in almost every story, leading up to the grand finale. Series 5. Cracks in the universe are all over, and there's all sorts of mentions of events disappearing and such. Really quite frequently—and this is often, if not always, the choice of the head writer—there is a narrative link that goes through a whole series. Gone are the days where a season of Doctor Who is just a bunch of unrelated serials which can be wholly considered in their own right. So we look at neither the script nor the narrative to determine when something is its own story. A cliffhanger, for example, does not mean something is one part in a larger Doctor Who story in its own right.
Quite often, as I have pointed out numerous times, standalone stories—produced as standalones, and not even given the same director—build up to a bigger story, typically the finale, or mid-series finale while those existed. And, really, most penultimate stories seem to lead directly—or almost directly—into the final story of a modern Who series, certainly at least lately. Fear Her ends with a moment of "a storm is coming...". Utopia brings back Jack Harkness, and introduces the Master, ending on a cliffhanger which leads directly into the finale. Turn Left reintroduces Rose Tyler, brings us the idea that the stars are going out and ends on a cliffhanger which leads directly into the finale. The Waters of Mars ends with an Ood beckoning the Doctor to come, and though he delays for quite a while, that's how The End of Time then starts. Closing Time quite obviously (and quite explicitly) leads into The Wedding of River Song. Though not, strictly speaking, the second to last episode in series 7, The Name of the Doctor ends on a cliffhanger which leads into The Day of the Doctor. Face the Raven has Clara killed and the Doctor teleported into the setting of Heaven Sent. Oh yeah, and remember how the Titanic shows up after Martha goes? And how Donna appeared in the TARDIS, ruining our heartfelt moment missing Rose? Are those all part one? This is why we don't look to the script.
- SOTO
Now, if we had this discussion a year ago, I would have been okay with saying "writer and director" because it wouldn't have made any difference. This series, though, we got a new oddity. The two-parter written by two writers. That exists now. And if you say that Heaven Sent and Hell Bent are "clearly" intended to be a two-parter despite having almost nothing in common, then you cannot deny that The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived were also intended to be a two-parter. Note, above, my list of series 9 titles. All two-parters, including TGWD/TWWL and HS/HB follow a very similar naming scheme, and the two true standalones in the series are the only ones which do not.
So, now at the start of 2016, "two-parter" no longer means that both parts are written by the same writer. That may be a common convention, but it is now no longer the case 100% of the time.
- Bwburke94
Compromise proposal, which is basically SOTO's proposal with a community discussion clause.
Two or more episodes of BBC Wales Doctor Who are a multi-part story if:
- The following statements are all true:
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within the same series.
- Rule 2: The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them.
- Rule 3: The episodes have a minimum of one (1) guest character in common. It is not required that the character be played by the same guest actor.
- Or the following statements are all true:
- Rule B1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within the same series.
- Rule B2: At least one person involved with production in a non-actor capacity has stated the episodes are a multi-part story.
- Rule B3: A community discussion within the wiki has determined the episodes are a multi-part story. (Discussions closed prior to 31 December 2015 do not count for the purposes of this rule.)
- The following statements are all true:
- SOTO
And I should stress that what we mean when we say "two-parter" is that "these two stories belong to the same one Doctor Who television story, which has two (named) parts". And the thing about singular TV stories with multiple parts is that they all share one director, they're all produced together as one story, and they all have a lot of the same guest cast shared between them. And they are always broadcast one after the other in the same run, with no other TV stories in between.
"Two-parter" is a production term, in the end, and is as intricately linked to production blocks as Doctor-lite is to double banking. Yes, people use Doctor-lite to mean "any story of Doctor Who which features the Doctor less than usual", but "less than usual" cannot be defined, and so the scope of "Doctor-lite" cannot be properly defined if used in that manner. Likewise, we cannot use "two-parter" as loosely as that.
- "Instead of filming and contracting for single episodes, directors, script editors, directors of photography and some actors — along with many other individuals — are assigned to groups of episodes"
Stories which are truly multi-part, which are made by the BBC Wales Doctor Who team, are always produced in that manner. A lot of the "questionable" first parts of stories do not follow those rules.
- Bwburke94
I made a compromise proposal above, which allows us to treat HS/HB together without having to twist the wording of the three main rules.
- SOTO
Bwburke94 wrote:
- Or the following statements are all true:
- Rule B1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within the same series.
- Rule B2: At least one person involved with production in a non-actor capacity has stated the episodes are a multi-part story.
- Rule B3: A community discussion within the wiki has determined the episodes are a multi-part story. (Discussions closed prior to 31 December 2015 do not count for the purposes of this rule.)
I can't stand behind that, I'm afraid. The only reason some users want a community discussion clause is so that things can be arranged the way they want. You will note, if you sift through inclusion debates, that none of them challenge the very nature of the four little rules themselves. Instead, inclusion debates are necessary to find out whether or not a story fits the rules. Almost always, those discussions are because rule #4, which relates to intent, often will need discussion.
Hey. Listen. The point of clear rules is not to have these discussions. Tell me, which of the three rules of T:STORY COUNT actually requires that discussion? I think the only discussion to be had is now, at this policy's infancy.
But the debate isn't about A Good Man Goes to War or Utopia, because those not only fall short of the rules proposed entirely, but, as I've pointed out, will cause chaos. If we look to the narrative of a story and say it's a two-parter, or make the qualifier in any way relating to cliffhangers, then we open to the door for it allllll being rediscussed. Over. And over. And over.
If we have a rule that something can be a two-parter if the community just decides so, on no real basis, these discussions will never end. Story numbering will never rest, and we will never reach any conclusion. And when somebody starts a discussion, and admin wouldn't be able to just say "no, it breaks rule 3." We'd have to allow that discussion to happen, and we'd have to allow users to discuss every Doctor Who episode on the merits of whether or not they belong to multi-part stories.
From an administrative point of view, this is simply not a possibility. Either we have clear rules, or we do away with numbering altogether. If the community can't decide on a system, the story number variable in the infobox goes. Numbering on the episode list goes.
We cannot have a policy on this matter which would allow for our entire numbering system to be changed based on vague production team statements every few months. Either this discussion closes with the consensus "we do not state, on any TV story page, nor on any page which lists such TV stories, what its story number is", or it closes with a clear set of rules which we can follow with little discussion necessary.
Now I personally really do think that my proposal works 100% of the time. Look again at my list. Every undisputed two-parter is on that list. That is because my three rules encompass every two-parted released before 2015.
I think the main discussion to be had at this point, besides that of whether or not we should count stories at all, if the case of series 9. The series 9 finale, specifically. I have proposed some modifications to my original three rules to allow for this unusual new case. To my knowledge, making "guest character" "guest character and/or unique setting" would not do anything bad for previous series, and would not be too much of a stretch. "Unique setting" here means a setting which did not appear at least in both the story preceding and succeeding those two stories. Lots of two-parters take place in the same location. Heaven Sent is unique in that there aren't very many guest characters at all. If we count Clara Oswald as a guest character in both HS and HB, then we don't need to extend the guest character clause at all. But if that doesn't make sense, then, in this unique case, the two stories do not feature a guest character in common but do feature a unique setting in common. Under that language, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent could potentially be considered a two-part story.
We still have the issue of production blocks, though. If HS/HB is to be considered a two-parter, it will be the only case of a multi-part story not all being produced in one block. But it does have the unique qualification of being produced with each episodes in its own individual block (no other stories sharing a block with this story), and with a maximum of one episode in between production of the two. Of course, HS and HB have really different settings over all, and totally different casts, so it makes sense that the production manager would put them separately. If we do count such a unique case as a two-parter, then the case of:
- Block: Part One
- Block: Standalone
- Block: Part Two
would count as well under the production block rule, obviously only if both share the same director, have guest character(s)( or unique setting) in common, and were broadcast in the direct order in which they were produced, with no episodes broadcast in between them.
So here are some examples of similar cases that would not count:
- Block: Part One
- Block: 2 episodes
- Block: Part Two
and
- Block: Part One
- Block: Part Two and Standalone/Part Three
With this modification in place, if parts are in separate production blocks, they must be alone in those blocks, and only have one episode in between them at most.
- Or the following statements are all true:
- SOTO
Bwburke94 wrote: I made a compromise proposal above, which allows us to treat HS/HB together without having to twist the wording of the three main rules.
I don't believe this would be truly twisting. If we allowed that one specific case as an exception, then we specify the specifics specifically. I know, I want to die. So we would list the three rules, with rule 3 allowing for a guest character and/or unique location, and then specify under further details the one singular case that is also acceptable as alternative to two stories in one production block. If any future stories do the same thing (Part 1 - something else - Part 2, each as one-episode production blocks, and the two parts meet every other requirement), they may also be considered a two-parter.
The guest character specification is very important, by the way. Guest actors, by definition, appear in a story and not in the whole series. Sometimes they appear in two stories in the same series, or more. But if an actor is a guest actor, it is because they are a guest in the main cast for that story. If two consecutive stories that meet all other requirements fail at guest character, and also fail at unique setting common to both stories, they can't be a two-parter.
Also important is the consecutive run rule. This is why The Long Game isn't part of a three-part story with Bad Wolf and The Parting of the Ways. This is why The Lodger and Closing Time are not a two-part story. If those had been broadcast together, in one consecutive run, they would count as multi-part stories. Well no I take that back. The Craig Owens episodes wouldn't because they have different directors, but if they were produced together in the same production block, directed by the same person, and broadcast one following the other, they would be considered a two-parter because of the guest character in common. Well actually the same applies to The Long Game, which has a different director. Lol. You get my point. If the intention was for those stories to be multi-parters, they would have been given the same director, but let's not speculate.
- SOTO
So the two main points of debate right now are as follows.
- Do we cover story numbers/the idea of two parters on story pages at all?
- If we do, and we go with my three-rule proposal, how do we want to treat Heaven Sent/Hell Bent? Are they just too different to possibly be considered a two-parter, or do we go with the BBC statement of "two-part story", quoted in full above, and make at least one exception/expansion of rules to account for this?
- More specifically within 2, do we allow for two-part stories whose two episodes each belong to their own production blocks (alone), with a maximum of one (1) episode (not story, episode) in between, to also be considered two-parters, as an expansion to the rule? I'm in favour.
- Do we allow for an expansion of "guest character" to be "guest character and/or unique setting"? I think this would be wise. I can't think of any examples but HS/HB of a two-parter without a unique character between them (though, notably, TGWD/TWWL has only a guest character and not a setting in common). Most two-parters have both in common, but series 9 has produced two oddities, where only one is present. So, again, I think it would be a good decision to allow for either or both, unless we do not want to consider HS/HB to be a two-parter, because it's too much of a stretch. An argument could definitely be made for that.
If anyone has any questions about what has been covered so far, please do feel free to ask and question everything. I would love to see if my three rules can be challenged in any way. I am confident they can stand the test.
- Bold Clone
Regarding question 1: I think it's important to be able to list story numbers on the story pages. Regarding 2: I think your rules outlined above are probably the best way to go, with an exception or variation of the rules for Heaven Sent/Hell Bent. Before going further though I would like to see what others think about these rules. They're much more detailed and efficient than my suggestion of "different writers, different stories." Nice work.
- SOTO
Thanks :)
Do you think Clara can be considered a guest character now after her death scene in Raven (just as Rose is a guest character in series 4 for having left in 2006), or do you think that's stretching it? I think adding a clause for setting is probably the best way to go.
- SOTO
Just to point out, one-episode production blocks have historically only been seen with double banking, associated with Doctor-lite episodes. The most recent Doctor-lite episode was Flatline. So my (very educated) guess is that we're seeing some form of double banking here, too.
Face the Raven is Clara-heavy, while Heaven Sent is hugely Clara-lite. Ashildr is only required for one episode in each of the two sets of production blocks. Though none of those episodes are truly Doctor-lite, are they? In any case, this could be a case of double banking. Not all scenes include Peter Capaldi as the Doctor, after all, so there could have been some clever timing involved here.
I've never before heard of a two-parter taking part in double banking of any sort, but if that's now a thing which has happened, we should allow for that case to be included in our definition by accounting for two 1-episode production blocks produced consecutively with another set of 1-episode production blocks, which is taken care of by a different director.
I'd really like some hard confirmation that this is double banking, though. Filming dates, perhaps?
- SOTO
That was the worst time for Chrome to crash. Seriously.
- SOTO
Further summary:
Two or more TV episodes are considered a two- or multi-parter if the following statements are true.
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- - Specials are not usually included in a consecutive run, with one exception being TEOT.
- - It is not required that the length of time between episodes is 1 week, though this is usually the case.
- Rule 2: The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them.
- - Episodes may alternately belong to the same serial. More than one director is permitted, as needed, for serials only. As with AUC, rule 3 also need not necessarily apply to all episodes in a serial.
- Rule 3: A minimum of one (1) guest character and/or one (1) unique setting is present in all episodes.
- - It is not required that a guest character be played by the same guest actor. A guest character by definition is not a recurring character.
- - Unique setting is defined as one which is not featured in other adventures within the same run of episodes, and which is not recurring.
- Further details
- - In light of the unique case of Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, the community has decided to expand rule 2 to also allow for two episodes, each alone in individual production blocks, with a maximum of one (1) episode produced in between, to also be considered a two-part story, as this is simply a case of double banking.
- - If two or more episodes are said in official statements, by either the BBC or an executive producer in charge of the series, to make up a multi-part story, community discussion may be necessary to expand on these three rules. Such an expansion may not affect the multi-part status of any episodes aired before 2016, or it will not be approved.
- Complete list of BBC Wales Doctor Who episodes considered multi-part stories by these rules
- Aliens of London / World War Three
- The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances
- Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways
- Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel
- The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit
- Army of Ghosts / Doomsday
- Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks
- Human Nature / The Family of Blood
- The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords
- The Sontaran Stratagem / The Poison Sky
- Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead
- The Stolen Earth / Journey's End
- The End of Time Parts 1 and 2
- The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone
- The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood
- The Pandorica Opens / The Big Bang
- The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon
- The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People
- Dark Water / Death in Heaven
- The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar
- Under the Lake / Before the Flood
- The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived
- The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion
- Heaven Sent / Hell Bent
- Classic Doctor Who
- Almost all of classic Who serials have multiple parts or episodes to them. One notable exception is The Five Doctors. The TV Movie, if considered part of classic Who, does not contain multiple parts.
- - Regardless of recording blocks, even in the 60s, a single serial is a single multi-part story, and multiple serials are never combined in that fashion.
- Torchwood
- Possibly Everything Changes / Day One, only if Rhys Williams and/or Andy Davidson can be considered guest characters, which I believe they cannot. They are recurring.
- Captain Jack Harkness / End of Days (even airs on same day)
- Dead Man Walking / A Day in the Death
- notably also written by different writers, so there's precedent
- Children of Earth is a five-part story, from Day One to Day Five, all directed by Euros Lyn.
- All episodes of Torchwood: Miracle Day are either:
- to be considered individually, as none were directed in production blocks, rather, as individual episodes.
- to be considered collectively, as a serial. This would be consistent with Children of Earth. Evidence in favour of this treatment is RTD, in TM 17, calling "one continuous story" something very different from "13 one-part stories", which he also calls "13 one-offs". I think both COE and MD have a serialised structure, and can each be considered a serial.
- The Sarah Jane Adventures
- As with classic Who, all SJA stories but one are serials. (A modern DW equivalent is The End of Time) Serials are an established system of multi-part stories. Serials may never be combined to form multi-serial stories.
- K9
- All 26 episodes of K9 are standalone stories.
- K9 and Company
- Seriously?
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- SOTO
Notably with Torchwood:
- Reset is not in a story together with the Dead Man Walking/A Day in the Death two-parter because it was directed by a different director, in a different production block. It's thus in the class of pre-two-part-story-lead-ups (when that goes viral, remember you read the original post when I said it) with Utopia, Turn Left, The Almost People, Closing Time and Face the Raven. If you want to consider those part of three- (or four-)parters, by all means, think that. But that designation would not reflect this new policy of the Tardis Wiki.
- Fragments is also not the first part of a two-parter including finale Exit Wounds. Again, different director, different production block. This one joins the class of penultimate stories I've brought up a bunch of times, which shares many members with the pre-two-part-story-lead-ups. That's why the two groups could never go bowling. It's a shame, really.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I've seen official BBC things classic Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords as a three-parter, which it was always intended to be.
- SOTO
Russell T Davies, DWM 406: And I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says. I'm sorry! I just do! I could rattle off the reasons, but we're into the mystical land of canon here, where the baseline of the argument simply comes down to "because I think so!"
The interpretation has certainly been made, and it is notable that Totally Doctor Who also announced it as such. Then, maybe in part because of Totally, maybe not, DWM did the same thing. But you cannot reasonably say it was the intent at all. RTD has expressly stated that this was not the intent, and that he does not consider Utopia to be part of a three-parter.
And as he says, "Because I think so!" is about the only argument that's truly going to be made. Again, Utopia was produced separately, and directed by a different director. We have decided that the director link is a necessary one in determining multi-part stories. "Because I think so!" cannot be the determining factor.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
He certainly changed his mind when he designated Planet of the Dead as story 200.
- SOTO
DWM did, not Russell T Davies. Also, the issue of DWM in question was published only a month or so before Planet of the Dead aired, likely quite a bit of time after it started filming as well.
I have taken the liberty of making an updated list of stories, with the new numbering. You can find it at User:SOTO/Doctor Who new count.
So it turns out Planet of the Dead was in fact story 201; 202 if we want to count Shada in the run.
Quoted above:
CzechOut wrote:
Shada definitely is 109. Numbering is a production thing, and from a production standpoint, Shada exists. It has a production code which remains honored to this day, so therefore it is a "real" story in the order. That's why our "made next/made prev" navigation honors Shada.
If this bothers people, well, it bothers people. So DWM has a different count to us. So what. Our system is precise and consistent. Besides, I cannot imagine any system which allows for Utopia and then does not also reasonably allow for Turn Left. And then a whole list of stories I've brought up over and over again in this thread. It would be a never-ending cycle.
The only alternative to a clear set of rules, starting with this discussion, is the abolishment (abolition?) of numbering altogether, except perhaps on an article like Numbering of Doctor Who episodes, where the matter can be discussed from all articles.
I do not think this is necessary, though. I do think we've finally found a set of precise and follow-able rules which account for all known and undisputed two-parters. All the disputed multi-parters don't pass. Funny that.
Let me list (not extensively) some things that are not sources, or at least not sufficient sources, for multiple episodes to constitute a multi-parter:
- A linked narrative
- A cliffhanger / end of one episode leading into the next
- The presence of a guest character in common when other rules (like director, production blocks, etc) are not also respected
- Any words displayed at the end of the broadcast of an episode. This includes "To Be Continued", "The Doctor Will Return", etc. We have shown above that if these necessarily meant a multi-parter, far too many episodes would be linked; quite a few of which, in fact, are not truly multi-parters.
- DWM polls or lists
- Statements by anyone at all, really, that isn't the head writer/executive producer of the series, or in some cases, the BBC.
Now if RTD had stated Utopia was part of a three-parter, but for some reason decided to have it directed by somebody else to the rest of the story, then we'd have a discussion. Since his only statements are to the contrary, though, Utopia is not really up for debate. It fails our rules. Discussion to expand those rules may only occur if an official statement by an executive producer explicitly labels something as a multi-parter when our current rules do not.
The only viable alternative to the three rules of the story presented at this point, by the way, is doing away with all of this, simply considering any BBC Wales episode with an individual name to be a story in its own right, and no longer featuring a story number in infoboxes and TV story lists. There have been objections to this option, above.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It's the BBC as well, they named the bus 200.
- SOTO
Based on the DWM numbering. Anyway, narrative information of a later episode does nothing as evidence for Utopia being part of a multi-part story. With regards to all multi-part stories listed above, one director is used for all parts, and the story in its entirety is produced in one production block. The same would not be true if we tried linking Utopia with the following two episodes in the run.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
DVD Files listed it as 1 of a 3 parter. Many other sources have.
- Bold Clone
SOTO wrote: Thanks :)
Do you think Clara can be considered a guest character now after her death scene in Raven (just as Rose is a guest character in series 4 for having left in 2006), or do you think that's stretching it? I think adding a clause for setting is probably the best way to go.
I agree. Rose at the end of Series 2, was gone for a whole season, and then returned in Series 4. In contrast, Clara was gone for one episode (if that--Heaven Sent) and then came back for Hell Bent. Maybe we could list her as a guest because she didn't appear in the opening credits for Heaven Sent, but otherwise I think a clause for shared setting might be easier.
- Bold Clone
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: DVD Files listed it as 1 of a 3 parter. Many other sources have.
I think the problem with that is that most of the sources claiming Utopia as part 1 of 3 stem from the earlier sources which went against the showrunner's wishes.
Now, slightly off-topic, and maybe this would belong in a different thread, but I don't consider Shada to be the real story #109, simply because it was not televised.
- KingOrokos
Crikey, there's been a lot going on here. I've been thinking about this.
Ultimately, the problem is that a two-parter is a narrative construct. The difference between Utopia being a stand-alone episode, or being part 1/3, is the question "is Utopia a story, or a part of a larger story?' Same goes for every other disputed episode of Who. And of course, we can't quantify narrative structure into an objectively correct system.
So whatever classification policy we decide on isn't necessarily going to be able to reflect the narrative structure of the stories completely accurately, simply because it would be impossible to create a set of cast-iron rules for something as slippery as storytelling. So there's no point in trying to do that; instead we need to, as SOTO's saying, focus on things like production intent.
As an aside, I do think an article which tackles the numbering dispute in some capacity would be useful, either on the main wiki or as a T: page. Simply because there are going to be plenty of people who disagree with the system, whatever it is, and having a page we can link to which explains in detail why we use the system we use, and how it affects story numbering, would save a lot of time. (And might make for an interesting read, actually.)
- KingOrokos
Also SOTO, I hate to be this irritating, but your system as I understand it classes The Beast Below/Victory of the Daleks to be a two-parter. Consecutive stories, same production block/director, and a recurring guest character/actor in the form of Ian McNeice/Winstom Churchill.
- SOTO
Oh yeah, I'm sure it would (EDIT: be interesting). It could easily be a fascinating ns:0 article on the different interpretations and inconsistencies.
Now, you say the two-part is a narrative construct, which is somewhat true, but I don't think the different is between "a story" and "part of a larger story", because story can be used quite loosely there. Every episode of series 8 is part of the larger story, but the individual episodes (barring the finale) are all standalones. I think narrative and script are something which go above story classifications.
The head writer might want a common thread through episodes, or might ask a writer to write (or write themself) the script for a standalone story which builds up to, or introduces, a two-parter, or a finale episode. Sometimes the narrative thread of the finale continues almost directly from a prior episode in the series which does not come before it (series 1 and the satellite 5 episodes, series 2 and the alternate universe Cybermen, heck, series 5 and the end of TEH, because that whole damn series takes place over the course of a day on Earth), or even one example of it following directly after the end of an episode in another TV programme (Utopia and The End of Days)
And then you have examples of two stories with an obvious linking narrative, but which was a story told over two or more series. The Craig Owens episodes have a narrative link, and may be considered together, compared and contrasted in the lead of the TV story pages, but they are not, together, a two-parter. All stories featuring River Song do have one continuous narrative but they are not a multi-parter. And it would be interesting to consider all these things, with narrative links, together. It really would. To consider not just the narrative, but differences in production, the progression of how much Alex Kingston was allowed to know, or what was in fact already planned/known by Moffat and what wasn't.
But, again, none of these things are two-parters. So I don't think the two-parter is an exclusively—or even predominantly—narrative thing. What a two-parter essentially means is that a lot of the same people were hired for the production, within one production block, of two episodes which comprise a singular point-A-to-point-B narrative, almost always sharing both a location and a guest character between the episodes.
Cliffhangers don't necessarily mean that, even if they're a result of build-up in the episode. Remember, cliffhangers of sorts were almost always present before the finale in RTD series, and the finale often then had its own cliffhanger leading into the Christmas special, from the very first finale, in fact. And hey, I sometimes like the idea of Utopia as part of a three-parter too. It's always nice, on a rewatch to watch Utopia first, and get a sense of the narrative build-up. But even from a script perspective, ignoring everything else, it has its own separate plot. RTD is very much doing the same thing as he did with Turn Left, which people do tend to consider a standalone, on an arbitrary unquantifiable basis of "well it seems like enough of its own thing to me".
It's also nice to watch the s9 finale and then to enjoy The Christmas Invasion and experience it as, as it was from Rose's perspective, one continuous story. But surely nobody here's claiming that The Christmas Invasion is part 3 of a three-parter, right?
Anyway, in short, what we're trying to pin down here is the classification of stories. What is its own story? Story is not a direct equivalent of narrative here. There will always be linking narratives, continuing narratives, build-ups, cliffhangers and hints along the way which have nothing to do with what is a single story, particularly in terms of production. Those choices are script choices, made by the head writer in conjunction with the writer of the episode in question.
So while it is definitely interesting that episodes like Utopia hold a strong narrative link to the following two-parter, and we could certainly talk at length about that on the article, we're not trying to find a system which accounts for the narrative here. Narrative can be divided up a bunch of different ways, presented as such, and still make sense. What we're seeing here—as separate from any phenomena of the script alone—are production choices.
It's a way of divvying up the amount of episodes they got a budget for. How many different productions do they want to make with that money? Those productions can be multi-part stories or one-episode standalones. When they chose to write/commission/produce/plan/make a two-parter, they're saying "here are two episodes which will be broadcast on television, that have a lot of the same cast and crew, will be filmed together, and, together, tell one story." Yes, they say that every time they commission a two-parter; it's BBC policy.
- SOTO
And if we admit that the two-parter is an alternate way of dividing up a series' worth of episodes (alternate to a full series of standalones, that is), then we have to stop studying the scripts and the writing, and take a look at concrete production choices which show the deliberate choice of making a story two episodes.
KingOrokos wrote: Also SOTO, I hate to be this irritating, but your system as I understand it classes The Beast Below/Victory of the Daleks to be a two-parter. Consecutive stories, same production block/director, and a recurring guest character/actor in the form of Ian McNeice/Winstom Churchill.
Wait, what? Winston Churchill doesn't appear in...oh. Blah. I was about to discount that, and say it's only very briefly at the end, as a cliffhanger leading into the next episode, but then we have no case for Gallifrey being the link between Heaven Sent and Hell Bent. That is, unless we don't count the ending in Gallifrey as the connecting link, but rather the fact that the entire episode takes place in the confession dial, on Gallifrey?
Ugh, things would be so much easier if we could just let go of HS/HB as a two-parter, because it's the only problematic one. Moffat has somehow managed to make the very first Doctor Who two-parter with not a single guest character between them. And those two episodes are so different, in fact, that he and the production manager were able to double bank them each individually, with two standalones. I know it seems to be the intention, judging by the titling scheme and the big reveal at the end, but it's starting to seem to me that it's only being sold as a two-parter, when it's really nothing at all like any two-parters which came before it.
By the way, I don't suppose that Gallifreyan child at the end is seen in the next episode?
- Heaven Sent and Hell Bent were two wildly different episodes. Both unique, bold and startling they combined to create a two-part adventure – a hybrid, you might say – that brought Series 9 to an unforgettable finale.
This really just feels like marketing to me. Not just that quote specifically, but the whole classification of the finale as two-parted. As they admit, those episodes are "wildly different" (one's brilliant, the other ruins it, in my opinion). On they other hand, they did hire the same director for the two episodes. And, again, the name, following the convention of all the two-parters before it. (screams head off)
I'd really like to see some more official statements (Steven Moffat or BBC)
But I think we might just be encountering a very different two-parter here. What's different is that the first part pretty much only features the Doctor. The two episodes very much stand alone in terms of plot and theme (and actual quality :P), but at the same time it cannot be denied that the intention was at least to market it as a grand two-part ending.
If truly a two-parter, this series' finale was the first Doctor Who two-parter ever produced without a single guest cast member in common between them. (Because, from a production POV, they're not really a two-parter. It makes perfect sense that they were filmed separately, because they have almost nothing in common, production-wise. And now we run into a conflict between intent/marketing, and actual production choices.)
Do we just make an exception here? Or do we just consider them two stories? Is there anything we can pinpoint that actually does make these two a single story? It's all very confusing. (Though nobody go back in time and change anything, because Heaven Sent was perfect!)
- DENCH-and-PALMER
The DVD release has it has a two-parter.
- KingOrokos
Oh, I thought Hell Bent was wonderful. But we'll save that conversation for another day...
I think "we might just be encountering a very different two-parter here" hits the nail on the head. The guest star rule is only broken because the first part has no guest stars - the Veil and the boy don't speak, and the boy isn't credited, so I'd say he barely qualifies as a role (I had a look through and couldn't find him in Hell Bent, by the way, though he could be somewhere in one of the group shots. I think that would be a pretty tenuous classification.) I think you could argue on that basis that the story passes your three-rule system.
- SOTO
Yeah, that would be rather tenuous. That's just the thing. There are no guest stars. So what's our backup rule that's only applicable where at least one of the episodes has no guest characters, which HS/HB meets? Is it simply an extension to rule 3 in the form of: "In the odd case that one or more of the episodes has no guest characters in a speaking role at all, and sufficient production evidence exists that those episodes are a multi-parter, a community discussion may decide to count those as a multi-parter if they also meet the requirements of rules 1 and 2."?
In that case, I would suggest getting rid of the "unique setting" clause, and simply allowing for community discussion when no guest characters appear, because surely the guest character requirement shouldn't disqualify a story where it simply can't apply.
- Brian Minchin: We're doing more two-parters – and not just conventional two parters. We're doing linked stories where you might not be sure how they’re going to be connected until you see them. We're pushing the storytelling that way, to give us more scale of adventure.
Two-parters in series 9 are "not just conventional", but I believe enough production evidence exists for those episodes, at the discretion of the community, to be considered two-parters as well.
Please remember that that community discussion clause is only applicable if one of more of the episodes does not feature any guest characters, and perhaps also in unusual cases where no director is credited or no broadcast took place at all.
And I would also like to emphasise that a brief cameo appearance right at the end of a episode, simply leading up to following episode and not at all related to the story at all, does not constitute a guest appearance of a character with regards to this policy. Not sure yet how I'll write that in.
But Donna does not count as a guest character in the s2 finale, and Churchill does not count at the end of The Beast Below. Please remember that a guest character, by definition, belongs to the main cast of that episode. Ian McNiece is credited all the way at the end of the cast list, and only appears at the very end of the episode, essentially advertising the next adventure in-story. That's no different, in effect, from the Titanic crashing into the TARDIS at the end of series 3.
- Mewiet
I'm still trying to catch up on all the posts, but I noticed this:
SOTO wrote:
- Have a minimum of one (1) guest character in common between the two or more episodes, almost always played by the same guest actor. (In an alternative version also proposed to allow for the series 9 finale, a specific setting in common between the episodes is also allowed.)
- If Clara is accepted as a guest character for the two episodes, that last modification will not be necessary, at least not until and unless next series does something similar.
I don't agree at all that Clara was a guest character in her last two episodes. I want to think about the setting idea though, after I've had a chance to read all the discussion I've missed.
- SOTO
Yeah, I don't think so either. That was not a reflection of my actual views; rather, just a little foray into what could make the finale count. I agree she wasn't really a guest character at all, though. I was thinking setting clause, but if we want to discount the brief appearance of Churchill at the end of The Beast Below, it'd be hard to make an argument for counting Gallifrey, which is a setting only at the very end of Heaven Sent.
In light of that, I made some modifications to my original proposition (which you'll notice as you read through the more recent messages), which allow for community discussion and sufficient evidence in the form of exec statements to qualify a story without a guest character at all (in at least one of the episodes) to meet rule #3 nevertheless.
Heaven Sent is the only example of that thus far which I can think of. In such an odd case where one of the rules is not even applicable (where the designation "guest cast" at all is N/A, or "director" is N/A, etc), and only in such a case, discussion?—hinging, of course, on good, solid evidence and all other requirements being met—may qualify that story to be a two-parter just like any other.
This does not change anything else, though. In any story where all episodes have at least one guest character, there must be at least one guest character in common between the episodes. With only one very specific exception, it's not a two-parter unless both parts share at least one guest character.
- KingOrokos
I think we're making good progress here. How are you going to write the 'discounting cameos' rule into the policy?
- SOTO
Well it can't be anything vague which can be interpreted multiple ways. The phrasing is clear. "Cameo" is something I would have to define, and people would debate over that. So that's not good wording.
Rule 3: A minimum of one (1) guest character is present in all episodes.
- - It is not required that a guest character be played by the same guest actor. A guest character by definition is not a recurring character.
Either:
- - Because such endings are not always related to multi-parters, characters introduced in the final scene of an episode do add to this count.
- - The final character in the cast list should be discounted as a guest character, as a careful precaution. This is because sometimes that spot is given to characters only appearing in a cliffhanger, leading in to the next story.
- - To qualify as a guest character, a character must have at least five (5) lines of dialogue. In other words, Donna Noble at the end of Doomsday is not a guest character, nor is Winston Churchill at the end of The Beast Below.
- KingOrokos
The final scene rule doesn't work, since technically there are two more scenes after Churchill's appearance - the scene back in the TARDIS interior, and the final exterior shot of Starship UK. Obviously that's a very pedantic interpretation of the rule, but still a valid one.
I think the five lines of dialogue rule works better, but it's still somewhat arbitrary, and has its weaknesses. For example, Father Christmas has more than 5 lines in Death in Heaven, but obviously isn't a guest star. The cliffhanger rule might be the way to go - but what if, for example, we get a similar 'cliffhanger' scene at some point in the future which features multiple characters? For example, if the Churchill scene in TBB had also featured Bracewell, even if for only a line?
Again, I'm sorry to be so irritating with all of this nit-picking.
- SOTO
Santa has more than 5 lines of dialogue? How are we defining "line" here? If it's not interrupted, it could almost be interpreted as just one line. If we mean sentence, hmm. Hmm.
Another alternative, by the way, is saying specifically, "in the last X percent of the story"
- KingOrokos
Well, then we get into what defines 'interrupted'. The percentage rule could work - characters introduced in the last 10% of the story perhaps? In a 45 minute episode, I can't imagine a scenario where characters pertinent to the plot of that episode are being introduced post-40 minutes in. Always possible, though.
- SOTO
I think the thing to do, if we want to go down the percentage route, is to mark down the times for the appearances of Donna, Churchill and Santa Claus to see what percentage they constitute.
- Bwburke94
Donna Noble in Doomsday and Santa Claus in Death in Heaven are irrelevant to this if we define "consecutive run" as excluding all Christmas specials other than The End of Time. This leaves Churchill in The Beast Below as the only character we absolutely have to work around.
- SOTO
Technically they are irrelevant because they could not be counted regardless (and I don't think they share directors with their subsequent episodes either, but I may be wrong). I was saying we should take a look at them, though, to see what kind of precedent Doctor Who has for early introductions. It's really about future-proofing; if we're basing a rule off a percentage, it should also reflect other similar cases in the past, or it may not reflect cases in the future.
- KingOrokos
Off the top of my head, instances where these sort of 'cliffhanger' character introductions appear:
- The 10th Doctor in The Parting of the Ways (if we're counting post-regeneration scenes as 'new guest star' introductions)
- Donna Noble in Doomsday
- Simms' Master in Utopia
- The Ood in The Waters of Mars (if that counts)
- The 11th Doctor in The End of Time
- Churchill in The Beast Below
- Kovarian in The Almost People and Closing Time
- The War Doctor in The Name of the Doctor
- The 12th Doctor in The Time of the Doctor
To clarify, this is characters who are introduced into an episode towards the final moments for the purposes of a cliffhanger, who play a prominent role in the following episode. I've probably missed a few.
- SOTO
I don't suppose anyone's willing to find the timecodes for a few of those? Churchill most importantly.
- Bwburke94
I have Series 5 somewhere on my hard drive, I can look that up if you need to.
- SOTO
That would be most helpful. :)
So this decision will ultimately affect individual TV story images, List of Doctor Who television stories, List of Torchwood television stories, {{DWTV}} and {{TWTV}}. An article on Doctor Who story numbering is certainly a possibility as well.
- Bwburke94
Churchill's time code in The Beast Below is 40:14, of an episode lasting 41:55 including credits.
- SOTO
So that's the Churchill appearance, through to the credits, forms the last 4% of the episode as a whole, as aired. So let's call that tentatively 5%, and maybe we'll find out another example given doesn't make 5%. Or we could just extend it to 10% right away, just to be safe. I mean, anyone arriving after 38:54 in a 43 minute episode can't be a very big character in the story, even if truly a two-parter.
Even with the reveal of the "Human Dalek" in series 3, that character technically already appeared as a regular Dalek earlier on in the first episode.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I still feel that Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords is a three-parter, it always has been, the BBC released it as so.
- Bwburke94
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I still feel that Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords is a three-parter, it always has been, the BBC released it as so.
Let's put Utopia aside for now, there's not enough consensus to put it as the first of a three-parter.
- KingOrokos
Going over my list:
- Parting of the Ways: 44:35/45:54
- The Runaway Bride: 45:30/46:48
- Utopia: 42:55/46:16
- The Waters of Mars: 59:50/1:02:10
- The End of Time: 1:10:55/1:12:36
- The Almost People: 44:28/45:40
- Closing Time: 42:17/45:40
- The Name of the Doctor: 42:30/44:35
Utopia and Closing Time aside, they all seem to fall within the last 5%; those two fall within the last 10%.
- SOTO
So 10% is definitely a solid rule. The End of Time timecode is within part 2 specifically, right?
(On a side note, you're a god ;))
Can anyone think of any valid guest characters who appear only right at the end of episode 1 and then play a large role in the second episode? Just wondering.
Oh. Right. Also: We've been using the terminology of "guest character" for a while now in this discussion, but "guest cast" here specifically means non-recurring. Recurring means having appeared in more than one story.
This would technically discount Ashildr for The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived, as well as River Song for The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang. And you can't make the case that TBB has no guest characters beyond those recurring, because of the scenes back to Amelia's childhood.
But the non-recurring rule is important to weed out Miss—ohhhhh. Okay, idea. Extend the last 10% rule to also include a maximum of X% at any time in the episode, so as to exclude very short series-arc-related appearances in otherwise unrelated episodes like those of Missy in series 8, and of Kovarian in 6a.
Then we can drop the "guest, not recurring" language and simply exclude any character which appears in the majority of episodes in its series run. This also discounts Danny Pink, I think, in series 8. In split series, the "series run" is half of the total series. So that still excluded Amy and Rory in 7a, and Clara in 7b. And Kovarian in 6a. And Missy in series 7, come to think of it.
Sadly, Jack Harkness doesn't quite make 50% of series 1, so maybe a continuous run of at least 4 episodes can count as well? If Jack counts as a linking character, then Boom Town is part of a three parter. I don't think he should be, though, because he's clearly part of the TARDIS crew, even though he was introduced late. So too, Mickey was a companion in series 2, despite leaving early. Both appeared in a continuous run of at least 4 episodes (for Jack, 5). I don't suppose they're both listed in the pre-title sequences while they're companions?
- KingOrokos
Neither Mickey or Jack is listed in pre-titles, but I think being an obvious member of the TARDIS crew for any period of time (as in, being someone who actively travels with the Doctor, rather than somebody who the Doctor is giving a lift home or whatever) counts you as a recurring character. And yeah, that's just the part 2 timecode.
(I try <3)
Despite the fact that I don't think TGWD/TWWL is a two-parter, I'm going to argue that characters who only become recurring after the fact shouldn't be discounted; those two episodes are Ashildr's first appearance, so she should count as a guest character. Maybe? I'm not actually sure about this.
- SOTO
I suggest swapping "guest character" language with "linking character". Well, any term really but guest character. Because Ashildr and River are both recurring, but still "guests" in each appearance according to one definition despite appearing in 2+ other stories in the same series. Remember that River is the character we're counting for the series 5 finale (unless we keep the location clause, and allow the Stonehenge location to be the link).
Anyway, characters like Ashildr and River do not appear in at least 50% of the episodes, nor do they feature in a continuous run of at least 4 episodes, so they are not the "main characters" of the series, and can be counted as linking characters for their stories.
- SOTO
I don't think "obvious member of the TARDIS crew" is a criterion we can use, because it's just as debatable as "companion". We need hard rules here, where you can just find the facts and see how it matches up with those rules.
- Bold Clone
So have we reached a consensus yet? I'm guessing no, since we're trying to clarify "guest character" and the like. If/When we have, I'm ready to start adjusting the relevant pages.
- Bwburke94
No, I don't believe we have consensus.
- Bold Clone
Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
- SOTO
I'm glad people are prepared to do the work involved, but no, this discussion is not yet over.
- KingOrokos
Sorry for the lack of activity over the last few days, had a lot of deadlines. What's the current issue?
- Bwburke94
KingOrokos wrote: Sorry for the lack of activity over the last few days, had a lot of deadlines. What's the current issue?
We're trying to define what a "linking character" is for the purposes of two-parters.
- KingOrokos
Ah, right. I think SOTO's point here:
SOTO wrote: Anyway, characters like Ashildr and River do not appear in at least 50% of the episodes, nor do they feature in a continuous run of at least 4 episodes, so they are not the "main characters" of the series, and can be counted as linking characters for their stories.
Sums up the solution to the previous 'linking characters' issue. Characters who don't appear in a majority of stories/a continuous run of at least 4 episodes can't really be considered series regulars, I'd say.
- Bwburke94
Alright then. Here's my proposal.
- For a "linking character" to be eligible to link two episodes together as part of a multi-part story, the character cannot have appeared in more than 50% of the episodes, or more than three consecutive episodes, within the continuous series run.
- KingOrokos
Works for me.
- Bwburke94
Now all we need is for SOTO and Bold Clone to weigh in.
- Bold Clone
I'm here. Sounds good to me.
- SOTO
Yes. More than 4 episodes. Very good. Mickey (I keep on thinking it's Ricky and Mickey's wrong for some reason—off topic, but was that joke an I Love Lucy reference somehow, or is that totally incidental?) does appear in the majority of series 2 episodes, despite only having a continuous run of 4, so he would still be excluded. So agreement there. If this number needs to be reduced due to future cases, this can be brought to the forums, and, again, will only change policy if that change does not affect the status of episodes released before 2016.
Hang on as I update my original summary in a new post.
- SOTO
Ah, you said more than 3 on a re-read. Either's fine, I guess. Can anyone think of an example of a character who appeared in only 4 continuous stories? In any case, it must be more than 3 for Martha Jones to count in Torchwood series 2, etc. 3 continuous stories, that character can still be a linking character.
- SOTO
Plenty of the following is a repeat of a previous post. Nevertheless, certain aspects have been updated.
(T:MULTI/T:STORY COUNT should have a different colour to the four little rules, like maybe red, but I ain't got time that now.)
Four rules of the multi-parter[[edit] | [edit source]]
Two or more TV episodes are considered a two- or multi-parter if the following statements are found to be true:
1 The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run. 2 The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them. 3 A minimum of one (1) linking character (see below) is present in all episodes. 4 If a story was broadcast as a serial, rules 2 and 3 need not apply. Finer detail[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- - Specials, such as those aired on Christmas, are not usually included in a consecutive run, with one exception being The End of Time.
- - When a series is divided into two distinct runs, as with series 6 and series 7, those runs are to be considered separately. A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler are not, here, considered consecutive.
- - It is not required that the length of time between episodes is 1 week, though this is usually the case.
- Rule 2: The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them.
- - Episodes may alternately belong to the same serial. More than one director is permitted, as needed, for serials only. As with An Unearthly Child, rule 3 also need not necessarily apply to all episodes in a serial.
- Rule 3: A minimum of one (1) linking character is present in all episodes.
- - A linking character here refers to one who is usually specific to that story. Often, these are guest characters as well.
- - Community discussion may extend this rule to other linking elements, such as setting, but this change will not be adopted if it in any way affects the status of episodes aired before 2016.
- - With regards to this policy, "linking character" means something quite precise:
Linking characters[[edit] | [edit source]]
- - The following statements must be true for a character to qualify to link two or more episodes.
- They must, again, appear in all episodes of the proposed multi-parter.
- They must not also be present in a majority (50%+) of episodes in that series run, nor can they appear in a consecutive run of more than three (3) episodes.
- Characters introduced within the last 10% of an episode's runtime do not add to this count. This is a necessary precaution, as such cliffhanger endings are not always related to multi-parters. These characters are often, though not necessarily always, last in the cast list.
- Thus, those characters like Donna Noble in Doomsday and Santa Claus in Death in Heaven would not count as linking characters, and Winston Churchill is not qualified to link The Beast Below to Victory of the Daleks.
- Missy appears in a majority of series 8 stories, and Kovarian in a majority of series 6a. Jack Harkness in series 1 appears in a continuous run of 5 episodes, while Mickey's in around 60% of series 2. Amy and Rory, as well as Clara, appear in a majority of their respective series runs.
- - It is not required that a linking character be played by the same actor in all appearances.
- - The following statements must be true for a character to qualify to link two or more episodes.
Serials[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Rule 4: If a story was broadcast as a serial, rules 2 and 3 need not apply.
- - Obviously, anything produced and released serially should be considered a single multi-part story. Sometimes, due to a variety of issues, different directors have directed different parts of the same story. Thus, any number of episodes which follow each other in a consecutive run, and which were clearly intended to be a serial, are considered multi-part stories, regardless of whether or not the director and linking character clauses are met.
- - Regardless of recording blocks, even in 1960s Doctor Who, a single serial is a single multi-part story, and multiple serials are never combined in that fashion.
- - Beyond pre-1996 Doctor Who, almost all TV stories of The Sarah Jane Adventures were serialised, and combined as such, and series 3 and 4 of Torchwood were both serialised as well, as Children of Earth and Miracle Day, respectively. Thus, COE and MD are each one story with multiple parts, and this is reflected in story counts.
Further details[[edit] | [edit source]]
- - If two or more episodes are said in official statements, by either the BBC or an executive producer in charge of the series, to make up a multi-part story, and those episodes do not qualify as such by our four rules, community discussion may be necessary to expand on these three rules. Such an expansion may not affect the multi-part status of any episodes aired before 2016, or it will not be approved.
- - Amendment 2.1: In light of the unique case of Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, the community has decided to expand rule 2 to also allow for two episodes, each alone in individual production blocks, with a maximum of one (1) episode produced in between, to also be considered a two-part story, as this is simply a case of double banking.
- - Amendment 3.1: In the odd case that one or more of the episodes has no characters, besides the Doctor and/or his companion(s), in a speaking role at all, and sufficient production evidence exists that those episodes are a multi-parter, a community discussion may decide to count those as a multi-parter, again through official statements by the BBC/executive producer, if those episodes also meet the requirements of rules 1 and 2.
TV stories considered multi-part by these rules[[edit] | [edit source]]
BBC Wales Doctor Who[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Aliens of London / World War Three
- The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances
- Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways
- Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel
- The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit
- Army of Ghosts / Doomsday
- Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks
- Human Nature / The Family of Blood
- The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords
- The Sontaran Stratagem / The Poison Sky
- Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead
- The Stolen Earth / Journey's End
- The End of Time Parts 1 and 2
- The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone
- The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood
- The Pandorica Opens / The Big Bang
- The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon
- The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People
- Dark Water / Death in Heaven
- The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar
- Under the Lake / Before the Flood
- The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived (different writers, but this has no bearing on our rules)
- The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion
- Heaven Sent / Hell Bent
- Heaven Sent has no speaking characters besides the Doctor, so BBC statements as to production intent qualify here according to amendment 3.1, under further details above.
1963 Doctor Who[[edit] | [edit source]]
- All, except for The Five Doctors and another that's not coming to me. The TV Movie, if considered part of classic Who, also does not contain multiple parts.
Torchwood[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Everything Changes / Day One (linking character: Andy)
- Captain Jack Harkness / End of Days (even airs on same day)
- Dead Man Walking / A Day in the Death (different writers, but this has no bearing on our rules)
- Children of Earth is a five-part serial, from Day One to Day Five, all directed by Euros Lyn.
- Torchwood: Miracle Day is a multi-part story. It has multiple directors, but was not produced in production blocks. Because Children of Earth is a clearer case of serialhood, Miracle Day is classified as one too for consistency. Indeed, this line of thinking is apparently confirmed by certain statements made by Russell T Davies, in TM 17 calling "one continuous story", which he hoped series 4 would be, something very different from "13 one-part stories", or "13 one-offs".
The Sarah Jane Adventures[[edit] | [edit source]]
- As with classic Who, all SJA stories but one are serials. (A modern DW equivalent is The End of Time)
K9[[edit] | [edit source]]
- None. All 26 episodes of K9 are standalone stories.
K9 and Company[[edit] | [edit source]]
- None. Not in this universe, anyway.
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- Bold Clone
Regarding "1963 Doctor Who," would the one not coming to you be Mission to the Unknown?
- KingOrokos
Everything Changes/Day One also aired on the same day, if you wanted to add that in. Nice work!
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords has a linking character, The Master. Even the BBC confirm it to be a 3-parter.
- Bold Clone
So does Jack Harkness. However, SOTO addressed that earlier in his clarification on "linking characters". Plus, we don't necessarily follow the BBC's numbering system.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
If it wasn't a 3-parter, it'd make POTD 201, then the bus should have been called, 201.
- KingOrokos
As Bold Clone said, we don't have to follow the BBC's numbering system. Simply because that system - as a result of being overseen by a multitude of different groups and individuals over the course of 50+ years - isn't internally consistent with how it groups stories. As you said, the BBC call it a three-parter - but RTD, who was in charge of the show at the time and wrote all three episodes, calls it two seperate stories.
TARDIS wiki needs to function as an encyclopedia - it needs consistent rules. The BBC numbering system simply doesn't provide that.
- Bwburke94
I'm in a bit of a weird spot here, because I never intended my writing of the rules to count for Everything Changes and Day One, nor for the entirety of Miracle Day. I'll reluctantly qualify Miracle Day as one story just to get this discussion over with.
- SOTO
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords has a linking character, The Master. Even the BBC confirm it to be a 3-parter.
Yep, as do The Sontaran Strategem, The Poison Sky and The Doctor's Daughter. Both cases still fail rule 2, though. Different directors = never a two-parter, regardless of anything else, just like not a story = not a valid source, even if it's fully licensed. All of rules 1-3 must be respected. I'n thinking "rule 4" maybe shouldn't be numbered as such, because it's not a general requirement.
- SOTO
Eh, strictly speaking, Miracle Day could maybe go either way. Each episode has a different director, and produced as separate units, with no production blocks. But remember: all episodes aired as simply Torchwood: Miracle Day, and obviously follow one continuous story, with new linking characters exclusive to that story.
Sounds like a pretty clear serial to me, in a very similar format to the previous serial, Children of Earth. And per "rule 4", one director is not necessary for the designation of a multi-part serial. Sometimes different things are done with serials, as they have many more episodes than a simple two-parter. This, rules 2-3 assume that the episodes in question do not forma concrete serial.
- Bwburke94
Even if this passes, Children of Earth and Miracle Day both retain individual episode pages, correct? The latter did have individual episode titles, though they weren't used onscreen.
- SOTO
Of course. We made a decision on this already, years back. Despite both being quite clearly serials, individual episodes retain individual pages. I will point you to Forum:Children of Earth: serial or series?.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: Of course. We made a decision on this already, years back. Despite both being quite clearly serials, individual episodes retain individual pages. I will point you to Forum:Children of Earth: serial or series?.
I am aware of the past discussions. I just wanted clarification.
- SOTO
Ah, I apologise. Anyhow, yes. This thread can have no bearing on the actual page designations for stories and episodes. It's to do with the designation of "story", one with multiple parts. Aside from the Hartnell era, individual parts with their own names tend to have their own pages, and multi-parters all just sharing one name tend to be covered, as one, on a singular page (when it comes to television).
- Mewiet
SOTO wrote: I'm glad people are prepared to do the work involved, but no, this discussion is not yet over.
Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond to this discussion again like I wanted. January has been an unexpectedly busy month for me offline but hopefully things will cool down at the start of February. Add to that some highly unusual login problems the past several days. I created the initial thread because I wanted to see this through to a resolution, so I have not abandoned it, real life has just gotten in the way this month.
- SOTO
Good to know, and that's perfectly okay. Do life. This thread ain't going anywhere.
- Bwburke94
Real life got in the way for everyone, but I think we came to a good conclusion.
- KingOrokos
Agreed. What's the deal now in terms of solidifying it as a rule?
- SOTO
The deal is I need enough time to get to this. :P
I can't remember if there were some kinks that still have to be worked out. While this thread is still open in the meantime, are there any objections to the current consensus here? If you have any at all, now's the time to have your voices heard.
- KingOrokos
I'm fairly certain there were no kinks, though anybody feel free to correct me.
- Bwburke94
- Bold Clone
Remind me what the thing was with Space / Time...? Are we unsure whether it's a two-parter?
- Bwburke94
Space / Time is an odd case because we have no need to define whether they're a two-parter, but if we do so they can be cited as one story on in-universe pages.
Per its premise there is no guest cast, so the same exception as Heaven Sent / Hell Bent applies.
- 2.26.206.85
Sprory only just found third discussion the problem I have with these rules is with its definitions one of my ideas is to use the primeery vilan and or plot of the episode for example utopia/sound of the drums/last of the time lords dipict a single attempt by the master to conquer the universe face the Raven /heaven sent /hell bent follow with FTR showing the time lords capturing the Doctor HS showing his interigation and finally HB showing the Doctor escapement and after revenge will concluding the plot of FTR and HS will turn left the main plot is dona in a alternative time line while the stolen earth and journeys end is the daleks invading earth while trying to destroy the universe
- Bwburke94
2.26.206.85 wrote: Sprory only just found third discussion the problem I have with these rules is with its definitions one of my ideas is to use the primeery vilan and or plot of the episode for example utopia/sound of the drums/last of the time lords dipict a single attempt by the master to conquer the universe face the Raven /heaven sent /hell bent follow with FTR showing the time lords capturing the Doctor HS showing his interigation and finally HB showing the Doctor escapement and after revenge will concluding the plot of FTR and HS will turn left the main plot is dona in a alternative time line while the stolen earth and journeys end is the daleks invading earth while trying to destroy the universe
I can barely make out what you're saying, and I think we've already established Utopia and Face the Raven as standalone in any case.
- 2.26.206.85
Just for clarity my suggestion is to use the main villain as a factor as the rules stated above are not future proof as several TV series have used 2 part episodes to bridge seasons and mid season breaks also many of the 2 part episodes for torchwood like everything changers and day one are narrative self contend with only character arcs connecting them because many of the behind the sans qualifiers are more for convenience during filming than deciding what is and is not a multi part episode what seems to have be forgotten is the story 1 episode can be a story on its own that’s why I prefer to list utopia and face the raven as part 1 of 3 and prefer to list the girl who did and the woman who lived to be listed as standalone's as each episode has a self contend plot
- Bwburke94
Using the main villain would cause certain 20th century serials to be merged to each other. Besides, we've already established (most of) a policy, we're not rewriting this whole thing again.
I do have one objection to the currently proposed rule, though it is not to the actual policy. The linking-character rule was changed from "more than 50%" (in my proposal) to "50% or more" (in SOTO's proposal) without sufficient discussion. I think "50% or more" is the better rule, but it should have been discussed more when it was proposed.
- 2.26.206.85
It was my original idea that the villains plan as well that is way say season 8 wood not become one massive story and in the black guardian trilogy the black guardian is more a secondary villain for most of it also how will this policy be future proof in the situation i described in my previous post also the fact torchwood episodes everything changers and day one are listed as a 2 part episode in this scheme shows the problem as they have all been set on modern day earth unlike doctor who where every story has for the most part a driftnet setting the only real criteria should be whether the episodes give a complete main story if not then it’s part of a multi part episode if not then its standalone
- Bwburke94
The only part of the post I can comprehend is that you think Everything Changes and Day One should not be a two-parter?
- 2.26.206.85
• future proof the proposed rules do not allow for future show runners deciding to play with the format like mofet did in series 9 for instance a future split series may end its 1st half with part 1 of a 2 part story and open its 2nd half with the conclusion
• the rules for spin offs like torchwood may need to be different as doctor who is about travailing true time and space resulting in new story’s having new settings and almost completely new casts where as torchwood is in a fixed location and story’s like the everything changers and day 1 being 2 part when in doctor who they would be standalone • i have a problem with any scheme to determine multi part story’s that differs from what is listed in sources like DWM and doctor who the complete history as theas are made with input from the BBC and the production team • and on the question of to be continued vs. the doctor will return to be continued is used to tell viewers that the cliff-hanger they have just seen will be fowled up while the doctor will return is used to indicate that there will be more episodes in the future when they can not show a trailer for the next episode
- Bwburke94
2.26.206.85 wrote: for instance a future split series may end its 1st half with part 1 of a 2 part story and open its 2nd half with the conclusion
This is exactly what the AGMGTW/LKH debate was about.
We might make an exception if two episodes meet all the requirements except airing in the same series run. AGMGTW/LKH were not in the same production block, so they do not meet the requirements even if we ignore the fact Series 6 was split.
- 2.26.206.85
Just to not Doctor who the complete history gives utopia and the sound of the drums/last of the time lords different sections but numbered as one story
- 2.28.220.166
In fact now I have the volume of the complete history then in can say that the reasoning given is that despite the differences between the episodes location and puducton block they are part of the same narrative which is surly the best way to determine what is a standerlon and multi part episodes
- Bwburke94
You appear to have changed your IP address, but that's beside the point. We aren't budging on Utopia; the only thing we haven't already decided on is Space/Time, which doesn't affect numbering.
- Shambala108
Nothing has been officially decided. One idea has been proposed and discussed at length; another idea has been proposed by the senior admin Tangerineduel and has the support of at least two other admins.
- Bwburke94
So what are these ideas, then? It's just been me and the IP editor for the past few weeks.
- Shambala108
Tangerineduel's idea is posted at message #55, and the other one is the one you guys have been discussing for months.
- Bwburke94
Should we have a vote or something? Not sure how we'd solve this otherwise.
- SOTO
(Back again. Hey, peeps.)
Though I am obviously biased, the reason I support the proposition I put forward is that it's clear-cut and it does not allow for ambiguity. All clear cases are classified as multi-parters by the system proposed.
Obviously, it's fine for fans to decide for themselves what they consider to be a multi-part story, just as they can throw around "Doctor-lite" or "multi-Doctor" as they please. But we have to aim for something more objective here at Tardis, if only so that we don't have to have this debate every year. To date, no clear multi-part stories fail the proposed rules set forth above.
As has been said, though, nothing has been decided, and there are two ideas out there that have gained support. I'd be interested to hear what Tangerineduel would have to say on seeing the new developments since. :)
- Amorkuz
I support SOTO's proposal (as detailed on 21 January 2016).
- Amorkuz
Maybe I can, actually, contribute to the discussion in a non-trivial way without making things worse. What I believe is missing so far is a comparison of the name-based approach of TangerineDuel and Shambala108 with the production-block-based (PB-based) approach of SOTO, as well as the discussion of the reasoning behind the name-based approach (at least missing in this forum).
First of all, I believe most of the proposals discussed all stem from the same ideology: two-parter designation should be based on the production of the episodes and should not depend on contingent factors, including marketing strategies and especially things that can change any moment like new interviews contradicting earlier ones. (I'm not talking about fine print now, but the general intent.)
Name-based approach is a historical and skeptical view. It is historical because the production team consciously decided back in the 60s to start grouping episodes into one story by imposing a common title, decided this after using individual titles for a couple years. It is skeptical because one refuses to trust any potentially contingent indicators, beginning with postfactum interviews and ending with having the same writer (strictly speaking, production blocks were not yet on the table when name-based approach was brought into this forum). And one has to agree that having the same/different writer might be reasonably arbitrary, especially with future-proofing in mind. Nothing prevents the showrunner from ordering two completely different episodes to the same writer. Also it is not unheard of that two writers work on different aspects of the same story. There are books with even chapters written by one person and odd chapters by another person.
The PB-based approach, on the other hand, says that there are still unmistakable indicators in the production process: production within the same block, common director, etc. This part was discussed at length, no need to repeat it.
I think the operational considerations can be safely ignored: both suggestions are clearly actionable, and there are plenty of policies on the books that are central to the functioning of this Wiki while being not that simple and not even natural for a novice editor (if you don't believe me, just read through T:DAB again, which by the way still doesn't cover the alternative-universe clause for characters)?
So why am I in favor of PB-based approach? Two reasons:
- It has neither false positives nor false negatives: it does not announce as two-parter something no one considers as such, and it does not announce as standalone episodes those that everyone considers a two-parter. (Special effort was required to achieve this for HS/HB, more on this later.) By contrast, the name-based approach divorces multiple couples that are uniformly considered as such.
- SOTO pointed out that (at least lately) names of two-parters have actually been connected, just not in the obvious way. To me this is an indication that the current production team is using a more complex naming scheme and is not using the one from the classical series (only specials used Part 1/Part 2, and only once). In other words, applying the proposed name-based approach would mean going against the naming scheme actually used by the producers.
One final comment on HS/HB. Does it reflect poorly on the PB-based approach that these two require special treatment? I would argue that it doesn't because HS is commonly agreed to be a unique episode. Unique things warrant exceptions.
- 2.28.220.166
When it comes to the production bloc it does have false positives for multi part episodes the torchwood episodes everything changers / day one with is listed as a two part only because they have a shred production bloc and both feathers the recurring character of Andy as story’s they are no more linked than the doctor who episodes rose / end of the world which at one point did shear a puduction bloc until it was decider to film episodes set in the present day to gather if you have always considered everything changers / day one a 2 part then pleas levee a message
Also a false negative is the 3 part utopia/sound of the drums/last of the time lords which is listed as a 3 part in every episode Gide I’ve seen
- Amorkuz
2.28.220.166 wrote: Also a false negative is the 3 part utopia/sound of the drums/last of the time lords which is listed as a 3 part in every episode Gide I’ve seen
The Doctor Who Forum separated Utopia, sorry. Plus, this has already been discussed to death, including by you. The very fact that others in this thread disagreed with you means that the idea of a three-parter is not universally accepted. So not a false negative.
- Shambala108
In my opinion, using production intent causes way too much disagreement, as can be seen by just scrolling through this thread. One user's opinion of production intent can often disagree with another user's opinion.
Tangerineduel's suggestion eliminates this kind of disagreement. If two stories have the same exact title, they are two-parters. That's it. No need for all the qualifications that most users will never read.
It may not matter to the casual or regular editor, but one of the things most important to admins is to prevent future disagreements and edit warring by making the rules as clear and simple as possible.
- 2.28.220.166
Amorkuz wrote:
2.28.220.166 wrote: Also a false negative is the 3 part utopia/sound of the drums/last of the time lords which is listed as a 3 part in every episode Gide I’ve seen
The Doctor Who Forum separated Utopia, sorry. Plus, this has already been discussed to death, including by you. The very fact that others in this thread disagreed with you means that the idea of a three-parter is not universally accepted. So not a false negative.
when was that as the episode page has a story number of 187a and the series 3 page list the series final as utopia/suond of the drums/last of the time lords also the complexity of story telling men that i don't think there ever going to be a simple universally agreed rules on what dos and dos not count as a story just like theirs no agreed definition of what makes a character a companion or not
- Amorkuz
2.28.220.166 wrote: when was that
Here [1]
- Amorkuz
By the way, do I understand this correctly that the only effect the future decision in this thread will have will be on the Story number field of the infobox and the List of Doctor Who television stories? Or something else will be affected?
- Shambala108
Pretty much as far as I can recall, except for comments on story pages like "X is the 100th episode of the new series", which would still be debatable no matter what we decide.
- Bwburke94
Leaving aside Torchwood for now, what are the major problems with the production blocks proposal as applied to Doctor Who?
- Amorkuz
Apparently, no such major problems exist.
- Bold Clone
Well, I would argue there are problems, no one's managed to get back to us. And I can't remember what the problems were at this point anyway...gah.
- Fan4Life
AGMGTW and LKH are not a two-parter, they are officially designated standalones. The system should be official confirmation of status. We can't go by there being TBC as episodes which are obivously not a two-parter have had a TBC and episodes which are two-parters have not. TGWD and TWWL are not a two-parter, they are officially designated as standalones as seen on the official BBC website. FTR is also a standalone. HS and HB are two-parter. FTR cannot be part of a three-parter as it has a different director, a different writer and a different producer. TGWD and TWWL can't be a two-parter, they have different writers and there is little continuation.
- Bwburke94
Fan4Life wrote: AGMGTW and LKH are not a two-parter, they are officially designated standalones. The system should be official confirmation of status. We can't go by there being TBC as episodes which are obivously not a two-parter have had a TBC and episodes which are two-parters have not. TGWD and TWWL are not a two-parter, they are officially designated as standalones as seen on the official BBC website. FTR is also a standalone. HS and HB are two-parter. FTR cannot be part of a three-parter as it has a different director, a different writer and a different producer. TGWD and TWWL can't be a two-parter, they have different writers and there is little continuation.
The problem is, there is nothing preventing the BBC from changing their minds down the road regarding FTR (and conversely, Utopia) – we need a system that can't retroactively change the status of an episode once its series run is complete.
- Shambala108
Bwburke94 wrote: The problem is, there is nothing preventing the BBC from changing their minds down the road regarding FTR (and conversely, Utopia) – we need a system that can't retroactively change the status of an episode once its series run is complete.
Once again, that is why Tangerineduel's suggestion works the best. It doesn't need lists of qualifications like some of the other suggestions; it's just one simple rule that would be least affected by any BBC changes.
- Bwburke94
I'll repost (and cut down) an earlier post by Amorkuz, in order to detail why Tangerineduel's name-based proposal is incompatible with the state of modern Doctor Who.
As always, any American English spellings from the original post remain intact.
Amorkuz wrote: First of all, I believe most of the proposals discussed all stem from the same ideology: two-parter designation should be based on the production of the episodes and should not depend on contingent factors, including marketing strategies and especially things that can change any moment like new interviews contradicting earlier ones. (I'm not talking about fine print now, but the general intent.)
Name-based approach is a historical and skeptical view. It is historical because the production team consciously decided back in the 60s to start grouping episodes into one story by imposing a common title, decided this after using individual titles for a couple years. It is skeptical because one refuses to trust any potentially contingent indicators, beginning with postfactum interviews and ending with having the same writer (strictly speaking, production blocks were not yet on the table when name-based approach was brought into this forum). And one has to agree that having the same/different writer might be reasonably arbitrary, especially with future-proofing in mind. Nothing prevents the showrunner from ordering two completely different episodes to the same writer.
The PB-based approach, on the other hand, says that there are still unmistakable indicators in the production process: production within the same block, common director, etc. This part was discussed at length, no need to repeat it.
I think the operational considerations can be safely ignored: both suggestions are clearly actionable, and there are plenty of policies on the books that are central to the functioning of this Wiki while being not that simple and not even natural for a novice editor (if you don't believe me, just read through T:DAB again, which by the way still doesn't cover the alternative-universe clause for characters)?
So why am I in favor of PB-based approach? Two reasons:
- It has neither false positives nor false negatives: it does not announce as two-parter something no one considers as such, and it does not announce as standalone episodes those that everyone considers a two-parter. (Special effort was required to achieve this for HS/HB.) By contrast, the name-based approach divorces multiple couples that are uniformly considered as such.
- SOTO pointed out that (at least lately) names of two-parters have actually been connected, just not in the obvious way. To me this is an indication that the current production team is using a more complex naming scheme and is not using the one from the classical series (only specials used Part 1/Part 2, and only once). In other words, applying the proposed name-based approach would mean going against the naming scheme actually used by the producers.
- Fan4Life
We should use sources to determine whether on not episodes are two-parters. On Wikipedia they have used DWM to decide which episodes are two-parters and which are not, DWM counts only "The Magician's Apprentice" / "The Witch's Familiar", "Under the Lake" / "Before the Flood" and "The Zygon Invasion" / "The Zygon Inversion" as two-parters, the other six episodes are counted as standalones, and they have Moffat's agreement and approval for this.
- 2.26.183.190
Using official sources is the best option as it reflects the view of the program makers to be reflected the only problem with using official statements is that the trial of a time lord is often referred to as 4 story’s and one at the same time but is counted as one in official program guides another reason is that the proposed rules can produce false positives as with the 1st two episodes of torchwood and false negatives and the rules would have to change when the why doctor who is filmed and witan for example cris chibnal is already roomed to be introducing a whites room witch may affect how witers are credited and divide up the witting duties wats more wats to stop a two part story being divded between series as happens often in us TV like the star trek episodes best of both worlds parts 1 and 2 witch if doctor who did something similar under the proposed rules whud cunt as two story’s there for using what is stated in official publications is the best policy
- Bwburke94
The initial "A Good Man Goes To War" problem was caused by a misinterpretation of what DWM said regarding "Let's Kill Hitler", so a source-based ruleset would be something like:
- Multiple BBC Wales-era episodes are linked as a multi-part story if all of the following are true:
- 1. They aired consecutively within the same series run, ignoring mini-episodes shorter than 20 minutes
- 2. They are unambiguously stated as a multi-part story by a reliable non-televised source, or they have the same base title excluding "Part One" / "Part Two" or similar designation
However, the arguments over what would constitute a reliable source could lead to debate. What we're trying to achieve here is a set of rules that can't change the status of a story after its series run is over, specifically because of the mess regarding sources on certain episodes.
- Multiple BBC Wales-era episodes are linked as a multi-part story if all of the following are true:
- Fan4Life
Well for Series 9 I say we go by Doctor Who Extra, on DVD there are specific groupings: TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF, TGWD/TWWL, SNM, FTR, HS/HB.
- Bwburke94
We can't just go and pick whatever sources confirm our preferred numbering. DWE hasn't existed for the whole period, so we'd need other sources for earlier series.
- Amorkuz
This is, indeed, the main problem, from my point of view. There are many authorised licensed sources that contradict each other (and sometimes contradict themselves from an earlier time).
Note also that only BBC is the primary source, whereas all others are secondary opinions. And I started asking myself: why should we value the opinion of, say, DWM over that of our whole community? Sure, DWM are experts, but so are some of senior Wikians. We are formulating transparent criteria (whichever will be the decision, we will know it), whereas I'm not sure DWM ever explained why they group stories together and how many people were involved in that decision. And if Moffat/BBC approved/did not disapprove their groupings, shouldn't we then turn to BBC, as the primary source, instead? Naturally, I use DWM here only as an example and mainly because it was mentioned recently.
However, after the mention of DWE, I've realised another thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but DWE is produced by BBC. In other words, we have the primary source confirming that they in principle consider stories with different titles as two-parters.
I'm a bit hesitant to just take their groupings. Apart from the necessity to find sources to cover all series, there is also a danger that these groupings by BBC itself might not be completely consistent.
However, while thinking about different BBC sources, I thought of another possible sanity check. I think it would be completely mad for BBC to release a DVD set that only contains one part of a two-parter. What kind of a two-parter would it be if the second part is not necessary to enjoy the first. It's a bit too late for me to check now, so I don't know if the PB proposal passes this test. (I know the all-single proposal does :) But I thought about this with Good Man and Let's Kill Hitler in mind. And lo and behold, there is a DVD set with the Man but without Hitler. I take it as an independent confirmation that they are separate single episodes. Just to be clear, I do not propose to group things based on DVD releases, but I do propose to make sure that stories are ungrouped if they were released separately.
PS Sorry about AE. I make more effort on the Wiki pages. I hope y'all can live with it.
- Bwburke94
I don't feel the DVD release is enough to say AGMGTW/LKH are not a two-parter... but we have no sources to say that they are, and they were not part of the same series run. (In fact, the split series is the reason they were released separately, so the DVD release really means nothing.)
For reasons stated above, I am against using creator sources as the means to determine two-parter status. We already have a set of proposed rules that provide no false positives/negatives and are future-proof, so I see no reason to not go with the proposal of post #180 once we define once "episode" means.
- Shambala108
As an admin, I will not support any proposal that includes a list of qualifications or requires off-site knowledge about production intent.
For anyone who has ever perused the policy categories, you will see that we have a lot of rules. It's very hard to remember them all, much less search for a specific policy. Any rule we decide to make here has to be not only future-proof (applying to any different production team) but also easy to explain and enforce, especially when it comes to new editors.
- Bwburke94
Why do we even need to number stories post-Survival? Why can't we just restart the count at 1 for Rose and count each episode separately?
The fact is, no reasonable method of numbering stories works without a list of qualifications or off-site knowledge. You're trying to push Tangerineduel's title proposal as a counting method, when what we should really be doing is eschewing the concept of "stories" entirely in BBC Wales-era Doctor Who.
The very fact there is a dispute over what episodes fit together is an indication that modern Who doesn't use the same story format as the classic series, and we shouldn't hold it to the old format when it makes no sense to do so.
- Amorkuz
That modern Who does not use the same story format as the classic series is a hard fact of life, which is completely independent of our disputes. So, in a sense, yes, we are trying to compare oranges and apples... and failing to see the similarity.
If you think of it, actually, BBC itself restarted the count calling it "Series 1" instead of "Season 27", so it would be indeed completely fine if we follow their lead and start numbering episodes from 1. We can also call them differently: say, keeping "story" for the classical series and calling it "episode" for the modern one.
Now, call me weird, but I like to see things resolved. There have been two proposals: SOTO's and Tangerineduel's. The discussion of them has reached something resembling an impasse. It seems to me that BWBurke94's suggestion is a reasonable compromise. It implements Tangerineduel's proposal for the modern series where all the disputes originate from. It respects the production team's point of view by making a clear cut departure from the classical format instead of attempting to recreate it from clues. Will it negate the Bus 200 story? No, because we still have to report it. If some people think that a story is 200th or 150th or 300th and make a big deal about it, we will have to report it. We really do not need to have the same count to state the facts. If we're fine having the UNIT stories happening in the 70s or 80s, "depending on the dating protocols", we should be fine with having the same story numbered 200th or 199th or 205th.
I would be happy to support BWBurke94 suggestion. I still like SOTO's carefully laid theory and would be happy to support it too. But going with a through numbering and denying that episodes were grouped into stories in modern Who just doesn't cling true to me, no matter how convenient and simple it would be.
- Bwburke94
Here's basically what my proposal entails - note that the status quo only changes with regard to Doctor Who, the other programmes are listed for the sake of completeness.
- Primarily produced as serials, and numbered by story:
- 20th century Doctor Who, from #1 An Unearthly Child to #157 Doctor Who (1996). (Note that Shada is counted as #109 and The Trial of a Time Lord is counted as #144.)
- The Sarah Jane Adventures, from #1 Invasion of the Bane to #27 The Man Who Never Was. (Mini-episodes are not included in the count.)
- Primarily produced as individual episodes, and numbered by episode:
- 21st century Doctor Who, from #1 Rose to #130 The Husbands of River Song. (Numbering restarts at #1. Note that The End of Time is two episodes and is counted as #59 and #60. Mini-episodes and animated serials are not included in the count.)
- Torchwood, from #1 Everything Changes to #41 The Blood Line. (Note that Children of Earth is five episodes and is counted as #27 to #31.)
- K9, from #1 Regeneration to #26 The Eclipse of the Korven.
- Numbered entirely as one work:
- K9 and Company
- The animated serial The Infinite Quest
- The animated serial Dreamland
- In addition to the above, in the event mini-episodes are numbered, Space/Time and Pond Life are each counted as if they were released in a single part.
- Primarily produced as serials, and numbered by story:
- 2.26.183.190
Using official sources is the best option as it reflects the view of the program makers to be reflected the only problem with using official statements is that the trial of a time lord is often referred to as 4 story’s and one at the same time but is counted as one in official program guides another reason is that the proposed rules can produce false positives as with the 1st two episodes of torchwood and false negatives and the rules would have to change when the why doctor who is filmed and witan for example cris chibnal is already roomed to be introducing a whites room witch may affect how witers are credited and divide up the witting duties wats more wats to stop a two part story being divded between series as happens often in us TV like the star trek episodes best of both worlds parts 1 and 2 witch if doctor who did something similar under the proposed rules whud cunt as two story’s there for using what is stated in official publications is the best policy
- 2.26.183.190
Using official sources is the best option as it reflects the view of the program makers to be reflected the only problem with using official statements is that the trial of a time lord is often referred to as 4 story’s and one at the same time but is counted as one in official program guides another reason is that the proposed rules can produce false positives as with the 1st two episodes of torchwood and false negatives and the rules would have to change when the why doctor who is filmed and witan for example if a futer show runner introduced a whites room witch may affect how witers are credited and divide up the witting duties wats more wats to stop a two part story being divded between series as happens often in us TV like the star trek episodes best of both worlds parts 1 and 2 witch if doctor who did something similar under the proposed rules whud cunt as two story’s there for using what is stated in official publications is the best policy.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Moffat says in the Series 9 DVD documentary Writing Who episode 10 that Sarah Dollard's script (Face the Raven) is the start of a three parter.
Making it - Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/ Hell Bent - which actually makes sense.
- Bwburke94
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Moffat says in the Series 9 DVD documentary Writing Who episode 10 that Sarah Dollard's script (Face the Raven) is the start of a three parter.
Making it - Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/ Hell Bent - which actually makes sense.
A large portion of this discussion is about how we can't trust production statements on this matter. We've already discussed the Utopia situation, which is very much the same.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Bwburke94 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Moffat says in the Series 9 DVD documentary Writing Who episode 10 that Sarah Dollard's script (Face the Raven) is the start of a three parter.
Making it - Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/ Hell Bent - which actually makes sense.
A large portion of this discussion is about how we can't trust production statements on this matter. We've already discussed the Utopia situation, which is very much the same.
...but Moffat (the Writer) is saying it.
- Bwburke94
How is this any different from what RTD said about Utopia?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Bwburke94 wrote: How is this any different from what RTD said about Utopia?
What did he say? Anyway it's about original intention, given that they had just finished filming when Moffat was interviewed, it makes it true on his behalf.
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: The policy applied almost universally within fandom is that, for the BBC Wales revival, any two episodes which air on consecutive weeks, are written by the same writer and are separated by a "To Be Continued" are part of the same story. Whilst this policy isn't definitive, and does support the classification of occasional three-part stories which have been stated by the writer not to be so, it is a less controversial starting point for TARDIS policy than what we have at the moment.
There is precedent for non-consecutive weeks being a two-parter, but that was only a two-week gap between The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky, and the gap was not a deliberate production decision.
What there is not precedent for is a story sharing no elements with a traditional two-parter to be called a two-parter. Both A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler had previously-on segments, but unlike the traditional two-parters of the era, the previously recapped the entirety of Series 6 rather than the previous episode.
As a sidenote, Utopia had its next-time trailer after the credits similar to other two-parters, so it can be inferred that it is Part 1 of 3.
Utopia is a special case because it's a multi-parter - Captain Jack Harkness/End of Days/Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of Time Lords/Time Crash/Voyage of the Damned. In my book, that's a seven-parter.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: How is this any different from what RTD said about Utopia?
What did he say? Anyway it's about original intention, given that they had just finished filming when Moffat was interviewed, it makes it true on his behalf.
It's not about original intention, it's about what we as a wiki decide will work best on our wiki. We are not owned or controlled by Moffat, Davies, the BBC or anyone else affiliated with the DWU.
- Shambala108
Pluto2 wrote: Utopia is a special case because it's a multi-parter - Captain Jack Harkness/End of Days/Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of Time Lords/Time Crash/Voyage of the Damned. In my book, that's a seven-parter.
Thank you for in a nutshell highlighting the difficulty we are having of establishing what are multi-part stories.
We now have someone who doesn't think Utopia is part of a 3-parter or a stand-alone, but rather a 7-parter.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: How is this any different from what RTD said about Utopia?
What did he say? Anyway it's about original intention, given that they had just finished filming when Moffat was interviewed, it makes it true on his behalf.
It's not about original intention, it's about what we as a wiki decide will work best on our wiki. We are not owned or controlled by Moffat, Davies, the BBC or anyone else affiliated with the DWU.
No but it's nice to respect their intentions, to be honest it is what the writers want. Otherwise fans could say... I don't know... Terror of the Autons and Mind My Minions are a two-parter. We should respect them even if it's slightly.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Utopia is a special case because it's a multi-parter - Captain Jack Harkness/End of Days/Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of Time Lords/Time Crash/Voyage of the Damned. In my book, that's a seven-parter.
Thank you for in a nutshell highlighting the difficulty we are having of establishing what are multi-part stories.
We now have someone who doesn't think Utopia is part of a 3-parter or a stand-alone, but rather a 7-parter.
That made me chuckle he he 😀
- Fan4Life
AGMGTW and LKH are most definitely not a two-parter, they aren't even part of the same run of episodes, AGMGTW is part of Series 6 Part 1, LKH is part of Series 6 Part 2.
I think Series 9 should be grouped as TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF, TGWD/TWWL, TZI/TZI, SNM, FTR/HS/HB. TGWD and TWWL are clearly a two-parter, TGWD has a TBC and a post-credits next time trailer, TGWD and TWWL have linked titles, there is narrative continuation, and they have been repeatedly referred to as a two-parter. FTR, HS and HB are clearly a three-parter, they are all closely connected and lead directly into each other, FTR has a TBC along with a post-credits next time trailer, the previously at the beginning of HB contains footage from both FTR and HS, and the episodes all need each other in order to make sense.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fan4Life wrote: AGMGTW and LKH are most definitely not a two-parter, they aren't even part of the same run of episodes, AGMGTW is part of Series 6 Part 1, LKH is part of Series 6 Part 2.
I think Series 9 should be grouped as TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF, TGWD/TWWL, TZI/TZI, SNM, FTR/HS/HB. TGWD and TWWL are clearly a two-parter, TGWD has a TBC and a post-credits next time trailer, TGWD and TWWL have linked titles, there is narrative continuation, and they have been repeatedly referred to as a two-parter. FTR, HS and HB are clearly a three-parter, they are all closely connected and lead directly into each other, FTR has a TBC along with a post-credits next time trailer, the previously at the beginning of HB contains footage from both FTR and HS, and the episodes all need each other in order to make sense.
Finally an individual who has common sense.
That's exactly how Moffat intended it - so it's how us as a wiki should do it.
- Bwburke94
What we really need isn't determination for Series 9. What we need is a way to handle future series without having this same argument every few years.
- Amorkuz
Completely agree with Bwburke94.
As for what Moffat originally intended, I'm sorry to say but we do not know it and are not likely to learn without mind reading. His words can at best be understood that he wanted us to believe it was a two-parter. His main goal in every interview is to increase the viewership, not bare his soul to us. There is absolutely no reason to believe his post-episode interviews more than his pre-episode interviews, which are full of misdirection.
Just to be clear, this is not a critique of Moffat, just an acknowledgment that his goals are not necessarily aligned with those of this wiki.
- Shambala108
Both BWBurke94 and Amorkuz make valid points. Whatever we decide, it has to apply to every series/season of every show. And we cannot rely on production "intent" because we can't always know that and it's never going to be consistent.
This is not Moffat's wiki; we don't have to use his (or anyone connected with the show) rules. We make our rules to make the editing process as easy, consistent, and sensible as we can.
Most importantly, let me make it perfectly clear that any personal attacks will be removed and the user blocked. It is never acceptable to attack others just because they disagree with your view. For those who haven't read it, Tardis:No personal attacks spells out our policy.
- Bwburke94
We've spent a good chunk of this discussion explaining why producer intent isn't the only thing that matters.
I'd like to re-propose what I said in post #245. There's simply no policy that defines "two-parter" the way fans expect, except if a long list of qualifications is used. This means the easiest way out of this mess is to not define "two-parter" at all, and instead number BBC Wales Doctor Who by episode starting with Rose at #1.
- SOTO
I still think the four rules I outlined above allowed for consistency. Four guidelines to follow, much like at T:VALID, so we don't ever have to go through this mess again.
SOTO wrote: (T:MULTI/T:STORY COUNT should have a different colour to the four little rules, like maybe red, but I ain't got time that now.)
Four rules of the multi-parter[[edit] | [edit source]]
Two or more TV episodes are considered a two- or multi-parter if the following statements are found to be true:
1 The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run. 2 The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them. 3 A minimum of one (1) linking character (see below) is present in all episodes. 4 If a story was broadcast as a serial, rules 2 and 3 need not apply. Finer detail[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- - Specials, such as those aired on Christmas, are not usually included in a consecutive run, with one exception being The End of Time.
- - When a series is divided into two distinct runs, as with series 6 and series 7, those runs are to be considered separately. A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler are not, here, considered consecutive.
- - It is not required that the length of time between episodes is 1 week, though this is usually the case.
- Rule 2: The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them.
- - Episodes may alternately belong to the same serial. More than one director is permitted, as needed, for serials only. As with An Unearthly Child, rule 3 also need not necessarily apply to all episodes in a serial.
- Rule 3: A minimum of one (1) linking character is present in all episodes.
- - A linking character here refers to one who is usually specific to that story. Often, these are guest characters as well.
- - Community discussion may extend this rule to other linking elements, such as setting, but this change will not be adopted if it in any way affects the status of episodes aired before 2016.
- - With regards to this policy, "linking character" means something quite precise:
Linking characters[[edit] | [edit source]]
- - The following statements must be true for a character to qualify to link two or more episodes.
- They must, again, appear in all episodes of the proposed multi-parter.
- They must not also be present in a majority (50%+) of episodes in that series run, nor can they appear in a consecutive run of more than three (3) episodes.
- Characters introduced within the last 10% of an episode's runtime do not add to this count. This is a necessary precaution, as such cliffhanger endings are not always related to multi-parters. These characters are often, though not necessarily always, last in the cast list.
- Thus, those characters like Donna Noble in Doomsday and Santa Claus in Death in Heaven would not count as linking characters, and Winston Churchill is not qualified to link The Beast Below to Victory of the Daleks.
- Missy appears in a majority of series 8 stories, and Kovarian in a majority of series 6a. Jack Harkness in series 1 appears in a continuous run of 5 episodes, while Mickey's in around 60% of series 2. Amy and Rory, as well as Clara, appear in a majority of their respective series runs.
- - It is not required that a linking character be played by the same actor in all appearances.
- - The following statements must be true for a character to qualify to link two or more episodes.
Serials[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Rule 4: If a story was broadcast as a serial, rules 2 and 3 need not apply.
- - Obviously, anything produced and released serially should be considered a single multi-part story. Sometimes, due to a variety of issues, different directors have directed different parts of the same story. Thus, any number of episodes which follow each other in a consecutive run, and which were clearly intended to be a serial, are considered multi-part stories, regardless of whether or not the director and linking character clauses are met.
- - Regardless of recording blocks, even in 1960s Doctor Who, a single serial is a single multi-part story, and multiple serials are never combined in that fashion.
- - Beyond pre-1996 Doctor Who, almost all TV stories of The Sarah Jane Adventures were serialised, and combined as such, and series 3 and 4 of Torchwood were both serialised as well, as Children of Earth and Miracle Day, respectively. Thus, COE and MD are each one story with multiple parts, and this is reflected in story counts.
Further details[[edit] | [edit source]]
- - If two or more episodes are said in official statements, by either the BBC or an executive producer in charge of the series, to make up a multi-part story, and those episodes do not qualify as such by our four rules, community discussion may be necessary to expand on these three rules. Such an expansion may not affect the multi-part status of any episodes aired before 2016, or it will not be approved.
- - Amendment 2.1: In light of the unique case of Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, the community has decided to expand rule 2 to also allow for two episodes, each alone in individual production blocks, with a maximum of one (1) episode produced in between, to also be considered a two-part story, as this is simply a case of double banking.
- - Amendment 3.1: In the odd case that one or more of the episodes has no characters, besides the Doctor and/or his companion(s), in a speaking role at all, and sufficient production evidence exists that those episodes are a multi-parter, a community discussion may decide to count those as a multi-parter, again through official statements by the BBC/executive producer, if those episodes also meet the requirements of rules 1 and 2.
TV stories considered multi-part by these rules[[edit] | [edit source]]
BBC Wales Doctor Who[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Aliens of London / World War Three
- The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances
- Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways
- Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel
- The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit
- Army of Ghosts / Doomsday
- Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks
- Human Nature / The Family of Blood
- The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords
- The Sontaran Stratagem / The Poison Sky
- Silence in the Library / Forest of the Dead
- The Stolen Earth / Journey's End
- The End of Time Parts 1 and 2
- The Time of Angels / Flesh and Stone
- The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood
- The Pandorica Opens / The Big Bang
- The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon
- The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People
- Dark Water / Death in Heaven
- The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar
- Under the Lake / Before the Flood
- The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived (different writers, but this has no bearing on our rules)
- The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion
- Heaven Sent / Hell Bent
- Heaven Sent has no speaking characters besides the Doctor, so BBC statements as to production intent qualify here according to amendment 3.1, under further details above.
1963 Doctor Who[[edit] | [edit source]]
- All, except for The Five Doctors and another that's not coming to me. The TV Movie, if considered part of classic Who, also does not contain multiple parts.
Torchwood[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Everything Changes / Day One (linking character: Andy)
- Captain Jack Harkness / End of Days (even airs on same day)
- Dead Man Walking / A Day in the Death (different writers, but this has no bearing on our rules)
- Children of Earth is a five-part serial, from Day One to Day Five, all directed by Euros Lyn.
- Torchwood: Miracle Day is a multi-part story. It has multiple directors, but was not produced in production blocks. Because Children of Earth is a clearer case of serialhood, Miracle Day is classified as one too for consistency. Indeed, this line of thinking is apparently confirmed by certain statements made by Russell T Davies, in TM 17 calling "one continuous story", which he hoped series 4 would be, something very different from "13 one-part stories", or "13 one-offs".
The Sarah Jane Adventures[[edit] | [edit source]]
- As with classic Who, all SJA stories but one are serials. (A modern DW equivalent is The End of Time)
K9[[edit] | [edit source]]
- None. All 26 episodes of K9 are standalone stories.
K9 and Company[[edit] | [edit source]]
- None. Not in this universe, anyway.
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- SOTO
And as an update regarding Class, this would make Co-Owner of a Lonely Heart and Brave-ish Heart a two-parter, while Detained and The Metaphysical Engine, or What Quill Did remain individual stories, as we treat them now.
Despite having the same director, they barely even have the main cast in common, certainly no guest actors. In fact, the best comparison to Doctor Who here is the original double banked episodes. So Love & Monsters and The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, and Blink and Human Nature/The Family of Blood. You have one episode (Detained) that's "Quill-lite" and one that's "student-lite" (Metaphysical).
And if the "common setting" amendment seems like stretching the simple rule, it's no loss to consider Heaven Sent and Hell Bent separate. Even the director Rachel Talalay spoke in one interview (uploaded on the wiki somewhere) about how those two were so very different stories. It seems more like a The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived case, where there's a linking element and similar titles, but totally separate plots. Anyway, we shouldn't squabble over individual stories. We want rules that are clear, and then we want to stick to those.
- Bwburke94
Shambala108 has already stated a list of qualifications is too complex, hence my non-solution solution of not defining "two-parter" at all.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: And if the "common setting" amendment seems like stretching the simple rule, it's no loss to consider Heaven Sent and Hell Bent separate.
It seems more like a The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived case, where there's a linking element and similar titles, but totally separate plots. Anyway, we shouldn't squabble over individual stories. We want rules that are clear, and then we want to stick to those.
Under your list of qualifications, TGWD/TWWL would be an unambiguous two-parter despite the separate plots... exactly what we intended to prevent with AGMGTW.
With that being said, TGWD/TWWL has more of a case as a two-parter than either AGMGTW link does.
- SOTO
Well no, my list of qualifications is four-fold. I just elaborated further underneath to make sure all terms are clear.
- SOTO
I really just explained the four little two-parter rules, just like there's more detailed explanations at T:VALID, to make sure they're understood and followed correctly.
- SOTO
With some distance now, I'd say get rid of all the ammendments. The remainder of the text is describing the terms of the four rules. Why recurring characters can't be linking characters, why brief cameos at the end don't count, and why episodes with months in between can't be consecutive. And how serials don't have to follow those rules, as they have their own separate set of circumstances. Really just common sense stuff, but I wanted to make it all clear.
I could easily shorten the whole thing.
- SOTO
And you are correct that Girl and Woman are unambiguously a two-parter by my rules; I had misremembered.
Regardless, it's probably for the best anyway to keep Heaven and Hell apart, because it will always lead to editors coming along wanting to save Face.
- Bwburke94
This was for the "save Face" pun, wasn't it?
- SOTO
Four rules of the multi-parter[[edit] | [edit source]]
Two or more TV episodes are considered a two- or multi-parter if the following statements are found to be true:
1 The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run. 2 The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them. 3 A minimum of one (1) linking character is present in all episodes. 4 If a story was broadcast as a serial, rules 2 and 3 need not apply. Finer detail[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- - Specials, such as those aired on Christmas, are not usually included in a consecutive run, as standalone specials, with the one exception being The End of Time.
- - When a series is divided into two distinct runs, as with series 6 and series 7, those runs are to be considered separately.
- - It is not required that the length of time between episodes is 1 week, though this is usually the case.
- Rule 2: The episodes belong to the same production block, with the same director in charge of all of them.
- Rule 3: A minimum of one (1) linking character is present in all episodes. A linking character may not be present in a majority of episodes (50%+) in that series run, and those only appearing at the end (last 10% of episode) do not count.
- Rule 4: If a story was broadcast as a serial, it can have different directors or lack a linking character in some episodes without affecting its serial status. Recording blocks are ignored for Hartnell serials. These rules really apply to those stories which are not serialised.
- Rule 1: The episodes follow each other directly in broadcast, within a consecutive run.
- SOTO
Bwburke94 wrote: This was for the "save Face" pun, wasn't it?
Oh yeah, my plan all along. In all seriousness, this has been going on for over a year now, and I do genuinely feel my proposal is not only adequate, but the best we've got from a year's worth of discussion on this.
Then if we ever question in the future whether or not something is a two-parter, we don't need another year-long discussion, because we can just look to the four rules, and see immediately if it passes. We don't even search to look for quotes on production intent for this.
And again, we're not defining two-parters for fandom or for any individuals any more than we define canon; we're making editing easier for ourselves by keeping things consistent. Anyone is free to consider anything a two-parter, or a sixteen-parter for all I care, as long as we stick to our guns here.
- 95.150.111.115
As long as individual episodes have their own page then wats the point of these kinds of rules also as much as editors think the rules of this wiki don't define canon or what is or isn't a mult parter it should be noted that not everyone who visit this wiki is completely familiar with all of doctor who or follows these discussions or questions why this wiki is the whay it is and just takes what the articles say as the only word on the issue I know I did this especially with early Comice and novels from before the new series
- Fan4Life
I am happy with these rules, but with the addition of having the same writer. Two episodes cannot be a two-parter if they have different writers.
If we go by these four rules (without a rule of having the same writer), AGMGTW and LKH aren't a two-parter as they have different directors and were produced separately, and also HS and HB aren't a two-parter as they too were produced separately (HS is block 6 and HB is block 8). If a rule of having the same writer is included, only TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF and TZI/TZI are two-parters in Series 9, TGWD and TWWL aren't a two-parter as they don't have the same writer.
Even though it wouldn't fit with the rules, I think "Utopia", TSOD and LOTTL should remain together as they are a confirmed three-parter by RTD himself.
- Pluto2
Fan4Life wrote: I am happy with these rules, but with the addition of having the same writer. Two episodes cannot be a two-parter if they have different writers.
If we go by these four rules (without a rule of having the same writer), AGMGTW and LKH aren't a two-parter as they have different directors and were produced separately, and also HS and HB aren't a two-parter as they too were produced separately (HS is block 6 and HB is block 8). If a rule of having the same writer is included, only TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF and TZI/TZI are two-parters in Series 9, TGWD and TWWL aren't a two-parter as they don't have the same writer.
Even though it wouldn't fit with the rules, I think "Utopia", TSOD and LOTTL should remain together as they are a confirmed three-parter by RTD himself.
I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked, they are a multi-parter. This would make Utopia, Drums, Time Lords, Time Crash, and Damned a multi-parter.
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote: I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked...
With all due respect, the preceding 275 posts were devoted to defining what it means to be narratively linked, or, to be more precise, to be "sufficiently narratively linked" because otherwise, we would have to consider most of Moffat's era one gigantic multi-parter.
Since it's been a long time, I repeat my position. I understand the reasoning behind the simplified proposal of Bwburke94 and Shambala108: if we cannot agree on what "narratively linked" means, let's not use it at all and go by the name (nominalistic proposal). And I would agree to that as the second best option.
I do, however, believe that two-parters existed in the new series, so it would be preferable to acknowledge that. The question is whether SOTO's simplified suggestion of four unadjusted rules is being considered by the proponents of nominalistic approach. If not, there would be little point discussing whether the writer should be the same or not. However, it feels to me that this step towards simplification is worth 1) fleshing out as a list of all two-parters under it and 2) re-evaluation by those who opposed the more involved rules.
- Shambala108
This discussion is extremely long, over 300 posts (I can't even get to the bottom on my Ipad without it crashing), and we've had quite a few new faces chiming in lately, so I'm going to sum up what we are trying to do here.
We are trying to decide how to determine whether an episode is part of a multi-parter. Sometimes we stray into a discussion about numbering stories, but that's really only a subset of this one. Whatever we decide on the multi-parts will affect our numbering system (if we decide to keep it).
There are two basic facets of this discussion (any decision must take both of these into account):
- What do we do about stories/series that have already aired.
- What do we do about future episodes.
For #1, we have to look at things we are given by the production team and decide as a wiki how we define what a multi-part story is. This will affect story numbering on List of Doctor Who television stories and other similar pages and in infoboxes, and it can affect the leads of story pages (some of which have statements like "story X is the yth episode of series Z").
For #2, we have to make sure we define multi-parters in such a way as to minimize any chance of having to re-hash this discussion for later series (we call this future-proofing).
This entire discussion really only affects BBC Wales Doctor Who and Class (and possibly Torchwood series 1 & 2) for now. SJA already has multi-parters clearly defined; K-9 doesn't have multi-parters, and Torchwood series 3 & 4 have been covered in forum decisions that will not be affected by this decision. We do not need to make concessions for classic Who, because they are not a part of this process.
- Shambala108
When I look at the suggestions being made here, I am looking at them from a certain point of view.
Most users don't realize that we have maybe half a dozen users who regularly do clean-up work. It's tedious, and not as interesting as adding new content, so few users really bother with it except in an occasional way. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to have 500+ edits in one day (today, for example). It is just physically impossible to keep up with all the errors that might be made, and new users are especially prone to making errors because they are unfamiliar with our rules. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure how many users read policies when suggested to them by admins or experienced users.
Whenever we are trying to make a decision, I always consider ease of enforcement and administration, since I'm one of the few doing regular clean-up. This wiki is huge: we have a 50+ year old universe, with several TV series, audio stories, comic stories, prose stories, real world pages for production, etc etc etc.
The simplest, easiest to enforce rule is always best. A rule that needs multiple qualifiers is not simple. Sometimes we have no choice, but when we do, I will always go for the simpler rule.
Therefore, I can't agree with any rule that has multiple qualifiers or relies on some editor knowing production blocks. We can't use production intent because, first we'd have to define who counts (showrunner, story writer?), and second, because they can and do contradict each other and themselves. Using narrative continuation? Well, we've got one person here who suggests that Utopia, TSOD and LOTTL are part of a 7-parter. And that's just one example of disagreement over the suggested guidelines. We can't use any guideline that requires user judgement.
- Bwburke94
To clarify some of the misinformation here: I am not suggesting we go by name. I suggest that for BBC Wales Doctor Who, we avoid defining "story" altogether and instead count each episode separately.
The main difference between my proposal and Tangerineduel/Shambala108's proposal is that I count The End of Time as two separate episodes, whereas Tangerineduel/Shambala108 combine them into one story.
In my view, counting only TEOT as a two-parter gives the view that nothing else is a two-parter. If we count by episode, we should acknowledge that TEOT consists of two episodes.
And as for Planet of the Dead, we already don't have it as a pure #200 so we should list that nod as "according to RTD's numbering" or similar.
- SOTO
I just lost my entire response, so I'll do my best to paraphrase. If it's felt that production blocks are not information easily accessible to editors (which I might not agree with, necessarily), I doubt it would make much of a difference, if any, if we set that aside and required only that the stories share the same director, and be broadcast consecutively (still with a linking character, of course.)
(Rule 4 merely says that classic Who and SJA/TW S3-4 are comprised of serials, and the first 3 rules do not apply to their designations. That does not need to be its own rule, narrowing it down to 3.)
But I do feel it's still an important distinction to make. We judge stories' two-parteriness by hard real world evidence, with no room left at all for speculation or conflicting sources. No official statements made will get us to go against the rules set forth.
And it's quite simple, basic stuff, too. Were they directed together, by the same person? Did they have supporting cast in common? Were they broadcast side-by-side? If yes to these very simple questions, it counts.
And they were not drawn out arbitrarily; historically, these are the constant traits of a multi-partner in BBC Wales Doctor Who and related spin-offs. Again, really really simple stuff. I could even make a table with Xs for rules passed, so readers can see why certain combinations pass and others don't.
I just really, really don't want this to continue to be open territory, decided every time on a whim. I don't want us to need to have more long discussions. We are never going to find any other system which allows us to classify multi-parters without allowing for copious amounts of blurry subjectivity. Yes, it requires three qualifications for each story to pass, (fewer in number to our rules for validity, and far easier to answer) but there is no arguing to be had. My suggested rules deal with hard data, and nothing more.
To respond to some quotes above:
- Even though it wouldn't fit with the rules, I think...
And this is why we need clear rules. Solid, no-exception guidelines to follow.
- I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked, they are a multi-parter. This would make Utopia, Drums, Time Lords, Time Crash, and Damned a multi-parter.
Again, precisely what we're trying to avoid. Narrative should play no role in such a decision, because there is nothing objective to go by. No yes or no; only opinions and grey areas. We can't consider episodes aired in totally separate runs part of the same one story just because some editors feel they're continuous, so they must be. Pretty much all of series 5 is continuous; we've been over this.
- ...the preceding 275 posts were devoted to defining what it means to be narratively linked...
Again, something I feel we cannot hope to define
- However, it feels to me that this step towards simplification is worth 1) fleshing out as a list of all two-parters under it...
I made such a list the last time, and quoted it above. That list remains unchanged, except for the removal of Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, which have no linking character between them.
And really, we were only fooled into wanting those to be together because of the naming. Production-wise, they have little in common except for a shared director, but the first three episodes of Class share a director, and are pretty continuous, yet are three separate stories.
- Shambala108
Bwburke94 wrote: The main difference between my proposal and Tangerineduel/Shambala108's proposal is that I count The End of Time as two separate episodes, whereas Tangerineduel/Shambala108 combine them into one story.
User:Tangerineduel and I don't combine them into one story. The wiki has already decided they're one story, because they are on one page, just like all (but one) of the SJA stories.
How can we justify calling (for example) The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords a two-parter, but keep them on separate pages, when both parts of the two-parter The End of Time are on the same page?
- Bwburke94
Shambala108 wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: The main difference between my proposal and Tangerineduel/Shambala108's proposal is that I count The End of Time as two separate episodes, whereas Tangerineduel/Shambala108 combine them into one story.
User:Tangerineduel and I don't combine them into one story. The wiki has already decided they're one story, because they are on one page, just like all (but one) of the SJA stories.
How can we justify calling (for example) The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords a two-parter, but keep them on separate pages, when both parts of the two-parter The End of Time are on the same page?
I'm not defining "story" at all. My proposal is that we number BBC Wales Doctor Who by episode, rather than by story. There's a simple reason for that.
- 1. The "building block", so to speak, of BBC Wales Doctor Who is the episode. This is in contrast to 1963-89 Doctor Who, where the "building block" was the serial.
- 2. If we judge The End of Time to be a singular 135-minute story, it can and will be inferred that we consider Aliens of London and World War Three (etc) to be two standalone episodes. It's fairly clear to all involved that they were produced as one story - even if some other cases like Utopia and Face the Raven might not have been.
- 3. This discussion, after all is said and done, is about numbering. I'll counter your argument: how can we justify numbering The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords as BBC Wales #40/#41 but The End of Time as BBC Wales #60?
- 1. The "building block", so to speak, of BBC Wales Doctor Who is the episode. This is in contrast to 1963-89 Doctor Who, where the "building block" was the serial.
- SOTO
If we were hypothetically to count entirely based on episodes, and not stories, I feel we'd have no choice but to count The End of Time as both #60 and #61 (if those are indeed the numbers). It was two episodes. I am of course not advocating splitting the page, as it's rather akin to an SJA serial, but we could not—logically—count episodes of every other two-parter as separate, but not the two episodes of TEOT.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: If we were hypothetically to count entirely based on episodes, and not stories, I feel we'd have no choice but to count The End of Time as both #60 and #61 (if those are indeed the numbers). It was two episodes. I am of course not advocating splitting the page, as it's rather akin to an SJA serial, but we could not—logically—count episodes of every other two-parter as separate, but not the two episodes of TEOT.
We're at a standstill as to what constitutes a "story" – is there any better option for numbering?
- SOTO
I still don't see why we have to abandon two-parters. They've been clearly established for the last 11 years of new Doctor Who. We don't have to have the same numbering as DWM, or match up with RTD's conception of episode 200, but I think it's a bit mad to just pretend multi-part stories don't exist in the new series.
Aside from yourself, advocating for forgoing multi-part stories I believe, and Shambala, my suggestions have not met any objections. Obviously it's significant that they have met with objections, but it certainly shouldn't be disregarded completely just because some people in the current discussion disagree with it.
Incidentally—what's the rationale against having a clearly set out rule, aside from it having three parts? Is that about the gist of the argument?
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: Incidentally—what's the rationale against having a clearly set out rule, aside from it having three parts? Is that about the gist of the argument?
Ask Shambala108. I had no part in that decision.
- SOTO
Just to be clear, there has been no decision. This thread is still ongoing. If you don't even oppose my suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong; I may be misinterpreting your message), then that means right now only Shambala opposes it. Remember, we're building policy here, or at least I hope we will. A year on, we still haven't reached any sort of consensus in any direction. Now we're hearing some new voices, I hope we can move forward a bit.
I am personally against forgoing two-parters altogether just because some users over time will disagree with how we define them, or because it would involve actually having a rule. As has been mentioned, they clearly exist. Even though the "episode" is the main new series unit, many do not at all stand alone.
- Shambala108
I feel like I need to clarify a few points.
I am not against a "simple" or "clearly set out" rule. I just haven't seen that on this thread. Too many qualifiers, too many disagreements about definition. You know what would be a simple rule? If an episode ends with "to be continued", then it's a two-parter. If it doesn't, it isn't. That's how this whole discussion started — what to do with supposed two-parters without the TBC. And that's where all the disagreements come from — what are the supposed two-parters. There are too many disagreements about which stories are two-parters and how we should define a two-parter.
"My" idea is not my idea. It was suggested by User:Tangerineduel (our senior bureaucrat) and supported by User:Skittles the hog (an admin since 2011) and myself (admin since 2013). Does it really matter to the day-to-day functioning of this wiki to be able to call something a two-parter? Why can't we just put a comment in the lead of each story like "This story continues in the next episode" or "This story continues from the previous episode".
- Amorkuz
Some (potentially) not-very-helpful musings.
I think I understand where the difficulty stems from. What I and many others (judging by their wording) would like to see is a numbering/multiparter definition that respects narrative continuity. And such continuities do exist in pure form, giving us a clear idea of what we want. A typical example is a story where the Doctor loses the TARDIS at the beginning, stays in one place, resolves the problem and then leaves without looking back.
But this vision meets a rude awakening at the more subtly interconnected stories. The blurred boundaries between narratives in the recent years rightfully lead to the idea of not using the narrative as a determining factor at all. Thus, appear the suggestions based on purely formal criteria, e.g., name, production specifics, "to be continued" ending, etc. While different in shape, they all share one thing in common: they necessarily go against the narrative feelings many of us have, sometimes very strong feelings. I say necessarily because production is affected by things not related to narrative, for instance, "to be continued" was clearly added to end-of-season episodes a couple of times as a marketing device.
So the tension is between undefinable vague subjective ideal on the one hand and deterministic bureaucratic approach on the other. Perhaps, a simple deterministic criterion can be adjusted to approach the general ballpark of the ideal sufficiently to gain consensus from the idealists (SOTO got me agreeing), but the price is the complexity of the adjustments and adjustments within adjustments.
How can we bridge the gap? Maybe we can't and then the name of the story seems the best simple bureaucratic approach (given that both parts of The End of Time are on the same page). But if we are to bridge the gap, I see only one way: by approximating it from both sides. If a rule is too simple, one needs to come up with a clear example why this simplicity goes against the narrative common sense. If a rule is too complex, it is a reasonable idea to try and simplify it.
Let me try. If an episode ends with "to be continued", then it's a two-parter is a simple rule but I want to argue it is a bit too simple. One of the examples I see as bad is The Name of the Doctor, mentioned at the beginning of this thread. It has "to be continued" leading into The Day of the Doctor. But both are specials, so no continuous run, and there is barely anything narratively in common between the two. To my mind, it goes against the common sense to combine them into a two-parter.
- SOTO
And I'm not even sure that "to be continued" is positively used anymore on cases that are clearly two-parters. Co-Owner of a Lonely Heart just ends on a cliffhanger and then goes straight to a next time, but it is more than clearly a two-parter with the following episode.
"To be continued" has also been used inappropriately, in an effort to get audiences to anticipate the Christmas special, which never belongs to the same story thus far and does not even belong to the same run.
But if we are to take that approach seriously for a few minutes, Heaven Sent does not have a "to be continued" into the following episode, and so Heaven/Hell does not count in either system. The Girl Who Died does have a "to be continued", and so those two are a two parter according to both systems.
But then we split off at a crucial point in 2007: if we go by the existence of such a title card at the end, Utopia > The Sound of Drums > Last of the Time Lords > Voyage of the Damned is necessarily a four-parter. The Runaway Bride probably gets tied on to the series 2 finale, as well, though I haven't checked.
I can see that it's simple, but "to be continued" is not used every time every other grain of evidence points towards a two-parter, and it's often used inappropriately where it makes no sense for the following episode to be part 2 or 3 (or 4) of the same story.
You know what, if this was 2006 or 2007, I might have agreed that, while not very nuanced, using "to be continued" as the only clue is sufficient. But we're way past that point now. Things are not nearly so consistent, either from a narrative point of view or with regards to the production choice of whether to slap "to be continued" at the end.
We have no promise that "to be continued" will be continued. Class didn't use it at all. Torchwood did not employ it for its series 1 finale; Dead Man Walking doesn't next time into A Day in the Death; nor does Fragments next time into Exit Wounds. In future series of Doctor Who, as well, they might forgo its use under new direction. I think we need a stance that will last us, and that doesn't just apply to the Doctor Who (specifically) production team of a certain range of years.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote:
- I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked, they are a multi-parter. This would make Utopia, Drums, Time Lords, Time Crash, and Damned a multi-parter.
Again, precisely what we're trying to avoid. Narrative should play no role in such a decision, because there is nothing objective to go by. No yes or no; only opinions and grey areas. We can't consider episodes aired in totally separate runs part of the same one story just because some editors feel they're continuous, so they must be. Pretty much all of series 5 is continuous; we've been over this.
How is it not objective? Last of the Time Lords leads directly into Time Crash, as the latter is set during the final scene of the former. Meanwhile, both end with the Titanic crashing into the TARDIS, which is where Voyage of the Damned picks up.
- Amorkuz
What does "leads directly" exactly mean? Almost every serial of the classic series leads directly into the next serial, but we do not consider them one story. The Parting of the Ways leads directly into The Christmas Invasion by way of regeneration. Should we consider two-parters with no common Doctor among them?
- SOTO
And that's exactly why we can't consider all continuous events one story. The Beast Below leads directly into Victory of the Daleks as well, but those are two separate stories.
If you look at the production side of things, The Christmas Invasion was directed by James Hawes, while The Parting of the Ways was directed by Joe Ahearne. (Not to mention they don't belong to the same run, either.) And don't forget you'd have to make those a three-parter to allow for the Children in Need Special.
Utopia was directed by Graeme Harper. The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords was directed by Colin Teague. Time Crash was directed by Graeme Harper. Voyage of the Damned was directed by James Strong.
And even in vague terms of the "story", a story is something that is not just continuous narratively, but generally is also organised in terms of a beginning, middle and end. While the Doctor experiences all those stories one after the other, there's no narrative progression overarching the whole thing. Imagine reading all those stories together as a book. You have this nice conclusion to the story, and then suddenly this whole other thing is going on in the final chapters that has nothing to do with the overall plot of the novel.
- Bwburke94
A potential "TBC is automatic if it does not end a series" rule would turn A Good Man Goes to War into the finale of a three-parter. It continues narratively from The Almost People, but most certainly isn't part of the same story.
This thread was spun off from the original AGMGTW + Let's Kill Hitler thread because we needed to define "two-parter" for numbering purposes. Because we have so many proposals here, we now need to finalise this discussion.
My own proposal (limited to Doctor Who; the spinoffs are a different matter) is as follows:
- The original series is numbered by serial: #1 An Unearthly Child to #157 Doctor Who (1996). (Shada and The Trial of a Time Lord are each numbered as one serial. Trial is considered to be a single serial consisting of four stories.)
- The BBC Wales series is numbered by episode: #1 Rose and onward. (The End of Time is numbered as two episodes, despite both episodes having the same title.)
- This wiki will not officially attempt to define what serials/episodes are part of a multi-part story, except in the cases provided above. (Discussion among members of the wiki on this matter is expressly allowed, provided no TV story article is edited in such a manner that it would violate T:BOUND.)
- Two or more serials/episodes, aired consecutively as part of the same series run, may be cited together on in-universe pages when recapping a continuous narrative of events taking place across all cited episodes. (This rule states what is allowed, not what isn't allowed. Nothing in this rule is intended to take precedence over T:CITE.)
As an example of this last rule, take this passage from The Master's article. This is a valid citation under both the existing rules and my proposal, because both episodes are part of the same continuous narrative:
- Travelling back to the end of the universe, the Master contacted the Toclafane, the childlike, vicious cyborg remnants of the humans who had never found Utopia. He made an agreement to allow the Toclafane to escape extinction and live anew in the past, with the paradox machine preventing them from changing their own history. (TV: The Sound of Drums, Last of the Time Lords)
- Fan4Life
The clear, indisputable and, most importantly, official multi-parters in the revived series are:
Series 1
Aliens of London / World War Three
The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances
Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways
Series 2
Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel
The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit
Army of Ghosts / Doomsday
Series 3
Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks
Human Nature / The Family of Blood
Utopia / The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords
Series 4
The Sontaran Stratagem / The Poison Sky
Silence in the LIbrary / Forest of the Dead
The Stolen Earth / Journey's End
Series 5
The Time of Angels / Flesh in Stone
The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood
The Pandorica Opens / The Big Bang
Series 6
The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon
The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People
Series 7
None (all episodes are officially standalones)
Series 8
Dark Water / Death in Heaven
Series 9
The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar
Under the Lake / Before the Flood
The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion
Prior to Series 9, everything was clear cut. In Series 9, only TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF and TZI/TZI are clear two-parters, TGWD and TWWL are down to interpretation, and so are FTR, HS and HB. Some people consider TGWD and TWWL are two-parter, some people don't, some people consider FTR, HS and HB a three-parter, some people consider HS and HB a two-parter, and some consider them to be standalones. AGMGTW and LKH are official standalones, TGWD and TWWL aren't officially designated as a two-parter, and FTR, HS and HB aren't offically designated as a three-parter or a two-parter. Only the multi-parters listed above are officially designated, and therefore only they should be listed as such.
- SOTO
Where's your sources for these "official" two-parters? You say they're indisputable, but many have certainly disputed Utopia being included with the following episodes. It is the only one on your list to have a different director to the others in its supposed multi-part story, for one thing.
- Bwburke94
Utopia is not by any means indisputable. I dispute it.
- Fan4Life
RTD said Utopia was separate prior to broadcast, but after broadcast, people started to call Utopia, TSOD and LOTL a three-parter and RTD did the same. Also, Planet of the Dead was described in issue #407 of DWM as the 200th story, if Utopia, TSOD and LOTL were not a three-parter, then the 200th story would be The Next Doctor. Look, prior to Series 9, we all know what episodes are multi-parters. It is well sourced, and disputing them is arguing for arguing's sake, I don't need to provide sources for things that are years in the past and have never been disputed.
- SOTO
DWM's story numbers are only one account, not the ultimate official source on the matter.
- Amorkuz
Fan4Life wrote: RTD said Utopia was separate prior to broadcast, but after broadcast, people started to call Utopia, TSOD and LOTL a three-parter and RTD did the same.
Your own description shows that the issue has been disputed from the get-go between two experts in the matter: Russell T. Davies and Russell T. Davies. That's hardly "indisputable" in my book.
In fact, this is a perfect example of why production team's intent cannot be the only determining factor. If we are to believe RTD, then he intended Utopia to be a stand-alone story. But, upon seeing the finished product, he apparently decided that his intent was not realised. Personally I have hard time deciding which RTD was right.
That is why we need well-argued objective criteria rather than sources, no matter how well placed and officially licensed they might be.
- Shambala108
Fan4Life wrote: The clear, indisputable and, most importantly, official multi-parters in the revived series are:
Anyone who has read this thread knows that there is nothing indisputable about the multi-parters.
Ok, so RTD says something is part of a multi-parter. What if Moffat says the opposite? Whose statement do we use? The writer of the episodes? Or the current showrunner? This is why we don't want to use production information. Like I've said above, these guys not only contradict each other, they sometimes even contradict themselves. We need something that we decide on as a wiki, not rely on an ever-changing production team.
- Fan4Life
What's even the point of having this discussion when all any of you accept is your opinion, the multi-parters I listed are indisputable, stop arguing for arguing's sake.
- Bwburke94
This thread is long enough that I'm not sure everyone's read the whole thing.
- Amorkuz
Fan4Life wrote:
all any of you accept is your opinionPersonally I am ready to consider and have been considering and evaluating any opinion or system that is supplied with a rational justification. Shambala108, BWburke94, SOTO and many others have explained their reasoning and in many cases provided both positive and negative examples. What I am not ready to consider is an opinion provided with no justification other than the already disproved claim that everyone agrees with this opinion. No matter how many times one claims it to be indisputable, the already demonstrated examples that it has been disputed here and elsewhere are not going to disappear. Perhaps, you could justify your opinion after all, just like everyone before you did.
- Bwburke94
Fan4Life wrote: What's even the point of having this discussion when all any of you accept is your opinion, the multi-parters I listed are indisputable, stop arguing for arguing's sake.
We're not arguing for arguing's sake. The point of this discussion is that there is simply no single definition of "multi-part story", so we have to come up with some sort of solution.
Most importantly, once a series run has finished airing, nothing should be able to change the status of an episode. This is why official statements fail to solve the problem, because they are often vague and we'll have editors adding their opinions on what RTD or Moffat actually said. This thread began with such a dispute, regarding what Moffat said of Let's Kill Hitler.
- 213.205.253.107
Personally I find the post broadcast stamants more accurate and less vague than pre brocades due to the need to avoid spoilers as every plot point that connects utopia and TSOTD and LOTTL can Easley be considered a spoiler
- Bob Dallas
It is pretty messed up... Region 1 DVDs list Classic Who as stories no 1-159 (Shada being 109 and Trial being split into 4 parts). But I think is better to list them as 1-156 (without Shada and Trial being a story or serial , whatever is called).
As for the new series, I believe Utopia is a standalone story because it has a different director opposite to The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords. Yet the Series 4 finale can be listed as a three-parter because it has the same director throughout its 3 episodes and Planet of the Dead will still be the 200th story. As for A Good Man Goes To War and Let's Kill Hitler, they are 2 different stories because they have 2 different directors and different tone/plot whatsoever. Heaven Sent/Hell Bent are one story because it has one director and Face to Raven is a different story which leads to Heaven Sent/Hell Bent. That's my opinion. P.S. My english is not that good because I'm not a native speaker , but I'm doing my best for you to understand what I'm saying.
- Bwburke94
Bob Dallas wrote: Yet the Series 4 finale can be listed as a three-parter because it has the same director throughout its 3 episodes and Planet of the Dead will still be the 200th story.
Planet of the Dead as 200 has nothing to do with this. Placing Turn Left as part 1 of a three-parter but not doing the same for Utopia simply makes no sense.
- Bob Dallas
Well, I thought Planet of the Dead is the official no. 200 story.
- Bob Dallas
Oops, I might have misunderstood.
- Bob Dallas
Apologies for my 3rd consecutive reply (but I'm on my phone and I do not know how to edit my previous posts). My point was that if RTD decided Utopia isn't part of a three parter, then we should follow his statement. I very well know that Utopia is linked storywise by The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords but there are several other stories "linked" such as Mission to the Unknown with The Daleks' Master Plan. As for Turn Left, it has the same director, it has a cliffhanger which leads to Journey's End and it feels like the beggining of the finale by explaining why Rose can travel between worlds.
- 95.147.32.223
Personally I see utopian as part 1 of 3 because multiple plot points throughout the episode connect to the larger story and are necessary to understand sound of the drums /last of the time lords. While the cliff-hanger for a story like turn left is not relevant to most of the episode and is not essential to understanding the following episode. When it comes to directors or writers I don’t fell it is essential to have the same one credited on all episodes as there are many reasons for part one and two may have different directors or writers like reshoots ,rewrites ,health problems, technical requirements of the episode or just a desire to dived the work load between multiple people.
- Bob Dallas
I completely agree with you but every 2-parter from the new series has the same director, that's why I divided Utopia from The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords.
- Bwburke94
I think a new thread might be necessary, because this page is a bit too long at this point.
This discussion and its predecessor have taken some turns over the last seventeen months, and I doubt anyone new to the discussion truly understands everything that's been said.
- 95.147.32.223
not shore if this brakes spoiler policy but it affect this topic <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> which is exactly the concern I've rased about one of the proposals in this discussion
- Shambala108
not shore if this brakes spoiler policy but it affect this topic <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> which is exactly the concern I've rased about one of the proposals in this discussion
- 95.147.32.223
If anyone has a draft polacy then it might be best to discuss it in a new thread that provides a link to this one as this one is to big for any one to keep track of all the points raised
- Shambala108
A quick off-topic but important note: If you're not sure if something breaks Tardis:Spoiler policy, don't post it. Check the policy to be sure; don't just assume you know what this wiki defines as spoiler.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled forum topic.
- Bwburke94
Though we can't discuss that specific example yet, there is much we can discuss, whether in this thread or a new one.
- Bold Clone
Agreed. At this point I think we've actually moved from discussion to attempting implementation, it's just that none of us have been able to get around to it. Now we just have random people popping in and saying, "Nuh-uh, Utopia is a three-parter!" and the thread just swims in circles.
- Bwburke94
Yet that is our problem. We have not agreed to implement anything.
It has been proven impossible to make a future-proof definition of "multi-part story" that doesn't depend on an overly complex list of criteria.
- Amorkuz
I have a strange and radical idea. What if we do not define two-parters completely? You could say that it would devalue this whole discussion aimed at creating clear rules. But! It was always the case and will always be the case that individual cases can be discussed separately and treated separately. If there is a community decision to ignore a rule for one story, then so it will be.
From this perspective, it might not make sense to provide a general rule for especially subtle cases like Hell Bent/Heaven Sent. What I propose is to set criteria that suggest a two-parter on the one hand and set criteria that suggest it is not a two-parter on the other hand. This will automate simple cases, of which there is a majority I guess. It will also set the stage for debates about interesting cases in terms of what to look at and what to ignore. Both types of criteria are more or less given in the preceding discussion.
Let me give you an example of how it works: although COMIC: Whodunnit? and COMIC: The Sound of Our Voices have separate names, but they share the same writer, same artists, are consecutive in a seasonal run of the comics, share the same setting, and the second one does not introduce any new characters. That case is clear cut: all criteria point to a two-parter.
Why do I think it is useful to have two-parters? Because (correct me if I'm wrong) it is allowed to refer to a two-parter as one whole as in (COMIC: Whodunnit? / The Sound of Our Voices). It often takes an inordinate amount of time remembering/researching which exact portion of a story a particular bit of information comes from, especially when the setting and the characters do not change at all. For me personally, it often means not adding information because I do not remember the exact source. Thus, I'd dearly love the opportunity not to rewatch two episodes every time.
- 5.2.105.85
Amorkuz wrote: I have a strange and radical idea. What if we do not define two-parters completely? You could say that it would devalue this whole discussion aimed at creating clear rules. But! It was always the case and will always be the case that individual cases can be discussed separately and treated separately. If there is a community decision to ignore a rule for one story, then so it will be.
From this perspective, it might not make sense to provide a general rule for especially subtle cases like Hell Bent/Heaven Sent. What I propose is to set criteria that suggest a two-parter on the one hand and set criteria that suggest it is not a two-parter on the other hand. This will automate simple cases, of which there is a majority I guess. It will also set the stage for debates about interesting cases in terms of what to look at and what to ignore. Both types of criteria are more or less given in the preceding discussion.
Let me give you an example of how it works: although COMIC: Whodunnit? and COMIC: The Sound of Our Voices have separate names, but they share the same writer, same artists, are consecutive in a seasonal run of the comics, share the same setting, and the second one does not introduce any new characters. That case is clear cut: all criteria point to a two-parter.
Why do I think it is useful to have two-parters? Because (correct me if I'm wrong) it is allowed to refer to a two-parter as one whole as in (COMIC: Whodunnit? / The Sound of Our Voices). It often takes an inordinate amount of time remembering/researching which exact portion of a story a particular bit of information comes from, especially when the setting and the characters do not change at all. For me personally, it often means not adding information because I do not remember the exact source. Thus, I'd dearly love the opportunity not to rewatch two episodes every time.
This is a great idea. If two-parters are part of one story, it'd be better for them to be together. Like Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel should be one page.
Unless we take the first title of a two part (like Rise of the Cybermen) and title the page that but cover both parts. Like, we don't do The Edge of Destruction / The Brink of Disaster, we title it after the first part. We should probably do this for two part stories of the revived series, it's better than rules for one and rules for another.
- Amorkuz
Okay, let's not be carried away. I did not propose merging the pages. Shambala108 recently mentioned (elsewhere) a rule adhered to in the modern times for more or less all media. It's a simple rule and, therefore, an effective one. One title - one story.
I did not mean that working on the episode Rise of the Cybermen would be made easier by bundling it together with The Age of Steel. It is, somehow, expected that working on a story you do research on that story.
Here is the situation I did have in mind. Say, the Eleventh Doctor mentions to Amy this blighter Lumic in his gothic-looking wheelchair being impolite to the Prime Minister. This would normally be a continuity reference, and a specific one at that. Lumic definitely puts it in the two-parter, but I really don't want rewatching the whole two-parter to figure out in which part that happened. It seems like a reasonable compromise to be able to refer to the whole two-parter in such cases. And the rules seem to prohibit it if the story is not considered a two-parter.
- Bwburke94
I've previously proposed the idea of not defining the term, but of course citations would be the main issue there... or would they?
In the event that both episodes are referenced together in an in-universe page, they can still be cited as (TV: Rise of the Cybermen, The Age of Steel) without violating policy, though in the majority of cases the two episodes would use separate citations.
- Amorkuz
I would say it depends on what is being cited. I've even seen the formula "et al" used to cite multiple unspecified stories when the reference is too broad. So it is completely fine to cite several stories, separated by a comma if they are all relevant. There are, however, different situations when a reference is to a very specific event that happens in one story out of the two-parter. It is explicitly described as "bad" at T:CITE when "readers won't know which thing happened in which story. The good example makes that clear by putting each citation closer to the relevant factoid." In this case, though citing the exact episode is obviously still better, for two-parters it becomes acceptable to just cite both and separate them by a slash instead of a comma to show that they are treated as one story. At least that's what I do when I don't remember exactly and don't have 100 minutes for rewatching the episodes.
- 31.49.2.154
So, how should we approach Extremis/The Pyramid at the End of the World/The Episode I'm Not Allowed to Say the Title of Yet?
- SOTO
Whatever third episode you're thinking of isn't out yet, so there's obviously no discussion to be had until it is.
- Bwburke94
We can theoretically discuss links between Extremis/Pyramid, but we should wait for Series 10 to conclude before trying to link its episodes.
- Amorkuz
I will be blunt. I will not support any policy that takes into account any specifics of Series 10. The purpose of the policy being discussed is to have a precise and faithful definition of multi-parters that will be applied to all episodes of BBC Wales series past, present and future. If each new series requires new rules, it means that the proposed policy does not capture the essence of what a multi-parter is. In this case, Shambala's suggestion becomes the only viable one.
- 178.100.229.176
You my have to rimind me exsactley with proposed policy you are referring to as this thread is so large and had so menu proposals that it can bee difficult to find or remember who said what and when
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: I will be blunt. I will not support any policy that takes into account any specifics of Series 10. The purpose of the policy being discussed is to have a precise and faithful definition of multi-parters that will be applied to all episodes of BBC Wales series past, present and future. If each new series requires new rules, it means that the proposed policy does not capture the essence of what a multi-parter is. In this case, Shambala's suggestion becomes the only viable one.
There are other viable suggestions, though trying to craft a policy to cover current two-parters may lead to issues in the future, as we saw with the Series 9 ending.
- Amorkuz
That's exactly what I meant. The non-viability in my previous post is within an if-clause. I just don't see any point discussing Series 10 in this thread. (It can be done at the end, right before a consensus is sealed, as a sanity check.)
- Bwburke94
I'll once again ask the question: why do we need to define what is and isn't a multi-parter?
- Bwburke94
Judging from the LKH thread, CzechOut appears to be in favour of taking the Wikipedia count for story numbering.
There is one major problem here: Wikipedia is also a wiki! Because Wikipedia has no clear policy for numbering DW stories, anyone can edit their count to whatever they want it to be, so I see no reasonable way "align with Wikipedia" is a workable policy in the long run.
I've seen this very argument as applied to other episodic works, and it's been judged Wikipedia is unreliable because Wikia and Wikipedia would inevitably end up citing each other, either directly or indirectly.
By the way, because this discussion is still open and active, I believe T:BOUND still applies for the time being. It seems best to wait until Series 10 concludes before officially closing the thread, because the "Wikipedia count" proposal does absolutely nothing to solve the situation beyond the creation of a vague policy.
- CzechOut
Hey, you know what? Imma be honest and say that I forgot that this thread also existed when I closed the specific AGMGTW/LKH thread yesterday. It has, after all, been a year-and-a-half since I contributed to this thread. And it just slipped my radar.
So I've changed my closure at Thread:164173 to disinclude language about using Wikipedia to be our numbering system. There's kinda too much debate here to make such a declaration.
Due to my error, I'm also not going to close this thread, but rather invite another admin to do so quickly.
In the meantime, I will report that I did already edit the story number variable in DW infoboxes to match WP, but this philosphy resulted in very few changes. Once LKH and AGMGTW were separated pursuant to Thread:164173, only episodes from S9E11 onwards had to be changed -- so, about 8 total pages were affected.
- 2.30.191.42
id like to sugest using wikipedias methoud for diciding how to number stories is simply based ofnthe DWM end of season poles so the girl who did /the woman who lived as well the the 3 episodes that end the season where seperated as that was how the pole was don infect ime going to link to one of the descotions of the season 9 finial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_9)/Archive_2#Final_3_episodes
whill i agree using wikipedia as a source is a bad idea using DWM sourley is a method we can all agree on
- CzechOut
I'm gonna wade back in here with another suggestion. Infoboxes should really be about non-controversial information. After two threads lasting about three years, with posts numbering in the hundreds, I think it's fair to say that story numbering is controversial.
Indeed, as SOTO pointed out to me yesterday, even lead creatives at the Doctor Who production offices can't agree. In DWM 406, during the transition between RTD and Moffat, RTD issued this, I think, instructive statement. I'm gonna quote as much of it as is relevant to our conversation for full context:
- All the same, the filming for this very special episode is not without its contentious issues. And there's a serious matter with which we must engage, so I must now use this page to discuss the vital and difficult arguments raging. Namely...
- Is this the 200th Doctor Who story or not? Oh, it's a minefield. To be honest, I'm not very good with programme numbers, I don't really follow them -- in fact, the whole industry pays them little attention; the aforementiuoned [Coronation] Street recently passed its 7000th episode, with barely a blip. And am I the only one who thinks 200 seems a bit small? 200 stories? In 46 years? Is that all? I demand a recount, did they skip the 70s?
- The number was first brought ot my attention by Benjamin Cook of this very magazine. Now, he loves his numbers! He can rattle 'em off! A number fiend. But if I've got this right, you reach a total of 200 by following certain rules -- I think The Trial of a Time Lord (1986) has to be counted as one story, the unifinished Shada (1980) discounted, and Utopia, The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords (2007) have to be considered as one story, not two. I agree with bits of that. Sort of. But I'm uneasy! I'm not sure about Trial, it feels like four stories to me! And I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says. I'm sorry! I just do! I could rattle off the reasons, but we're in to the mystical land of canon here, where the baseline of argument simply comes down to "because I think so!"
- And that's my point. There is no offficial BBC policy on this. There never will be. The fact that I'm sitting here in my Excecutive Producer's robes of ermine and nylon means nothing -- my opinion has no more weight than yours. I know that Gareth Roberts likes the 200 designation, because he's put a reference into the story, which is lovely. Or maybe he's like me -- maybe he just thought it sounds nice! Cos I'll do anything for a hook -- the other day, I sent an email to our Publicity team, telling them that 4.15 is Story 200, cos frankly, if it helps us get an article or two in the week of transmission, then that's a job well done. But believe me, even if the BBC announcer on the day prefixes Planet of the Dead with, "And now for the 200th Doctor Who adventure..." that doesn't make it official. It's just because I sent a memo, with which I'm not certain I agree. Who knows, Steven Moffat might come in and decree that The Underwater Menace should be struck from the record, and the whole numbering argument will start again. Go on, Steven, do it! Nothing in the world can stop you now!
- It's an argument that will never end. No one can ever claim an absolute victory, or an absolute defeat. Only their own opinion. And isn't that brilliant? THat's fandom, that is, and it's lovely. We're all claiming ownership; we'll all never win. And that's one of those tiny, wonderful things that will keep Doctor Who alive forever.
- And the numbers keep on going. That's the best thing of all! New numbers, new episodes, stretching all the way into 2010 and beyong. May the numbers never end. I've just written the 18th episode of the never-ending Series Four, which is my 31st Doctor Who episode, and my 25th story (or 26th, depending on the Utopia controversy). Unless ... No, wait a minute, hold on! Maybe the ones I've co-written with Phil Ford and Gareth Roberts only count as half ... Oh, this could run and run...
- -- RTD, 2009
On the basis of this fulsome admission from RTD that there is no answer to the question posed by this thread, why don't we stop trying? What do you guys think about simply removing the variable from the infobox and having no story number display at all?
- 2.30.191.42
That sounds like the best way reolve this disput especially if there's no official BBC policy on it inffact wasn't the lake of an official canon policy the resin canon was struck from the wiki
- 31.49.2.154
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: How is this any different from what RTD said about Utopia?
What did he say?
That Utopia was intended to be its own story. Steven Moffat is now saying that Extremis/Pyramid/Lie are all different stories, but all other sources are calling it a 3-parter. The difficulty is knowing who to 'believe'.
- 31.49.2.154
I see a few people talking about writers and directors. Didn't some classics have different directors/writers for different episodes of multi-parters?
- 31.49.2.154
Amorkuz wrote: I will be blunt. I will not support any policy that takes into account any specifics of Series 10. The purpose of the policy being discussed is to have a precise and faithful definition of multi-parters that will be applied to all episodes of BBC Wales series past, present and future. If each new series requires new rules, it means that the proposed policy does not capture the essence of what a multi-parter is. In this case, Shambala's suggestion becomes the only viable one.
I really don't want to go with that suggestion. It just seems... too much. Are we actually going to claim that, say, The Sontaran Stratagem is a completely different story to The Poison Sky. And The Impossible Astronaut to Day of the Moon? What about Invasion, part one of Invasion of the dinosaurs? What about Hartnell episodes?
- 31.49.2.154
CzechOut wrote:
- Is this the 200th Doctor Who story or not? Oh, it's a minefield. To be honest, I'm not very good with programme numbers, I don't really follow them -- in fact, the whole industry pays them little attention; the aforementiuoned [Coronation] Street recently passed its 7000th episode, with barely a blip. And am I the only one who thinks 200 seems a bit small? 200 stories? In 46 years? Is that all? I demand a recount, did they skip the 70s?
- The number was first brought ot my attention by Benjamin Cook of this very magazine. Now, he loves his numbers! He can rattle 'em off! A number fiend. But if I've got this right, you reach a total of 200 by following certain rules -- I think The Trial of a Time Lord (1986) has to be counted as one story, the unifinished Shada (1980) discounted, and Utopia, The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords (2007) have to be considered as one story, not two. I agree with bits of that. Sort of. But I'm uneasy! I'm not sure about Trial, it feels like four stories to me! And I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says. I'm sorry! I just do! I could rattle off the reasons, but we're in to the mystical land of canon here, where the baseline of argument simply comes down to "because I think so!"
- And that's my point. There is no offficial BBC policy on this. There never will be. The fact that I'm sitting here in my Excecutive Producer's robes of ermine and nylon means nothing -- my opinion has no more weight than yours. I know that Gareth Roberts likes the 200 designation, because he's put a reference into the story, which is lovely. Or maybe he's like me -- maybe he just thought it sounds nice! Cos I'll do anything for a hook -- the other day, I sent an email to our Publicity team, telling them that 4.15 is Story 200, cos frankly, if it helps us get an article or two in the week of transmission, then that's a job well done. But believe me, even if the BBC announcer on the day prefixes Planet of the Dead with, "And now for the 200th Doctor Who adventure..." that doesn't make it official. It's just because I sent a memo, with which I'm not certain I agree. Who knows, Steven Moffat might come in and decree that The Underwater Menace should be struck from the record, and the whole numbering argument will start again. Go on, Steven, do it! Nothing in the world can stop you now!
- It's an argument that will never end. No one can ever claim an absolute victory, or an absolute defeat. Only their own opinion. And isn't that brilliant? THat's fandom, that is, and it's lovely. We're all claiming ownership; we'll all never win. And that's one of those tiny, wonderful things that will keep Doctor Who alive forever.
- And the numbers keep on going. That's the best thing of all! New numbers, new episodes, stretching all the way into 2010 and beyong. May the numbers never end. I've just written the 18th episode of the never-ending Series Four, which is my 31st Doctor Who episode, and my 25th story (or 26th, depending on the Utopia controversy). Unless ... No, wait a minute, hold on! Maybe the ones I've co-written with Phil Ford and Gareth Roberts only count as half ... Oh, this could run and run...
Basically sums this whole thing up.
- Bwburke94
31.49.2.154 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: I will be blunt. I will not support any policy that takes into account any specifics of Series 10. The purpose of the policy being discussed is to have a precise and faithful definition of multi-parters that will be applied to all episodes of BBC Wales series past, present and future. If each new series requires new rules, it means that the proposed policy does not capture the essence of what a multi-parter is. In this case, Shambala's suggestion becomes the only viable one.
I really don't want to go with that suggestion. It just seems... too much. Are we actually going to claim that, say, The Sontaran Stratagem is a completely different story to The Poison Sky. And The Impossible Astronaut to Day of the Moon? What about Invasion, part one of Invasion of the dinosaurs? What about Hartnell episodes?
Shambala's proposal is not intended to apply to anything pre-2005, but the presence of The End of Time does affect the situation.
If TEoT is counted as one story, then we are effectively saying that TSS/TPS and TIA/DotM among others are not one story. I have been advocating for counting the BBC Wales era by episode for exactly this reason – the result would be the same as Shambala's proposal, but with The End of Time counted as two episodes.
This would also solve the "controversy" problem brought up by CzechOut, because numbering by episode (starting at #1 for Rose) would be unambigously factual information.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Bewburke94 from two years ago… (is this discussion still open? huh): I think The End of Time is very much a special case no matter how we slice it; if nothing else, it's got just one page, whereas, even if we did consider them one story, I don't think there's any serious suggestion that we merge the pages about Impossible Astronaut and Day or the Moon. Whereas covering TEoT on two pages would be very messy, to say nothing of all the pages currently linking to The End of Time (TV story) as their reference.
- Bwburke94
I suppose this discussion never closed, did it?
- SOTO
I still agree with past me, above, who laid out a proposed set of guidelines, like our four little rules for validity, which (I believe) are simple, solid and easy to follow.
By establishing a clear structure for consistent decision-making, we'll avoid the constant demand to change story numbering according to each editor's personal views, not to mention that we'll have a good answer when they ask why we have things the way they are, in the first place.
I also think these rules genuinely reflect the trends we've seen in modern (post-serial) DWU television; all cases which are clearly two-parters pass, clear standalones (which we would all agree on) fail. Especially given the confusion brought about in series 9, we would do well to have one set of rules we can all broadly agree on.
- Shambala108
Yeah, I think we're all in agreement with our past selves, which means still no consensus. User:CzechOut's posting of Moffat's comments are very illuminating, leading to his suggestion of removing numbering from the infoboxes.
It's important to note that aside from the participating admins, User:CzechOut, User:Skittles the hog, User:Shambala108 (me), User:SOTO and User:Amorkuz, most of the other posters don't really edit on the wiki any more.
I suggest that we close this thread as unresolved, and if someone wishes to, they can start a new one (this would not violate Tardis:You are bound by current policy). There are plenty of unresolved threads at Forum:Panopticon archives, so it's not like every discussion can or has to be resolved. It's abundantly clear here that we have three basic conflicting ideas (with some variations), and no one is convincing anyone else to change their minds.
Because controversial information does not belong in the infoboxes, story numbers will be removed from the infoboxes. Please note that at this time this only applies to infoboxes, not leads or "Story notes" sections of story pages.
Because no agreement has been reached, it will not be a violation of Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point to reopen the topic at a future time. If someone does so, please make sure to link to this one.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183656
I've noticed that talk pages don't get a lot of attention anymore, with only one or two editors likely to ever visit without being alerted to discussion. So I've decided to point to a few discussions that need attention since people seem likely to see THIS post and thus go to the talk page.
Talk:Bernice Summerfield - Discussion on changing infobox pic to something less awkward.
Talk:Dalek - Discussion on possibility of changing main pic to something from recent episode.
- SOTO
It would be nice to have a T:VREC-type page where users can post talk pages that need community/admin attention. Or perhaps a template you put on talk pages, that would generate a list automatically?—but only if it would be used sparingly, when a discussion really does need attention and it's already been a while.
- OttselSpy25
I think that it'd be cool to have an entire forum like this where updates about Talk page discussions could be added, so people remember that they exist.
- Bwburke94
Perhaps.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183735
I think that we should combine the articles on the three incarnations of K9. When I say that, I don't mean combining the three K9s in the TV show (I, II, III), but rather the three regenerations of the first K9 -- I, 2, and the suggested 3 created because of K9's most recent do-over. Unlike the other two models built with separate consciousnesses, these three incarnations are all the same K9 model sent through new life spans (albeit with memory failure). It's been stated by the creators and official pages often that the K9 in the show is meant to be K9 I, even if in a new life.
I would say that this K9 qualifies for the same treatment that The Rani, River Song, Rassilon, and The Master have gotten -- to combine all incarnations to avoid confusion on contradicting or vague accounts.
This would also help us with the discussion that needs to be had about K9 Mark 3 -- if this new look qualifies for this to be a separate regeneration and thus a different page. We would be quick to do this by most accounts of Time Lords, but on the other hand in-universe evidence is lacking. Combining the pages would allow for discussion on the change without having to decide if a new incarnation was the cause.
It would also of course just be a lot more satisfying to see his whole story layed out the way it was meant to be. Any thoughts?
- KaynineMarkTrey
I think you're the first person on here that is actually sane and benevolent. This sounds much easier and far less confusing.
- OttselSpy25
While I appreciate the compliment, I'd say that we should avoid a hostile environment. Thanks. :[)
(Also, I just checked, I'm the only person you've encountered on the site so far, the other time on the K9 page. So a "thanks" and a "hey man, come on" are in order)
- SOTO
Don't be rude to the newcomer. :) Welcome!
I haven't formed an opinion on a joint K9 article yet, but I am really wondering what is going on with that K9 3. Does anyone know what comic story that is?
- Danniesen
Without a name for this comic story, it is certainly a tough not to crack. I mean, I searched "K9 Mark 3 comic story" on Google without results.
- Dynara
I think it would be okay to merge the articles K9 Mark I, K9 Mark 2 and K9 Mark 3. It's the same K9. Even in The Essential Book of K9 K9 Mark I and K9 Mark 2 are only listed as K9 Mark I. They share the same past and future.
However, I think the name K9 Mark 2 might still be okay since this name was actually seen in the episode Regeneration, directly after the regeneration and I can remember that it was shown during other episodes as well. After his regeneration in The Eclipse of the Korven no other name appeared. The only thing that looked different was his necklace. But he doesn't even look like the K9 on the K9 Mark 3 page.
And K9 Mark 3? Where does the name come from? The K9 looks different, but we do not know how this different looks were caused. In the Essential Book of K9 (Short Circuit) K9 remembers his past with Gryffin & the others + get's back his formally erased memories as K9 Mark I and K9 Mark 2, so it's clear that he is K9 Mark 2 or a regenerated form of K9 Mark 2. I would leave that information on the K9 Mark 2 page. He has K9 Mark 2's memories, personality and consciousnesses. Furthermore, unlike K9 Mark 2, the name K9 Mark 3 is mentioned nowhere at all.
I have the comic story at home, so if there are any questions?
- BananaClownMan
The image on the article is from Short Circuit, if that helps.
- Danniesen
BananaClownMan wrote: The image on the article is from Short Circuit, if that helps.
Yeah, I found the story. :)
- SOTO
I have not read the story myself (clearly), but there does seem to definitively not be any source for the K9 featured to be a "K9 Mark 3". None at all. (Speaking as someone that only knows what they've been told about this story)
On the matter of a merger, why do you feel it necessary? We typically only merge (and therefore have pages that are a tad too long) when we can't determine individual page titles for each incarnation. Do you feel that's the case with K9?
- Dynara
Well in The Essential Book of K9 a few pages before the comic story appears, there is are articles called:
- Future Adventures
- K9 cross section cutways future
- K9 Future Data output
In these articles they call this K9 "Future K9" but I don't know if they consider it as an new name or if it's just short for K9 in the future. Furthermore the name is not mentioned in a story but just in an article about how K9 will look like in the future.
In the story K9 has memories of his time as K9 Mark 2 and K9 Mark I. So as I have already said it's clear that he is K9 Mark 2 or one of his regenerations.
- Digifiend
BananaClownMan wrote: The image on the article is from Short Circuit, if that helps.
When the page was created, Short Circuit was actually mentioned as the first appearance of Mark 3, yet for some reason (accidental when cleaning up the text?), OttselSpy25 removed it, if he hadn't then SOTO wouldn't have needed to ask about the image source. I've just put a link to that story's page back on there, as a source for the text in the article.
Now it's just a case of whether to merge it or not. Personally I would, because the comic one doesn't look identical to the one from the promo image for that movie that was just announced. If that turns out to be Mark 3, what is the comic version? Undeterminable name = doesn't get its own page.
- OttselSpy25
I cut it because I was removing the spoilers in the text and the out-of-universe writing. Sorry if I missed something.
- Digifiend
You didn't miss something, it was the opposite problem - you unintentionally removed the reference to the story being spoken about, which resulted in source needed tags being added to the page. I know you didn't intend that. The story link should have just been repositioned to act as a citation instead of part of the introduction. Anyway, it's sorted now.
- 1.40.2.29
There is a completely different model of K-9 Mark I due to star in the upcoming movie, Timequake and the comic K-9 is identical to that model. It is clearly intended to be another regeneration. Just look up K-9 Timequake. And then compare that image of K-9 to the K-9 Mark 2 from the 2010 series. That is what you call regeneration.
- KaynineMarkTrey
File:Image.jpegSee.
- KaynineMarkTrey
File:K-9 Regenerations.jpegBetter image
- KaynineMarkTrey
See. They match and are completely different to the Mark 2, making them by definition the Mark 3. It is just common sense really. The article was made purely out of common sense. Makes sense right?
- KaynineMarkTrey
KaynineMarkTrey wrote:
See. They match and are completely different to the Mark 2, making them by definition the Mark 3. It is just common sense really. The article was made purely out of common sense. - OttselSpy25
1.40.2.29 wrote: There is a completely different model of K-9 Mark I due to star in the upcoming movie, Timequake and the comic K-9 is identical to that model. It is clearly intended to be another regeneration. Just look up K-9 Timequake. And then compare that image of K-9 to the K-9 Mark 2 from the 2010 series. That is what you call regeneration.
But we don't know that. We can't say 'it was a regeneration' without in-universe evidence, all we can say it "he looks different."
- KaynineMarkTrey
Seriously? He has a regeneration unit. He looks totally different. When he gets damaged the regeneration unit kicks in and he is reborn as a completely new looking K-9. It is just simple logic. It's just like saying oh, we never saw Paul McGann regenerate (yet) so we cannot say Christopher Eccleston is a new regeneration, we can only say he looks different. Yeah. Oh well. I'm done. See you guys later. Hopefully not though.
- Shambala108
Anything from an "upcoming movie" violates Tardis:Spoiler policy. If these images are from the movie, they will have to be deleted until the movie has been released.
- OttselSpy25
You'll note that at The Master that there is no sentence suggesting that inbetween the Master being played by Alex Macqueen and the Master being played by Derek Jacobi there was a regeneration. The reason for this is that we have no evidence that these two are different incarnations, and so rather than speculate on the topic we leave it up to the reader. We can't say "this is absolutely a new K9 regeneration" because we don't have any indication of that from the comic. And we certainly don't and will likely never have the name "K9 Mark 3" in any valid source, since "K9 Mark 2" was basically an editing touch not meant to be taken as far as we did. It's better to merge the three pages, note that he looks different on the main page, and leave it at that.
- KaynineMarkTrey
2 years in the future, m8.
- OttselSpy25
I also must again suggest that you do not upload publicity images for the upcoming movie, including the image of K9 you keep posting. Once again, as the film has yet to be released, it is not something to write about in pages or post images from -- even mentioning its existence in this discussion is going a bit off track
- KaynineMarkTrey
ahhhh so you think that there is a possibility the bald Macqueen Master grew old and magically sprouted a full head of hair?
- OttselSpy25
I don't know what magical about hair growth, but that's really besides the point. The reader can go for themselves "oh, those two look different, clearly they're different incarnations" or they could go "Oh, both of these Masters have exactly the same backstory, maybe they are the same incarnation. We don't talk about it on the page, we don't speculate, we leave it up to the reader.
- Danniesen
Please refrain from being sarcastically mean. You can see the two Masters are different so it's up to yourself to imagine what happened. The same with the K-9 Marks. And that was the case with the Doctor too until The Name/Night/Day of the Doctor.
You can clearly see the Eighth and Ninth are two different incarnations. Up until the 50th Anniversary it was up to ourselves to imagine what happened between McGann and Eccleston. With the Master, you yourself can imagine what happens between MacQueen and Jacobi. However you get the impression that MacQueen's Master regenerated into childform, as Derek Jacobi's Master said "I was a... naked child found on the coast of the Silver Devastation. Abandoned, with only this [the fob watch]". And with K-9 you yourself can imagine how he looks different each time. It's not necessarily regeneration.
But only what is shown in narrative can go on the articles (being it TV story, movie, comic, audio etc.). If something is confirmed by someone working on Doctor Who outside of the narrative, this information go to the Behind the Scenes sections.
- Bwburke94
Danniesen wrote: With the Master, you yourself can imagine what happens between MacQueen and Jacobi. However you get the impression that MacQueen's Master regenerated into childform, as Derek Jacobi's Master said "I was a... naked child found on the coast of the Silver Devastation. Abandoned, with only this [the fob watch]".
Jacobi's Master believed himself to be Professor Yana at the time, so that probably isn't what actually happened to Macqueen's Master.
- OttselSpy25
Plus that isn't how Chameleon Archs work...
The point is that there's no need to speculate over if there was a regeneration or how any of it worked, when we can just leave the two next to each other and leave it up to the reader. As we should do with this K9.
- Danniesen
I don't quite understand in what way the things I said contradicted anything given in narrative. If Jacobi's Master is MacQueen's Master's immediate successor, then MacQueen's Master must have regenerated into childform, as YANA said it himself that he was found with the fob-watch on the Silver Devastation coast as "a naked child".
- Danniesen
However, as said, this is not the point of this discussion.
We discuss K9.
- OttselSpy25
... No, because Chameleon Archs create entire lives for people. John Smith had parents, a childhood, and a life... He didn't just start existing at whatever age we see at the start of the story. Furthermore, it's speculation because we never get that direct explanation.
... I didn't think that my comparison would take us this far off track.
- Bwburke94
I apologise.
- OttselSpy25
Is anyone against combining the three articles?
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: Is anyone against combining the three articles?
It makes things a lot less confusing, but we'd still have the issue of Mark II/Mark 2, even if Mark 2 doesn't have its own article.
- OttselSpy25
I suppose we still do, but I figured that in having "You May"s at the top of each article we covered that.
- OttselSpy25
Just popping in to say that I still think we should do this.
- Thefartydoctor
I want to just pop up and say that, in my mind, separate K9 articles make more sense. This is for the simple reason that K9 Mark I left and so Mark II was created. He left and Mark III was created (for SJA). They're separate units. What makes it confusing is K9 Mark 2.
From memory, in the episode Regeneration, K9 Mark I appears from a battle and "dies". It's heavily suggested that he's escaped the Time War but is never stated on-screen. He then "regenerates" into K9 Mark 2. So, you could argue that if we're combining articles that K9 Mark I and 2 have the same article. And, if we're saying that the rebuilt K9 Mark III in the SJA is now K9 Mark IV, then they get the same article.
So in conclusion... I don't know haha. We've evidently got K9 Mark I/2, K9 Mark II, and K9 Mark III/IV. They're not same... yet a couple of them are. It's complicated.
- Danniesen
It makes a lot more sense to just keep them as they are. It avoids exactly that confusion that "TheFartyDoctor" mention.
Plus, they're given different names each time in narrative. If we were to combine these K-9's, we should combine all the different Doctors' incarnations pages.
- Thefartydoctor
Danniesen wrote: If we were to combine these K-9's, we should combine all the different Doctors' incarnations pages.
I wanted to make this point but wasn't sure whether people would agree with me. At the end of the day, each incarnation of the Doctor is born and dies. They're different people of the same Time Lord. Each K9 is created and "dies". They're different units. If you combine them, you make them mere iterations of each other and it muddies understanding of him, in my honest opinion.
- Danniesen
Yep. If the Doctor can have different pages (due to having different titles each time), so can K-9. If K-9 should be merged to one because it's the same unit, so should the Doctor because he's the same person.
- 95.147.32.223
Thefartydoctor wrote:
Danniesen wrote: If we were to combine these K-9's, we should combine all the different Doctors' incarnations pages.
I wanted to make this point but wasn't sure whether people would agree with me. At the end of the day, each incarnation of the Doctor is born and dies. They're different people of the same Time Lord. Each K9 is created and "dies". They're different units. If you combine them, you make them mere iterations of each other and it muddies understanding of him, in my honest opinion.
That's why I think it was a mistake to merge the masters or the ranis
- Thefartydoctor
That's why I think it was a mistake to merge the masters or the ranis
The only problem with the Master is that his timeline has holes in it whereas the Doctor is quite easy to understand because Doctor Who spin-offs jump to fill them in. But essentially, I agree with you. It just needs a "Doctors"-style infobox to link them up and separate Master pages would work just as well.
- Danniesen
The difference between the Doctors' pages and the Master's one page is that the Doctor has different titles all the way through; First Doctor, Second Doctor, Third Doctor etc.. The Master is only known as the Master in all his forms (that is, until Missy came along).
The latest, however, being a name she herself came up with.
- 95.147.32.223
Danniesen wrote: The difference between the Doctors' pages and the Master's one page is that the Doctor has different titles all the way through; First Doctor, Second Doctor, Third Doctor etc.. The Master is only known as the Master in all his forms (that is, until Missy came along). The latest, however, being a name she herself came up with.
But the doctor is only call the doctor or doctor who on screen or in the credits for most of the doctors history the doctor only mentioned how many times he had regerated when witch incarnation he was on was mentioned and it was only in the name of the doctor that the 11th doctor was called the 11th doctor on screen and you don't need a distinc title for each incarnation or there wouldn't be all those doctor (story title) pages in the category incarnations of the doctor
- Danniesen
Did you read that I said that WE know the different Doctors that way? Those are the titles that WE have given them. The Master is just known as the Master, or Missy for the latest. At best we know them as Delgado Master, Ainley Master, Roberts Master etc., although we cannot use these kind of titles.
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: I want to just pop up and say that, in my mind, separate K9 articles make more sense. This is for the simple reason that K9 Mark I left and so Mark II was created. He left and Mark III was created (for SJA). They're separate units. What makes it confusing is K9 Mark 2.
From memory, in the episode Regeneration, K9 Mark I appears from a battle and "dies". It's heavily suggested that he's escaped the Time War but is never stated on-screen. He then "regenerates" into K9 Mark 2. So, you could argue that if we're combining articles that K9 Mark I and 2 have the same article. And, if we're saying that the rebuilt K9 Mark III in the SJA is now K9 Mark IV, then they get the same article.
So in conclusion... I don't know haha. We've evidently got K9 Mark I/2, K9 Mark II, and K9 Mark III/IV. They're not same... yet a couple of them are. It's complicated.
That's kind of what I meant. I was never calling for the combination of I, II, and III -- but rather I and 2. As stated in my opening paragraph.
- Thefartydoctor
Well I refined my opinion, and my opinion is that the "regeneration" or "rebuilding" of models makes no difference. They're different models, just as different versions of the Doctor exist. Therefore they deserve their own articles. K9 Mark III was present during The Five Doctors but was not present during The Lost Boy, as it was Mark IV. Those two models may seem similar but nothing was stopping the Tenth Doctor completely upgrading the inner workings of K9 to make him more efficient.
The method we have at the moment makes more sense than merging any articles together. Especially merging K9 Mark I and 2. That would be very silly as there is no in-universe verification that it is K9 Mark I that "regenerated" in Regeneration. All we have is a subtle hint and behind the scenes statements. Just like the separate Doctor articles with their little infobox to link them up, the current K9 method works perfectly. And I think it should stay that way.
Merging K9 would make rare visitors confused. If a Nu-Whovian wanted to read up on K9's role in SJA, they don't want the bumpf about Marks I, II and 2. Then you have the BBV K9... do we lump that with Mark I? We shouldn't because "K9 and the Mistress" should not be linked up with "K9 Mark I and Romana II" because that would be going against all the rules of the Wiki.
Then there's the Tenth Doctor's personal K9 seen in a comic sketch. It hasn't been numbered but officially, it should be K9 Mark V. These problems are why we should never have approached this subject in the first place. :)
- Danniesen
As I said above, it might confuse unnecessarily...
- 95.147.32.223
Danniesen wrote: Did you read that I said that WE know the different Doctors that way? Those are the titles that WE have given them. The Master is just known as the Master, or Missy for the latest. At best we know them as Delgado Master, Ainley Master, Roberts Master etc., although we cannot use these kind of titles.
If that was the case than all incarnations of the 11 whoud have there own page as he is only known by his incarnation number and no other name also there are doctors with no distinct title like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(The_Cabinet_of_Light) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(Party_Animals) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(Seven_Keys_to_Doomsday)
- Thefartydoctor
Well the examples you give, such as The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) or even The Master (Sympathy for the Devil), are used when it's an alternate or unknown Doctor. They can't be added to the main timeline of the Doctor because we don't know which one they are.
We wouldn't use this strategy for the Master as, like I've said, it's for parallel/alternate/unknown versions of a character. Why don't we separate the Eleven? Good point, we could give the Eight his own page as we've seen him in action. Why doesn't the One, the Two (et al) get their own page? Because we haven't seen them in action (a character talking to himself doesn't count). It's that simple. Plus, we probably haven't created The Eight because his adventure was so short.
- 95.147.32.223
All doctors i gave exsamplels of are listed in the category incarnations of the doctor with the main 13 and so as far as this wiki is concerned separate from the main 13 and just as valid with how they fit not revealed. this has happened with the master when Alex Macqueen was introduced while the personally ,appearance sections and stories (in info box)are divided in to incarnations already also size doesn't seem to be a problem for these doctors
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Previous_Doctor_(The_Cabinet_of_Light) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Previous_Doctor_(Seven_Keys_to_Doomsday)
- Thefartydoctor
I get what you're saying but you didn't read my point. To quote myself, "it's for [...] unknown versions of a character". The Doctor from The Cabinet of Light, for example, is one of the Doctors from the main timestream, but s/he hasn't been identified. Alex MacQueen is certainly a Master and plays a pre-Time War Master. That's why he's included.
This has deviated from our original discussion. We should be discussing whether or not the K9 articles should be merged. I think we should follow the protocols set in place for the main Doctors (separate articles under specific titles, linked up by an infobox), rather than the ineffective Master method (one article combining many different incarnations). It needs to be also stated that the current K9 situation follows the Doctor method and so wouldn't have to be changed.
- 95.147.32.223
I agree with k9 leave as is
Note, too, that the Master isn't analogous to K9, as there are several different iterations of the Master that aren't regenerations. The Ainley Master is the same guy as the Beevers Master with no intervening regeneration. The modern K9, by contrast, regenerates, while the BBC original K9s are physically distinct units -- completely separate builds.
Result: No change. Start new articles for each incarnation of K9, as with the Doctor.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183793
Having started to listen to Companion Chronicles by Big Finish and, hence, reading their pages here, I was alerted to a comparative scarcity of material there: plots are typically absent, references/continuity/notes might miss important facts, even leads are quite often just the number of the release, overall and within the season.
Take The Flames of Cadiz (audio story), for instance. No plots: check. Nowhere is it mentioned that in this story the TARDIS crew met Miguel de Cervantes. The lead is actually longer than some but still provides barely any information of interest.
To quote from the leads policy, "Good, interesting leads draw the reader into an article. Leads also save readers' time, by allowing them to quickly decide whether they're reading about the topic for which they were searching." Well, this story actually has a lot going for it: 2 hours instead of the usual (for Companion Chronicles) 1 hour. 2 companions instead of one. Francis Drake, King Philip II of Spain, the Spanish Armada, and Miguel de Cervantes (the latter being a spoiler).
As I've bought all Companion Chronicles and plan to listen to them all eventually, I would be happy to improve the leads as I go. But I've run into some subtleties before, where the policy is not well defined and even admins might disagree. Thus, I would appreciate if some experienced editors (admin or otherwise) could opine on the following elements I thought of including into the leads.
1) Many but not all pages include the writer and the featured cast. This information is, in a sense, redundant as it is present in the infobox. But Google search shows the preview of the lead and most people would start from it, so I would say such a duplication is reasonable. There is, however, a question of what featured means. My position would be that, unlike the Early Adventures where the Doctor is rightfully featured even though not voiced by the original actor, here only the cast "feature" their characters. For instance, I do not believe the First Doctor is featured in The Beginning (audio story), as is currently stated.
1a) If more than one original character is featured in the above sense, I would emphasize it as it is both unusual and occurs more than once.
2) A recurring monster/enemy.
3) The length surprisingly varies: there are a few 2-hour releases. I would think this should be mentioned as it makes a release special.
4) While in most cases the depicted era of the show corresponds to the set of companions (from the infobox, not from featured in the above sense), there are exceptions. Such an exception is noted in The Beginning at some length. There are several other adventures, however, that lie outside the expected eras of the show: the adventures predating Barbara and Ian are an obvious example. But there is also the question of Sara Kingdom surviving her death in a way I don't know about yet. Such irregularities seem a good thing to mention.
5) The rough typification of the story: historical, pseudo-historical, contemporary set on Earth, space story, etc. if easily recognizable/uncontroversial.
5a) In case of a (pseudo-)historical, the rough period. (Here I am not sure as this is usually present in the Publisher's summary and in the infobox, but once again, the lead is supposed to help decide whether to read those.)
6) Occurrence of famous/infamous historical figures. Depiction of famous historical events.
7) Firsts in all shapes or forms. I wouldn't want to specify because these are usually present already.
8) Plot connection or immediate temporal connection to another story in the same or different medium. An example of the latter is the 2nd paragraph of Utopia (TV story) mentioning a Torchwood episode where Jack Harkness begins running to the TARDIS. An example of the former (disclaimer: added by yours truly) is the connection to the The Time Meddler (TV story) in The Bounty of Ceres (audio story) that is used as a plot device. (I chose this as a less obvious case: there are clear prequel-sequel relationships like in the case of Rocket Men, for instance.) One should, of course, distinguish such plot devices from simple name checks ("we faced mortal danger so many times: in this adventure, and that, and that").
Those are my initial thoughts and I would be glad to hear comments/additional suggestions.
While I did not find another purpose for the leads in the policy other than helping people decide whether to read the whole article, I myself have an additional purpose in mind. As this purpose guided me in devising the points above, it might be useful to formulate it explicitly. For me the lead should be useful not only with respect to this TARDIS Data Core, but also with respect to the DWU. For a character, I want to read the lead to get a rough idea of who he/she/it is and whether it matters at all. For an audio, personally I want to quickly get an idea of whether I want to listen (have already listened) to this audio or not. Some people care about the writer (according to Big Finish CD Extras), some about an actor, some about historical figures, etc. Similarly, if there is a reasonably strong plot/time connection to another story, I would want to have enough information to decide whether I should familiarize myself with that story first. That's why I would want this information to be added.
- Shambala108
1. Actually, its the infoboxes that are redundant. Material should never be put in an infobox without also including it in the article. Infoboxes are not substitutes for articles.
2+ I've written a lot of leads for stories that I haven't heard/seen/read, that's why so many just have name, author and occasionally featured characters. I suggest you browse stories that have well-developed leads to see what we include so you can get an idea what is lead-worthy. Anything that might not be worthy of the lead but still useful can be put in the story notes section.
- OttselSpy25
Notable things to include are things that to the average reader would make the story stand out more -- aspects likely unique to few stories. The Five Masters, for instance, mentions that the comic is one of the few Multi-Master stories, as apposed to Multi-Doctor stories. Important aspects that uniquely categories CC stories often have to do with cast or characters, and often are connected to "mentioned" adventures of lore.
While you're checking out these stories, can you shed some light on the much-debated issue of if every person who does a Hartnell voice in the series is or is not playing the Doctor?
- JagoAndLitefoot
In the Companion Chronicles, there is always a framing device with a companion doing a Doctor voice within the story, so technically I wouldn't say they are playing the Doctor there. It's another matter with Lost Stories and Early Adventures, though.
- Amorkuz
As additional evidence that the Doctor in Companion Chronicles is not played by anyone, the Doctor's role is mentioned in the cast for the Early Adventures but not for Companion Chronicles (There were a couple of exceptions when Colin Baker actually voiced the Sixth Doctor, e.g., in Peri and the Piscon Paradox). On the Big Finish website, the same distinction is made but not uniformly: Domain of the Voord and The Bounty of Ceres for some reason do not list the Doctor in the cast.
In addition, the framing device in the Companion Chronicles mentioned by OttselSpy25 above actually has the companion doing almost all of the voices, not only the Doctor's. Typically, there is just one other cast member voicing the main guest protagonist/enemy. This is often described as an enhanced audiobook, which is narrated by the companion who is imitating all voices but one. (There are some exceptions, e.g., Solitaire, that are essentially full-cast dramas for two actors and do not include any narration.)
In the Early Adventures, on the other hand, each role has its own voice actor, but the Doctor is played by the same actor as one of the companions. As for the Lost Stories, I cannot say as I haven't listened to them yet. What I've noticed, however, is that the size of the cast there differs significantly from story to story. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this question in the Lost Stories should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
- SOTO
You bring up some interesting things to note in leads. (Though I know you're currently busy and I found this thread quite late,) I would definitely encourage you to add to those articles with any information that makes those stories special, or different from the others. There are no rules, really, on what is or isn't lead-worthy. It's more a matter of what is most lead-worthy—ie. what you don't bother saying when there's much more note-worthy and interesting points to bring up instead. But articles all must start somewhere, and often that's with very baseline leads, just stating very basic information, often written out by someone who doesn't own the story. Definitely, if you see those and you have some things you'd like to add, point out, in the lead—add as you please! :) I trust in your judgment as to whether or not something is note-worthy.
I do agree with Shambala, that it's not redundant at all to mention things in the article that are brought up in the infobox, and in fact this is expected. Infoboxes are there for review, for quick information; the same info should be present in proper prose, in the article itself. On everything else you say, though: yes, yes, yes, yes and yes yes yes.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183821
So I had a post I did about the problem of Osgood in the latest episode. It did not post. So instead of retyping it all I screen grabbed it:
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'd say we should merge the two in this case.
- OttselSpy25
I'm for changing it so that one is about the one killed by Missy and one is about the one still alive, instead of one being about the Human and the other the Zygon.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'm not sure about that. Most of the article would need to be identical in that case. And it wouldn't solve the dilemma of which of the two articles to link to when we mean either specific version in "The Day of the Doctor" or any appearances earlier in the timeline in the upcoming Big Finish series (which I assume will be set before "Day..." since I doubt they'll have two Osgoods there). Which also means you'd need to update both articles with identical info every time Big Finish releases a new UNIT story.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Actually, if we change the focus from who is human and who is Zygon to who lives and who dies, it's not that different from the Peri who died, the Peri who married Yrcanos, the Peri who rejoined the Doctor etc. And we keep all these versions of Peri on one page.
- OttselSpy25
That's a lot of presuming. The audios could be set post-series 9 and Moffat could just have given people the heads up.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Big Finish doesn't have the rights to anything past "The Day of the Doctor", they say so in their current FAQ. So references to Capaldi era are off limits, just like new series ones were before the license change.
- OttselSpy25
That doesn't mean it won't be set afterwards. Most Big Finish stories for a long time were set in the 2005-2010 eras, but they still didn't own the rights to the contemporary eras there.
- OttselSpy25
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Actually, if we change the focus from who is human and who is Zygon to who lives and who dies, it's not that different from the Peri who died, the Peri who married Yrcanos, the Peri who rejoined the Doctor etc. And we keep all these versions of Peri on one page.
Entirely different, although you have a point there.
- 86.148.227.67
Really Just Marge the pages it is annoying
I am still coup fused which is which but
- JagoAndLitefoot
"Entirely different, although you have a point there."
Not that different given that we learn in "Peri and the Piscon Paradox" that all these versions of Peri coexisted.
- Bwburke94
From what we saw on screen so far, they are both the "real" Osgood. In the context of Death in Heaven onward, neither is definitively the human and neither is definitively the Zygon.
Of course, this could all change in a week's time.
- OWL
When one of the Osgoods referred to her and the other Osgood as "human-Zygon hybrids" (while she was explaining to the Doctor that neither she or the other Osgood was either full human or full Zygon anymore), I interpreted that as this: One of the two Osgoods is full human, and one of the Osgoods is full Zygon, but since neither can remember which one they are, it is as if they are just one person; A hybrid of human and Zygon. I might be completley off here, but I thought the hybrid thing was theoretical. Therefore, I think there should be one single "Osgood" article that explains the two Osgoods. They're simply inseparable!
- MystExplorer
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Big Finish doesn't have the rights to anything past "The Day of the Doctor", they say so in their current FAQ. So references to Capaldi era are off limits, just like new series ones were before the license change.
Slight correction: They don't have the rights to anything beyond Time of the Doctor.
- Bwburke94
OWL wrote: When one of the Osgoods referred to her and the other Osgood as "human-Zygon hybrids" (while she was explaining to the Doctor that neither she or the other Osgood was either full human or full Zygon anymore), I interpreted that as this: One of the two Osgoods is full human, and one of the Osgoods is full Zygon, but since neither can remember which one they are, it is as if they are just one person; A hybrid of human and Zygon. I might be completley off here, but I thought the hybrid thing was theoretical. Therefore, I think there should be one single "Osgood" article that explains the two Osgoods. They're simply inseparable!
It is clear from The Day of the Doctor that the Zygon knew herself to be the Zygon, and the human knew herself to be the human.
- OttselSpy25
Yea, they know who is who but choose not to disclose it to the audience or the people surrounding them.
- Gowron8472
I say that if we don't find out who is who next week, we merge the articles. Otherwise, we'll never know which article to post information about Osgood in in Post-Day episodes. Even now, the picture in Human-Osgood's infobox might be the Zygon.
- Digifiend
I agree with Gowron. We wait for the next episode, and that doesn't settle the matter, they need to merge.
On a similar topic, are the Zygon Kate Stewarts in Day of the Doctor and The Zygon Invasion the same Zygon? If not, then that article needs a split.
- Icecreamdif
The Kates are almost certainly not the same Zygon, but I think we need to wait for the next episode before we can determine if there even is a Kate Zygon in The Zygon Invasion. Kate may have pulled a Queen Elizabeth, and killed the Zygon and is now impersonating it.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Big Finish confirmed that their new UNIT series "takes place between Kate's appearances in the Doctor Who TV episodes The Power of Three and The Day of the Doctor".
- OttselSpy25
Ah, ok
- OttselSpy25
In that case, Merging is the clear solution.
- Digifiend
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Big Finish confirmed that their new UNIT series "takes place between Kate's appearances in the Doctor Who TV episodes The Power of Three and The Day of the Doctor".
Day of the Doctor was Osgood's debut, as well as when the Zygon duplicate was created, so if this is earlier, then there's definitely only the human one in the Big Finish series. It shouldn't affect the decision of whether to merge or not, since we know which page the info about Osgood in those audio stories belongs on. It's only appearances set AFTER Day of the Doctor that have any bearing on this.
- Bwburke94
We shouldn't really be talking about the UNIT series, because there are pages that currently exist we need to decide on first.
In any case, Saturday may clear up some of the confusion.
- OttselSpy25
Digifiend wrote:
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Big Finish confirmed that their new UNIT series "takes place between Kate's appearances in the Doctor Who TV episodes The Power of Three and The Day of the Doctor".
Day of the Doctor was Osgood's debut, as well as when the Zygon duplicate was created, so if this is earlier, then there's definitely only the human one in the Big Finish series. It shouldn't affect the decision of whether to merge or not, since we know which page the info about Osgood in those audio stories belongs on. It's only appearances set AFTER Day of the Doctor that have any bearing on this.
I think that the point was that this means changing the pages to be based around the Osgood who died in Dark Water and the one still alive in the Zygon two-parter is just as messy as what we have now.
- BananaClownMan
Going in here blind, I think post-DIH Osgood should have her own page with dubious species. For current and Zygon page, end it with:
One of the Osgoods was murdered by Missy after she was offered companionship by the Twelfth Doctor, (TV: Death in Heaven) with {{[[}}Petronella Osgood (The Zygon Invasion)|the surviving Osgood{{]]}} dedicating herself to the peace treaty by refusing to identify her species. (TV: The Zygon Invasion)
- Digifiend
We still don't know which is which, so I say redirect both to Petronella Osgood, since her first name got revealed which means you have to rename whatever page(s) is kept anyway.
- OttselSpy25
Now there's three of them. I'm convinced that Moffat just wants to troll wikia editors.
- Bwburke94
There is no definitive proof as to which is which, even with a third Osgood running around.
And are we absolutely sure from in-universe evidence that "Petronella" is her first name, given that a) we don't know if it's the human who said it and b) it could be construed as sarcastic given the nature of the conversation?
- Bwburke94
At this point, all the Osgoods should go on one page because all of them identify as the same being.
- Snowy Golem
We also need to update this article with information from the Zygon Invasion & the Zygon Inversion.
- Danniesen
Ingrid Oliver has said that keen-eyed Whovians are able to tell who's who.
But, as for the video recorded of the Zygon Osgood and human Osgood in The Zygon Invasion I would say that the one in the scarf might be the Zygon, and the other one would be human... I think
- DoctorWhoLetTheDogsOut
Make four pages
1. A page about Petronella Osgood, the human who appeared in "The Day of the Doctor". List all information that is shown to be 100% true about her and that she later became on of the Osgoods.
2. A page about Zygon Osgood, the Zygon who took Osgoods form, put all the information about her up until the inhaler scene in DotD under biography, and then explain that she became one of the Osgoods.
3. Bonnie's page. At the end of her biography put that she became one of the Osgoods.
4. A page simply called the Osgoods. On this page list the events of DiH, TZInva, and TZInver. Say that the pair were both Zygon!Osgood and Human!Osgood and then write about the Osgood that died and the Osgood who lived on that page, as well as any of Bonnie's actions after she became one of the Osgoods. If Bonnie appears in future episodes, add on to this page, not her own.
- Danniesen
I see where you're going at, but the "Osgoods" page should perhaps not exist. However maybe and "Osgood (disambiguation)" page perhaps.
- Gowron8472
The Osgoods page would have to exist though. That would have all information about Osgood when we don't know which version it is. Now that we have Bonnie, who we know more about before she became Osgood, four pages seems the best way to go. If we go down this road, I would title the pages Petronella Osgood (Human), Petronella Osgood (Zygon), Bonnie, and Petronella Osgood.
- Danniesen
Well... I think at least we should have more people in on the idea, before we decide anything.
- OttselSpy25
DoctorWhoLetTheDogsOut wrote: Make four pages
1. A page about Petronella Osgood, the human who appeared in "The Day of the Doctor". List all information that is shown to be 100% true about her and that she later became on of the Osgoods.
2. A page about Zygon Osgood, the Zygon who took Osgoods form, put all the information about her up until the inhaler scene in DotD under biography, and then explain that she became one of the Osgoods.
3. Bonnie's page. At the end of her biography put that she became one of the Osgoods.
4. A page simply called the Osgoods. On this page list the events of DiH, TZInva, and TZInver. Say that the pair were both Zygon!Osgood and Human!Osgood and then write about the Osgood that died and the Osgood who lived on that page, as well as any of Bonnie's actions after she became one of the Osgoods. If Bonnie appears in future episodes, add on to this page, not her own.
Was actually thinking of something like this myself.
- OWL
OttselSpy25 wrote:
DoctorWhoLetTheDogsOut wrote: Make four pages
1. A page about Petronella Osgood, the human who appeared in "The Day of the Doctor". List all information that is shown to be 100% true about her and that she later became on of the Osgoods.
2. A page about Zygon Osgood, the Zygon who took Osgoods form, put all the information about her up until the inhaler scene in DotD under biography, and then explain that she became one of the Osgoods.
3. Bonnie's page. At the end of her biography put that she became one of the Osgoods.
4. A page simply called the Osgoods. On this page list the events of DiH, TZInva, and TZInver. Say that the pair were both Zygon!Osgood and Human!Osgood and then write about the Osgood that died and the Osgood who lived on that page, as well as any of Bonnie's actions after she became one of the Osgoods. If Bonnie appears in future episodes, add on to this page, not her own.
Was actually thinking of something like this myself.
Yes, this sounds like the clearest solution!
- MystExplorer
Is there any precedent for two Zygons taking the form of the same human at the same time? If not, I'd say that would indicate that the Osgood seen throughout the two-parter was indeed the human one.
- OttselSpy25
MystExplorer wrote: Is there any precedent for two Zygons taking the form of the same human at the same time? If not, I'd say that would indicate that the Osgood seen throughout the two-parter was indeed the human one.
Complete speculation. If the episode doesn't tell us, we can't go tip-toeing around the idea by trying to apply fan logic to it.
- Bwburke94
Human Osgood and Zygon Osgood are separate beings, but we have precedent for putting multiple closely associated beings on the same article. Clara's splinters share the Clara Oswald article, so why can't the Petronella Osgood article be like this:
- Petronella Osgood was a collective identity taken by three individuals, one human and two Zygons. The original Osgood was a human scientist who worked for UNIT... (continuing on from the current article)
Bonnie would have her own article, detailing events up to the end of Inversion. If a second Osgood appears at any point post-Inversion, it can be inferred that one of them is Bonnie, but unless there is evidence as to which is which, it would go on the Petronella Osgood article.
- Gowron8472
Bwburke94 wrote: Human Osgood and Zygon Osgood are separate beings, but we have precedent for putting multiple closely associated beings on the same article. Clara's splinters share the Clara Oswald article, so why can't the Petronella Osgood article be like this:
- Petronella Osgood was a collective identity taken by three individuals, one human and two Zygons. The original Osgood was a human scientist who worked for UNIT... (continuing on from the current article)
Bonnie would have her own article, detailing events up to the end of Inversion. If a second Osgood appears at any point post-Inversion, it can be inferred that one of them is Bonnie, but unless there is evidence as to which is which, it would go on the Petronella Osgood article.
I think that is definitely what the Petronella Osgood page should look like, but if Bonnie is also getting her own page, then I think all three need their own page. After all, human-Osgood will be appearing in Big Finish tomorrow. I would just end the Petronella Osgood (Human) page's history at either the moment the Zygon takes her form, or the moment the Doctors wipe everyone's memory. Then just say that she became a member of the collective Osgood and continue to that page for further history. The Petronella Osgood (Zygon) page would be really short, but whatever.
- OttselSpy25
I'm gonna work out a sandbox of how I think that this should look.
- OttselSpy25
Tomorrow tho. Tomorrow.
I'm thinking four pages: Osgood (The Day of the Doctor), Zygon Osgood, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), and The Osgoods.
The Osgoods cover all accounts where there are multiple Osgoods and it's unclear who's who (even if one of them is dead), while the other three pages will cover them up to the point where it's known who is who, and then link to the article for the rest of the character's narrative.
- Shambala108
Except that Tardis:Naming conventions says that we typically use singular names for article titles. So all other issues aside, "The Osgoods" will probably not fly.
- OttselSpy25
Well I think that we need a different name for the hub article.
- Gowron8472
I think the hub article should be Petronella Osgood. All three of them identify as Osgood, and I think we can trust her when she told us her first name. Also, for what its worth, there's this quote from Big Finish. "The Zygon's TV opponents will also be returning soon, as Kate Stewart (Jemma Redgrave) and Petronella Osgood (Ingrid Oliver) deploy for battle against the Nestene Consciousness in UNIT: Extinction"
- Tybort
OWL wrote:
OttselSpy25 wrote:
DoctorWhoLetTheDogsOut wrote: Make four pages
1. A page about Petronella Osgood, the human who appeared in "The Day of the Doctor". List all information that is shown to be 100% true about her and that she later became on of the Osgoods.
2. A page about Zygon Osgood, the Zygon who took Osgoods form, put all the information about her up until the inhaler scene in DotD under biography, and then explain that she became one of the Osgoods.
3. Bonnie's page. At the end of her biography put that she became one of the Osgoods.
4. A page simply called the Osgoods. On this page list the events of DiH, TZInva, and TZInver. Say that the pair were both Zygon!Osgood and Human!Osgood and then write about the Osgood that died and the Osgood who lived on that page, as well as any of Bonnie's actions after she became one of the Osgoods. If Bonnie appears in future episodes, add on to this page, not her own.
Was actually thinking of something like this myself.
Yes, this sounds like the clearest solution!
While I don't know what to do about Bonnie in her form as Bonnie (incidentally, she already has a page at Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion)), I disagree with this proposal, especially as a "clearest" solution. It seems horribly convoluted. The "Zygon Osgood" and Bonnie (at the end of The Zygon Inversion) are both "Zygon Osgoods", after all.
- Tybort
Danniesen wrote: Ingrid Oliver has said that keen-eyed Whovians are able to tell who's who.
But, as for the video recorded of the Zygon Osgood and human Osgood in The Zygon Invasion I would say that the one in the scarf might be the Zygon, and the other one would be human... I think
Steven Moffat has also said that he doesn't know which Osgood is which and he's only the official biographer, while Oliver herself said afterwards either she does or she can't say. [2] And "might be" is not a valid source.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Seeing as how they act as one in the same, they should be treated as such, with a special section on the osgood page to explain the Zygon Osgood situation. Also, the human Osgood's page should be changed to Petronella Osgood.
- 195.195.140.97
I think the Osgood on the right (who was wearing the scarf)is the Osgood who died as she is wearing the exact same clothes (with only the scarf being changed for a bowtie). However, I think Ingrid was saying you can tell which one died not which one is the human or Zygon.
- 195.195.140.97
I suggest we dont merge any of the pages. For all three Osgoods - Osgood, Zygood and Bonnie - keep the information from before they merged together. Then keep the information from after they merged identicle until we get some explaination in future.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
It's likely to be quite some time until this happens, so I believe we should merge until more information arrives on who is who. Simply because, they all act as one, are all seen as one in the DWU, and are unknown as to who is who.
- 195.195.140.97
Personally I believe Steven Moffat isnt done with this whole Zygon plot. You cant expect humans and Zygons to live hapily forever. I think he'll change things up again when Osgood returns. Maybe he'll make a rogue Zygon (who wants information about the Osgood box) take Osgood's form from before Death In Heaven.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
I agree, but I also believe it won't be for at least another series or so. And so we should merge simply to make things simpler to explain on one page until this new information arrives.
- OttselSpy25
I think that most of us agree with that, but doubt how a three-person page with different entry points and backgrounds would work. Thus it should be decided which we go with: three pages for Osgood, Zygon Osgood 1, and Zigella with links to the Osgood page for stories unclear about who is who, or somehow combining the three into one page in the first place.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
I just feel it would be simpler to merge them.
- OttselSpy25
Can someone do a draft of what this would look like tho? I could, but I just had some minor surgery and I'm not up to it.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Or maybe just a merge of the Original Zygon Osgood and Petronella Osgood, would be better, considering Bonnie was also "Clara"
- OttselSpy25
It's really the Bonnie issue that makes this a bigger issue -- it seems odd to have one of the trinity separate because we know her name and have proof of her disguised as someone else.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
But she should be left out because she also disguised herself as Clara and there is more to her than just Osgood #3, as opposed to the Zygon Osgood who was only one of the Osgoods.
- OttselSpy25
What you're saying is that the reason that she is different is that she has a different back story. Well that same logic could be used for making the first two Osgoods separate, couldn't it?
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Yes but Bonnie should be separate because we know her backstory, if Osgood #2 gets a backstory in the future that we know about, then we should give her her own page then, but for now, there's so little we know, other than She is one of the Osgoods and is a Zygon and possibly dead, there's no reason for her not to have her own section on Petronella Osgood's page, especially considering the fact that they were both considered the real Osgood.
- OttselSpy25
Osgood 2 has a backstory. "I'm a Zygon. I escaped my planet."
It's a story that will not be reflected in the new BF audios.
- 195.195.140.97
Each Osgood has a backstory. Osgood #1 is self explanatory as she was a UNIT scientist, fan of the Doctor and did some things in DoTD before Zygon Osgood showed up.Osgood#2 fled her planet, came to earth hundreds of years ago and waited in a statis cube until she escaped. Osgood#3 had the whole two parter doing stuff on her own before becoming Osgood.
- OttselSpy25
Plus Osgood 1 has her own audio now.
- 195.195.140.97
Exactly :p
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Well, Give Osgood #2 her own section on Petronella's Osgood's page
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Certainly I'm not the only one who thinks this way on here
- OttselSpy25
Then why would Bonnie get her own page? Not consistent.
- Bwburke94
Despite being an Osgood, Bonnie is a separate character from "the Osgoods" as a whole, because of her role in the two-parter as a whole.
- OttselSpy25
You could argue the same thing for the first Zygon osgood tho. It's almost the same story actually.
- 92.19.35.173
But we wont know which one Bonnie is, when we see her again. Give them all desperate pages.
- 92.19.35.173
Oops, i went to say seperate but my mind was thinking different.
- NarnianAslan1
Merging the pages wouldnt be good. I know Bonnie and the other zygon osgood all became osgood mentally in a pshycic link but previous to that they are individual people so the page should end with "they took osgoods form and became osgood"
All the osgoods are collectively one person
- NarnianAslan1
All the other osgoods are irrelevent. Petronella Osgood is her actual name and we know that
- Bwburke94
We're not asking what her name is. We're asking how to handle the fact there are three of her.
- Amorkuz
Perhaps, a slightly alternative view in support of the 4-page solution. The post The-Zygon-Inversion-state of Osgood is not really a person. It's a job, a function if you like. While only one human could/can perform this function, any Zygon can. At different times there have been one or two Human-Zygon-peacekeepers. Nothing prevents there being more in the future (originally there was a human/zygon symmetry, but it has been broken by the death of one of them and it might still be broken now). The condition of performing this function is abandoning one's personality in favor of the original human Osgood's one.
So one page for the function, three pages for persons who are known to have performed this function. Potentially, more pages can lead into the function page if new Zygons take the role. Potentially, if the peace treaty does fail in the future and the Zygons go their own way, the personal pages pick up from there. Potential problem would be if it would not be stated which Zygon abandons the role of Osgood. But this can be resolved by simply creating a separate page (temporarily or otherwise) with the rationale that the Osgood experience changes the personality.
As for merging all pages together, there are counterexamples. For instance, Tayden's connection to Ares is even stronger than that of Bonnie to the Osgood Inc: 1) Tayden was originally a clone of Ares bred for the purpose of transferring Ares's consciousness into him; 2) Tayden and Ares were voiced by the same actor, despite the presumed age difference; 3) the transfer was irreversible: Tayden's personality was not retrievable, whereas, say, Bonnie can walk away any moment. Despite this strong connection, Tayden's page is not merged into Ares's. Instead, Tayden's page ends in the transfer from Ares to his body. The next action of this body is recorded on Ares's page.
- Mewiet
I've resisted responding to this because I hoped there would be some resolution in the recent Osgood releases, but no dice. I absolutely hate the idea of combining three distinct characters on the same page. However, I will begrudgingly accept it because I don't think we will ever get an answer on who actually died in Dark Water and then add to that, Osgood has now become a "position" that others like Bonnie can claim.
But Petronella? The fact that the Doctor says his name is Basil and Osgood later calls him Basil makes me very suspicious about whether she was serious about that being her name or not. Does Extinction confirm her first name is Petronella in-story?
- OttselSpy25
Unlikely, but often out-of-universe implications can be used to reflect how we interpret in-universe treatments... See The Infinity Doctors.
I pretty much support the idea of having one page for "OSGOOD" and then the three pages listing the different "incarnations" as separate articles. It's similar to how we treat time lord pages and also how we treat the Cyberman page (with the unknowns being listed on the main page)
- JagoAndLitefoot
"UNIT: Extinction" doesn't call her Petronella in-story (as it was recorded months before), but Big Finish does call her that on their website, as does the BBC.
- RogerAckroydLives
I think that by far the easiest solution to all of this to have a page for Petronella, and another for Bonnie. "Zygon Osgood" has no individual character traits or backstory, and we would be going on pure speculation to assume who the Osgood in Invasion/Inversion is. Regardless, the Doctor has already rid the DWU of the assumption that one is "pure Zygon" and another "pure human", describing their link in vague terms but making clear that they both share some characteristics of both species, making them a form of hybrid.
Bonnie, on the other hand, can have another page. It would not be inconsistent in the slightest to give a separate character their page own page simply because of the fact they assumed another identity. In future we may be forced to merge the pages if we again are given uncertain presentation of an "Osgood", but prior to such occurring, the character Bonnie is easily distinguishable from the unknown Osgood in every scene of the aforementioned two-parter.
And, of course we can use the disambiguation page if necessary to refer users to Bonnie. But at the moment, there is no obvious need to do so.
- OttselSpy25
I once again must voice my opinion that there is just as much justification to have the Zygon Osgood have her own page as to allow Bonnie to have one. Either we keep them all separate with one page for the vague "concept" of Osgood or we merge all three into one. That's our only two options I think.
- OttselSpy25
Any ideas on what the pages would be tho? Obviously there's
Any ideas for the hub page's name?
- RogerAckroydLives
Except there isn't. Bonnie was given her own name, given individual opinions and numerous lines of dialogue, and had a leading role and plot function within her story.
"Zygon Osgood" was given none of those things, and may not even have existed as a separate entity post-DotD, as per the Doctor's statements. Assuming differently would be speculative in the extreme.
If, and only if, we are again presented with Osgoods of unclear identity, we can and almost definitely should merge all three. But until then, there is no in-universe sourcing that ever makes unclear who Bonnie is. She is always a separate entity to "Osgood", even during the brief time she takes on Petronella's appearance.
- RogerAckroydLives
OttselSpy25 wrote: Any ideas on what the pages would be tho? Obviously there's
Any ideas for the hub page's name?
More likely a set would be Petronella Osgood, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) and the already existing Osgood, for disambiguation.
- OttselSpy25
You could aruge that HUMAN Osgood was given her own name, given individual opinions and numerous lines of dialogue, and had a leading role and plot function within her story as well.
Bonnie is now an Osgood. In future appearances, it will be just as unclear who is who. You can't speculate that the reveal that Bonnie becomes an Osgood wasn't there because it was. And as human Osgood has just as much of a unique back story as Bonnie, both totally separate from the Zygon Osgood, then there's absolutely no reason to consider Bonnie an exception. So either we keep all three separate and have a hub page or we merge all three.
- RogerAckroydLives
Except she has since merged with "Zygon Osgood", creating an unclear being and/or character. Assuming that Bonnie will ever again appear is pure speculation, and causes more problems for in-universe reasoning and works against some of our very most fundamental policies. If Bonnie were ever "mixed" with the undefined being "Osgood", then we would need a merge. Until then, no such action is necessary.
- OttselSpy25
She was mixed with the undefined being "Osgood." In that final scene it's unclear who is who. We presume that our Osgood is the one who's dressed up in the UNIT-lapel-thing but it's made clear that either one could be her.
- Bwburke94
We're going in circles here. My new proposal is:
- The page Petronella Osgood (renamed from Osgood (The Day of the Doctor)) is about all three, and details all events that can't be attributed specifically to one of the Zygons.
- The page Zygon Petronella Osgood (renamed from Zygon Osgood) is about both Zygons, and details all events that can be attributed specifically to one of the Zygons, but can't be attributed specifically to Bonnie.
- The page Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) details all events that can be attributed specifically to Bonnie.
- The page Osgood continues to act as a disambiguation page, for all characters and concepts named "Osgood" including Bonnie.
It is unlikely that Bonnie and another confirmed Zygon will appear together in the future, but I'm future-proofing this just in case.
- Amorkuz
To further prove that Zygon Petronella Osgood should have her own page, not merged with Petronella Osgood, here is an almost completely analogous case. Billy (Death in Blackpool) had almost no lines and very little screen/speaker time before being killed and his personality being taken over by a Zynog. For most of the story, the Zynog was using his body and was voiced by the same actor. Nevertheless, Billy has a separate page, not merged with that of the Zynog.
- OttselSpy25
The same for every page on a human who is impersonated. See Kritakh and Michael Kirkwood
- Danniesen
Of course they have their own pages, apart from the Zygon duplicates. They are characters that are duplicated by a Zygon who takes on their appearance. Zygons don't just invent a new form.
- Amorkuz
Not necessarily. For most of The Zygon Who Fell to Earth (audio story), Haygoth was wearing the appearance of a musician Trevor. However, Trevor does not have his own page. To me it seems that the determining factor is whether a character (human or Zygon, we're not specieist) appears in the story itself. In the case of Trevor, only his comatose (?) body is present for the purposes of Haygoth's bodyprinting. Since he does not say or do anything, there is no page, even though there is a backstory that is important to the overall plot. Zygon Osgood does and says things, though not much, exactly as in the case of Billy mentioned above.
- OttselSpy25
No, the defining factor is if the audio has been covered correctly. There should be a page on the musician Trevor. I think that this is pretty definitive.
- Amorkuz
Well, this is as good a time as any to formulate a comprehensive policy regarding body doubles: here are some other cases while we're at it.
The Zygon Mims posing as Humphrey Mims. Nothing is known about the human. Page or no page for Humphrey Mims?
The Zygon Urtak from the same story. Nothing, not even a name is known of the human he copied. Page or no page for the unnamed human whose form Urtak used?
The late Baron Teufel was impersonated by an alien. There are flashbacks to the life of the actual baron. Page or no page for the human baron?
My personal inclination would be to create such a page only if at least something other than the name is known about the human character. So pages for Trevor and original Baron Teufel but no page for human prototypes of Mims and Urtak.
- Danniesen
All originals should have their own page. The human Jemima and Claudette should also have pages, even though they didn't appear themselves.
The human counterparts for all must exist in DWU (even if never seen) as, as I mentioned above, Zygons don't just invent a new form.
- OttselSpy25
If someone says "I'm a duplicate of George" then george should get a page. It's no different from "I've got a cousin named George."
- Amorkuz
Well, if this is the standard level of detail, then there is no point even contemplating the idea that Zygon Osgood should have no page.
Just for the record, this means that both "The Zygon Inv*" stories are seriously underprocessed. Apart form Jemima and Claudette prototypes, there are prototypes of the policewoman from Truth or Consequences, of Clara's neighbors, of UNIT soldiers' parents, of Etoine, of UNIT soldiers, maybe someone else.
- Shambala108
Hold the phone. This thread is just about Osgood, which is a more complex issue than the basic question of body doubles.
And thus far the practice has been that we make separate pages for characters and their doubles; for example, Margaret Blaine, who never appeared on screen, has her own page. If this needs to be formulated in some kind of policy, it should be done in another thread.
So let's keep this discussion just on Osgood. If you want to use other characters' pages as examples, fine, but that's it.
- Danniesen
Yeah, the point was only meant for examples, but I guess it went a little far off.
But to end the discussion on the issue of doubles, only those significant are created (for example: only Hitchley's mother, not the rest of the "women")
- Amorkuz
It was not completely useless: we have a confirmation that Zygon Osgood would have a page according to common practice.
Since I was partially guilty of the distraction, let me try to focus attention by summarizing the choices left. (Please, correct me at will.)
Option 1. Separate page for each of the three characters and the fourth page for the conglomerate. Names of pages are to be chosen.
Option 2. One page for all four. Whether to use Petronella needs to be decided.
I vote option 1 with page names Osgood (UNIT: Extinction), Zygon Osgood (The Day of the Doctor), Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) and Osgood (hybrid).
Justification: these names are long so adding Petronella would make them overlong (it can be added in the text). Plus, the policy says to use the most commonly used name. In UNIT: Extinction, Osgood explicitly states that most people call her "Osgood". For separate characters, the names are unambiguous as each cited story only has one copy of this particular type (in particular, the two Zygon Osgood issue is resolved). The "hybrid" moniker is based on the Doctor's words in The Zygon Invasion (TV story). It emphasizes that they are not just human and Zygon but something more. Also hybrid is starting to look like a general topic (if not an ark) of Series 9 to me, so it would be nice to acknowledge it. I also believe that "hybrid" is sufficiently telling not to mix it with either human or Zygon Osgood.
- JagoAndLitefoot
But for disambiguation we use the story in which a character first appeared in terms of release chronology, not internal chronology (so the original Osgood being in "UNIT: Extinction" doesn't matter). Both the original Osgood and her first Zygon double first appeared in "The Day of the Doctor".
By the way, "UNIT: Extinction" is the name of the anthology, if anything it should be "Osgood (Vanguard)", the first individual story in the set, if we were to use it.
- OttselSpy25
The reasoning for this is that UNIT: Domination is the first story to feature ONLY the human Osgood definitively. I believe that there is a story that goes by the same logic, if I can just find it...
- RogerAckroydLives
OttselSpy25 wrote: She was mixed with the undefined being "Osgood." In that final scene it's unclear who is who. We presume that our Osgood is the one who's dressed up in the UNIT-lapel-thing but it's made clear that either one could be her.
Except she isn't. In the first place, we are clearly shown who is who. Of course they could be being inaccurate with their definitions, but so could any character ever. Do we create a page at Zygon Leela simply because she might have been a Zygon duplicate all along? And in the second, nothing happens in those final scenes which could be referred to as of uncertain character. Even if Unknown Osgood was pretending to be Bonnie, and vice-versa, the information we glean can either be attributed to the "appropriate" character, or simply left out due to the fact that no specifically attributable lines of dialogue need be referenced on either page. That scene certainly does not meld Bonnie into our unknown being, leaving her a completely separate character.
- RogerAckroydLives
It is almost definitely worthwhile to remain with the four pages we have. Osgood will be left no matter what, so that needn't even be considered for a merge. It is reasonable to assume that Osgood (TDotD) can be renamed Petronella Osgood, as we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this name any more than any other name someone uses to introduce themself. Bonnie definitely does not need merging at this point in time; whether "future proofing" is something this wiki is going to begin to do is something which should be authoritatively decided, and given the fact our spoiler policy and the fact that speculation is completely invalid here leads me to believe that doing so is very, very close to a huge breach of policy. Finally, Zygon Osgood, or whatever its name may be in the future, can be left as a page. The only real cause for debate here is whether it should be merged, something that wouldn't be entirely necessary, but which might be favourable.
So I see three options:
1. We leave all pages, writing similar information in for both Petronella and Zygon Osgood.
2. We merge Petronella and Zygon Osgood, squeezing in the information about Zygon Osgood pre-hybridisation as a sort of prelude for "Osgood"'s life post-hybridisation.
3. We add a third page on the being "Osgood" referring to the events of the Osgood twins post-hybridisation, and cut off Petronella and Zygon's pages at the end of their roles in TDotD.
Personally, I feel the third option is most suitable, as we are therefore not duplicating information due to non-speculation, and we are also not trying to shove in info about a separate character on another character's page. That way we simply give the new page two sections: the one who we see in DiH and who dies, and the one who we see in Inversion/Invasion who hasn't yet. And that way, we simultaneously "future proof" our wiki by allowing any post-Inversion Bonnie stories to be covered on the hybrid page, finishing Bonnie's page at the end of Inversion, if ever necessary. So my vote is for pages to be written and maintained for Osgood, Petronella Osgood, Zygon Osgood, Osgood (hybrid) or whatever we may choose to call it, and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion).
- Amorkuz
RogerAckroydLives wrote: It is almost definitely worthwhile to remain with the four pages we have. [...] So my vote is for pages to be written and maintained for Osgood, Petronella Osgood, Zygon Osgood, Osgood (hybrid) or whatever we may choose to call it, and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion).
To prevent misunderstanding, my vote was for the same pages (with different names): I simply forgot to mention the disambiguation page Osgood (not that anyone doubted that's needed).
Also a procedural suggestion. Whenever discussing a particular page name, it is better to mention the set of page names from which it is taken: the same name may be unambiguous in one set but ambiguous in another (of course, the ideal is to choose names that are unambiguous in every reasonable set, but whether this is possible in this Moffat world, I don't know).
- Amorkuz
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Both the original Osgood and her first Zygon double first appeared in "The Day of the Doctor".
Comment for the set of names: Osgood (disambiguation page), Osgood (UNIT: Vanguard), Zygon Osgood (The Day of the Doctor), Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) and Osgood (hybrid).
To expand on this point, it appears that usually having "Character" and "Zygon Character" pages serves the purposes of disambiguation already, which is why the goal is to distinguish Osgood from Osgood (hybrid), not from Zygon Osgood. Since The Day of the Doctor (TV story) does not really distinguish them, we can either leave it at Osgood and Osgood (hybrid) or make it explicit by calling them Human Osgood and Hybrid Osgood.
Secondly, I have realized that Bonnie is not a second Zygon Osgood at the end of The Zygon Inversion (TV story). I think she is Hybrid Osgood and RogerAckroydLives thinks she's not even that. At any rate, there is no ambiguity in saying Zygon Osgood if we also have Hybrid Osgood around. Thus, I tend to almost take RogerAckroydLives's suggestion with one change:
Osgood (disambiguation page), Human Osgood (<--- this is the change), Zygon Osgood, Hybrid Osgood, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion).
- RogerAckroydLives
I personally think Petronella Osgood is enough of a disambiguation, as it is a name not attributable to any Zygon, rather a name attributable to Human Osgood and any hybrid she may become part of. Perhaps, then, we could have Petronella Osgood (hybrid) for the uncertain twins, regardless of whether we use the name for the original human.
- JagoAndLitefoot
"Osgood (UNIT: Vanguard)"
Just Osgood (Vanguard), if anything, the title of the story itself has no prefix (just like we don't prefix episode titles with "Doctor Who:".
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: Plus, the policy says to use the most commonly used name. In UNIT: Extinction, Osgood explicitly states that most people call her "Osgood".
This is no different from any other last-name basis. We use the full name if it is known, even for duplicates known to use that name.
- OttselSpy25
The exception is if the name comes from the novelization.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: This is no different from any other last-name basis. We use the full name if it is known, even for duplicates known to use that name.
Before we get lost in terminology, for the record, by "full name" you mean first and last name as opposed to full name (including middle names, etc.). This is important because the policy mentions "full name" in this latter meaning.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: This is no different from any other last-name basis. We use the full name if it is known, even for duplicates known to use that name.
And yes, you are right. I misquoted the policy from memory. The "most common" part concerned the last name only. If known, first and last name are the standard. Mea culpa.
- 115.188.61.225
Oh, for goodness sake.
One page, 'Bonnie', for the character appearing in TZI two-parter, ending with a note that she became part of the Petronella Osgood identity at the end of said episodes. One page, 'Petronella Osgood', describing the identity comprised of multiple beings, human and zygons, one of which died in Death in Heaven, that is then joined/entered into by the Zygon formerly known as Bonnie. That suits how people will actually want to use it. Not 20 different pages for two characters and one random monster that stood in the background in DotD except when it became Osgood. That would just be annoying.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: The exception is if the name comes from the novelization.
I don't logically see why that's an exception, but novelisations are another beast entirely.
- SOTO
Okay, I'm a new voice in this discussion, and I'm surprised no one has said what it is I have to say. The IP editor above got quite close.
It's not actually a very complicated case: Osgood is an identity. The whole point of her character in the Zygon two-parter is that once both assumed that identity, neither was specifically human and neither was specifically Zygon. If we must put something in the infobox as species, Osgood literally gives us "hybrid" in the script.
So. Osgood is Osgood, regardless of origins. It is an identity, and it is a character. Prior to TDOTD, that identity belonged to only one individual. So in the history section of the one Osgood page, it would, at first, simply be human Osgood's story. Prior to to the peace treaty Day, "Zygon Osgood", as we seem to be calling her here, did not identify as Osgood. Prior to the end of Inversion, Bonnie did not identify as Osgood.
Thus, the Osgood Zygon from Day still needs their own page, but their history ends when they actually become Osgood, and Osgood's joint history continues on the Osgood page. The Zygon who mocked Osgood, stole her inhaler, who I believe tried to attack Clara, is not Osgood. That Zygon, though, slightly later on in their history, became Osgood, and at that point it all merges. No duplicate information needed on the Zygon page, because that individual ceased to be that Zygon that was impersonating Osgood, and became one of two Osgoods, each with a different species.
- Let's call that page Zygon (Osgood) for now, because I think some unconventional dabbing for this case is in order. That character is a Zygon, and not actually Osgood; "Osgood" is simply the only identifier we have for that Zygon, because that was the form they took and no other name was revealed. Zygon Kate Stewart should be Zygon (Kate Stewart) as well, Zygon (Elizabeth), Zygon (horse), etc. In normal circumstances, the disambiguation would be the story page, but in this case there are several Zygons from the same story that each need individual pages. (On a slightly off-topic note, I think we should do the same with Slitheen whose actual names we don't know—Slitheen (Human They're Impersonating)
- I think it's a very different case with Zygons than it was with Gangers, who were the people they were copied from, simply not human. These Zygons were simply Zygons who we characterise by the people they pretended to be. If we ever do find out which Osgood is which, which I believe we won't, and we decide to separate them, then they would get Ganger-like treatment, with Osgood as the main name, and, say, (Zygon) and (Bonnie) as disambiguation terms.
Though obviously we can point out that immediately after the merge, each knew which they were because Zygon Osgood gave human Osgood her inhaler, unless something new comes up in future, we should not attempt to separate Osgood by her species at any point after the inhaler scene. We can only state that Osgood knew which species she belonged to, and treat all self-identifying Osgoods as one identity, which no distinctions made except that there were more than one. "One of the Osgoods..." "Osgood told the Doctor..." "The Osgoods worked together to..."
They have a shared identity. Why does everybody feel so strongly that she must be separated, when clearly what Osgood wants is to be considered collectively, and as simply Osgood, regardless of her species. Attempting to make divisions where no divisions actually exist in her identity would be akin to trying to shove real-world non-binary people into a binary gender, just because you feel they must be assigned one. It was actually kind of rude for the Doctor to be continually asking her, because why should it matter? She is Osgood.
Anyway, in the same vein, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), who does have a name of her own, would be the same. She'd have her own page, her own history, leading up to her taking the identity of Osgood, at which point she would simply be Osgood, and would be part of the joint history from then on. So Bonnie's infobox picture would be of her in Clara's form, or maybe in Zygon and Clara form. At the end of her biography, she ceases to be Bonnie at all and becomes Osgood. Simple. Her personality is her personality as Bonnie, while she was identifying as such, just like the Sixth Doctor's personality section is that incarnation's personality and not the following Doctor's. She effectively becomes a different person in the same manner.
Of course, if there weren't three potential individuals melded into one identity, and Bonnie was the only surviving Osgood, Bonnie's page would just have an "As Osgood" section. This is not the case we are dealing with, though, and I believe the solution is clear. Once again: one central Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) (we can't actually say we know her first name at this point, because we don't believe the Doctor on "Basil", and she called him that when he called her "Petronella" at the end of Inversion), and pages as well for Zygon (Osgood), the one who impersonates Osgood and steals her inhaler, and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), the one who impersonates Clara and leads the revolution. At one point, those two were separate entities from Osgood, and those pages would cover those lives, as effectively ending when they each become Osgood.
In timeline format:
- Joining UNIT—before Human-Zygon treaty (1 Osgood): There is one Osgood (The Day of the Doctor). She is human and works for UNIT.
- Start of Operation Double—Missy's arrival (1 Osgood + Zygon = 2 Osgoods): Zygon (Osgood) becomes Osgood, and there are two Osgoods.
- Missy's murder—Zygon rebellion (2 Osgoods - 1 Osgood): Missy kills one of the Osgoods, and the remaining Osgood does not identify as either human or Zygon specifically, refusing to tell anyone what her species is.
- Rebellion steps down—present time (1 Osgood + Bonnie = 2 Osgoods): Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) becomes an Osgood, and there are two Osgoods again, at least one of which is a Zygon. Both of which are Osgood, just like the one who had died.
Et voilà!
- Amorkuz
Since any simplification is a win, I would support cutting from four pages to three by uniting the "identity" page with the "human" page. There is a certain appeal in the reasoning that the Zygons functionally become the human Osgood.
I am, however, a bit worried about the names: the search often provides a drop-down menu with no context. It would be preferable if the page names in this drop-down menu are clear enough for most users to click on the one they search for from the very first attempt. As always, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) is not problematic. Zygon (Osgood) is a bit worse as it could refer to Bonnie. What I mean is a person not privy to this discussion could think that Bonnie is a Zygon who impersonated Osgood at some point, and the Bonnie page would not show in a search for Osgood (methinks?). Is it possible to add the story name to it in addition to Osgood, e.g., Zygon (Osgood, The Day of the Doctor) or a variation thereof? And now for the Osgood page. Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) might be very confusing, IMHO. The story name could be seen as excluding all the other stories with her. In fact, is there a precedent of using a story name as a disambiguation for a character appearing in more than one story? I'm not sure what the best solution here is. Petronella would surely help. Could we maybe take her word on it? She's not been known to lie as much as the Doctor.
- SOTO
What? I replied... Where's my reply?
- SOTO
Shit! I actually found it, and added some more, but the whole thing disappeared when I hit "reply"! Uhhhh.
:(
- SOTO
I almost copied the text, too, but didn't! I'll write it again another day—maybe tomorrow. If I try now, I'll get frustrated because it won't be the same. I hate it when I lose things.
- Bwburke94
Is there any opposition to treating "Petronella" as an unambiguous first name for the human Osgood?
- SOTO
Yes. And I wrote it all out, and lost it. Now's as good a time as any to restart...
- SOTO
Zygon (Osgood) could not feasibly refer to Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) any more than UNIT soldier (The Three Doctors) could refer to Palmer (The Three Doctors) or John Benton, also UNIT soldiers in that story. But UNIT soldier is the unnamed UNIT soldier, and we have names for those other two, and "UNIT soldier" is what we're given in the credits. For Name, all we're given in the credits is "Zygons", played by Aidan Cook and Paul Kasey (those are the actors who played Zygon Osgood, Zygon Kate, etc, whenever they were not in "human" form). Unlike UNIT soldier, though, we cannot simply name her Zygon (The Name of the Doctor) and be on our way—because there are many, many many Zygons in The Name of the Doctor.
Therefore, we have to go beyond standard disambiguation conventions. (If there's no other way to separate them, we even allow titles like "Mr" and "Mrs" to enter into titles because two people known only by that last name appeared in the same story.) Starting from the name Zygons, given in the credits to include all the "unmasked" Zygons throughout the story, we can only really do:
- SOTO
Now, on the topic of Petronella:
Osgood: What's your first name? Doctor: Basil. (long pause) Osgood: Petronella. Doctor: Let's just, er, stick with what we had. I need to ask you, because it's important, because it might matter. Osgood: What's important? Doctor: Which one are you? Human or Zygon?
.........
.........
Doctor: Zygella? Osgood: Osgood! Doctor: But which one of you— Both Osgoods: Osgood! Osgood: It doesn't matter which of us is which. Osgood: All that matters is that Osgood lives. Osgood: And nothing's going to stop us! Doctor: You're a credit to your species, Petronella Osgood. Osgood: No, Basil. Osgood: We're a credit to both of them.The name "Petronella" is only ever used in the same context as "Basil". In order to consider "Petronella" anything other than something she came up with in the moment in response to Basil, we would have to accept Basil as the Doctor's true first name. In the final scene, the Doctor calls her Petronella, and she calls him Basil in return. You don't have to go very far into subtext to realise that the script really wants to get across that she was lying about her first name, and we still don't know that, just like we still don't know which of the original two Osgoods is the one that survived.
Yes, it would make things easier for us if we accepted Petronella as her true name, but there is simply no basis for that at this time. At the moment, it's only used in Inversion, and it's not clear at all, given the only context in which it was spoken, that this was her real name (in fact the script goes to lengths to make sure we know it's not). However. If a story, maybe a BF adventure, (story, not anything out-of-universe, written not by the writers of the story, but quite possibly by some confused BBC and/or BF employees who just didn't get that whole Petronella thing) uses that as her first name, honestly, unambiguously, then we can discuss this again, and possibly move the page accordingly.
- Amorkuz
I am forced to concede on both points. I did not realize that "Petronella" is always adjacent to "Basil". And I sure appreciate naming policies explained.
This, however, does not erase my second concern, the Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) designation. Here is a mental experiment. I want to find the information on the Osgood collective. I type "Osgood" and get several pages. The closest is the above mentioned one. But I know that the collective was not created in The Day of the Doctor, not onscreen anyways. Moreover, I know that Osgood was purely human in this story and became a weird hybrid afterwards. So this The Day of the Doctor designation suggests that this page is NOT about the collective and IS ONLY about the human, which is the opposite of SOTO's suggestion.
This is why, while waiting on the Petronella leak status, I would still prefer to find some other, unconventional dabbing for "Osgood" that would not suggest anything wrong. How about Osgood (UNIT)? To the best of my understanding, Osgood (The Seeds of Death) did not work for UNIT, but all Osgood hybrids do. Plus, it is inclusive of Extinction, which in Osgood's timeline happens before The Day of the Doctor.
- SOTO
Eh, I see what you're saying. It's the first appearance of the first Osgood, and of the second Osgood, but not the third (originally Bonnie), and it's not the first appearance of this idea of anyone but the human Osgood being really Osgood. "Osgood" as a "hybrid", as said in the script, or a shared identity, began in The Zygon Invasion. I get what you're saying.
T:DAB and T:ONE NAME say always dab by the name of the story in which the character first appeared. This was the forum we apparently credit to that decision. But exceptions can sometimes be made, in rare cases, by forum discussions. None have been made so far, so what's your reasoning behind an exception being made for this case?
- I can only think of Jack Harkness as a sort-of exception. We don't dab his page even though the original Jack Harkness also has a page, at Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness). Also, if we go with my plan, all the "Zygon (character)" pages will definitely be an exception.
If we do decide that she deserves an exception because she's multiple individuals and not all debuted in The Day of the Doctor, then I might suggest Osgood (UNIT scientist) instead of simply (UNIT). While we obviously have no conventions for non-story character dabs, the audio story dab is (audio story) rather than (audio), for example.
"The Osgood collective" is a really cute name for it, by the way!
- Amorkuz
Let me try to analyze the three cases of a character present in several stories and dabbed by the first appearance I was pointed at: 1) Nancy (The Empty Child), 2) Jack Harkness and 3) Osgood (The Day of the Doctor). I am going to argue that the standard policy is good for 1) where it has been applied, is bad for 2) where it hasn't been applied (would be Jack Harkness (The Empty Child) otherwise) and is bad for 3) where we should not apply it.
The criterion of goodness/badness for me is simple: does the disambiguation term itself add ambiguity? If it does, it's bad as it doesn't do its job.
Why the dab (The Empty Child) is sufficient for 1) even though Nancy also appears in The Doctor Dances? This case is overly simple really. The two episodes are essentially one story, as confirmed by their story numbers (164a and 164b). But let's imagine we uncover some other Ashildr in some forgotten comic. The dab (The Girl Who Died) would still work throughout Season 9, right, despite her changing from human to hybrid? We've seen many transformations that have no effect on the naming, e.g., Rose, Jack, Brig, etc. I conclude that the creation of the Osgood collective by itself should not affect the naming scheme.
So what would make dabbing by the first appearance bad? What made it bad for Jack and is also happening with Osgood? I think, the presence of another individual with the exact same name: Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness) or both Zygon (Osgood) and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion). Note that we want to separate the second Jack Harkness but to conjoin the second and third Osgood. The situation is as follows: we have one individual, Ind1, introduced in Story1, and then someone else, Ind2, who has the same Name as Ind1, introduced in Story2. The standard policy prescribes to call them Name (Story1) and Name (Story2). This is what is done with the second Jack Harkness but not the first. (And I think it is extremely confusing because the name of the story just happens to be applicable to both Jack Harknesses as individuals.) But it kinda works (for the second one), at least for someone familiar with the policy.
But let us imagine a user who has not read all the policies (yes, I'm looking at myself). Imagine someone not knowing the first appearance policy for dabbing. Well, both Jack Harknesses are in Captain Jack Harkness, so which one is the new one? The purpose of the dabbing to separate unambiguously is mildly violated by the dabbing for Ind2 being too inclusive.
The Osgood case is for me the reverse situation. Here the dabbing for Ind1 is too exclusive: the purpose of dabbing is to include all Osgoods into the article for the human Osgood, whereas the other parts of Osgood did not yet appear in The Day of the Doctor.
And the second and last point I want to make is that using first appearance story as the dab term is not the best idea if a character appeared in more than one medium (Jack in TV Doctor Who, TV Torchwood and COMIC; Osgood in TV Doctor Who and AUDIO UNIT). It seems to me that doing so would violate at least the spirit of Neutral point of view policy, item 1. All media are equal. To me, this means not only that information from one is equally important as from another, but also that the absence of information from one media should not preclude a user from using the Wikia efficiently. I know I would be very cross if Izzy was disambiguated with Endgame because I saw her in The Company of Friends and have no idea whether she is the same as in Endgame. I feel I should not be made to know all comic stories to be able to disambiguate efficiently. By the same token, I think a person should not be made to watch the New Who TV series to be able to disambiguate Jack or Osgood. Someone who only watches Torchwood or only listens to UNIT audios gets no useful information from (The Empty Child) or (The Day of the Doctor) respectively. For them citing a short description like (time agent) or (UNIT scientist) seems beneficial.
To sum up,
- I think the situations when Ind1 and Ind2 have the same Name, Ind1 first appears in Story1 and Ind2 first appears in Story2, where Ind1 also appears --- such situations warrant a discussion whether the standard policy should be used or deviated from. In the case of Jack, it was deviated from.
- The standard dabbing policy should not be applied to characters appearing in more than one media as per T:NPOV.
Both situations are likely to be rare and not accidental, so this would probably not affect too many pages/editors.
- Bwburke94
Keeping it specifically on the context of Osgood, the page title Osgood (UNIT) and variants are off limits because of Tom Osgood going unnamed in his sole televised appearance.
We might have to resort to out-of-universe sources to take Petronella Osgood as a valid name for the identity, but there is no title that follows all our policies and accounts for the fact one of the three Osgoods was not in TDOTD. I'll respond to each post from the last few days shortly.
- Amorkuz
Hmmm... I feel bad for Osgood (The Seeds of Death) now. His first name was also given (in a novelisation) as Harry, but his page is not called Harry Osgood, whereas Tom Osgood's is because the name Tom was given in a book. Is there some policy making novelisations of lesser importance than original books? (Still on-topic for Osgood, hopefully.)
Secondly, this Tom is not a bad guy. He wouldn't want to get in a way. If his first name is kept, I think SOTO's argument from above explains why Osgood is not Tom Osgood. But even if we rename his page to Osgood (Dæmons) or remove his first name mentally, I think they can be nicely distinguished by Osgood (UNIT sergeant) and Osgood (UNIT scientist). Tom Osgood actually appears in the cast as Sgt. Osgood (according to The Dæmons). And his supposed daughter (as per Moffat's implicit intension) is not a sergeant, right?
- Bwburke94
SOTO's reply:
SOTO wrote: It's not actually a very complicated case: Osgood is an identity. The whole point of her character in the Zygon two-parter is that once both assumed that identity, neither was specifically human and neither was specifically Zygon. If we must put something in the infobox as species, Osgood literally gives us "hybrid" in the script.
So. Osgood is Osgood, regardless of origins. It is an identity, and it is a character. Prior to TDOTD, that identity belonged to only one individual. So in the history section of the one Osgood page, it would, at first, simply be human Osgood's story. Prior to to the peace treaty Day, "Zygon Osgood", as we seem to be calling her here, did not identify as Osgood. Prior to the end of Inversion, Bonnie did not identify as Osgood.
Thus, the Osgood Zygon from Day still needs their own page, but their history ends when they actually become Osgood, and Osgood's joint history continues on the Osgood page. The Zygon who mocked Osgood, stole her inhaler, who I believe tried to attack Clara, is not Osgood. That Zygon, though, slightly later on in their history, became Osgood, and at that point it all merges. No duplicate information needed on the Zygon page, because that individual ceased to be that Zygon that was impersonating Osgood, and became one of two Osgoods, each with a different species.
I have no objections to this, as long as the human and the identity share a page. The identity taken by "Zygon Osgood" and later by Bonnie is the identity initially held by the human.
SOTO wrote: Let's call that page Zygon (Osgood) for now, because I think some unconventional dabbing for this case is in order. That character is a Zygon, and not actually Osgood; "Osgood" is simply the only identifier we have for that Zygon, because that was the form they took and no other name was revealed. Zygon Kate Stewart should be Zygon (Kate Stewart) as well, Zygon (Elizabeth), Zygon (horse), etc. In normal circumstances, the disambiguation would be the story page, but in this case there are several Zygons from the same story that each need individual pages. (On a slightly off-topic note, I think we should do the same with Slitheen whose actual names we don't know—Slitheen (Human They're Impersonating)
I think it's a very different case with Zygons than it was with Gangers, who were the people they were copied from, simply not human. These Zygons were simply Zygons who we characterise by the people they pretended to be. If we ever do find out which Osgood is which, which I believe we won't, and we decide to separate them, then they would get Ganger-like treatment, with Osgood as the main name, and, say, (Zygon) and (Bonnie) as disambiguation terms. Though obviously we can point out that immediately after the merge, each knew which they were because Zygon Osgood gave human Osgood her inhaler, unless something new comes up in future, we should not attempt to separate Osgood by her species at any point after the inhaler scene. We can only state that Osgood knew which species she belonged to, and treat all self-identifying Osgoods as one identity, which no distinctions made except that there were more than one. "One of the Osgoods..." "Osgood told the Doctor..." "The Osgoods worked together to..."
They have a shared identity. Why does everybody feel so strongly that she must be separated, when clearly what Osgood wants is to be considered collectively, and as simply Osgood, regardless of her species. Attempting to make divisions where no divisions actually exist in her identity would be akin to trying to shove real-world non-binary people into a binary gender, just because you feel they must be assigned one. It was actually kind of rude for the Doctor to be continually asking her, because why should it matter? She is Osgood.
My main issue with this proposal is that there is no reason to parenthesise any of this. While it is true that Zygon Kate Stewart merely took the form of Kate Stewart, we have an existing method in place for characters only known by an alias, namely Template:Retitle.
SOTO wrote: Anyway, in the same vein, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), who does have a name of her own, would be the same. She'd have her own page, her own history, leading up to her taking the identity of Osgood, at which point she would simply be Osgood, and would be part of the joint history from then on. So Bonnie's infobox picture would be of her in Clara's form, or maybe in Zygon and Clara form. At the end of her biography, she ceases to be Bonnie at all and becomes Osgood. Simple. Her personality is her personality as Bonnie, while she was identifying as such, just like the Sixth Doctor's personality section is that incarnation's personality and not the following Doctor's. She effectively becomes a different person in the same manner.
Of course, if there weren't three potential individuals melded into one identity, and Bonnie was the only surviving Osgood, Bonnie's page would just have an "As Osgood" section. This is not the case we are dealing with, though, and I believe the solution is clear. Once again: one central Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) (we can't actually say we know her first name at this point, because we don't believe the Doctor on "Basil", and she called him that when he called her "Petronella" at the end of Inversion), and pages as well for Zygon (Osgood), the one who impersonates Osgood and steals her inhaler, and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), the one who impersonates Clara and leads the revolution. At one point, those two were separate entities from Osgood, and those pages would cover those lives, as effectively ending when they each become Osgood.
In timeline format:
- Joining UNIT—before Human-Zygon treaty (1 Osgood): There is one Osgood (The Day of the Doctor). She is human and works for UNIT.
- Start of Operation Double—Missy's arrival (1 Osgood + Zygon = 2 Osgoods): Zygon (Osgood) becomes Osgood, and there are two Osgoods.
- Missy's murder—Zygon rebellion (2 Osgoods - 1 Osgood): Missy kills one of the Osgoods, and the remaining Osgood does not identify as either human or Zygon specifically, refusing to tell anyone what her species is.
- Rebellion steps down—present time (1 Osgood + Bonnie = 2 Osgoods): Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) becomes an Osgood, and there are two Osgoods again, at least one of which is a Zygon. Both of which are Osgood, just like the one who had died.
Ignoring the "Petronella" issue for now, I support the idea of each Osgood having their own page, and of Bonnie's article depicting her in Zygon form.
Amorkuz's reply:
Amorkuz wrote: Since any simplification is a win, I would support cutting from four pages to three by uniting the "identity" page with the "human" page. There is a certain appeal in the reasoning that the Zygons functionally become the human Osgood.
I am, however, a bit worried about the names: the search often provides a drop-down menu with no context. It would be preferable if the page names in this drop-down menu are clear enough for most users to click on the one they search for from the very first attempt. As always, Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) is not problematic. Zygon (Osgood) is a bit worse as it could refer to Bonnie. What I mean is a person not privy to this discussion could think that Bonnie is a Zygon who impersonated Osgood at some point, and the Bonnie page would not show in a search for Osgood (methinks?). Is it possible to add the story name to it in addition to Osgood, e.g., Zygon (Osgood, The Day of the Doctor) or a variation thereof? And now for the Osgood page. Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) might be very confusing, IMHO. The story name could be seen as excluding all the other stories with her. In fact, is there a precedent of using a story name as a disambiguation for a character appearing in more than one story? I'm not sure what the best solution here is. Petronella would surely help. Could we maybe take her word on it? She's not been known to lie as much as the Doctor.
Our existing disambiguation policy would block Zygon (Osgood), and as stated above in my reply to SOTO, I'm against using character names as disambiguation. Zygon Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) is the logical best option if disambiguation is needed, with only the story's title as disambiguation.
I do not feel like having TDOTD in the page title excludes all the other stories with her, but in the specific case of Osgood, anything after the inhaler scene wouldn't go on the Zygon's article anyway.
SOTO's replies:
SOTO wrote: Zygon (Osgood) could not feasibly refer to Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) any more than UNIT soldier (The Three Doctors) could refer to Palmer (The Three Doctors) or John Benton, also UNIT soldiers in that story. But UNIT soldier is the unnamed UNIT soldier, and we have names for those other two, and "UNIT soldier" is what we're given in the credits. For Name, all we're given in the credits is "Zygons", played by Aidan Cook and Paul Kasey (those are the actors who played Zygon Osgood, Zygon Kate, etc, whenever they were not in "human" form). Unlike UNIT soldier, though, we cannot simply name her Zygon (The Name of the Doctor) and be on our way—because there are many, many many Zygons in The Name of the Doctor.
Therefore, we have to go beyond standard disambiguation conventions. (If there's no other way to separate them, we even allow titles like "Mr" and "Mrs" to enter into titles because two people known only by that last name appeared in the same story.) Starting from the name Zygons, given in the credits to include all the "unmasked" Zygons throughout the story, we can only really do: (list of names excluded)
Because Osgood is such an unusual case, our normal disambiguation rules might need to be bent a bit. Zygon Osgood from Day may or may not need disambiguation.
I do not see the Zygon situation as similar to honourifics, except for the fact that Zygon (The Day of the Doctor) is off limits. You're using honourifics to explain why disambiguation is needed, but do they have anything to do with Osgood?
SOTO wrote: The name "Petronella" is only ever used in the same context as "Basil". In order to consider "Petronella" anything other than something she came up with in the moment in response to Basil, we would have to accept Basil as the Doctor's true first name. In the final scene, the Doctor calls her Petronella, and she calls him Basil in return. You don't have to go very far into subtext to realise that the script really wants to get across that she was lying about her first name, and we still don't know that, just like we still don't know which of the original two Osgoods is the one that survived.
Yes, it would make things easier for us if we accepted Petronella as her true name, but there is simply no basis for that at this time. At the moment, it's only used in Inversion, and it's not clear at all, given the only context in which it was spoken, that this was her real name (in fact the script goes to lengths to make sure we know it's not). However. If a story, maybe a BF adventure, (story, not anything out-of-universe, written not by the writers of the story, but quite possibly by some confused BBC and/or BF employees who just didn't get that whole Petronella thing) uses that as her first name, honestly, unambiguously, then we can discuss this again, and possibly move the page accordingly.
Both of us have switched our opinions on "Petronella" since Inversion initially aired. The story does go out of its way to avoid confirming "Petronella", but neither did it clearly imply it's not her name. We might want to keep that name out of the article's title, but acknowledge that it might be her first name, similar to characters with names confirmed by a novelisation.
Amorkuz's reply:
Amorkuz wrote: This, however, does not erase my second concern, the Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) designation. Here is a mental experiment. I want to find the information on the Osgood collective. I type "Osgood" and get several pages. The closest is the above mentioned one. But I know that the collective was not created in The Day of the Doctor, not onscreen anyways. Moreover, I know that Osgood was purely human in this story and became a weird hybrid afterwards. So this The Day of the Doctor designation suggests that this page is NOT about the collective and IS ONLY about the human, which is the opposite of SOTO's suggestion.
This is why, while waiting on the Petronella leak status, I would still prefer to find some other, unconventional dabbing for "Osgood" that would not suggest anything wrong. How about Osgood (UNIT)? To the best of my understanding, Osgood (The Seeds of Death) did not work for UNIT, but all Osgood hybrids do. Plus, it is inclusive of Extinction, which in Osgood's timeline happens before The Day of the Doctor.
Tom Osgood, whose first name is given only in prose, also worked for UNIT. This means that any disambiguation involving UNIT has to account for him as well. Osgood from The Seeds of Death can have his article located at Harry Osgood if the page name Osgood is needed for the collective identity.
SOTO's reply:
SOTO wrote: Eh, I see what you're saying. It's the first appearance of the first Osgood, and of the second Osgood, but not the third (originally Bonnie), and it's not the first appearance of this idea of anyone but the human Osgood being really Osgood. "Osgood" as a "hybrid", as said in the script, or a shared identity, began in The Zygon Invasion. I get what you're saying.
T:DAB and T:ONE NAME say always dab by the name of the story in which the character first appeared. But exceptions can sometimes be made, in rare cases, by forum discussions. None have been made so far, so what's your reasoning behind an exception being made for this case?
I can only think of Jack Harkness as a sort-of exception. We don't dab his page even though the original Jack Harkness also has a page, at Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness). Also, if we go with my plan, all the "Zygon (character)" pages will definitely be an exception.
If we do decide that she deserves an exception because she's multiple individuals and not all debuted in The Day of the Doctor, then I might suggest Osgood (UNIT scientist) instead of simply (UNIT). While we obviously have no conventions for non-story character dabs, the audio story dab is (audio story) rather than (audio), for example.
Outside of Time Lords known as "The (x)" such as the Doctor and the Master, I believe Jack Harkness is the only exception, but the fact exceptions have been made is crucial to this. SOTO, here's a hypothetical: if another character named Martha Jones appears, how would the article of Tenth Doctor companion Martha Jones be titled?
Also, I will continue to insist on Template:Retitle for characters known only by an alias, as we used in the case of Jack Harkness, but it seems I may be losing that argument.
Amorkuz's replies:
Amorkuz wrote: Let me try to analyze the three cases of a character present in several stories and dabbed by the first appearance I was pointed at: 1) Nancy (The Empty Child), 2) Jack Harkness and 3) Osgood (The Day of the Doctor). I am going to argue that the standard policy is good for 1) where it has been applied, is bad for 2) where it hasn't been applied (would be Jack Harkness (The Empty Child) otherwise) and is bad for 3) where we should not apply it.
The criterion of goodness/badness for me is simple: does the disambiguation term itself add ambiguity? If it does, it's bad as it doesn't do its job.
Why the dab (The Empty Child) is sufficient for 1) even though Nancy also appears in The Doctor Dances? This case is overly simple really. The two episodes are essentially one story, as confirmed by their story numbers (164a and 164b). But let's imagine we uncover some other Ashildr in some forgotten comic. The dab (The Girl Who Died) would still work throughout Season 9, right, despite her changing from human to hybrid? We've seen many transformations that have no effect on the naming, e.g., Rose, Jack, Brig, etc. I conclude that the creation of the Osgood collective by itself should not affect the naming scheme.
With Nancy, she appears only in two consecutive episodes widely considered a two-parter, and no other Nancy appears in any story in which she appears. We disambiguate by the first of those episodes merely for consistency.
Ashildr, if another character by the name exists, would similarly be disambiguated by the first story in which she appears, unless we locate her article at Me instead. We would not locate it at Ashildr (Me) or Me (Ashildr), as there is no reason to make an exception to the disambiguation policy.
Amorkuz wrote: So what would make dabbing by the first appearance bad? What made it bad for Jack and is also happening with Osgood? I think, the presence of another individual with the exact same name: Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness) or both Zygon (Osgood) and Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion). Note that we want to separate the second Jack Harkness but to conjoin the second and third Osgood. The situation is as follows: we have one individual, Ind1, introduced in Story1, and then someone else, Ind2, who has the same Name as Ind1, introduced in Story2. The standard policy prescribes to call them Name (Story1) and Name (Story2). This is what is done with the second Jack Harkness but not the first. (And I think it is extremely confusing because the name of the story just happens to be applicable to both Jack Harknesses as individuals.) But it kinda works (for the second one), at least for someone familiar with the policy.
But let us imagine a user who has not read all the policies (yes, I'm looking at myself). Imagine someone not knowing the first appearance policy for dabbing. Well, both Jack Harknesses are in Captain Jack Harkness, so which one is the new one? The purpose of the dabbing to separate unambiguously is mildly violated by the dabbing for Ind2 being too inclusive.
The Osgood case is for me the reverse situation. Here the dabbing for Ind1 is too exclusive: the purpose of dabbing is to include all Osgoods into the article for the human Osgood, whereas the other parts of Osgood did not yet appear in The Day of the Doctor.
Osgood (as a collective identity) did not appear until The Zygon Invasion, as when Death in Heaven aired there was no reason to suspect the Osgood in this episode may have been the Zygon. However, Osgood (the human) first appeared in Day, so we can't follow all our policies without making the name too exclusive.
Amorkuz wrote: And the second and last point I want to make is that using first appearance story as the dab term is not the best idea if a character appeared in more than one medium (Jack in TV Doctor Who, TV Torchwood and COMIC; Osgood in TV Doctor Who and AUDIO UNIT). It seems to me that doing so would violate at least the spirit of Neutral point of view policy, item 1. All media are equal. To me, this means not only that information from one is equally important as from another, but also that the absence of information from one media should not preclude a user from using the Wikia efficiently. I know I would be very cross if Izzy was disambiguated with Endgame because I saw her in The Company of Friends and have no idea whether she is the same as in Endgame. I feel I should not be made to know all comic stories to be able to disambiguate efficiently. By the same token, I think a person should not be made to watch the New Who TV series to be able to disambiguate Jack or Osgood. Someone who only watches Torchwood or only listens to UNIT audios gets no useful information from (The Empty Child) or (The Day of the Doctor) respectively. For them citing a short description like (time agent) or (UNIT scientist) seems beneficial.
The majority of televised characters have appeared in more than one medium, because of novelisations and other non-televised works. If all media are equal, as you state, then it makes no difference what medium any specific story is in. Would John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) be an inappropriate title because he later appeared in later unconnected stories? I don't think so.
Amorkuz wrote: Hmmm... I feel bad for Osgood (The Seeds of Death) now. His first name was also given (in a novelisation) as Harry, but his page is not called Harry Osgood, whereas Tom Osgood's is because the name Tom was given in a book. Is there some policy making novelisations of lesser importance than original books? (Still on-topic for Osgood, hopefully.)
Secondly, this Tom is not a bad guy. He wouldn't want to get in a way. If his first name is kept, I think SOTO's argument from above explains why Osgood is not Tom Osgood. But even if we rename his page to Osgood (Dæmons) or remove his first name mentally, I think they can be nicely distinguished by Osgood (UNIT sergeant) and Osgood (UNIT scientist). Tom Osgood actually appears in the cast as Sgt. Osgood (according to The Dæmons). And his supposed daughter (as per Moffat's implicit intension) is not a sergeant, right?
If novelisations are to be treated as equal to other prosaic works, then either the Osgood from The Seeds of Death is at Harry Osgood or the Osgood from The Daemons is at Osgood (The Daemons). Right now, this is not true, so as it currently stands novelisations do not figure into article titles. Oddly, our current policy states novelisations are valid when not contradicted by the original work, but for whatever reason this policy doesn't apply to titles.
And no, we are not expecting our readers to know the Osgood from The Daemons was a sergeant, which sort of disqualifies Osgood (UNIT scientist) as a title because it relies on that information.
- SOTO
Somehow I didn't get a notification for these updates.
Bwburke94 wrote: We might have to resort to out-of-universe sources to take Petronella Osgood as a valid name for the identity
No. (T:VS)
Bwburke94 wrote: I have no objections to this, as long as the human and the identity share a page. The identity taken by "Zygon Osgood" and later by Bonnie is the identity initially held by the human.
Yes. (T:LOGIC)
Bwburke94 wrote: My main issue with this proposal is that there is no reason to parenthesise any of this. While it is true that Zygon Kate Stewart merely took the form of Kate Stewart, we have an existing method in place for characters only known by an alias, namely Template:Retitle.
I don't know what you mean by this. All {{retitle}} changes is the h1, or the heading at the top of the page. What we're talking about here is the PAGENAME, which needs to follow T:NAMING, T:DAB, etc. "Zygon Kate Stewart", as you call them, is not Kate Stewart, and did not even identify as such. That Zygon took Kate's form. Kate Stewart was not really their alias at any point. They were simply playing the part. "I get so into character". This is a very, very different case to Jack Harkness. Jack Harkness is not at all his birth name, but it is his identity. He keeps that name for thousands of years after adopting it, and refers to himself as Jack and nothing else. This Zygon pretended to be Kate for a while, but is not Kate.
Furthermore, "Zygon [Name]" is not something found in the script, and there is zero precedent for that sort of naming elsewhere on the wiki. T:DAB specifies that when a page needs disambiguation—when there are two or more pages with similar names—we use dab terms to distinguish them. Dumping related words together has no precedence in T:CHAR NAMES. In fact, we are told to use the name given in the credits. The name in the credits of Day etc is "Zygons". In a typical case, that character would be Zygon (The Day of the Doctor). However, there are several Zygons in The Day of the Doctor. So, Zygon (Kate Stewart) is the only valid other way to disambiguate in this case. Again, the only name we have for this character is "Zygon". We do not know their name.
"Zygon [Name]" is not, and never was, an option. For clones and duplicates of an original, we tend to name them Martha Jones (clone), Mickey Smith (Auton), Jennifer Lucas (Ganger). Those people are derived from the originals, and exist as a result. Jennifer Lucas the Ganger is Jennifer Lucas. Zygons are not the same. They put on the appearance of others, much like a Slitheen puts on a body suit, but does not become that person.
Disambiguation is not an option you can dislike. Disambiguation is a requirement when two pages have similar names, not something to be avoided.
Bwburke94 wrote: SOTO, here's a hypothetical: if another character named Martha Jones appears, how would the article of Tenth Doctor companion Martha Jones be titled?
Martha Jones (Made of Steel). Policy is policy. When we decided that characters will be disambiguated by their first story, we had these cases in mind as well. Not all recurring characters have unique enough names to not require dabbing. John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang), I'm pretty sure, has way more screentime than John Hart (The Sea Devils), and plays a major role in the context of an entire series of Torchwood. He is not by any means a "primary topic", though. I cannot speak for whoever decided to keep Jack Harkness as Jack Harkness once we met the originator of the name, but I assume it was because that would be like calling the Doctor The Doctor (An Unearthly Child). It takes a lot to gain "primary topic" status. Martha Jones is only a primary topic in the sense that her duplicates—Martha Jones (clone) and Martha Jones (robot)—are disambiguated and she is not, because she is the original. Same as Victoria is the Queen, and not the disambiguation page. TARDIS is a main topic, and would not get disambiguation. If there was a main Gallifrey, the planet of the Time Lords would remain Gallifrey.
I am considering Osgood as a potential exception to this rule not because she is a central character and dabbing would be "confusing", but because not all Osgoods actually originated in that story. The rule, as it currently stands, it to disambiguate by first story. The amount of stories or media a character is in does not change that. If either of you want to challenge the policy of T:DAB, feel free to start a new forum thread to do so. The topic of this thread, however, is Osgood. According to policy, she should get (The Day of the Doctor) dabbing. However, she might (might) be an exception of some sort to the rule, because not all Osgoods originated then. However, I'm starting to think she isn't an exception at all. Osgood did originate in The Day of the Doctor. Yes, other people joined that identity, but her first story was still Day. It'd be hard to debate that without a time machine to change the facts themselves.
Bwburke94 wrote: With Nancy, she appears only in two consecutive episodes widely considered a two-parter, and no other Nancy appears in any story in which she appears. We disambiguate by the first of those episodes merely for consistency.
Ashildr, if another character by the name exists, would similarly be disambiguated by the first story in which she appears, unless we locate her article at Me instead. We would not locate it at Ashildr (Me) or Me (Ashildr), as there is no reason to make an exception to the disambiguation policy.
To reiterate, that is how the policy goes. Exceptions to any policy are not everyday occurrences. It's not "let's follow the policy when convenient". It's "let's follow policy, period." Except in very specific and very rare circumstances where these conventions could not work. It's not a matter of merely choosing to be "consistent". And we do not give preferential treatment to characters which have appeared in a lot of stories, or are more well known:
- "Note, though, that this is a very different organising principle to that which you'll find on other wikis, like Wikipedia. There, the notion is that relative popularity determines which page goes without a dab term. If we were set up like Wikipedia, Castrovalva would lead to the TV story, because it is by far the thing most people associate with the term "Castrovalva".
- "But our system isn't like that. We consistently choose to prioritise on the in-universe/out-of-universe metric, giving no weight at all to most linked to /least linked to, or most searched for/least searched for."
- -T:DAB
We don't only follow T:DAB when a character only appears in a small amount of stories. Unless something is by an enormous margin a primary topic..it gets dabbed when there's another thing by the same name.
Ashildr would definitely be Ashildr (The Girl Who Died). Not Me because a) that's a personal pronoun b) the Doctor reiterates on multiple occasions that that is her name. Me (The Girl Who Died) is a perfectly valid redirect, though.
Bwburke94 wrote: Osgood (as a collective identity) did not appear until The Zygon Invasion, as when Death in Heaven aired there was no reason to suspect the Osgood in this episode may have been the Zygon. However, Osgood (the human) first appeared in Day, so we can't follow all our policies without making the name too exclusive.
An interesting take. "Too exclusive". Yes, interesting.
Bwburke94 wrote: Right now, this is not true, so as it currently stands novelisations do not figure into article titles. Oddly, our current policy states novelisations are valid when not contradicted by the original work, but for whatever reason this policy doesn't apply to titles.
This is actually not so. Novelisations do count for titles. Sometimes, we simply miss out on things. If a first name, or a more specific name, is given in a novelisation, we use that as the primary title of the character's page. Pages where this has not been carried out in no way signify policy; they simply got through the cracks. There is currently a {{speedy rename}} on Osgood (The Seeds of Death), and it will be Harry Osgood as soon as I get around to carrying it out. Novelisations are not in any way invalid, but they are trumped by the TV story from which they originated; same with any other adaptations, in audio for example (unless the adaptation is only loose and essentially its own story, as with Dalek and Human Nature/The Family of Blood. The original is pretty much always deemed most reputable in the case of narrative contradictions.
Finally:
Amorkuz wrote: The standard dabbing policy should not be applied to characters appearing in more than one media as per T:NPOV.
Strongly disagree. Most recurring characters appear in more than one medium, as has been pointed out. The policy is the policy right now, which you are bound to. Again, feel free to start a new forum discussion on this. But, in my view certainly, it is not a violation of medium neutrality to allow for the first appearance of a character to be considered their first appearance. Martha Jones, dabbed, would be Martha Jones (Made of Steel), despite this not being popularly known. A first appearance is a first appearance, and the community decided, long ago, that we disambiguate character pages by their first appearance, regardless of whether or not that story is popularly known.
- Characters are named according to the story (or episode) they first appeared in, even if they appear in subsequent stories for which they are arguably more famous.
- -T:DAB
- Amorkuz
I had my hopes up for the soon to be Harry Osgood. Because this may solve our conundrum. Why can't we use
- Harry Osgood for the guy from The Seeds of Death
- Tom Osgood for the guy from The Dæmons,
- Osgood for the Osgood collective,
- Osgood (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page,
- Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) for Bonnie,
- Zygon (Osgood) for the Zygon from The Day of the Doctor?
Benefit: we have trouble finding a good dab term for our Osgoods.
Violates the policy? Let me try to argue that it does not. T:DAB states: Common English names and titles are retained for use as a disambiguation page. I would argue that Osgood is not a common name. We've had three of those in 50+ years (and two of them are likely to be related). Moreover, while SOTO is right that compared to Jack Harkness, Osgood is far from being a primary topic. But it seems to me that the definition of "primary topic" in the policy is actually relative rather than absolute: Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it sometimes is the case that one of these topics is far more likely to be the one a reader is searching for when searching in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is known as the primary topic for that term. I think that readers are more likely to search for our Osgood than for Tom Osgood or Harry Osgood or Osgood's sister (no disrespect to Tom and Harry). People are unlikely to search for Osgood's box using just Osgood. So I would deem Osgood to be a primary topic relative to the usage of Osgood, which allows to reserve the Osgood page for the character rather than the disambiguation page.
I hope that we can at least agree on the first five of these names, which would only leave one to discuss.
- SOTO
Update: Just found out that The Silver Turk's official script (though not words spoken out loud) uses language like puppet Mary for duplicates. So I guess there is somewhat of a precedent for that sort of naming (Zygon Kate Stewart), though still not an in-universe one, and this particular source certainly does not use it.
- SOTO
The line about future-proofing "common...names" does not mean that we don't still need to disambiguate other names which are used multiple times. According to policy, Osgood should be a dab page, because there are at least three other "Osgoods". To go against that and use Osgood for the UNIT scientist would be to call her a "primary topic". Usually, the existence of other pages by that name depends on that primary topic. Rose, the flower, is a primary topic. (Nope, rose's since been moved...)
Anyway, Osgood: are you sure users would be "far more likely" to be searching for her? Let's not pretend that TV stories, or recent stories, are somehow more important in the game of disambiguation.
I really wish we could just use Osgood, because it looks nice and, from a certain perspective, The Day of the Doctor isn't the first story of all the Osgoods which that page would cover. It is still unquestionably Osgood's first appearance, though, in general. Though not in need of dabbing, Rassilon's first appearance is in COMIC: Star Death—even if his later incarnations didn't originate then, and he might be "known" for his three appearances on television. In the end, Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) isn't really wrong, in my opinion at least.
- Amorkuz
I'm not gonna miss this chance of promoting women in science, even fictional women in fictional science. So here go the reasons why users are, indeed, far more likely to be searching for her, listed from downright silly to serious:
- There are only two other Osgoods: Tom and Harry. There are three of this Osgood. Thus, people are 50% more likely to search for her. (Just in case, this was the downright silly one.)
- Harry and Tom Osgood appeared in 1 and 5 stories respectively (I do not count a novelisation to be an independent story). That's 6 stories between the two of them. Our Osgood has already appeared in 8 stories, will definitely appear in 4 more stories by May 2016 and most probably in 8 further stories by May 2017. So it's gonna be twice the competition in half a year, and in 1,5 years it will be 20 : 6, more than triple the competition. (And while recent stories are not an indication, the continued recurrence is, I think: with every new story people are going to search for her again, some hopefully with the intent to edit.)
- Our Osgood has her own fan base. I don't want to list here links upon links about fans identifying with her, fans mad at Moffat for killing her and, hence, disrespecting them, Moffat defending himself. I'll only cite one comment from Kasterborous about the release of the UNIT audios: "Fans of Osgood will be delighted to hear that bowtie-clad scientist portrayed by the fabulous Ingrid Oliver will be teaming up with Jemma Redgrave (Kate Stewart) for the Big Finish UNIT spin-off." I have no evidence that either Tom or Harry Osgood have their own fans. I'll be happy to be corrected.
- Finally, and most importantly, I think any character who gets his/her own spin-off should be considered a primary topic: The Doctor, Jack Harkness, Henry Gordon Jago, George Litefoot, etc. So, since Kate Stewart and Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) have their audio spin-off, an ongoing spin-off extending at least to May 2017, this, in my mind, is a formal reason to consider both of them primary topics.
- SOTO
test
- Amorkuz
In an unrelated thread, CzechOut raised a relevant issue: the search on the Wikia (including during editing) only shows 6 hits. This might be the origin of the Name (Auton) scheme rather than Auton Name. It's one thing to type (start typing) John Smith and then choose among the few types of duplicates. It's a different thing altogether to have various main articles on Zygon after typing Zygon and then hope that the number of Johns impersonated by Zygons is below 6 so that you at least get your link after typing Zygon John.
In short, it appears that usability-wise, it is beneficial to have names that become unique as early as possible. Thus, starting names with a generic term has its downsides.
In light of this, I am voting for Osgood (Zygon) rather than Zygon Osgood.
- SOTO
Cooliosa. That would be convention, after all. There is in fact zero precedent for "Zygon [Name]" pages.
- Bwburke94
Regarding "Petronella", I believe there's no way to determine whether it's truly her name relying solely on in-universe events.
What happened in-universe was that the Doctor claimed his name was Basil, and Osgood claimed her name was Petronella. Any indication of sarcasm is solely out-of-universe, because it relies on the out-of-universe viewers interpreting as such. We can't say from the in-universe evidence which statements were true and which were false, so we can't outright say whether Osgood's first name is Petronella.
I'll be making a new thread shortly on the Petronella thing, because it's distracting from the actual debate.
- SOTO
Surely we would not say Basil is the Doctor's name, though? We know that's a secret he would not reveal, so it can be deduced that Basil is not the Doctor's real name. If Basil is not the Doctor's real name, and Petronella is only ever used in the same context as Basil, then we cannot say Petronella is Osgood's first name.
I'm not suggesting saying in the article that she lied, because it's not explicitly revealed in the script. But we mention that she claimed it was her name, and do not consider that to be her true name at all.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: Surely we would not say Basil is the Doctor's name, though? We know that's a secret he would not reveal, so it can be deduced that Basil is not the Doctor's real name. If Basil is not the Doctor's real name, and Petronella is only ever used in the same context as Basil, then we cannot say Petronella is Osgood's first name.
I'm not suggesting saying in the article that she lied, because it's not explicitly revealed in the script. But we mention that she claimed it was her name, and do not consider that to be her true name at all.
This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. Barring out-of-universe evidence and a policy change to allow such information, we cannot say for certain that "Petronella" is her first name.
- Amorkuz
I agree with both Bwburke94 and SOTO. I think both their positions can be implemented. Their two positions seem to be:
- We are not (cannot be) sure whether Petronella IS her name;
- Petronella is NOT her name.
But in either case Petronella should not be used in the page name.
And, if this decision is made, then SOTO's suggestion to stick to the facts is ideal. No one can argue that (1) she said her name was Petronella (I would use "said" instead of "claimed" as more neutral). It can be also said that (2) the Doctor called her Petronella after this (once?) and that (3) no one else has been known to call her Petronella. Here (1) and (2) are just facts, and (3) records the hesitation whether it is her real name by using in-universe information. (3) can be strengthened by Osgood's words from Extinction that everyone calls her Osgood (I cite from memory). So it can even be claimed that no one in UNIT addresses her by first name.
Also the in-universe/out-of-universe angle suggests putting any discussion over whether it is her actual name in the Behind-the-Scenes section, as this discussion indeed did not happen in-universe. This is how it was done, for instance, in Polly Wright.
- SOTO
Agreed, in full.
- Mewiet
I agree that Petronella should not be used unless future in-universe evidence comes to light showing she was telling the truth. With BF's UNIT series, that may stand a chance of happening, but until then, no.
Amorkuz wrote: Hmmm... I feel bad for Osgood (The Seeds of Death) now. His first name was also given (in a novelisation) as Harry, but his page is not called Harry Osgood, whereas Tom Osgood's is because the name Tom was given in a book. Is there some policy making novelisations of lesser importance than original books? (Still on-topic for Osgood, hopefully.)
The opposite, actually. According to T:IU:
4.All narratives, regardless of medium, have equal weight. Whether it's a comic strip, audio, novel or television story, it's all equally valid here.
I'm not sure how that would work with contradicting stories, but a look at the page in question doesn't list any other stories stating his first name was something different (and a couple days after your post, someone moved the page to Harry Osgood anyway).
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
It's about time we start deciding this based on fact.
I would not say Petronella is her true name or a fake name until she returns again. I would however, change the article name to simply Osgood, because Tom Osgood, with whom she might be confused to first time users, has a first name and so it can be written as "Tom Osgood"
- SOTO
Multiple topics have the name Osgood. Simply because most or all have first names as well does not mean T:DAB allows us to put her at Osgood which should be and remain a disambiguation page. She is not a primary topic by any means. And it wouldn't exactly be future-proof—what's to say another Osgood doesn't come around whose first name we don't have?
No, the fact of the matter is, her article, or joint article, would be housed at Osgood (The Day of the Doctor).
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Yes but it's the "(Day of the Doctor)" part that really bugs me, she's not just a part of Day of the Doctor anymore, she became something bigger, even if it was for only two episodes in series 9. I'm not saying move the information about her to a new article, I'm suggesting that we consider changing the name to simply, "Osgood."
- SOTO
T:DAB and T:CHAR NAMES state that we give character articles a disambiguation term based on the first story they appeared in. Plenty of those dabbed characters appeared in later stories as well, and perhaps their first story is not that which they're best known for. But it's still their first story, and the first story is what goes in the title.
Again, Osgood is not a primary topic like Elizabeth, the Doctor, regeneration or TARDIS. Other Osgoods are not all derived from her. She shares a common name with other people, so she gets dabbed.
- OBEYTHECHANDLER
Not EVERY Osgood is derived from her but TWO Osgood's are.
- Amorkuz
I hate to see this topic forgotten and buried. To keep the topic going, here is a funny tidbit I found quite by accident (especially given that there were some subtle pro-Petronella edits recently).
I know that everyone agrees at least that Basil should not be taken seriously. But here is an article too amusing/suspiciously coincidental not to mention it: Will it be Dr Basil? from The Sun, March 22, 1988 [3]. The article purports that John Cleese was considered for the role of the Doctor for a Doctor Who movie. I did not really fact check whether he really was (also it was posted well before having a chance to be a plant). But might I remind that the wife of Basil Fawlty was played by... a Prunella Scales? I am far from being the first on picking up the Fawlty vibe in Basil. But I have not yet seen Cleese connected to Doctor Who so directly. And Petronella is another rare P-nella name...
- JohnSmith5000100
OttselSpy25 wrote: Now there's three of them. I'm convinced that Moffat just wants to troll wikia editors.
Similar to how Cornell trolls Whovians with The Infinity Doctors.
- JohnSmith5000100
The names I think would obey policy and provide the least amount of confusion are:
- Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) for the human
- Osgood (zygon) or Zygon (Osgood) (the order is part of a separate discussion soley regarding zygons) for the zygon from 'The Day of the Doctor'
- Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion) for 'Zygella'
All character histories would cover everything up to their joining the Osgood collective.
- Osgood (hybrid) for the Osgood collective
- Osgood (disambiguation) linking to all preceding pages, as well as Tom Osgood, Harry Osgood, Osgood's sister, etc.
As for Petronella, until confirmation or deconfirmation it should not be reflected in pagenames, and mentioned as a possible first name in the pages themselves. - SOTO
Or, you know, just have them all in one page, Osgood. Remember that the Zygon was also introduced in the same story.
- Nahald
So yeah, this conversation kinda died. This is a subject that really does need to be resolved, I think.
- Bwburke94
Here's a quick recap of the questions.
- 1. Is human Osgood's full name Petronella Osgood?
- My position on this is that we cannot confirm either way from in-universe evidence, while SOTO's position is that her name is not Petronella. This reminds me of the Tribe of Gum discussion from 2013, but this one doesn't need to be resolved immediately because either way we aren't using Petronella as her first name.
- 2. How should we deal with Osgood the collective identity as compared to Osgood the human?
- In other words, do the identity and the human share a page or not? I propose Osgood collective as a name for the identity if necessary, but we're not to the point of discussing that yet.
- 3. If the identity and the human share a page, how should it be disambiguated?
- There have been arguments that Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) is not the best name if the page is about the identity, because the identity did not debut until The Zygon Invasion from an out-of-universe perspective.
- 4. How do we disambiguate the Zygon Osgood from Day?
- Both Zygon Osgood and Zygon (Osgood) have their supporters, and that's not even taking Bonnie into account.
- Amorkuz
I also believe that it is better to finally make a decision than to wait for a perfect consensus on a perfect decision. It would be good to have the Osgoods sorted out before the second UNIT audio box featuring one of them is released in June.
1. Osgood's First Name. I agree with Bwburke94 that this point should be removed from discussion. Our disagreements do no affect editing either way.
3. Disambiguation if human and identity share a page. If it is decided that they share a page, then the disambiguation would apply to both, not only to the identity. The earliest story where either human or identity appeared is The Day of the Doctor, so I don't believe Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) would be really problematic in this case.
4. Name for the Zygon Osgoods sisters. There is no need to take Bonnie into account. She creates no additional trouble. As for the name for the first Zygon Osgood, there were three versions: Zygon Osgood, Zygon (Osgood) and Osgood (Zygon).
I think everyone said their piece and argued it exhaustively. The discussion faded naturally when there was nothing new to say. There is no new information and will not likely to be in the near future: UNIT audios are set before The Day of the Doctor.
If I may make a proposal: can we just vote on this? After trying to narrow down the questions to be voted on, for instance to 2. and 4.? If necessary, each side could summarize the arguments for each variant being voted on.
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote: So here go the reasons why users are, indeed, far more likely to be searching for her, listed from downright silly to serious:
Tardis:Neutral point of view addresses this, as does the long discussion regarding Brian Williams (see Talk:Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)/Archive 1).
Ugh, there are so many things going on here, including the fact that the Seeds of Death Osgood's page was moved by a non-admin. I haven't seen any of the stories regarding this whole mess, so my suggestion, speaking as an admin, is that you apply to one of our long-term admins, experienced in interpreting page name and dab rules, specifically Tangerineduel or CzechOut. Merely voting isn't enough if the consensus that wins violates our rules.
- Amorkuz
Shambala108 wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: So here go the reasons why users are, indeed, far more likely to be searching for her, listed from downright silly to serious:
Tardis:Neutral point of view addresses this, as does the long discussion regarding Brian Williams (see Talk:Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)/Archive 1).
Merely voting isn't enough if the consensus that wins violates our rules.
Before this gets completely out of hand, I would like to point out that I proposed voting on the items 2. and 4. outlined by Bwburke94 three posts prior rather than on something I mentioned months ago. As much I appreciate an admin's reply to my message from last year, I believe dwelling in the past will not help us resolve the Osgood case.
Having said that, I believe that the idea of bringing in the cavalry is not without its merits. Given that an admin suggested it, I will bother them with a request to help resolve this conundrum. If any of the options we have been discussing go against the rules, it would be quite helpful to learn about it and concentrate on those options that are viable.
- Nahald
Bwburke94 wrote:
- 1. Is human Osgood's full name Petronella Osgood?
I'm not exactly sure how this could be a point of contention. The point of the two Osgoods was to be completely indistinguishable from the other. So why would one of them take on a name that was different from the original? It would kind of defeat the entire purpose. Although I think logic dictates that this is obviously her human name, if you really feel you need to confirm it, her first name might be said at some point in the UNIT: Extinction audio drama.
As for how we should handle the three separate Osgood characters, I personally think the best thing to do would be to treat this matter from an in-universe perspective. From each Osgood's point-of-view, both of them are the real thing. So why not have the article reflect this attitude and have both characters share the same article? That way would could truly represent the spirit of these two characters and also save ourselves a huge headache by trying to determine how to make another article for another character who may or may not be the same character at various different points in the show.
- Amorkuz
Nahald wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote:
- 1. Is human Osgood's full name Petronella Osgood?
Although I think logic dictates that this is obviously her human name, if you really feel you need to confirm it, her first name might be said at some point in the Extinction audio drama.
Fact checking. "Petronella" was never mentioned in any capacity in Extinction. I was listening to the audios while this discussion was active hoping for the same thing. Vice versa, at some point Osgood is asked in the audio how she should be addressed and she answers "Osgood" and comments that everyone calls her that.
- Tangerineduel
Looking through this discussion, I tried to think to what other articles do we have on the wiki that also have a complicated identity and identifying elements to it.
I ended up with the Master. Whose incarnations are complicated.
In the Master we have a long and complicated individual summarised and linked on one single page.
Merge all of the pages into one single Osgood page, we can detail all of Osgood's history and different 'personas' under different subheadings.
Bonnie is the only potential outlier, being a confirmed 'not-Osgood' and then becoming an Osgood. I would suggest leaving her as her own page, covering it on the Osgood merged page but having a 'main article' link off to it.
- Bwburke94
The Zygon Osgood from Day has several scenes in which it is clearly identifiable as the Zygon.
- Amorkuz
Nahald wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote:
- 1. Is human Osgood's full name Petronella Osgood?
Although I think logic dictates that this is obviously her human name...
At first I thought so too, but I was converted to the belief that Petronella is not the name of the human Osgood. She gave it only in response to the Doctor giving his name as Basil. She clearly did not believe him. (Neither do we, right?) So it was quite natural for her to come up with a reciprocally fake name. It was noted by SOTO that every mention of Petronella is adjacent to a mention of Basil and the tone is sometimes quite sarcastic. For instance, when the Doctor addresses her as Petronella, she responds addressing him as Basil with a very sarcastic emphasis on it. (And he then suggests never to use these names again.)
Perhaps, Big Finish will take mercy on us and include an explicit discussion of her first name into the second UNIT box set. Until then, I believe her first name to be unknown and, hence, Petronella should not be used in page names or infoboxes.
- Bwburke94
I acknowledge that we have no proof that "Petronella" is her first name, but we also have no proof to say it isn't.
Because the status of "Petronella" doesn't affect any non-behind-the-scenes section, it is secondary to the discussion of what to do with the actual pages. Shouldn't we be discussing the actual issues here?
- Amorkuz
I agree. Nahald deserved to know the reason why we have no proof Petronella is her name. Now that this idea is back off the table, let us return to the questions at hand:
2. How should we deal with Osgood the collective identity as compared to Osgood the human?
Here I agree with Tangerineduel. Osgood is a complex identity/function assumed by various individuals. All these individuals become indistinguishable while wearing this identity: we cannot tell them apart and they self-identify as indistinguishable. Thus, I still believe the human Osgood should be on the same page as Osgood collective with sections separating various periods of Osgood's life (e.g., human-only, human vs. Zygon, human plus Zygon, alone again, Osgood plus Bonnie Osgood, but this can be determined later and separately).
Here is another analogy in support of this course of actions: Dalek Emperor. It is very clear that this function was held by various individual Daleks/Kaleds. Moreover, Davros moved from his personality to being the Emperor and then back. All the various Emperors are collected on one page, and Davros has his own separate page. This suggests having one page for Osgood (human + collective), one page for Osgood (Zygon) from the Day of the Doctor and one page for Bonnie.
4. How do we disambiguate the Zygon Osgood from Day?
Due to the note from CzechOut that using Zygon at the beginning of the name limits the functionality of search box and search suggestions, I prefer Osgood (Zygon) for the description of the Zygon who took Osgood's body before the moment it assumed her personality too.
- Tybort
I'm inclined to prefer to have all three pages merged, but absolutely consider Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) as a kind of collective persona page for both Osgoods from the start of Zygon Invasion (and at if not all of Bonnie's history, then at least from after she becomes an Osgood). Particularly considering this bit from the video Bonnie finds in The Zygon Inversion:
- Osgood 1: Hello, if you are watching this, I have been captured and interrogated.
- Osgood 2: During the interrogation, I have revealed to you the existence of the Osgood Box.
- One of the Osgoods: (off camera, difficult to determine who's saying it) I have revealed its location and the combination to open its safe, and guess what?
- Both Osgoods: I lied.
- Tybort
To answer Bwburke94's third point, "If the identity and the human share a page, how should it be disambiguated?" I see no issue with calling the page that covers both topics Osgood (The Day of the Doctor), as even though the collective identity didn't exist prior to The Zygon Invasion, both of the original two Osgoods debuted in The Day of the Doctor.
- SOTO
And, crucially, the character of Osgood still debuted in The Day of the Doctor. Further "incarnations" may have come afterwards, the idea of multiple Osgoods all being (authentically) Osgood may have come from a later story, but Osgood still debuted in Day. I agree that there should be no issue with this choice of disambiguation.
- Xx-connor-xX
Not going to lie, I love how complicated Osgood is. Keeps us on our toes.
- Amorkuz
Big news. The powers that Briggs finally took pity on us. It has been confirmed...
Spoilers! But I can't...
<Removed by admin per Tardis:Spoiler policy> This means that in this spoiler-free thread there is no point anymore to debate the suitability of the dab terms based on the story name: whether "(The Day of the Doctor)" is a good dab term will have been moot, come November.
Thus, it only remains to come to a consensus on two things: where to put the "Zygon" in Zygon Osgood and whether to put the Collective on the page of the human Osgood or separately, right? Let's try to reach a consensus on that by November, shall we?
- Amorkuz
No Petronella in Shutdown. But Nick Briggs called Osgood Petronella in a podcast of 27 June 2016 (at the very end). So that's not spoilery. That's from the horse's mouth.
- Shambala108
Just pointing out that a podcast is not a valid source for in universe pages.
- Amorkuz
Yes, this is true.
However, this is a kind of a unique situation. There was a valid in-universe source (in the ZIs) for "Petronella", which we chose not to believe. It feels like since then the production team of DW has been trying to persuade us that they really meant it. First they put the name in the promotional materials, first I think on Big Finish. We dismissed it as a clueless technician's mistake. Then BBC did the same. We dismissed it as a copycat. Now Nick Briggs himself seems to be saying: "End this charade already, she's Petronella, deal with it."
I mean we can prolong it till November, when almost certainly a second and independent in-universe confirmation will materialise. Or we can change it now based on the in-universe evidence from the TV series.
Think of it. What's the worst that can happen? Let's say, Nick Briggs is toying with us and there is an extremely clever twist that he's setting up. Just imagine. Should we not indulge him? Should we not allow him this one small victory? After all he's done for us. It seems like a win-win: 95% chance that we will be right in renaming the page and 5% chance that we make a good man happy.
- Bwburke94
"Petronella" is an unusual case, because the name was stated in-universe, yet we made an out-of-universe judgement that there wasn't enough evidence. The main difference between this and "Basil" is that there were clearer in-universe hints "Basil" was an alias, and we have an Aliases of the Doctor page anyway to cover "Basil".
Disregarding the supposed confirmation we can't talk about per T:SPOIL (even though everyone in this discussion knows what it is), there are two ways we can title the page as "Petronella Osgood":
- 1. We allow an out-of-universe source to determine her name.
- 2. We treat Inversion as the in-universe source to determine her name, and note in the behind-the-scenes section that Inversion alone does not 100% confirm this as her name.
Option #2 seems like the more reasonable option if we are to rename the page.
- Amorkuz
First, two apologies: sorry, I did not realise that posting bare links to a website with spoilers is also a violation of T:SPOIL. Secondly, Bwburke94 is right to call it a "supposed confirmation". This criticism is also justified.
As for his two suggestions, I think Option #1 is a bad idea. It would create a precedent and could lead to a total chaos if out-of-universe sources, be it interviews, podcasts or cast lists, are allowed to determine names of characters. (I feel like cast lists is actually a tricky issue, the discussion of which would take us off topic. Suffice it to say that cast lists have been used to hide the real identity of a character on multiple occasions, as early as The Rescue.) For comparison, even using names from novelisations causes considerable headache. Though I cannot claim that I fully understand the rules, I'm pretty sure there are situations when the name from the novelisation is not allowed in the page name.
But Option #2, on the other hand, seems very reasonable to me. Inversion is an in-universe source. The question is in its interpretation.
I think the real question is this: Do most of us, at this point in time, believe that her name is Petronella, as stated in-universe? We didn't believe it some time ago. I have changed my opinion since then. Perhaps, others have too. Why we changed our opinion is immaterial. We exercise our power of opinion every time the First Doctor mispronounces Ian's last name. We can believe that Ian also has that other name or choose to treat it as a production error. We make this judgement based on many factors, not all of them in-universe.
Perhaps, the question to ask is: does someone still believe that Petronella is not her name? If so, then the safest thing is to wait till November.
However, if it is pure caution that stops us from changing the name, then there are rules on the books suggesting we should still move forward with the change.
- The most immediate example is comic books. It is expressly acknowledged in T:SPOIL that it is unreasonable to wait six months until the release of the last issue before editing a multi-issue comic book, just on the off-chance some things may change in later issues. Again, it boils down to our judgement: do we think it is likely to change or not. No one could see the big reveal in Issue #5 of Weapons of Past Destruction coming. That required a page renaming and a complete recategorisation. But I don't think that creating that page before the big reveal was a mistake.
- Another example where using imperfect information (in that case, about spelling) was preferred to waiting was in CzechOut's reply on Thread:194337: "I'd rather have editors being bold and taking a shot at the spelling" and later "It's probably a bad idea to create a template which allows people to doubt themselves so much that they are too paralysed to start relatively minor articles". The way I interpret these replies is: if information is available but not 100% certain, it is better to act on it now than wait for the 100% certainty that may or may not happen in the future. (After all, 100% certainty is still in the eyes of the beholder.)
To summarise, unless someone objects, it seems reasonable to me to go ahead with the renaming of "Osgood (The Day of the Doctor)" into "Petronella Osgood".
Wait, I just remembered something. Ah, why do I always undermine myself? To be continued...
- Amorkuz
New information. I just remembered and relistened.
Power Cell, starting around 3:30: "Super brain". That's what we used to call you at college, remember? Plain Jane "Super Brain". (I think Jeff says it about Osgood. But whether it is Jeff or Jay doesn't matter as both are her collegemates.)
It's such a throw-away line, I almost forgot. I also thought at first that it was about her sister. But, upon relistening, I'm starting to believe that this was her nickname in college. Which would suggest that her name is Jane? Or is this just a Plain Jane reference?
Thoughts?
- Bwburke94
The pro-Petronella side would say that "Jane" was part of the nickname solely for the sake of the rhyme, so "Jane" has even less of a case than "Petronella" does. At least with "Petronella", Osgood herself stated it was her name, even if she may have been lying.
Also, for non-comic readers, what was the reveal in Weapons of Past Destruction?
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote: To summarise, unless someone objects, it seems reasonable to me to go ahead with the renaming of "Osgood (The Day of the Doctor)" into "Petronella Osgood".
I would like to put an end to this kind of statement on this wiki: "unless someone objects". Too many users take the lack of objection as a go-ahead, when it may just be no one has all the information they want.
But to make it clear, I do object. We have no new information aside from some hints of future closure. There is no rush to make a decision here; long-time users will recall how long it took us to come to a proper conclusion on what to do with Clara Oswald and her various parts or whether Missy was really the Master.
This is a messy enough issue that it will take an admin ruling after we have concrete evidence to support the proposal.
And just to be clear for anyone who doesn't already know, only admins are permitted to move/rename pages.
Amorkuz wrote: What's the worst that can happen?
The worst that can happen is that we're wrong and we have to do a major cleanup. That is the only reason for the delay. For those who are interested, there are two "case studies" at Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar and Tardis:Spoiler policy#Where spoilers are allowed.
The interpretation of CzechOut's comments applies to characters whose pages haven't been created yet ("relatively minor articles"), and therefore do not have a huge number of links to them, and is mostly concerned with spelling. In addition, there is more to Osgood than just deciding on the name. This is a very long thread, and I may have missed something, but there doesn't seem to be a definite answer on the original question of how to deal with the collective identity or the person.
- Bwburke94
If we feel like delaying the Petronella part, we can decide every part of policy except for that part, and later move the page to Petronella Osgood if "that thing we can't mention" confirms her name. After all, Petronella Osgood still redirects to the correct article.
- Amorkuz
At least I tried. Moving forward. As Shambala108 rightfully said, there are more things to decide than just the name. Since the name decision has been postponed, I support Bwburke94's suggestion to try and resolve the other issues. It felt to me like the attempt to decide all aspects simultaneously reached an impasse some time ago, so deciding on each issue separately seems like a way to move forward. And, unlike with the name, nothing seems to indicate that any new information about the other issues is forthcoming any time soon.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: Also, for non-comic readers, what was the reveal in Weapons of Past Destruction?
It feels like going into the details would be steering too much off topic. I replied on your talk page.
- Xx-connor-xX
I do hope that Moffat gives some details in Osgood's next appearence. He can keep the mystery by adding more twists and turns with the two Osgoods we have now but I'd like to get an answer about which one was killed by Missy :P
- Amorkuz
So, "Petronella" is still not mentioned on audio (unless I missed it). Thus, the name was included in the cast of Silenced (audio anthology) expressly to confirm it is her real name. I think it is time to rename the page.
- Bwburke94
As has been mentioned several times, the name has been mentioned in-universe, but in a possibly-sarcastic manner. It's our own out-of-universe interpretation that currently keeps "Petronella" out of the article title.
Going back to my four questions:
1. Is human Osgood's full name Petronella Osgood?
If we make this move, we're still using out-of-universe sources to confirm an in-universe source; nothing about that fact has changed. However, Silenced changes the situation in one way, in that Ingrid Oliver has now been credited as playing Petronella Osgood (previously, she was credited solely as Osgood).
2. How should we deal with Osgood the collective identity as opposed to Osgood the human?
Nothing about this has changed. The collective identity is still the same identity originally held by the human, and nothing set post-Day indicates which Osgood is which. Every post-Day Osgood is using the identity of the human Osgood.
3. If the identity and a human share a page, how should it be disambiguated?
This question has already been answered, for the most part. Because the human and the identity both debuted in Day (even if the identity wasn't plot-relevant until Invasion), the page should be located at whatever title the human Osgood's page would ordinarily use, whether this be Osgood (The Day of the Doctor), Petronella Osgood, or something else entirely.
4. How do we disambiguate the Zygon Osgood from Day?
Day is the only story in which any Osgood can be definitively stated to be a Zygon. Bonnie is both a Zygon and an Osgood in Inversion, but no Osgood can be definitively stated to be Bonnie. This means that there is no need for story-disambiguation at this time, unless I'm overlooking a comic story in which Bonnie appears.
- Amorkuz
Yes, you are right. It's been months, so the questions and arguments need to be repeated in full. I propose to decide question 1. first and separately from the other three. The facts are as follows:
- Petronella being her first name was stated in-universe by Osgood.
- The name Petronella was used by the Doctor in-universe (essentially) in the same conversation.
- Ingrid Oliver is credited as Petronella Osgood (for the first time) in the latest audio box set.
The last item has appeared only about a week ago and, to my mind, resolves the situation. Here is why.
While "Petronella" originated in-universe, it only had one subjective source: the Doctor learned about the name from the same source, i.e., from Osgood. Thus, we considered two possibilities: (A) that Petronella is her first name or (B) that she lied/joiked for one reason or another about her first name.
Although cast lists on Big Finish website are not in-universe per se, I believe cast lists have more weight than any other out-of-universe source (script, etc.). Partly, this is because TV stories (and at least one audio story) feature cast within the story. Cast is an inalienable part of a TV story. For instance, the spelling in the cast is normally preferred to, Radio Times listings, promotional materials or closed captions. It is true that cast has sometimes been used for misdirection. But in all cases I can remember, it was by stating character's name that was at least partially correct within the context of the story and never by stating a character's name that is just false (the name of the actor, on the other hand, may be wrong). For instance, the character of Lucie Miller is credited as "Brother Lucianus" in The Book of Kells, but she is called by that name in the story. And this is why it is important that Osgood is never called by the first name (Petronella or otherwise) in the UNIT: Silenced box set. Hence, Petronella cannot be a partially correct but misleading name. The only option remaining is that it is her first name.
To summarise, the only thing that could overwrite a name stated in the cast is an in-universe information expressly contradicting this name. In the absence of such contradicting information, I believe we should rule out option (B) and accept Petronella as the first name (at least until a contradicting information occurs).
- 90.216.63.230
Agreed. Should human Osgood's page name be changed if this is the conclusion?
- Amorkuz
Since page moves are not allowed by anyone other than admins, we just have to wait for their response.
- Bwburke94
What about questions 2 to 4? We should answer all these questions at once.
- Amorkuz
I'd like to resolve all four questions eventually. However, we've had an enormous difficulty finding a consensus before, as evidenced by the length of the thread. Since Question 1 is, in principle, independent of the other three, I hope that resolving it first would help bringing the general solution closer. This is my rationale for separating it. (In fact, I believe I've stated my position regarding the other three questions before, but, as I say, I'll return to it as soon as the page is, hopefully, renamed.)
- OncomingStorm12th
This kind of sums my opinions on questions 2 and 4:
We don't know whether the human or Zygon Osgood died on Death in Heaven. With the "new" Osgood (Bonnie), it will be even harder (if not impossible) to say which Osgood is on episodes set after The Zygon Inversion.
With this in mind, I think the less complicated way of dealing with Osgood will be to merge all characters in one page (like we do with most Time Lord incarnations), making sections about:
- The human Osgood (covering the character from "birth" up to the events of The Day of the Doctor, when a Zygon copies her)
- Operation Double (covering aspects from The Day of the Doctor up to Death in Heaven, when one Osgood dies)
- The Two Osgoods (covering aspects from Death in Heaven up to The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion, when Bonnie decides to "become" Osgood and sustain Operation Double)
- A "new" Osgood (covering aspects from the end of The Zygon Inversion, fowards)
- Tybort
Regarding "Petronella": Email subject lines in Yes, Missy give both Osgood names as "Petronella Osgood", i.e. "To: Petronella Osgood From: Petronella Osgood" and "To: Kate Stewart From: Petronella Osgood"
- Bwburke94
Tybort wrote: Regarding "Petronella": Email subject lines in Yes, Missy give both Osgood names as "Petronella Osgood", i.e. "To: Petronella Osgood From: Petronella Osgood" and "To: Kate Stewart From: Petronella Osgood"
Assuming Yes, Missy is valid (and if it is presented as a story, it certainly is), we finally have our unambiguous proof.
Of course, this doesn't mean the page should be moved. We still have three questions to answer.
- SOTO
If a valid story unambiguously states that as her name, there's no reason not to rename. I looked at your four questions, and there's nothing all that complicated. "Osgood", or "Petronella Osgood" (which has apparently caught on despite how I read the initial intentions), is an identity shared by multiple individuals at any given time. We don't separate any of them, except insofar as they existed before actually becoming Osgood.
- Bwburke94
Has every question been answered, is what I'm asking.
(Question 4 didn't necessarily receive an answer, but the naming of Zygon articles goes far beyond the scope of Osgood.)
- Amorkuz
The page exists anyways. Even links to Petronella Osgood are still lurking in places. The naming policy surely takes precedent over this discussion. Things will never move if we fail to react to new in-universe information.
The 2017-ish short story, Yes, Missy, unambiguously resolves the matter of whether the page Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) should be renamed Petronella Osgood. The use of "Petronella" in this story is not ironic, nor tied to another obviously incorrect piece of information. It just is her name. This is backed up, though it needn't have been, by the use in the cast of characters Big Finish used in an audio release. Though non-narrative, it is a long-held practice that credits published with the release of a story are an allowable source if nothing in-narrative gives us anything to go by. We don't need it in this case, but happily we have it for additional confirmation.
Accordingly, as explained at Talk:Petronella Osgood/Archive 2, links have been moved from Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) to Petronella Osgood (save for the ones in this thread), and the page has been moved.
So that dispenses with the original argument on the thread.
How do you solve a problem like the Zygons?[[edit] | [edit source]]
Next comes the assertion that Zygon versions of Osgood are somehow a combined species or hybrid known as "human/Zygon". That's not true and just not how Zygons work. The so-called "Zygon Osgoods" are fully Zygon and merely mimicking humans. Terror of the Zygons makes this abundantly clear, and nothing in the Moffat-era tales does anything to conclusively dispute this. Zygons operate in a particular way, and their unique way of mimicry needs to be observed in article naming and construction.
The "Zygon known as Petronella Osgood" is not Petronella Osgood in any way. Not like Clara's splinters, not like incarnations of the same Time Lord. They are distinct from Petronella Osgood -- and therefore do not belong on the page about the human original.
The so-called "Zygon Osgood"[1] is an identity assumed by several different Zygons, and is that sense singular, taking care of Shambala108's justified concerns that we follow T:NAMING's admonition to name pages singularly.
Yet, although it is a single identity, as 115.188.61.225 tells us, it was assumed by several different Zygons. Accordingly, the page Zygon Osgood -- like one about a title or a job or an office -- can discuss several different Zygons who held that identity. This is pretty much what Danniesen argued quite simply back in November 2015, and SOTO expounded upon.
I don't hold fully with all of SOTO's argument, of course, because it was written before the publication of the short story that allows us to call the human original "Petronella". But the basic notion is there.
Conclusions arising from this discussion[[edit] | [edit source]]
Here's what results from the above:
- Petronella Osgood, an article about the human original. Links to Zygon Osgood can be given there, but that's it. Please keep that article as tightly focussed on the human as possible.
- Zygon Osgood, an article about the Zygon identity passed around by several Zygons. This article should be broken up into sections, each sticking to uniquely identifiable Zygons carrying on the identity. It should not bear the category "Individual Zygons", but instead should have the category, "category:Zygon identities".[2]
- Bonnie (The Zygon Invasion), is an article that, to my mind, needs no changing of its focus. It stays tight on that individual Zygon, and mentions her assumption of the Osgood identity as a logical part of her biography. Zygon Osgood, of course, should also mention Bonnie's assumption of the identity.
- Osgood's sister shall be moved to Petronella Osgood's sister, as the simplest disambiguation.
- Osgood has already been created as a disambiguation page for all the Osgoods the site covers, and not just those caught up in this Zygon controversy. And I see no cause to change that to Osgood (disambiguation).
- Any talk of other Osgoods in UNIT not directly connected to the Petronella Osgood/Zygon is deemed off topic to this thread and summarily dismissed -- though a few of these non-Petronella suggestions were implemented anyway.
- To SOTO's point about searchability, Osgood (The Day of the Doctor) and Osgood's sister have been retained as redirects. And if the casual DW fan edits Osgood into an article where Petronella Osgood is more desirable, that's okay. At least readers clicking on the link will be close to the topic they're looking for. As is said on the dab page notice, "If you followed a link here, please fix it to point to one of the pages listed below".
Applicability of this ruling is limited[[edit] | [edit source]]
Finally, I just wanna note that Zygons are a specific type of shape-changing species. Their methods have been well and pretty consistently described across their appearances. I know there was some effort to apply general pagenaming policies and examples from other species that were kinda close, but I want to make it clear that I'm not making a ruling here with applicability beyond Zygons. Policies are written to have wide application; they cannot ever be written to take care of every single case. So next time we meet a shapechanging race, we should be wary of extrapolating this ruling for use there. It may be applicable, but it may not. We'll just have to wait and see.
Notes[[edit] | [edit source]]
- ↑ I don't see a need to lengthen the name to Zygon Petronella Osgood as called for by Bwburke94; we should prefer shorter names over long ones, as long as the shorter name is unambiguous.
- ↑ Whether this page should be called Zygon Osgood or Zygon (Osgood) or Osgood (Zygon) doesn't matter to what the focus of the page should be. It's also a matter for a rename debate on Talk:Zygon Osgood, not this forum thread. There's also no clear consensus for a change in this thread, at least not one I'm able to see. So, for the moment, I'm just ruling "no change" on the PAGENAME.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:183987
Hi. I think this Wiki has a lot of good information, however, I am a bit put off that canon and non-canon information is mixed together. When I go to an article I really want to know about information from the TV shows and TV movie, but I never read the books, and though I enjoy Big Finish, they are not cannon either.
Yet freely mixed in with canon info, there is non-canon info. Like in the article for the new Zygon episode, it lists and encounter Lucie Miller had with a Zygon.
I know there is some argument about what is canon, but the novels, Big Finish and so on are regularly contradicted by the new series.
Maybe a solution like Wookieopedia is doing, having two tabs, one for canon and one for tie in media.
- Skittles the hog
There is no official Doctor Who canon. Whatever you're referring to is entirely of your own imagining. Tardis:Canon policy has more information on this.
- Ericphillips
I am not imagining. Bit of an insult. It is called an opinion, which I am voicing in a public forum because I think there should be a change. If no one else agrees, oh well. But thank you for being a jerk in your reply.
- Skittles the hog
Please cite your reference for this canon then. You say you've haven't imagined it, but it is an opinion... divine inspiration?
- Ericphillips
Wow, you are an asshole.
- Spreee
Maybe time for a "deep breath" everyone? (Not the episode, haha...) It's fun to talk about what's canon, but it can get heated for folks. Let's not devolve to insults.
I personally agree with the opinion that the TV episodes are the true canon of the show. That being said, I recognize that there's a stated policy otherwise on this wiki, which essentially says that we can all believe what we like. However, that also being said, the modern (and some classic) TV episodes do seem to regularly contradict stories in other media. I'd be up for a change to at least put greater emphasis on information from televised stories. Maybe I'm in the minority on this, maybe not. And I certainly don't want to alienate those who really enjoy the written stories, audio dramas, etc. I'm just of the belief that '"Doctor Who is, first and foremost, a television show.
Again, this is just my opinion. It'll continue to be, and regardless I'll still continue to regularly contribute to this wiki as I have done for years. Thanks for your time in reading this :)
- Ericphillips
Sorry to be rude to him, but he was rude to me, and sometimes I react poorly. All I was saying is that to better serve BOTH groups, some system of identifying, lets not use the word non-canon, maybe pseudo canonical works who's status is in doubt should be highlighted better as such. As it is now, it is mixed in and if you are new to the sight and do not read the novels (like me) or listen to the audios and such, references can be confusing.
I suggested a two-tab system that would allow you to see both a version with the pseudo-canonical version and strict "as aired on TV" canon. Or maybe just a separate heading for such material.
As for proving continuity problems with tie-in media (outside the continuity problems in the series itself), as I only have listened to a few Big Finish and read no novels, it ishard for me to cite examples. Here are one I know of: Did both the 7th and 10th Doctors disguise themselves as an instructor at a school in World War I?
Anyways, as I am new here, Skittles the Hog's attitude to us uninitiated is off putting.
- CzechOut
Howdy Eric :)
Thanks for joining us! We're glad you're here.
This whole issue of what is or is not "to be counted" takes on a different meaning at a wiki than it might when you're down at the pub with your friends. And it's one that we've debated exhaustively.
Basically, we have a mission here to create an encyclopedia, which means we need to know which sources to use in order to write our articles. If we're not agreed on those sources, our articles can take on all different dimensions.
What we've chosen over the decade we've been around is to be more inclusive than exclusive. We appreciate that some users believe only the TV show counts — but that's not us. And it would be a matter of unimaginable difficulty to untangle things now.
So, instead, we've created polices, mainly at T:CAN and T:VS, to explain where we are on the matter of what things can be used to write articles and which can't.
In a nutshell, we allow anything that's 1) a story 2) that's been released 3) by the appropriate copyright holders and 4) is not parodic or deliberately stated by the owner to be set outside the DWU. That's what we call our four little rules.
It's not a perfect system, and we realise that there are some, like you, who feel it's too inclusive and others, who feel it's too restrictive. But because we occasionally get people on both sides, it's probably a good compromise between the two factions of fandom.
We absolutely won't be using this "two-tabbed" system that Wookieepedia do, because Star Wars does have a canon, and that canon was radically altered by the Disney buyout. There is no analogue for that in Doctor Who. If anything the current production team has been very specific about saying that there is no such thing as canon. And so we basically echo them.
We may never change your mind here about what "counts" in Doctor Who. And that's okay. We hope you'll find that our site at lest offers you something interesting to read.
But consider this. One of the reasons that you say you dislike non-televised Doctor Who as a source is that it's contradictory of televised Doctor Who. The problem is that televised Doctor Who is contradictory of itself. Contradiction is simply a part of being a Doctor Who fan, we feel. Also, most users here would probably take issue with Spree's assertion that "Doctor Who is first and foremost a television show". This is easily disproved by the fact that there are more audios than television stories. And there are more books now. (In fact Doctor Who has more books than any other book series based on a television show.) And don't even get us started counting the number of comic stories!
Doctor Who is a multi-media franchise. Excepting a minuscule number of controversial stories, we choose to celebrate it all.
You're of course welcome to stay and contribute, as long as you understand that we do allow non-televised sources. But please bear in mind that you can't name call as you've done upthread. Please in future attack the point, not the person.
- CzechOut
Oh, a little side-note here for Spree:
The task involved in un-doing our decade-long work of knitting together stories from different media is unimaginable. Our rule about letting in stories from other media is at this point as much practical as voluntary. It would take years to go through every single page and un-hook the TV from the not. And surely our readers would rather we spend that time expanding the database rather than contracting it.
- Spreee
Speaking just for myself, I appreciate the perspective, Czech. I do understand where you (and the policy) are coming from, and respect that this is intertwined with the philosophy of the wiki. I accepted long ago that the policy is unlikely to change, for all the reasons you mentioned. So long as we keep our citations accurate, it's something I can live with. If the audio stories or books or comics or whatever else brings someone "into the fold" of Doctor Who, then so be it. It's not my cup of tea, but it doesn't have to be. The bottom line for me is that this wiki continues to be the best repository of information on a show that I (like all of us) love.
- Shambala108
CzechOut wrote: Also, most users here would probably take issue with Spree's assertion that "Doctor Who is first and foremost a television show". This is easily disproved by the fact that there are more audios than television stories. And there are more books now. (In fact Doctor Who has more books than any other book series based on a television show.) And don't even get us started counting the number of comic stories!
Doctor Who is a multi-media franchise. Excepting a minuscule number of controversial stories, we choose to celebrate it all.
Something else to keep in mind: this wiki started in 2004. There was no NuWho at that time, and the classic series (aside from the TV movie) had been off the air for 15 years, but they were still churning out novels, short stories, comic stories and audio stories. It's easy to see why the early editors of this wiki chose to include stories from all media.
- MystExplorer
Plus if you went purely by the TV series, you wouldn't have a clue who the Eighth Doctor was talking about right before he regenerated.
- Ericphillips
I'll just stick with the Doctor Who portal on Wikipedia. It is very good, and separates the material as I like.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:184310
I know Walsh's son was never seen in The Zygon Invasion, so can we remove the name? It says on IMDB 'credit only', so can I remove it?
- Shambala108
Remove it from what?
- Digifiend
The cast list at The Zygon Invasion (TV story), I presume.
- Danniesen
Yeah, I've seen it too. A mention/reference is not an appearance.
- CybermanFan
Is it okay to remove it from the cast list?
- Shambala108
If it's on the transmitted credits, it stays, per Tardis:Cast lists, whether the character actually appears or not.
IMDB is not at all a valid source on this wiki, and should never be used for cast lists, birth/death dates, or anything else.
- CybermanFan
But that means that a character page will never be created for Walsh's Son, so why leave it in the cast list?
- Danniesen
The credits list is the most valid of the sources. Shambala is right on this. If he is written on the credits list, then he should stay on the cast list of the page, if not, then if he appears he is going on uncredited cast, but if he is mentioned only (not appearing on credits either) then he doesn't belong on the cast list, but a page would still be created as he would be a character in the universe.
- CybermanFan
Walsh's son did appear on the credits, and to my knowledge he wasn't mentioned either. Can someone shed some light on this?
- Bwburke94
Probably a one-second cameo or something.
Speculating as to why he was included in the credits but not the aired episode is beyond the scope of this wiki. As this question has been answered, the thread will be closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:184683
I propose to abolish a policy that is being regularly violated and creates additional workload for everyone.
The rule "you should try to keep your images to no more than [...] 100kb in size" is simply not followed. A quick count among the first 200 images in the Category:Big Finish Productions CD covers shows 73 images not complying with this rule. That's significantly more than 25%. At least one image is over 2M and multiple images are over 1M, i.e., more than 10 times the allowable size.
Of course, one of the admins can always go through these 73 images and scale them down. But that's a lot of work, and for what? Another solution would be to delete all those images and hope that they will eventually be re-uploaded by someone. This seems to be the current modus operandi for newly uploaded images (though not even all of these get deleted). But for old images this may not work that well. The downside would be that many pages would remain bare, possibly for significant amounts of time as some of the images are from rather obscure ranges. At any rate, it would be a lot of work for many people and with unclear gain.
But since this policy is not followed anyway, the question one might ask: is the justification for this policy still relevant? The current explanation is that 1) it's a waste of bandwidth; 2) it might adversely affect people with slow Internet. But in the age of streaming HD video and incessant video-ads, these are simply not valid concerns anymore. We're not using dial-up. Even with 10Mb/s download speed (which I would not be able to survive on), a page with one 1M image will download in 1 second, which is fine. The waste of bandwidth might be relevant for mobile data, but would still be nothing compared to checking Facebook or posting on Instagram.
So question is: is it worth changing all those old images and keeping admins occupied with policing and deleting new images just because the Internet used to be slow? It's kind of like TSA agens in American airports were found at some point spending 80% of their time searching for matchboxes. It distracts from important things rather than helps achieve anything.
And another aspect is usability. In a Wiki setting, complex rules are less likely to be followed. Currently, there are two parameters that have to be satisfied: width and size. But thing is: decreasing width will decrease size but may not decrease below 100k. So having both restrictions requires two operations from uploaders on images instead of one (assuming the initial image is a high-resolution cover from Big Finish). Moreover, some (simpler) image editors are incapable of performing the second operation. If the size restriction is removed, on the other hand, only one operation would be required and the resulting size will still not be outrageously bad, far from 1M or 2M.
Thus, it appears that removing the size restriction but making the width restriction policy clearer and more prominent is a win-win in terms of workloads all around.Amorkuz ☎ 00:18, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
- OttselSpy25
I agree with this suggestion. It's very hard to get some images down to that size without making them look very bad.
- PicassoAndPringles
Jpg images have a "quality" value. Just dropping that from 100 to 80 can cut in half the file size with no notable difference. Pixlr is a super easy to use free online tool that lets you do that, and almost all image editors should have that capability.
Also, it's funny you bring up the large Big Finish covers, because I just started a project to delete and replace the png ones a few days ago.
The 100 kb limit is in no way unreasonable, and it's not difficult to get images that look good within it.
- Shambala108
Constant violation of a policy is not a good reason to remove it.
I disagree with the assumption that everyone has fast internet connection. When I load an image-heavy page on my iPad, it does take longer than image-less pages.
One of the basic tenets of the wiki is that we want everyone who is interested to be able to edit/use this wiki (that's why our spoiler policy is so strict). This means we keep image size down in order to allow users with slower internet connection to enjoy the wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:184709
well here we go again with the unsolvable clues.
37 across & 29 down - Jean & Phyllis (4,6) - ???? e?d???
32 down - word that the doctor introduced to britain several centuries early (4) - d???
how anyone is supposed to know the answers to these pieces of rubbish i have no idea, this website is useless and googling the clues doesn't help either.
but if anyone can help it would be much appreciated.
thanks
- 165.228.133.90
Jean & Phyllis Are East Enders.
32 down is now - d??e
please help if you can
thanks
- 165.228.133.90
32 down is dude from the magician's apprentice,the first episode of this season.
thanks
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:184716
As currently written, our policy would oblige us to give the titles "Tom Baker" and "Matt Smith", among others, to the in-universe versions of the real actors, because in-universe concepts are supposed to trump real-life concepts.
I assume the necessary links can be moved to "Tom Baker (actor)" or similar by bot, so what I'm asking is this: should an exception be added, generally speaking, for alternate dimensions in which the Doctor is a fictional character? It would be an odd rule to have, but it's easier than trying to remember which actors have appeared in-universe, similar to the headache we faced back when story pages didn't automatically have suffixes.
Related to this is Category:Doctor Who actors that exist in the DWU, which is a mess thanks to counting cases like Patrick Troughton (via Robot of Sherwood)...
- Bwburke94
While not someone who played the Doctor, the Brian Blessed page is primarily for the in-universe mention of the actor, not the real actor, indicating we really don't have any consistency for these kinds of pages.
- CzechOut
It's a truism of rule-making that not every single case can be specified. Tardis:Disambiguation policy is long enough already without mentioning the conundrum that is largely presented by a single comic story!
Nevertheless it does address this situation, if not directly.
At the end of the day, we have to think of the end user here. It would be extremely confusing to our average readers if Matt Smith, Peter Capaldi and Peter Davison led to fictional characters, but Christopher Eccleston, Paul McGann and Jon Pertwee didn't.
Thus, the people who started these articles very wisely decided to stress point number 1 under the "finer details" section of our dab policy. They assigned a story name to the character. This is reasonable under the rules because of the "primary topic" exception. The actors who play the Doctor are obviously considered the "primary topic" for their own name. They therefore get the un-dabbed name.
It would be a completely unreasonable expenditure of time and effort to move all actor pages to Name (actor). Not only would this alone take forever, but it would set a potentially irresolvable precedent. We would then have to logically do the same for all behind the scenes personnel. What, then, would we do with people who moved from one position to another over their careers? Go with the first job they ever held? No, I think it would be disrespectful to move Graeme Harper to Graeme Harper (production assistant) or John Nathan-Turner to whatever menial job it was he did back in the 60s, or Steven Moffat to Steven Moffat (short story author). Heck, even if we tried something like "go for the job they mainly did", we'd be really stuck with someone like Moffat. Is he mainly a writer or an executive producer? This problem would have been extremely difficult to solve at the end of series 6, where his credits would have been about equal in both directions. So are we therefore going to commit ourselves to changing the dab term as soon as someone's credits tip one way or the other? And what if they remain evenly split between two job titles?
But even if you could figure out what to call a person, it would be technically laborious. We'd have to devise a template that would get rid of the parenthetical, and the easiest way of doing that would be to have a list of every single possible parenthetical that we would exclude from display.
Have you seen a list of modern credits? The number of titles is fairly staggering. So it's not necessarily impossible, but it's pretty unfeasible.
So while I understand that you can tilt your head one way at our disambiguation policy and think that we've "got something wrong" here, I'd ask you to stress other parts of the dab policy and see how we are in fact remaining consistent with it by declaring certain people the primary topics at a given name.
Finally, the Brian Blessed example is handled in what I would consider an odd way. Typically, we write articles differently about real people who are mentioned, but do not appear, in the DWU. A better example is Kylie Minogue or John Hurt, where we invert the usual form of an article, and create an "in-universe" section at the bottom of the page. This makes sense, as there is no appearance with which we could dab an article about the fictional version of the person.
- OttselSpy25
I agree with that assesment. There has to be some places where we use logic even if our policies tell us to act a certain way.
Does The Five Doctors still link to the in-universe video game? Because that's another example where it should likely redirect to the real-world subject while the in-universe piece gets a bad term.
- Bwburke94
"The Five Doctors" is still the in-universe subject. It was judged that the in-universe video game was notable enough for an article.
In any case, real-world stories always get ([medium] story) in their article titles, and the undabbed "The Five Doctors" article says "You may be looking for the TV story of the same name", making that point more or less moot.
- OttselSpy25
Yeah, but I can guarantee that 99% of the links to that page are made in error.
- Shambala108
OttselSpy25 wrote: I agree with that assesment. There has to be some places where we use logic even if our policies tell us to act a certain way.
Yes, there are exceptions to almost every rule/policy.
OttselSpy25 wrote: Yeah, but I can guarantee that 99% of the links to that page are made in error.
I wouldn't put the estimate that high. I've often gone through the WLH for stories like this and corrected the links.
- Bwburke94
Current WLH for The Five Doctors is 23 misuse, 1 accurate, and 1 on this discussion.
- Skittles the hog
None of those misuses are in the main namespace though.
- OttselSpy25
There were many before yesterday however and they will continue to be made because the linking is common sense.
Also I question the "flipping" of articles that exist within and without of the Doctor Who tv show because the bottom half is never written in an in-universe perspective. "Tom Baker appears in the TV Action! comic as himself...." is not an acceptable in-universe article. I would say that it's much better to have the in-universe and out-of-universe pages separated, thus with Tom Baker (TV Action!), Matt Smith (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), Peter Davison (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), Peter Capaldi (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) and many others.
- OttselSpy25
The question now is does T:DAB OTHER apply to the actors featured exclusively in alternate universes?
Clearly this wouldn't apply to pages like John Lucarotti (The Meeting) and Peter Davison (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) but would to Matt Smith (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) and so on
- Bwburke94
Tom Baker (TVA!) and Matt Smith (TGWLDH) would ordinarily be renamed per T:DAB OTHER, but no satisfactory names for those alternate realities have been devised.
Should fictional versions of these actors just be folded into their real-life articles?
- OttselSpy25
Oh hell no. Articles that are out-of-universe but try and include an in-universe section at the bottom are terrible messes. Keep them separate.
- Bwburke94
OttselSpy25 wrote: Oh hell no. Articles that are out-of-universe but try and include an in-universe section at the bottom are terrible messes. Keep them separate.
It's the best way to deal with this without altering any existing policy.
- OttselSpy25
I argue that these sections are consistently against our policy. If Nicholas Briggs was an in-universe article, would this be accepted?
- Briggs has a cameo appearance as himself in the audio story Legend of the Cybermen, a story set in the Land of Fiction.
What about Tom Baker? What would the support be for Tom Baker (TV Action!) to be written as
- In the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip TV Action!, a villain named Beep the Meep takes the Eighth Doctor and his companion, Izzy Sinclair on a chase into an alternate universe where they end up at the BBC Television Centre where Tom Baker is taping an episode of Doctor Who. Beep mistakes Baker for the "real" Fourth Doctor and is distracted, first by terror and then by anguish from Baker's babble (all lines from real interviews with Tom Baker). Thanks to this, Beep's plans are foiled.
No, no it wouldn't. Thus it is not an in-universe and out-of-universe article.
Plus there are differences in the different universes that are notable. The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who features a Doctor Who TV show with an episode that doesn't exist in the real world and various other aspects that don't match with the real world. And it's absolutely bonkers to link to out-of-universe articles that will most likely never be expanded to include the in-universe info and certainly will never be done so correctly. Create new pages for the in-universe ideas. Either the articles need to have the in-universe ideas at the top (already a mess as Tom Baker (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) still needs to be created) and the behind the scenes info at the bottom (would ya really want to see the info on in-universe Peter Davison, Colin Baker, and Tom Baker before the real-world stuff?) or we need to make separate pages for the in-universe concepts to avoid confusion. Simple-as-that.
- 68.146.233.86
Just tossing an idea into the ring: how about using the term "Actor (fictional)" or "Actor (Whoniverse)" or some such and then just indexing the in-universe references to that person, rather than trying to create different articles for each time someone appears. For example, "Tom Baker (fictional)" would include the TV Action and Girl Who Loved Doctor Who references.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185081
From last episode Sleep No More we have two character pages: Gagan Rassmussen and the Patient Zero. But... what I saw in the episode it's that they are the same character indeed. Gagan was the first to undergo the process and was transformed in a Sandman, then in its fake human form plotted all sort of things and interacted with the Doctor and the others. Am I delusional?
- Danniesen
The first Morpheus patient was told by Rasmussen himself to be in the pod, and was indeed shown to step out from the box. With Rasmussen present.
- HarveyWallbanger
Yes, but eventually I understood the human Rasmussen was an avatar for the original, sandman-converted Rasmussen.
- NarnianAslan1
but harvey do you know that
- NarnianAslan1
its a theory, the doctor who website said he faked his own death after he was supposedly killed by a sandman in that room with the doctor and clara but that isnt a canonical source
- Danniesen
How did you, as you say... "understand" that, if I might ask.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185178
The Black Hole (audio story) offers a whole new alternate version of events that led to "The Two Doctors" that does not involve a "Season 6B" - looks like the wiki should account to there being two separate explanations to all that.
- Bwburke94
The Second Doctor after The War Games is similar to the Master after Survival, in that there are multiple contradictory events but all of them are valid. The addition of The Black Hole doesn't change things, it merely adds another event to one of the Second Doctor's possible timelines.
- MystExplorer
I find it a little odd that Big Finish would contradict Season 6B, given that Helicon Prime is set during it.
- CzechOut
Don't get confused.
Obviously Season 6B is not in-universe. Hence it has a {{real world}} tag. As the article explains, it is a fan theory, or even several fan theories operating on similar, but not exactly the same, lines. The existence of a new narrative which seems to upset the theory is no more problematic for us in the writing of in-universe articles than is Lungbarrow's view of Time Lord reproduction to the clear statements given in the BBC Wales series.
As Bwburke94 indicates above, The Black Hole does not destroy Season 6B. Indeed, 6B isn't as unitary a theory as one might imagine, anyway. Unfortunately, if you don't like the contradictions, the best I can do is say, "Welcome to Doctor Who."
- JagoAndLitefoot
"I find it a little odd that Big Finish would contradict Season 6B, given that Helicon Prime is set during it."
"Helicon Prime" is set when the Doctor is briefly working for the Time Lords with Jamie and Victoria. But Big Finish offers an alternate explanation in "The Black Hole" for *when* it happened (during season 5, while he was traveling regularly with Victoria and Jamie, with all the changes to the TARDIS returning to the status quo after the story, not after season 6). In "The Black Hole" it's shown that he was working with a Time Lord constable, who originally wanted to arrest the Doctor, but who decided to let him go this time because of his aid against the Monk.
What is problematic for the wiki now is the chronological placement of things like "The Two Doctors" - in articles like Second Doctor etc. these events are currently mentioned after the events of "The War Games" - but what if the sources contradict on when they happened?
- RogerAckroydLives
Do they? What we really need is any information within The Black Hole which can be used to place the various 6Besque stories which exist. All of the "Second Doctor on Earth" comic stories will, unless there is reason to do otherwise, simply remain where they are. What we need to know is how best to reconcile World Game and The Black Hole, and thyerefore determine which stories are placed in which places. World Game will still definitely be set post War Games, but either we go with the source that makes the sequence of events definite (eg. if 2 talks about Dastari in TBH) or we simply refer to two contradictory accounts. It shouldn't be difficult: this stuff happens all the time.
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: Do they? What we really need is any information within The Black Hole which can be used to place the various 6Besque stories which exist. All of the "Second Doctor on Earth" comic stories will, unless there is reason to do otherwise, simply remain where they are. What we need to know is how best to reconcile World Game and The Black Hole, and thyerefore determine which stories are placed in which places. World Game will still definitely be set post War Games, but either we go with the source that makes the sequence of events definite (eg. if 2 talks about Dastari in TBH) or we simply refer to two contradictory accounts. It shouldn't be difficult: this stuff happens all the time.
The time placement of stories really only matters in the Theory namespace. For the main namespace, story placement and timeline info are only allowed if clearly stated in the stories themselves. Any interpreting of stories to decide which one goes when is just speculation and is disallowed by Forum:Timeline sections on pages.
Placing stories in some kind of chronological order is not a focus of this wiki. If you'd like to play around with timelines, the Theory:Timey-wimey detector namespace is the place.
- BananaClownMan
The main question I have here is, does "Black Hole" explain why 2 had grey hair and why Jamie, who is in his teens in the 2D era, is suddenly in his twenties during "2 Doctors"?
- RogerAckroydLives
Shambala108 wrote:
The time placement of stories really only matters in the Theory namespace. For the main namespace, story placement and timeline info are only allowed if clearly stated in the stories themselves. Any interpreting of stories to decide which one goes when is just speculation and is disallowed by Forum:Timeline sections on pages.
Placing stories in some kind of chronological order is not a focus of this wiki. If you'd like to play around with timelines, the Theory:Timey-wimey detector namespace is the place.
Rest assured I do understand this. I was just trying to give J&L a starting point for making any changes to main namespace pages, primarily to pages such as Jamie McCrimmon and Second Doctor. It was intended as basic advice, not policy-breaking demands.
- JagoAndLitefoot
"The main question I have here is, does "Black Hole" explain why 2 had grey hair and why Jamie, who is in his teens in the 2D era, is suddenly in his twenties during "2 Doctors"?"
No, but it's no different from how actors sound older in Big Finish audios or how Hurndall replaces Hartnell in "The Five Doctors" - something that we can simply ignore and don't need a special reason for.
- BananaClownMan
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: No, but it's no different from how actors sound older in Big Finish audios or how Hurndall replaces Hartnell in "The Five Doctors" - something that we can simply ignore and don't need a special reason for.
Potentially yes, accept that World Game does give a reasoning for the Doctor's hair and Jamie's sudden growth spurt. This is why I think the bulk of "2 Doctors" recap should go after "S6B" instead of during "S5", save for a quick reference that is taken from Black Hole.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Or possibly move the recap to "undated events", with a mention of the Doctor being sent there in both places?
- BananaClownMan
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Or possibly move the recap to "undated events", with a mention of the Doctor being sent there in both places?
Could work. Seconded.
- Bwburke94
The Second Doctor post-The War Games is such a mess that this may be the best option.
- Digifiend
BananaClownMan wrote: The main question I have here is, does "Black Hole" explain why 2 had grey hair and why Jamie, who is in his teens in the 2D era, is suddenly in his twenties during "2 Doctors"?
Twenties to forties, not teens to twenties. There was 18 years between The Highlanders and The Two Doctors, and Jamie was 22 when he first appeared (Frazer Hines's real age at the time, and mentioned in an audio story).
- Danniesen
That's not the point. The point is why it's like that?
Why didn't they just dye up Troughton's hair?
- Bwburke94
Danniesen wrote: That's not the point. The point is why it's like that? Why didn't they just dye up Troughton's hair?
We're already dealing with out-of-universe stuff here. Troughton refused to dye his hair IIRC.
- RogerAckroydLives
This is all way off-topic. If there isn't anything left to discuss or debate, this should probably be closed.
- Danniesen
It's not off-topic as the debate is about Season 6B, aka. Troughton's Second Doctor as of after he whirled around in the void in The War Games, which is what we're discussing. We're still on-topic. If we were to talk about something Second Doctor that happened BEFORE this point, then we would be off-topic. As we're not, we're still on the topic.
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: This is all way off-topic. If there isn't anything left to discuss or debate, this should probably be closed.
If some people feel there is more to discuss, then it's not off topic. Anyway, it's an admin decision whether to close a thread or not.
- RogerAckroydLives
If some people feel there is more to discuss, then it's not off topic. Anyway, it's an admin decision whether to close a thread or not.
I know this. But the idea that this is still on topic is one I give no credence to. The latest information has been related to why Patrick Troughton did not dye his hair. Nothing to do with 6B, let alone what this thread was about: inconsistencies between accounts wihtin the Second Doctor's timeline. It may not be off-topic in the broader sense, but I most certainly does not belong on a Tardis forum.
- Danniesen
The information on Troughton's decision does indeed have something (even if very little) to do with Season 6B if we take it that The Two Doctors is post-The War Games. But as it is already answered, what's to be mad about? We're still discussing Season 6B.
- RogerAckroydLives
Indeed it does have something to with 6B, but nothing to do with this thread, entitled Series 6B no more?. I'm not "mad", as you assume, I just would like to either get this thread back on track, or finish a discussion pointless for this wiki.
- Danniesen
What, in your opinion, is back on track in this case, if I might ask? What should we, to stay on the topic, say? :)
- RogerAckroydLives
This thread was and still should be a discussion about chronology due to the events of The Black Hole. If people want to discuss Season 6B on the wiki, they can start a separate thread. If they want to discuss Season 6B, they can find a different forum. But productions choices such as hair dying have nothing to do with chronology disputed by an audio story.
- 176.25.231.227
In the Black Hole in Episode 3 if I remember correctly. They mention the fact that the Doctor didn't actually go to Dastari as Jamie and him saw the space station was being attacked by Sontarans. So it doesn't destroy or contradict Season 6B at all. That and the Black Hole doesn't quite fit with the beginning of the Two Doctors which see the 2nd Doctor getting the Stattenheim remote control then.
- Shambala108
RogerAckroydLives wrote: This thread was and still should be a discussion about chronology due to the events of The Black Hole.
No it is not about the chronology, as I said in post #7 and you responded to. JagoAndLitefoot started this thread and is asking for how the wiki will account for the differences. No mention of chronology.
- RogerAckroydLives
Shambala108 wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: This thread was and still should be a discussion about chronology due to the events of The Black Hole.
No it is not about the chronology, as I said in post #7 and you responded to. JagoAndLitefoot started this thread and is asking for how the wiki will account for the differences. No mention of chronology.
Except the differences are about the chronology. I am not campaigning for a return of timelines or speculative chronologies. But the differences are in the chronology. Read some of J&L's later posts and it is clear that no other aspects of "differences" have been brought up so far.
- BananaClownMan
Shambala108 wrote:
RogerAckroydLives wrote: This thread was and still should be a discussion about chronology due to the events of The Black Hole.
No it is not about the chronology, as I said in post #7 and you responded to. JagoAndLitefoot started this thread and is asking for how the wiki will account for the differences. No mention of chronology.
Ahem, I hate to be "that guy," but could you two please bury the hatchet on you talk pages, your ironicly taking things off-topic here, as well as creating a lot of unneeded messages.
- Danniesen
It's not exactly off-topic. It's still on topic.
These pages are meant to have messages, with discussions about what we should have on the pages. They're doing nothing wrong.
- RogerAckroydLives
Danniesen wrote: It's not exactly off-topic. It's still on topic.
These pages are meant to have messages, with discussions about what we should have on the pages. They're doing nothing wrong.
I give up. If that's what you believe, fine. But this thread is currently adding nothing to our wiki.
- Danniesen
This last one was rather meant for Bananaclownman. I was saying this thing you're discussing with Shambala108 is not off-topic and doesn't have to continue on talkpages rather than here.
- RogerAckroydLives
Danniesen wrote: This last one was rather meant for Bananaclownman. I was saying this thing you're discussing with Shambala108 is not off-topic and doesn't have to continue on talkpages rather than here.
No offence intended, and apologies if I did offend. But I can't help but agree with BananaClownMan to a degree: what Shambala and I are discussing is also completely irrelevant to the wiki. As is just about everything after BCM seconds the idea of placing TTD in the "Undated Events" section.
And thanks if you were attempting to provide support. I can only be grateful for any form of respect.
- Danniesen
I hope that we will one day find a solution to everything so we know when exactly the stories take place in timelines.
- Shambala108
BananaClownMan wrote: Ahem, I hate to be "that guy," but could you two please bury the hatchet on you talk pages, your ironicly taking things off-topic here, as well as creating a lot of unneeded messages.
BananaClownMan, you are misinformed. I am "that guy" (or rather, "girl") and it's my job to correct mistakes about policy. The forums are very popular places, and any misconceptions about policies are seen here by more people than at other locations. I am not going to hide a correction on a user's talk page, where no one else can see it.
Here's a suggestion for all users: leave the comments about "off-topic" and "closing a thread" to the admins. Just because we may not be posting in a thread doesn't mean that none of us are watching it. We will take care of it. Believe me, there's nothing fun about the job, so you're not missing much.
- Batguy01
Season 6b definitely takes place after The War Games because in The Five Doctors, when 2 and the Brig meet the hallucinations of Jamie and Zoe, the Doctor is able break the illusion because he says that Jamie and Zoe memories were erased by the Time Lords. In my opinion this adventure may not have happened, because the CIA needed to give Jamie a reason of why he and the Doctor are working for them, so they implanted memories that are either false or were based off a pervious adventure but we're slightly altered . Also it seems kinda weird that when the Doctor begins working for the Time Lords that his hair turns white and when returns to pick up Victoria it turns back to being brown. You might argue with me in that in Time Crash 5 looks like he's a bit older because he is in the presence of 10, well in the first few scenes in The Two Doctors that feature 2 and Jamie they are not in the presence of 6, but 2 still has white hair. Well that's my opinion what are your theories about how to put this story with World Game?
- 176.25.231.227
Well if we take what the Monk said and the Doctor confirmed in episode 3 of The Black Hole that the Doctor and Jamie didn't help Destari because they saw the sontarans attacking, than it still fits with World Game and the Doctor and Jamie going off to help Destari this time properly. I suppose you could see it as there really being three versions of the Doctor in the Two Doctors first 2 and Jamie who land before the sontarans than the earlier 2 and Jamie who land while the sontarans are attacking and leave to get back to Victoria and the monk and finally 6 and Peri who arrive after the sontarans have left.
- Bwburke94
Are we back on speculation again?
- Amorkuz
I'm not sure this should change the proposed handling of things. And this is still not entirely outside the realm of speculations.
But in the CD Extras on TBH, it is mentioned that the original idea was to refer to the meeting with the Sixth Doctor explicitly and even to explain Jamie's lack of surprise at the site of Pavo's regeneration by the fact that he's met another incarnation of the Doctor. However, this idea was vetoed by John Dorney. So the connection to TTD is not entirely speculative, but is not entirely factual either as the production team avoided providing definitive clues on purpose. TBH seems to have been written with the following premise in mind: TBH is supposed to be a story written in 1960s that mentions some names and events (Dastari, Sontarans) in passing without giving details. Later on, the production team of TTD is supposed to have remembered this loose thread and fill it in with a full story. Unfortunately, this still does not exclude the possibility of two Second Doctors.
Would it make sense to transcribe everything mentioned in TBH about this behind-the-scenes trip to get a full picture? There are more things mentioned than just the names and they are mentioned in more than one place.
- Bwburke94
Any "two Second Doctors" theory is pure speculation as of now, and we should probably avoid that stuff.
- Amorkuz
Well, of course, it is a speculation. My question was whether it makes sense to try and refute this speculation on the basis on the text of TBH? Or is everyone happy with the idea of filing this as undated and NOT claiming that the Doctor and Jaimie from TBH really WERE the ones in TTD?
- Danniesen
The point is that we don't do speculation.
- Amorkuz
I don't either. Let me try to be very specific to avoid further misunderstanding. Here is the fork in what can be done:
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: What is problematic for the wiki now is the chronological placement of things like "The Two Doctors" - in articles like Second Doctor etc. these events are currently mentioned after the events of "The War Games" - but what if the sources contradict on when they happened?
The creator of the thread then proposed the following solution:
JagoAndLitefoot wrote: Or possibly move the recap to "undated events", with a mention of the Doctor being sent there in both places?
This solution was seconded by BananaClownMan. But then there was a mention of a fact that was (and still sadly is) obscured by the talk of speculations that clearly will not make it to the Wikia pages: an anonymous contributor mentioned that
They mention the fact that the Doctor didn't actually go to Dastari as Jamie and him saw the space station was being attacked by Sontarans.
If this is really the case, then no changes to the original dating of TTD are necessary as TBH does not interact with TTD directly. If this is really the case, then the TBH should be added to the pages for the Second Doctor and Jamie independently from TTD (with a note that the two are contemporaneous, perhaps). This is the second possible solution.
I hope now it is clear what I mean when I ask whether it makes sense to go through TBH and carefully fish for the evidence in support of the anonymous contributor's fact or some further dialog possibly establishing that these Doctor and Jamie did participate in TTD after all.
- Amorkuz
By the way, currently the Second Doctor and Jamie McCrimmon pages contradict each other with regard to what the two did after reaching Space Station Camera on the Monk's errand. Maybe it would make sense to add a link to this discussion at the top of these two pages, especially if this discussion is not closed soon?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'm pretty sure they did go see Dastari in "The Black Hole" and it does line up with "The Two Doctors".
Any seeming discrepancies with "The Two Doctors" can simply be accounted to the Doctor not remembering the event that well because it involved his future self, and that tends to make the younger incarnation involved lose their memories (as per "The Day of the Doctor"). So the Second Doctor only remembers Dastari having been busy with Sontarans because of that.
Everything else (getting the Stattenheim remote control, Victoria studying graphology) lines up with "The Two Doctors".
- JagoAndLitefoot
And yeah, in the extras, Guerrier actually mentions that his early draft mentioned them having met the Sixth Doctor and Peri, but he took it out in order for the story to have a more authentic 60s feeling, and in a way to feel like a 60s story that "The Two Doctors" was actually later referring to in the 80s. But the intent is definitely still that "The Two Doctors" takes place within "The Black Hole". As I said, any discrepancies can be explained by the Doctor not remembering a meeting with his future selves.
- Batguy01
In the Five Doctors, when 2 encounter's illusions of Jamie and Zoe, he is able to break the illusion by saying Jamie and Zoe's memories we're erased by the Time Lords. In The Black Hole the Doctor has obviously not met Zoe yet. So Season 6b definitely takes place after the War Games. Have you guys noticed that at all.
- RogerAckroydLives
What we really need is info from World Game. Does the novel confirm that the Second Doctor and Jamie go to Space Station Chimera? I know it sets up their doing so, but if it only implies that The Two Doctors takes place immediately after it, and there is a possibility that it doesn't, then I imagine we can comfortably set it within The Black Hole. If it clearly states that they most definitely are going to Chimera to find Dastari, or in any other way makes clear that only TTD could take afterwards, then I imagine we may need to reason this out further.
- RogerAckroydLives
Season 6B is still most certainly "real", whatever we come to. It's where 2's appearances in Players and World Game are set, most likely along with those he makes in T3D and T5D. That needs no debate whatsoever, given they are considered to be valid sources by us.
- OttselSpy25
RogerAckroydLives wrote: What we really need is info from World Game. Does the novel confirm that the Second Doctor and Jamie go to Space Station Chimera? I know it sets up their doing so, but if it only implies that The Two Doctors takes place immediately after it, and there is a possibility that it doesn't, then I imagine we can comfortably set it within The Black Hole. If it clearly states that they most definitely are going to Chimera to find Dastari, or in any other way makes clear that only TTD could take afterwards, then I imagine we may need to reason this out further.
Yes. They are sent on their way to the space station with direct orders to do it. They don't explicitly show scenes from the story or anything, but it's all set up.
Stop trying to reconcile the continuity errors here. Our job is not to find a cohesive narrative. There is never going to be one canon we can live by and one universe that all fits together like a puzzle. So we need to avoid trying to find speculatory "answers" to our quandaries and instead decide how we're going to cover this continuity problem which shows no solution in the near future.
One option is to simply put the section on the Two Doctors at two different points in the article and to make it clear that the two contradict each other. Another is to separate The Two Doctors from both accounts and have the article link to them, a suggestion which I am not a fan of. I put forward that most stories listed under the Season 6B section need reconsidered, for instance most comics under that section need to go much earlier than that, before The Dominators. ETC.
- RogerAckroydLives
OttselSpy25 wrote:
Yes. They are sent on their way to the space station with direct orders to do it. They don't explicitly show scenes from the story or anything, but it's all set up.
Stop trying to reconcile the continuity errors here. Our job is not to find a cohesive narrative. There is never going to be one canon we can live by and one universe that all fits together like a puzzle. So we need to avoid trying to find speculatory "answers" to our quandaries and instead decide how we're going to cover this continuity problem which shows no solution in the near future.
One option is to simply put the section on the Two Doctors at two different points in the article and to make it clear that the two contradict each other. Another is to separate The Two Doctors from both accounts and have the article link to them, a suggestion which I am not a fan of. I put forward that most stories listed under the Season 6B section need reconsidered, for instance most comics under that section need to go much earlier than that, before The Dominators. ETC.
If you are quite finished, I would like to remind you that that is precisely what I am doing. Many a story "sets up" the Seventh Doctor's last appearance in Doctor Who, but we can place stories which are not set in such a place according to others accordingly. Therefore if World Game only implied that T2D was set immediately after it, we could solve the problem with ease. I would advise you to stop making assumptions about everything you view and begin treating people more respectfully on this site. I can't claim you undeniably intended to insult me, but that is most definitely how I feel.
- OttselSpy25
...
So the question in that case would be where would be put The Two Doctors? The 1996 TV movie is different from this case because we know that that film ends the 7th Doctor's adventures and thus we can put it at the end and say on the different stories which lead up to it "the Doctor left onto his final adventure" and what not. But in this case we have no place right now to put the story, unless it's just far outside of the narrative section, which would seem odd to say the least.
- RogerAckroydLives
I'm not asking how it could be done, I'm explaining that our precedent isn't to work from authorial intention, and regard any alterations to "canon" as wrong, our stance is to treat all as equal, and seek to find the "most right" order, not "the right" order. I know where and when the TV movie is set, I'm talking about the countless stories, beginning with Lungbarrow, which "lead into" it. If we assumed that, because events are set up in one source, they must be consecutive, we are giving way to much leeway for speculation. But if one can be determined to be more definite (ie. one source states "He left, alone and afraid. Perhaps he should return home, now.", while another states "He set the course for Gallifrey."), we place it as such. Ergo, if World Game said something like "those nasty, brutish and short aliens he would soon have to face", and The Black Hole stated "He's just come back from SS Chimera.", we could follow the account which seemingly confirms that T2D occurs in one place, and only detail the implied information for the other, rather than assuming that WG is definitely referring to T2D.
What I'm trying to express is our levels of "priority": in-universe will always go before authorial intent. It's what retconning means. So if somebody had stated that WG only implies a particular chronology, we could arrange our articles as such, as implication and explanation are very different things.
- Amorkuz
I completely agree with RogerAckroydLives. When someone asks/suggests to find a confirmation/refutation in the text of a story (audio, comic, or otherwise), replying to that with the word "speculation" is simply, pardon my French, a non sequitur.
In the spirit of this, I am relistening to The Black Hole to try and find as definite indications as possible of whatever is indicated in the in-universe source. (Unfortunately, I do not own World Game to check that too.)
- Amorkuz
As promised, the transcription of relevant portions of The Black Hole.
From Part 2 The Doctor says to the Monk: "If you are supposed to be meeting with Dastari, he and I are old friends." (Incidentally, I don't think this friendship is currently recorded anywhere.)
Before the departure, the Doctor's TARDIS is subjected to "dual control", which supplies the coordinates of the meeting with Dastari. The Monk describes these as "coordinates in the third zone."
The Doctor tells Jamie that Victoria wanted to read up on graphology.
The Monk explains to Victoria: "The Stattenheim remote can keep them [the Doctor and Jamie] synchronized with us here. If it takes them an hour or two to negotiate with Dastari..."
The Monk later admits: "That negotiations I sent them to... I have a funny feeling, Sontarans are just about to attack."
From Part 3 (this is the crucial part)
Jamie describes their return as: "With several stops back, after the Sontarans..."
To which the Doctor interjects: "It was interesting to explore the City of Owls, and the people of McKenzie were very grateful for our help." (Disclaimer: I do not know the context, so the proper names may be misspelled here.)
Jamie states: "We've been gone weeks."
I did not record the exact quote but it is then clearly stated that the Doctor has broken the time synchronization between the Habitat with the Monk and Victoria and the TARDIS with him and Jamie. It is later stated that 10 days have passed between the Doctor and Jamie saving Pavo and their earlier copies departing.
After this, when the Monk confronts them in his TARDIS, he says: "You didn't go to Dastari."
The Doctor replies: "He was busy with the Sontarans. We thought we'd pop back later."
And Jamie adds: "You sent us there to die."
That's all the relevant information I have found.
- Bwburke94
Is this transcript evidence that The Black Hole intends The Two Doctors to be set outside the normal confines of "Season 6B"?
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: Is this transcript evidence that The Black Hole intends The Two Doctors to be set outside the normal confines of "Season 6B"?
This is the question that now everybody can discuss based on the common transcript of the source material rather than personal recollections, which was the point of providing it here. Personally I would, however, abstain from this discussion because I am not an expert on what "the normal confines of "Season 6B"" constitute.
- BananaClownMan
Amorkuz wrote:
Bwburke94 wrote: Is this transcript evidence that The Black Hole intends The Two Doctors to be set outside the normal confines of "Season 6B"?
This is the question that now everybody can discuss based on the common transcript of the source material rather than personal recollections, which was the point of providing it here. Personally I would, however, abstain from this discussion because I am not an expert on what "the normal confines of "Season 6B"" constitute.
Sounds like it was a mere set-up for The Two Doctors, as was mentioned in the BTS section of the CD pack.
- Amorkuz
Out of curiosity: what is in the BTS section exactly? The BTS on the website is empty. I always assumed they got lazy and stopped populating it. But maybe it's a glitch?
- JagoAndLitefoot
On the CD, there are behind the scenes interviews with cast and crew.
- BananaClownMan
In the interest of re-opening this discussion, didn't Robert Holmes write it with the belief that 2 and Jamie were on a CIA mission, due to that scene in The Five Doctors with the Doctor mentioning Zoe and Jamie's departure in The War Games? With that in mind, it seems that The Two Doctors is indeed Season 6B placed, with The Black Hole merely being an "template" (for lack of a better term) for the serial, as is mentioned in behind the scenes interviews with the crew.
- Bwburke94
BananaClownMan wrote: In the interest of re-opening this discussion, didn't Robert Holmes write it with the belief that 2 and Jamie were on a CIA mission, due to that scene in The Five Doctors with the Doctor mentioning Zoe and Jamie's departure in The War Games? With that in mind, it seems that The Two Doctors is indeed Season 6B placed, with The Black Hole merely being an "template" (for lack of a better term) for the serial, as is mentioned in behind the scenes interviews with the crew.
This relies heavily on behind-the-scenes information, which may be necessary to avoid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185295
What is the difference between the two? Why is Sword of Orion a story consisting of 4 parts while Extinction is an anthology consisting of 4 "separate" stories? The reason I am asking is because it suddenly does not make sense to me anymore. To me, an anthology is a collection of stories that are only loosely related, e.g., The Company of Friends or The First Doctor: Volume One, and may have largely non-overlapping cast. If, on the other hand, it is a continuous narrative, shouldn't it be a story consisting of several parts? I mean, we do not call The Daleks' Master Plan an anthology even though it is long, distributed over time, space and cast, and was released in 12 separate episodes rather than in one box set?
Upon listening to Extinction I tend to think of it as one story in 4 parts, which are longer than usual. If I were to contribute to references/continuity, I would have trouble remembering which "story" things should be attributed to. The cast is common throughout. The enemy is the same. The main protagonists are the same. There is one resolution at the end. The first three stories end... I wanted to say on a cliffhanger, but the truth is: I don't remember for sure because it's all one big story to me. Each disc has a title, but there are also titles for the discs of Zagreus, which is only 1 disc shorter than this UNIT box set.
So what makes Extinction an anthology?
- Bwburke94
Or rather, what makes Extinction an anthology and Zagreus not?
- Digifiend
Extinction parts 2 and 3 have a different writer than parts 1 and 4 do, for starters. Multi-part episodes tend to use the same writer for all parts. Well, most of the time, anyway.
- Bwburke94
Digifiend wrote: Multi-part episodes tend to use the same writer for all parts. Well, most of the time, anyway.
I think that's what we're trying to figure out.
- JagoAndLitefoot
First Doctor lost stories/early adventures also tend to have individual episode titles.
- AeD
Surely things like, for example, Dark Eyes 3 and Extinction should be considered seasons/series of Doctor Who: Dark Eyes and UNIT: The New Series, respectively?
I don't think any reasonable person would deny these boxsets have more in common, in terms of how they form a narrative unit, with a season of the television show Doctor Who than with a Short Trips volume.
- Amorkuz
AeD wrote: Surely things like, for example, Dark Eyes 3 and Extinction should be considered seasons/series of Doctor Who: Dark Eyes and UNIT: The New Series, respectively?
That's also a valid comparison. This presents a third possibility. Let me list them all: 1) Anthologies (current state). Plot, cast, references, continuity, etc. on a separate page for each CD. Minimal information on the common anthology page. 2) Seasons. Practically I guess would be the same as 1) except for the name. (Please, correct me, AeD, if you had a different set up in mind for seasons.) 3) Stories à la serials of the classic series. One common page for the whole serial with plot divided into parts on this page according to the CDs.
- Amorkuz
As a further validation of AeD's view, in CD Extras on UNIT: Extinction, the producers (Briggs et al.) call them Series 1, Series 2, etc.
- JagoAndLitefoot
And there are some Big Finish series that switched from seasons comprised of single releases to box sets during a continuous run, like "Gallifrey". It's a difference in terms of marketing/packaging, not in terms of how the story is structured.
- Amorkuz
I was looking at Only the Monstrous and noticed that each story has a separate cast on the Wikia and I have a question that may well be relevant: does each CD have a separate cast? I buy downloads whenever available, and I was recently alerted to the differences in production data, e.g., in cast, between the CDs and the website. The website has one cast for the whole set. However, if each CD indeed has a separate cast on it, I would take it as a definitive proof that these should be treated as Seasons or Series with individual episodes.
- JagoAndLitefoot
The Diary of River Song has just been added as an "anthology" even though it's marked on the box as "series 1". It should be moved to "audio series" instead, and the article should be more like Jago and Litefoot in my opinion.
- Amorkuz
I second this. And it's brilliant that there is actually a precedent of treating a collection of box sets as one series consisting of individual volumes. So there is no need to invent how this should be treated. It would be good to work out a policy for distinguishing anthologies from series. Especially given that Nick Briggs said in an interview he prefers the box format and would want to move other ranges to it too.
I thought that there is no functional distinction between the two, just the page title. But the example of Jago and Litefoot shows that I was wrong: each anthology has its own page whereas all box sets of an audio series live on the same page. (Off topic: something is wrong with the box set images of Jago and Litefoot.)
Here are some obvious candidates for a "series" treatment:
- Dark Eyes - Dark Eyes 4
- Doom Coalition 1 and further releases
- Extinction and further releases
- Only the Monstrous and further releases of The War Doctor series
- The Diary of River Song and further releases
What they all have in common is a common series name on the box and either a numeric designation (starting from the 2nd box in case of Dark Eyes and absent in case of UNIT) or a status as a range of audios on the BF website (absent so far in the case of the War Doctor, as "Collected" is not a range in the proper sense). Are there other examples I've missed?
My suggestion is to use seriality, i.e., the presence of several box sets under a common name/range, as the primary criterion for something being a "series" rather than an "anthology". For instance, we know Doom Coalition 2 will be released and, hence, can already organize Doom Coalition as a series page without mentioning the 2nd volume. On the other hand, The Third Doctor Adventures may be too early to treat as a series. Let it stay an anthology for now.
Skipping the obvious anthologies like The Company of Friends, there are less clear cut cases when a box set for a particular doctor is named Volume 01 but is released within a larger range, perhaps with other releases in between. However, I was not able to find any example that would already be in Volume 02 stage. So maybe this does not have to be decided now.
- SOTO
So, in your analysis, an "anthology" must be a singular release not part of an overall series, or a collection of stories together in one release as part of a series that is typically single-story releases. If a collection of stories is one of many under the same banner, then it's an audio series. Am I correct?
I think it would be wise at this point of the discussion to seek out some behind the scenes Big Finish info on the topic. Making a quick list based on your criteria of what should be considered an anthology and what should be a series, what do they call an anthology and a series?
If, for example, they call the Dark Eyes collections anthologies, maybe we should consider them as such: as (numbered) anthologies within a larger series, rather than series 1, 2, 3... within a larger series. So, in a sense, comparable to classic Who serials with smaller episodes within it. Season 1 and Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005) are such because that is the terminology used by the Doctor Who production team. If Big Finish uses a different system, there is no reason not to consider them differently, rather than "telecising", and using a "telecentric" system only for the sake of consistency.
- Amorkuz
I actually do not like the term "anthology" in principle. I just consulted with a PhD in English who told me that "anthology" means a collection of selected previously published stories with a common topic. But even if we must keep the term (I'll explain why in a moment) for collections of newly released stories (see also this), it just does not apply to serialized storytelling. You won't call Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne a musketeer anthology, will you? Or Terminator 1 through Terminator 4 a terminator anthology?
Now for the first part of fact-finding. It might come as a surprise, but Big Finish itself barely uses the term "anthology". I could only find 1 (one) release with this word mentioned in the release data:
(and even then its use seems to follow after a quote taken from somewhere else).
The word "anthology" was used in promotional materials (news announcements and Vortex) all of 5 times. Here is, to the best of my knowledge, the complete list (I omit all book references):
- You Are the Doctor and Other Stories
- The Company of Friends
- 1001 Nights
- The Worlds of Big Finish
- Tales from the Vault, which is not currently classified as an anthology on the Wikia (this mention is the only one from the Vortex)
Also Matt Fitton, while describing his work, says that he wrote for the anthology
This amounts to only seven designation of releases as anthologies, of which three has "and Other Stories" in the title. All releases but two are from the Main Range (the remaining ones are a 1-disc release from Companion Chronicles and the 3-disc Worlds, which are pretty unique indeed). No box set with stories following each other in an arc similar to a two-parter from the new Who is designated an anthology by Big Finish.
Moreover, BF supports the notion of an anthology consisting of disconnected stories in statements like "An anthology release, but not quite like those we've done before, Doctor Who: 1001 Nights features an overall story, but it contains three other tales, about a mysterious prisoner, a place which runs on stories and a dangerous possession." or "Doctor Who: 1001 Nights is a full-cast audiobook anthology release with a difference; featuring four tales, they all form part of a larger narrative as Nyssa is forced to tell a series of stories in order to keep the Doctor alive..." Essentially, they apologize for calling it an anthology by explaining that the general thread is not too strong.
Disclaimer: I do not have access to CDs so cannot vouch that the word "anthology" is not used on the printed materials coming with CDs.
- SOTO
(I almost lost my response after Chrome crashed, but managed to retrieve the text! Oh, and then I lost it again, by accidentally clicking on a link. :|)
Well, I'm convinced. How Big Finish is using the word "anthology" is very important to the decision being made in this thread. Big Finish is certainly defining anthology as a collection of stories which are not narratively linked, calling 1001 Nights "an anthology, but...", essentially.
So, you've said, at least...
- Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories
- You Are the Doctor and Other Stories
- The Company of Friends
- 1001 Nights
- The Worlds of Big Finish
...are anthologies, according to Big Finish.
Let's see what happens if we apply the same logic to stories they don't mention as such.
But! Big Finish calls Short Trips "audio short story collections" here, and don't actually use "anthology" language for that range at all. On Dark Eyes specifically and what to call those like it: an article on one of the official Doctor Who sites announces three "new series" of Dark Eyes in the title, and "three new seasons" in the text. It also calls the first Dark Eyes a "four-episode. . .boxset". Note the lack of any "anthology" talk the whole way through.
So Dark Eyes as a whole is the range (called a "mini-range", along with others, within the Doctor Who range here, and Dark Eyes, Dark Eyes 2, etc are either seasons or series (or, more likely, volumes; more on that below). I think it's important to start using "range" terminology when discussing audio ranges, so they don't get mixed up with series. The TV equivalent of the audio range is the entire television programme.
Oh, also: [http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/doctor-who-doom-coalition---coming-soon "However, the full Dark Eyes bundle will stay at 80 for all four series!"] Although they also refer to the entirety of Dark Eyes as a series on another page: [http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/doctor-who-doom-coalition-2-coming-march-2016 "with special offers on the Doctor Who: Dark Eyes saga, with each box-set in the series available for just 20 each on CD and Download"]. On the same page they call the collections to follow Doom Coalition "volumes", and call Doom Coalition as a whole a "series" here. Only the Monstrous is officially The War Doctor Volume 01. So is it volume or series? It would really help to have a single rule to go by, and BF seems a bit lax with its use of those two words. The Third Doctor Adventures, above in the table, is actually "The Third Doctor Adventures Volume 01", with a Volume 02 planned, and another upcoming release [4] is also "Volume 01". It seems, to Big Finish, at least by their titling choices, that there is no significant difference between The Third Doctor Adventures and Only the Monstrous. Should we consider something not-an-anthology if BF calls it a "volume", or can that language go either way? In other words, does this official wording make The Third Doctor Adventures a volume/series and not an anthology? My guess is yes, it does. The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield is also Volume 01 to The Triumph of Sutekh's Volume 02. So that's two more to move from anthologies to series/volumes, above, it seems.
This "Volume 01" thing seems to be a new trend that started around 2014. That terminology wouldn't have been used surrounding Dark Eyes, which came before the new deal with the BBC and all these new "mini-ranges" but Dark Eyes is kind of the same thing as these new ranges, so it might not be wrong to retroactively apply "volume" terminology to its series, as well. (Although it might. There is precedent for Big Finish range numbered series, but, except for Dark Eyes, not for BF series released as one box set, which is more what later "volumes" are.) On The Sixth Doctor: The Last Adventure specifically: it's not called a volume, but it is called a "story", which is markedly not how we're defining "anthology":
- A very special story which at last provides a heroic exit for Colin Baker's much-loved Time Lord. Four hour-long episodes, connected by the presence of the Valeyard, the entity that exists between the Doctor's twelth[sic] and final incarnations.
- (I've always wanted to write [sic])
That makes it sound more like a classic Who serial than an anthology, though it should be noted that the individual "episodes" contained within do not follow each other at all, but do have the connecting link of the Sixth Doctor facing the Valeyard.
What do you think about volume, series, and the use of anthology in the case of disconnected stories collected in something not deemed a "volume"? What would the Sixth Doctor collection be called if not a volume? What do we term Extinction, called a "four-story box set"...each story about the Autons, and they all share the same cast list, even.
Do you see anything else wrong with/lacking from my above lists?
I'm curious about what you'd have to say about anthologies in other media, such as prose, because that needs to be considered as well.
And is there a more general word for anthologies that can be used in the category tree so (video) box sets can go in there, as well? Those actually fit the stricter definition better than all the others: "a collection of selected previously published stories with a common topic".
- SOTO
- Amorkuz
Wow, I thought of doing a similar listing but am glad I didn't: it would have been worse, worse formatted and less to the point.
First off, I want to agree and reiterate that Big Finish plays fast and loose with naming, juggling not only volumes/series but even ranges. I distinctly remember that the Dark Eyes mini-range used to be part of the Eighth Doctor Adventures range (which used to be called "The New Eighth Doctor Adventures" and is still called that somewhere in the Wikia). The new stuff they shuffle around even more actively. Jago & Litefoot & Strax (audio story) is in both The New Series and Jago & Litefoot ranges. The Diary of River Song has just received its own range: I swear it was only in The New Series before. Also The Collected Nth Doctor are not real ranges and should not be considered here. So relying on range information from the publisher carries its dangers, which is not to say we should not adopt the monicker range.
I actually have a different understanding of how they use anthology and volume (series I understand less). It seems to me that they use volume for anything that they (plan to) release in several rounds. I mean The First Doctor: Volume One is part of the Companion Chronicles range to be followed by The Second Doctor: Volume One. It does not carry any additional connotation, IMHO, other than "Oh, I'm part of a sequence of releases." There is a similar use in books publishing: we can have a multi-volume anthology, a multi-volume "collected works" of an author, or a multi-volume edition of Harry Potter or War and Piece. So I do not read anything into their use of volume.
It feels to me that they use anthology when individual stories constitute just part of a physical CD. It's a warning they give: "unlike the usual thing you expect, this is not one story you're getting, you're getting several stories under one cover.
To the question of what to replace the word anthology with for many of the cases and how to distinguish between volume and series, I propose to separate concerns. The word I heard most in the podcasts and saw in many promotional materials and even official release data (cf. The Fifth Doctor Box Set) is box set. This term is objective as it describes the packaging: several CDs, each with its own case and cover art and containing one story. Why can't we write Only the Monstrous (box set)? I bet it will take care of most titles in your beautiful table (I promise to check exactly, but later: time to sleep). Note that I do not consider 2-disc or 3-disc main range releases, or things like Shada to be box sets in this sense.
If we do this, then we have essentially four categories:
- anthologies (single-cover/case releases with more than one story);
- ordinary releases (single-cover/case releases with one story);
- box sets (multi-cover/case releases);
- box sets that together form a series.
The series designation may require a case-by-case approach with volume 01 being a favorable sign for this treatment. But I need to think more about this and look through the source material in the table first.
While I didn't go through the table, I did some spot checking. It seems that the packaging is consistent with the word usage you describe above that I was most concerned about. For instance, The Sixth Doctor: The Last Adventure is described as a story and seems to have only one cover. The Fifth Doctor Box Set seems to have one CD cover per story. The First Doctor Box Set (which incidentally does not even have its own page) seems to have one CD cover per story. The Worlds of Big Finish, which is explicitly described as an anthology seems to have only one cover and multiple stories per CD.
- SOTO
Wait. According to your four categories, then, The Sixth Doctor: The Last Adventure is an (audio story)? How, then, do we deal with the audio stories/episodes within it? And what's so special about Last Adventure that makes individual stories within the release somehow different to individual stories within a release with multiple covers? Or is it not in fact "one story" like you described it, and in fact more of like a serial-series sort of thing, where it's a continuing narrative but not to be considered on its own? Like Torchwood: Miracle Day. Essentially all one large multi-parter, but stories within considered individual stories. In any case, if we're rejecting (audio anthology), then everything that's not an anthology or a 100% singlar release is an (audio box set)?
And on, volume: you make an interesting case. Volume doesn't necessarily have any connotations attached to it either than "there's another one". But the distinction should be made between "true" anthologies, and an ongoing series, split up in various ways.
- BG offers us: Range > Volume > Audio story (ongoing series)
- or: Range > Box set > Audio story
- and a few of those box sets can be considered anthologies, more specifically
What were your objections to range, by the way?
- BG offers us: Range > Volume > Audio story (ongoing series)
- Amorkuz
Ah, I knew it was too late. I should clarify. In particular, clarify that I've been mostly talking about determining the correct dabbing before, not so much determining whether a released box set should have its own page or be put on the page of its range.
No objections to range. It was a rant/complaint. Range is the main designation of BF, so I agree that we should use it and that it should be the largest category. My complaint served the purpose of explaining that we don't have to agree 100% on the contents of each range as per BF website. For instance, Doctor Who is also a range that consists of many other ranges, but we don't need to have a page listing all the releases in the Doctor Who range.
Yes, I propose to use (audio box set) for dabbing most releases currently dabbed (anthology). The (anthology) dabbing would then be mostly contained to multi-story releases in ranges with a typical release being a single story.
But if a box set is essentially a season within a range/series (e.g., Dark Eyes, and especially if it a <Box Set Name>, Volume 0n or <Box Set Name>, Series 0n or <Box Set Name> n within a range called <Box Set Name>, then it should not have its own page and, hence, requires no dabbing. On the range page, we should follow the naming practices of BF using Volume or Series for the first two cases respectively and maybe Box Set again if no clear designation (or conflicting designations) is given by BF.
Further, within some ranges, like Eighth Doctor Adventures or Companion Chronicles or Forth Doctor Adventures the release number consists of two numbers. I think I heard BF referring to Seasons for the EDA (see also "Fourth Doctor Season Two News" here), so then releases for such a range can be divided into Seasons on the range page without necessarily giving each season a separate page. Before I go check the BF usage, I personally think of seasons as something tied to a production year with normally one season per year. This seems to be generally the case for both the 8th and 4th doctor ranges.
I sincerely hope that there are few series that are not ranges if at all, which would allow us to use series only on range pages without making it a separate page category.
Now about The Last Adventure. I think it merits discussion whether it is a story with named parts or an anthology of several stories. (The former is not unprecedented, Zagreus lists names for the discs, although I am not sure where these names are taken from.) My main point was that it does not look like a box set to me, which seemed supported by BF calling it a "story". However, I now see that it is also explicitly called a box set here. Probably, this makes things easier/more interesting by giving us a choice between story, anthology and box set designations.
Speaking of which, the Bonus Releases and Special Releases ranges seem to me to be anthological in nature. So I would think all releases in these ranges should have individual pages.
- Amorkuz
Let me now go through your table to see if we agree. I will strike through things I would categorize differently and explain below
SOTO wrote:
- The First Doctor: Volume One is for me an anthology with the Companion Chronicles range. The four stories are unrelated to each other (disclaimer: I only listened to one). The common thing is the First Doctor. This is a new format for the Companion Chronicles: what would have been four separate releases before, each with its own companion, is now released as one set of four stories about companions of the same doctor. I could not find it called a "box set" on the BF website, confirming the (anthology) status. There are no individual covers for the stories.
- All Short Trips are to me anthologies within the Short Trips range. I do not own them. But the way I understand the format (before it was changed to individual releases instead of producing Volume 5), each is a collection of eight stories, one per Doctor. The stories are unrelated, as far as I understand. I don't think there are individual covers for the stories.
- The Third Doctor Adventures is the first sign that my self-made definition of a box set is not exactly what BF means. (Again I don't own it.) They call this a box set in promotional materials though there seems to be no individual covers. I struck it through because this is not serialised, at least not yet. So far this seems to be two separate stories under one cover. However, the benefit of using (box set) is that it is neutral towards a serialization, unlike (anthology). I propose to dab it (box set) for now, wait whether there will be follow up and, if yes, then turn it into range with individual box set releases. What it would be like will be determined by how it will be released.
- The Companion Chronicles: The Specials looks like a box set because stories have individual covers. I don't think BF used the term, though some readers used it in the question section of Vortex.
- The same treatment for Philip Hinchcliffe Presents
- The Fifth Doctor Box Set is demonstrably a box set. Also has individual covers.
- Amorkuz
Here is a rendition of what I have in mind omitting difficult cases:
Ranges
/Series
(no pages
for individual
box sets)Box Sets
(with pages)Anthologies
(collection of stories)- Dark Eyes (audio range) for
- Doom Coalition (audio range) for
- Doom Coalition 1
- Doom Coalition 2 (when released)
- Doom Coalition 3 (when released)
- Doom Coalition 4 (when released)
- The War Doctor (audio series) for
- Only the Monstrous
- Infernal Devices (when released)
- Agents of Chaos (when released)
- The War Doctor Volume 04 (when released)
- The Eighth Doctor: The Time War (when released)
- The Diary of River Song (audio range) for
- The Diary of River Song Series 01
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio range) for
- UNIT: The New Series (audio range) for
- Extinction
- UNIT: Shutdown (when released)
- UNIT: 3 (when released)
- UNIT: 4 (when released)
- Jago & Litefoot (audio range) for
- Jago & Litefoot Series 01
- Jago & Litefoot Series 02
- Jago & Litefoot Series 03
- Jago & Litefoot Series 04
- Jago & Litefoot Series 05
- Jago & Litefoot Series 06
- Jago & Litefoot Series 07
- Jago & Litefoot Series 08
- Jago & Litefoot Series 09
- Jago & Litefoot Series 10
- Jago & Litefoot Series 11 (when released)
- Counter-Measures (audio range) for
- Counter-Measures Series 01
- Counter-Measures Series 02
- Counter-Measures Series 03
- Counter-Measures Series 04
- Charlotte Pollard (audio range) for
- Charlotte Pollard Series 01
- Charlotte Pollard Series 02 (when released)
- The First Doctor Box Set (from Lost Stories)
- The Second Doctor Box Set (from Lost Stories)
- The Third Doctor Adventures
- The Fourth Doctor Box Set (from Lost Stories)
- Philip Hinchcliffe Presents
- The Fifth Doctor Box Set
- The Companion Chronicles: The Specials
- Epoch
- Road Trip
- Legion
- New Frontiers
- Missing Persons
- The Worlds of Big Finish
- Circular Time
- 100
- Forty-Five
- The Company of Friends
- The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories
- Recorded Time and Other Stories
- Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories
- You Are the Doctor and Other Stories
- The Worlds of Doctor Who
- The First Doctor: Volume One
- Short Trips: Volume 1
- Short Trips: Volume 2
- Short Trips: Volume 3
- Short Trips: Volume 4
Comments:
- Some of the (box set)/(anthology) partitioning is preliminary: if we find "box set" used for some release, we should prequalify it as (box set).
- The Iris Wyldthime range is a mess. I don't want to judge it without thorough thinking. Same goes for Gallifrey and Cyberman ranges. They changed format at some point and I have no familiarity with them to judge.
- The Worlds of Big Finish are explicitly in the Bernice Summerfield - Box Sets range. So are Epoch--Missing Persons.
- PicassoAndPringles
I think the distinction between series, box set, and anthology is splitting hairs. What are the actual differences between UNIT: Extinction, Epoch, and The Worlds of Doctor Who that would make them have different dab terms? We should just have one unified approach for "audio releases with more than one story" that doesn't depend on how Big Finish marketed a particular release or whether the stories contained therein are narratively linked.
I think volumes, boxsets, and series should all get pages. If it has an individual title, like UNIT Extinction or Gallifrey IV, use that. If it's labelled a series or volume with no banner title, it should be the name of the range followed by Volume X or Series X, whichever is listed on the packaging or website. Alternatively, series could follow the naming convention we use for TV, like "Series 4 (Gallifrey)", for example. There should be series pages whether the series was across individual releases or a single boxset.
As for the dab term, I think "audio anthology" can stay, or maybe "audio collection". "Boxset" isn't backwards compatible.
- Amorkuz
I've been considering some partially similar although not as far reaching ideas as PicassoAndPringles. And I realised that I need to understand the intent of these pages. To make some kind of principled stand, I need to know either the existing policy (which we don't seem to have) or the goals we are trying to achieve. Let me give an example: I've been advised to create as many pages for in-universe entities as possible. If it is mentioned or implied, then create a page. And recently I've understood the intent of this. Because of the in-universe perspective policy, we need the DWU to be as large as possible to afford references to things not explicitly mentioned but strongly implied in the current story.
In the similar vain, I'd like to understand the intent of the anthology/box set/series pages. Note that they have not always been created, so someone was making a decision based on some criteria. What is it that we want from the Dark Eyes 2 page that cannot be put on the Dark Eyes series page? And does Jago & Litefoot Series 02 lack a separate page because it does not have this thing we want or by accident? Using Occam's Wiki-razor, we should not create more pages than is necessary. Thus, I am asking, in earnest, what is our objective in creating these pages?
My own thinking is as follows. A story is a basic, smallest unit and each story clearly should have a page. A range is the largest unit and should have information about the common topic of the range, peculiarities of its contents, available releases, etc. I could not so far formulate exactly in which cases we need the intermediate pages for ranges that have a 3-tier structure (and I know at least one case of a 4-tier structure).
As for (box set), I am not married to it. And (audio collection) would be an improvement over (audio anthology). But I like SOTO's approach of using the same terms as the production team. The main reason I like it is because it's bulletproof. No splitting hairs ever.
I think the policy for the cast is similar---state it exactly as on the release and in the same order---and for much the same reasons. We do not debate whether to put Lucie Miller or Brother Lucianus in the cast of The Book of Kells, and it's a good thing.
If somebody asks why we use, say, (box set) as a dab term, the answer is because <link to BF website where it's called that>. In particular, a discussion such as this would be prevented. Secondly, (box set) is almost connotation-free, unlike (audio anthology): any multi-CD release could conceivably be called a (box set).
- SOTO
I agree with P&P: we have individual series (season) pages for television, so because all media are equal, we should be doing the same for audio. So if a season/series is given a specific name and released as a box set, the season name gets that name. Otherwise, it's season/series/volume 1 (range). Come to think of it, I don't think we need (box set) dabs. The ruling that all stories need be dabbed applies to stories only.
...I'm confusing myself right now. Do we need (box set) and (anthology)?
And if the box set is the season/series (which term is used most by BF? we need to choose one, and stick with it), then do we write it as a box set, or as a series? There are some box sets which are not series. The box set is a mode of distribution. The series is an inherent organisation scheme for the stories themselves. I'm sure there have been at least some retroactive BF box sets, with stories that have already been released. Didn't they do that for certain Doctors around 2013?
If precedent matters here, the series of Torchwood marketed as "Torchwood: Children of Earth" has the page name Series 3 (Torchwood) here. We stuck to our series conventions for COE and Miracle Day. We consider Children of Earth: Day One to be its own TV story rather than simply a part of Children of Earth because COE is series 3, a series, and the designation that comes next in television, after series, is TV story. The designation that comes after series/season/volume (oh yeah, maybe volume is used most by BF lately — or maybe we use volume for everything 2012/2013 on, and stick with series for before then?) is audio story.
Perhaps, we should stick with regular naming conventions and go with Series 2 (Dark Eyes), which was released as "Dark Eyes 2", which maybe would get its own page under Dark Eyes 2 for the box set? Nah, I think not. I think Dark Eyes 2 should redirect to Series 2 (Dark Eyes), as with COE, and the title "Dark Eyes 2" could go in a new variable for {{Infobox Series}}. We do not currently, at least, have separate pages for box sets of TV series, so there's no reason to do that for audio.
Maybe a special new infobox template, "Infobox Box Set", is also in order, for box sets which are not series.
In any case, I disagree with P&P on another detail: it is not splitting hairs to make this very important distinction. Big Finish makes the same distinction themselves; above, we quote them essentially apologising for calling something an anthology even though the stories are marginally connected.
What's important, too, is that we have a clear rule we can follow that tells us whether something is a box set containing stories with a continuing narratives, or simply a story with named parts. In other words, is it Torchwood: Miracle Day or The Sensorites? Are the named stories contained within distinct stories, or simply episodes/parts within the larger audio story which we mistakenly thought was a box set? So: what defines a box set which would not apply to a single-story release with named parts? I think it's important to look at marketing language, cover conventions, etc, with regards to this distinction, hopefully in line with the same distinction they make in official statements on the site.
(If they are, in fact, named parts, then I suppose Hartnell conventions would come in, and we'd encourage sourcing by the specific named part, with "quotations marks" rather than italics.)
I agree that the policy should be "whatever BF officially calls it", but we need to have infrastructure in place for where the words "box set", "anthology", etc can't be found at all. What then? What if you can't find them defining it? Cast lists are always included both online and with physical copies. Categorising it into box set or anthology doesn't always happen. Perhaps we should say that all anthologies are box sets, and thus anthology is a more specific term. If no name is given, and the release includes multiple stories, box set is automatically what we call the thing, and how we categorise it.
- Amorkuz
Now I'm really mad at myself. Because I've noticed that The Diary of River Song doesn't have a dab term and correctly reconstructed the reason: it is not a story. But I somehow failed to apply it to this discussion.
I like the idea of dropping dab terms for collections whenever possible. The rationale for always having dab terms for stories was that they often need disambiguation in non-obvious ways. But most collection titles disambiguate themselves, so to say. If it has "and other stories" or "Volume 01" or "Series 03" or "Box Set" at the end of the official BF release name, there is no chance of confusing them with anything. Someone suggested to rename Extinction (audio anthology) into Extinction, so this should not be done IMHO. Because, as you can see, Extinction does require disambiguation already, but Extinction never will. In short, collection names are much less likely to be literal and, hence, ambiguous than story names. For instance, from the table above I think only the following already released titles may require a dab term:
- Dark Eyes
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield
- The Triumph of Sutekh
- Epoch
- Road Trip
- Legion
- New Frontiers
- Missing Persons
- Circular Time
- 100
- Forty-Five
- The Company of Friends
And out of these, I'm sure many actually do not require any dab term. And, for those that actually require a dab term, we may avoid "splitting hair" by simply using (range). This also avoids the issue of searching for the use of (anthology) or (box set) in the release materials.
I'll address other points separately, but let me answer one question. The Companion Chronicles: The Specials is actually a collection of three stories previously available as free downloads for DWM and main range(?) subscribers. This is also my example of a 4-tier structure, because it is a release within a range that contains three parts, of which the first consists of 12 stories.
- Amorkuz
Still I don't completely give up on the idea that some box sets need not have their own pages. Equality argument is indisputable, yes. And I'm not trying to complicate things on purpose. But...
There were TV seasons released in several volumes. For instance, Series 6 (Doctor Who 2005) and Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005). There were iTunes releases of Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and then Vols. 1 & 2. (I think there were also DVD releases like that.) And the ever confusing The Trial of a Time Lord, which is called a single story on this Wikia, which consisted of 4 stories each consisting of 2 or 4 episodes.
I claim that a box set does not always equate to a full season/series. (I think series is used more often in the release data, but I should check on this.) When a box set is explicitly called a series or a season, I bow to the equality. Sometimes the same information can be retrieved from the numbering. The First Doctor: Volume One is numbered 9.0. The next release is planned as 10. Previous Companion Chronicles used to be 8.1, 8.2, etc. So I would say this box set is Series 9 or Season 9 of Companion Chronicles, whichever we decide.
But there are cases where the numbering suggests the opposite: The First Doctor Box Set is numbered 2.01, followed by The Second Doctor Box Set at 2.02, followed by a single story release at 2.03. It appears that these box sets are not series. Maybe that's why they were not given individual pages in the first place? Maybe it should remain this way.
The Fifth Doctor Box Set and The Third Doctor Adventures are in a range without any seasons/series and are clearly standalone releases (at least for now; I wouldn't be surprised if they are pilots for new ranges). So they should continue having their pages. I don't think they need dabbing though.
And now for what I'm really interested in. Dark Eyes, Doom Coalition and The War Doctor. Don't they have a feel of The Trial of a Time Lord? One story/story arc, spread over a season, planned and announced as 4/5 box sets from the very beginning? Unlike The Diary of River Song, which is Series 1 but we don't even have an announcement of Series 2, let alone any details?
I don't know much about the Benny range to issue an opinion, but the only remaining case I originally put for not having pages for individual releases was the new UNIT range. And there I would say each box set is its own season. I actually seem to remember them using the term "series" in the CD extras. And, despite 4 box sets announced, I don't remember any promises of serialised story telling. UNIT 2 is supposed to be unrelated to UNIT 1, except for the characters.
- SOTO
Okay. Numbering. Brilliant. That will be the #1 qualifier to define individual series within a range.
I do think series should have individual pages, just as with television series. I also think box sets, should have pages, though. Let me explain: you are right, in that we don't cover series box sets separately, or use them to define the boundaries of series. But we do cover box sets, in the case of television, which are not specifically series and which are named. You can find those within category:Box sets. We even cover The Key to Time (box set), which contains all of season 16 (which has an overall "Key to Time" story arc), because it contains a name, and this a name which differs from the name of the series (which is simply season 16 in this case).
In summation, when the numbering goes from 1.x to 2.x, that is a whole series. Series X (Range) should be the standard nomenclature for series articles. I think. If a series is released under a specific name, then that name should redirect to the series page, and be included in both the lead and the infobox. On naming, though, it can easily go the other way, as well—Dark Eyes 2 instead of Series 2 (Dark Eyes) as the main title—but I'm following the precedent of Torchwood here in saying we should stick with a consistent naming structure.
As I quoted above, individual Dark Eyes box sets have been officially referred to as "series" and "seasons" by official sources, regardless of how they "feel". I'm sure the numbering follows that format, too. (Where does one find the official numbering? I'm a bit confused on that front.)
At this point, I'm starting to wonder:
- Do we need (anthology)/(audio anthology), after all, if they're all just box sets anyway? Obviously, we would make the distinction in categories either way. I think (anthology) is useful, personally.
- Should it be (audio anthology) and (audio box set)—therefore requiring (prose anthology) and (video box set)—or should they all just get (anthology) or (box set)? In this case, we would not be distinguishing by medium in the dab term.
- Where's the nearest place I can find food? God, I'm famished. I'll be back!
- Amorkuz
First about numbering. There are two types of numbering used by BF: N.K or N or mixed with N increasing by 1 from time to time (sometimes N can be Roman instead of Arabic, or, confusingly, both are used in the Bonus Releases range but for different types of releases; if a number in the range is out of place, it often means that this release is conjoined to this range topically but truly belongs to a different range: this is the case of The Mahogany Murderers in the Jago&Litefoot range, added there as a backdoor pilot).
You can find this number at the main page of a release, in large digits before the release name on the webpage of the release at BF website. So, according to our current consensus (defined as the absence of dissenters), BF only breaks some of its ranges into series by numbering. Main range, for instance, uses the N system and, hence, has no obvious series, despite being the longest range. The Companion Chronicles, on the other hand, are numbered N.N, thus creating series, with the last box set release being the complete Series 9. Doom Coalition uses N, but each release has several stories, so would still be broken into series according to your definition (sorry, I forgot about the BTS references to series for these guys).
Now about box sets. My ambition is, essentially, to eliminate the 3rd tier between series and stories. A typical classic era season, say Season 1, has a table with DVD releases and their dates, some of which are box sets. But would not necessarily link to a box set page even if that exists. Due to my other project I've looked at all individual story pages in Seasons 1-7, and I can tell you that very few box sets from this period are present in the category you pointed out. I have learned to consider any occurrence on this Wikia as potentially being a fluke, a misunderstanding on the part of the editor (and I know first hand how that happens). From what I see, it does not feel like there is a consistent policy on creating pages for DVD/Blueray boxes.
In addition, they are significantly different from the audio boxes. Funnily enough most boxes in the category you pointed out are anthologies in the proper sense of the word: they are collections of selected, previously released stories. The absolute majority of audio boxes are original releases. Perhaps, a better analogy to an audio box would then be the case when a TV channel decides to broadcast two episodes back to back (I'm not sure Doctor Who ever did it, but many other shows do it for the 1st and 2nd episodes of a season or for the last two. Similarly, a box set constituting a whole season corresponds to the way Netflix releases its series: all episodes of a season simultaneously.) Such an occurrence surely deserves a mention and a picture on the series page. But does it deserve its own page?
- SOTO
So Dark Eyes 2 is simply "2.", Dark Eyes 3 "3.", etc.
On video box sets: just because not many are covered, does not mean they shouldn't be. When I see a named box set that doesn't have a page, I always at least make it into a link so one day somebody will create it. I am not at this time proposing that "Doctor Who: Series 2, Volume 1" or "Series, 2, Volume 1 (Doctor Who)" be made into individual pages. But even "Doctor Who: Complete Series 1-7"? Sure! If it has a name without "series", all the more.
I should also point out that, in the near future, there will be home media pages for home media releases of TV stories, etc., so maybe don't hold on to any conventions currently held by the section on TV stories.
Also, I tend to follow the rule of "if it has a name, it probably deserves a page". Big Finish names those box sets, so where do you expect they should be covered? Only on the range page, and as a redirect to there?
- Amorkuz
Well, to answer that question even to myself, I need to understand what is the purpose of having a page. Put another way, what is the difference between having a separate page and having one collector page containing all the content that would have been on separate pages otherwise. I find your approach of applied theorizing, i.e., talking about specific things we have, not abstract concepts, quite useful.
Let's look at the last table, for instance. And since the DVD conventions are in a flux and they are secondary not primary releases, let us drop the analogy to them. I think we already agreed that the left column is comprised of series: each release is a separate series. Names are Series N (range) with a redirect from the marketed name, I agree. So I drop the whole column. Further, by the emerging numbering agreement,
- The First Doctor: Volume One is Series 9 of The Companion Chronicles range
- Short Trips: Volume 1-4 are Series 1-4 of The Short Trips range.
Further let me remove from the table several box sets that are not part of any series (don't even have a number in their range), so have nowhere to be put other than their own page anyway:
For these we agree that no dab term is needed, right? Moreover, a close observation shows that
- The Fourth Doctor Box Set is stuck between 2.06 and 3.01 in the Lost Stories range without a number and is supplied with the following NB: Please note this box set is a standalone, and is not included in any of the Lost Stories season subscription packages. So it's not part of any season, clearly (note the word "season"). I remove it from the table too.
- The Companion Chronicles: The Specials is stuck between 6.01 and 6.02 in The Companion Chronicles range without a number. Removed from the table
- Philip Hinchcliffe Presents looks like it's part of The Fourth Doctor Adventures range. But it is between 3.08 and 4.01 while itself having number 1. The reason is that this release constitutes its own range, which we can dab (range). Removed from the table.
- The Worlds of Big Finish follows 4. in the Sherlock range but has no number. Removed.
Box Sets Anthologies - The First Doctor Box Set (from Lost Stories)
- The Second Doctor Box Set (from Lost Stories)
- Epoch
- Road Trip
- Legion
- New Frontiers
- Missing Persons
Now you look at that. Every single item in the right column is a release in the Main range, which has no seasons or series. So they get their own pages according to both of us. Not much is left. The 5 Benny boxes,
are numbered 01-05 in Bernice Summerfield - Box Sets range. Admittedly, it's a weird range as it continues with the New Adventures numbered 1-2. I think this would require some thinking. But still these five look like Series 1-5 to me.
And, lo and behold, it turns out that we disagree on... at most two boxes:
- The First Doctor Box Set
- The Second Doctor Box Set
numbered 2.01 and 2.02 in The Lost Stories range. You want them to have individual pages (they don't at the moment). I want them not to have pages because they are part of Series 2 of The Lost Stories. Would I prefer to continue arguing about 2 boxes or try to converge on a consensus? The latter. What is the best kind of argument? Equality. We have a very similar box set for Tom Baker in this range soon after that is marketed without a number. But would it be fair to Hartnell and Troughton to treat them differently? No, I don't think so. (There is actually a real non-marketing difference in that Baker's set has full cast audios while Hartnell's and Troughton's seemingly are closer to companion chronicles in nature.) So, in the interests of equality, I concede that these two box sets should be given their own pages.
I plan to inventorise where things are the way we propose and where not. I think it helps to know the amount of work before deciding whether to close the thread (which I know I cannot do).
One more thing: future proofing. What if BF releases another box set within a series within a range? It seems to me that this is unlikely to happen. Virtually all recent released and announced box sets are marketed as Volume 1 or Series 1. This seems to be BF's preferred format for box sets for the foreseeable future.
- Amorkuz
Just in case, let me state how I understand the current consensus between SOTO and myself and some details that need polishing:
- If the numbering divides a range into series, then each series is given its own page called Series N (range) with a redirect from the marketing name of the series (if exists) and with the mention of this name in the lead. (Note to self: check that season is not used too often by BF. The naming rule can be relaxed to use season if mentioned by BF or series otherwise.)
- If a box set constitutes a series within a range in the above sense, its page coincides with that of the series and the series naming convention applies
- If a release contains several stories but is not a series within a range, it still gets its own page, but the name of this page is the marketing name of the release, taken as is. Dabbing is to be avoided if possible. If dabbing is necessary, we still need to decide on a dab term or dab terms.
Did I forget something?
- Amorkuz
So the proposed changes, to me, look thusly:
Page creation
- Ranges
- Dark Eyes (there is currently a redirect from this page to the first box set in the range; this redirect is to be removed)
- Doom Coalition
- The War Doctor (audio range) — name to be discussed: it's not a range on BF website
- Box Sets
- Series 1 (The Diary of River Song)
- Series 1 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 2 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 3 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 4 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 5 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 6 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 7 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 8 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 9 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 10 (Jago & Litefoot)
- Series 1 (Counter-Measures)
- Series 2 (Counter-Measures)
- Series 3 (Counter-Measures)
- Series 4 (Counter-Measures)
- Series 1 (Charlotte Pollard)
- The First Doctor Box Set
- The Second Doctor Box Set
- The Fourth Doctor Box Set
Page renaming
- Ranges
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio series) -> The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio range) (note: dab term required to distinguish from the first box set in the range)
- Charlotte Pollard (audio series) -> Charlotte Pollard (audio range) (note dab term required to distinguish from the character)
- Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (audio anthology) -> Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (currently there is a redirect from the latter to the former; if the page is moved this way, it can be used for both the range and its only box set)
- Jago and Litefoot -> Jago & Litefoot (this renaming has already been proposed; currently there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Box Sets
- Dark Eyes (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (Dark Eyes)
- Dark Eyes 2 (audio anthology) -> Series 2 (Dark Eyes)
- Dark Eyes 3 (audio anthology) -> Series 3 (Dark Eyes)
- Dark Eyes 4 (audio anthology) -> Series 4 (Dark Eyes)
- Doom Coalition 1 (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (Doom Coalition)
- Only the Monstrous (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (The War Doctor) — name of range to be discussed
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield)
- The Triumph of Sutekh (audio anthology) -> Series 2 (The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield)
- Extinction (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (UNIT: The New Series)
- The Third Doctor Adventures (audio anthology) -> The Third Doctor Adventures
- The Fifth Doctor Box Set (audio anthology) -> The Fifth Doctor Box Set (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Companion Chronicles: The Specials (audio anthology) -> The Companion Chronicles: The Specials (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Epoch (audio anthology) -> Series 1 (Bernice Summerfield: Box Sets) — discuss the range name
- Road Trip (audio anthology) -> Series 2 (Bernice Summerfield: Box Sets) — discuss the range name
- Legion (audio anthology) -> Series 3 (Bernice Summerfield: Box Sets) — discuss the range name
- New Frontiers (audio anthology) -> Series 4 (Bernice Summerfield: Box Sets) — discuss the range name
- Missing Persons (audio anthology) -> Series 5 (Bernice Summerfield: Box Sets) — discuss the range name
- The Worlds of Big Finish (audio anthology) -> The Worlds of Big Finish
- Circular Time (audio anthology) -> Circular Time (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- 100 (audio anthology) -> 100 (no ambiguity, checked)
- Forty-Five (audio anthology) -> Forty-Five (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Company of Friends (audio anthology) -> The Company of Friends (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Recorded Time and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> Recorded Time and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- You Are the Doctor and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> You Are the Doctor and Other Stories
The Worlds of Doctor Who (audio anthology) -> The Worlds of Doctor WhoOoops. There is a CD of the same name with the soundtrack. Both are to be disambiguated. The dab terms are to be discussed.- The First Doctor: Volume One (audio anthology) -> Series 9 (The Companion Chronicles)
- Short Trips: Volume 1 -> Series 1 (Short Trips)
- Short Trips: Volume 2 -> Series 2 (Short Trips)
- Short Trips: Volume 3 -> Series 3 (Short Trips)
- Short Trips: Volume 4 -> Series 4 (Short Trips)
There are some finer points to discuss, especially about Benny ranges, but let's agree on the general direction first. Also I did not check whether other ranges and their series have pages, for ranges without box sets/anthologies, that is.
- Ranges
- SOTO
Okay. I'm going to take this one message at a time.
Amorkuz wrote: Now I'm really mad at myself. Because I've noticed that The Diary of River Song doesn't have a dab term and correctly reconstructed the reason: it is not a story.
Says on the cover, "Series 1". So for series/season, do we always go with series to have a consistent rule, rather than just following the rule of "whichever word happens to be used in a press release/statement"?
Amorkuz wrote: I like the idea of dropping dab terms for collections whenever possible. The rationale for always having dab terms for stories was that they often need disambiguation in non-obvious ways. But most collection titles disambiguate themselves, so to say. If it has "and other stories" or "Volume 01" or "Series 03" or "Box Set" at the end of the official BF release name, there is no chance of confusing them with anything. Someone suggested to rename Extinction (audio anthology) into Extinction, so this should not be done IMHO. Because, as you can see, Extinction does require disambiguation already, but Extinction never will. In short, collection names are much less likely to be literal and, hence, ambiguous than story names.
I actually agree with this. The decision to dab all story titles only applies to stories, and for good reason. Now this is not to say we'll never disambiguate (we will, in any case there may be confusion), but, especially now you've made the case, I see no reason why we should "auto-dab" ranges, series or box sets. (Well, series titles will be standardised anyway. But ranges that need dabbing will be (range) and box sets that need dabing will be (box set).)
Amorkuz wrote: For instance, from the table above I think only the following already released titles may require a dab term:
- Dark Eyes
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield
- The Triumph of Sutekh
- Epoch
- Road Trip
- Legion
- New Frontiers
- Missing Persons
- Circular Time
- 100
- Forty-Five
- The Company of Friends
- Dark Eyes (range), to distinguish from Series 1 (Dark Eyes) (Dark Eyes (box set) will redirect to the series page)
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (box set) (box set?) is volume 1 of The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (range), and thus should redirect to series 1 (NABS), should it not?
- The Triumph of Sutekh shouldn't need dabbing, also it should redirect to series 2 (NABS). Wait...should we be calling these "volume" 1, 2, etc? I'm starting to think maybe we should follow their terminology. "Volume" if it says so, "Season" if it says that, and "Series" otherwise. But "Series [#]" should always redirect to the Volume/Season page? Should we just name them all "series"? I feel very stupid right now.
- Epoch (box set), definitely, because both the concept of an epoch and the Epoch exist in the DWU. And is that series 1 of "Bernice Summerfield - Box Sets"? It doesn't say so anywhere on the cover, so that may be something like "The Fourth Doctor Collection". Because Volume 01 of the New Adventures is also listed as "1" within the Benny - Box Sets "range". Also, it's listed together at Ranges with "Bernice Summerfield - Single Releases" and "Bernice Summerfield - Books". This whole Benny situation is confusing, because the ranges on the BF website are marketing. Remember, "Big Finish Bargains" and "Big Finish For Free!" are also listed on the same page. Anyway, Single Releases, Books , Box Sets and The New Adventures of... are what Big Finish lists as the Benny ranges. Bah! I'll need to get back to this.
- Road Trip needs no disambiguation. But is it a series within the "Box Sets" range, or more comparable to, say The Web of Fear within season 5—except range instead of season, box set instead of serial, and audio story instead of episode. Oh, also the stories have nothing to do with each other. Bad comparison. But what I mean to say is that perhaps the box sets here aren't series—just units, in this case box sets, without series. "02." Or does "xx." automatically mean series/season/volume in our eyes, especially if it contains further stories within? My guess is the only way to solve this would be to see if Big Finish has used the words series, season or volume in regards to any of these Benny box sets.
- Legion (box set). Same question as above, as to whether it's series 3 or release 3, and box sets are their own thing, sometimes belonging to ranges and sometimes not, but never connected to any series, or, themselves, series.
- New Frontiers. You know the drill. But no dab needed. Wait hold up! This box set has a singular cast. Oh, they all do. So production wise, they're all one production. That's really useful information. They're hiring the same cast to do several stories, but it's all one production, not multiple productions released as a series. The audio stories within these box sets are essentially episodes. Yes, from a narrative point of view, they're very much separate. But from a production point of view, as I'm sure is reflected in the hiring of actors and crew (they'll be hired for New Frontiers, not for each individual episode), this is one production, and one release. Which is very different from a typical season/series of Big Finish, which is multiple productions and releases within a span of time, to which you can subscribe. So yes, it's starting to seem to me that these box sets are concepts related to series, but they're their own thing. They do not belong within a series, either. They are units, singular releases, which then contain several stories, which are all commissioned together.
- Missing Persons. No dab. Note the wording in the synopsis (yes, curiously, box sets each have a synopsis, and further a summary of each story): "five-part box-set". So these are sort of like serials. I'm patting myself on the back right now...right typing. The audio stories within a box set are described by BF are "parts", at least here. Anyway, I also want to point out that, at least in this case, there are two directors listed for all 5 audio stories together. Yet another proof that a box set is a singular production.
- Circular Time (no dab, unless we decide that box sets need them after all, like serials). Okay, this is the first box set in the main range. This is much like the "and other stories" anthologies to come. And this is definitely not a series. "91." Same kind of numbering as the Benny box sets. A singular release, and singular production, with no series to speak of. Looking at the cast lists, you can clearly see that this anthology (comparable to a serial? i can't remember how much of old Who was shot in order) was produced in two parts: spring and autumn, summer and winter. Most of the guest actors appear in two stories, in that pattern, as separate characters. Considering the one director, I think it's probably safe to assume that one half was recorded on the 6th, with one set of actors, and the other, with the other set, on the 7th. It had a two-disc release, which is no different from any other single-story releases at the time. (Legion, on the other hand, recorded on three very distinct days, rather than two consecutive ones, had two directors, and has a three-disc release. This means Legion produced each of its audio stories separately, and released them all on separate discs within a box set, a terminology perhaps not used for DW main range anthologies.)
- 100 (anthology) or 100 (box set)—this must be dabbed because any number, such as 100, is always reserved for the year, by policy. If there is a 100 link, any user would reasonably assume that is a link to the year, and will link accordingly, perhaps without checking. Anyway, some things have changed since the last anthology release. There's much less overlap in the case (except the main cast of Doctor and companion, of course), with only one actor in common between two stories. This time, they're referred to as "four one-part stories", versus the Benny language of "five-part box-set". Also unlike Benny and like the previous DW anthology, it was recorded over two days. But this time, not two consecutive days. 25 June and 12 July. Still two discs, though.
- Forty-Five. No dab needed. I think it's safe to assume no one will think "Forty-Five", with capital letters, means 45. Although there should be a {{you may}} once 45 exists, or perhaps straight away. Anyway, this is main range as well. Here, every single actor participates in more than one story. Two discs. One director. Recording dates not given for some reason.
- The Company of Friends. "Four one-part stories". Two consecutive recording days. One director. Pretty much no cast overlap. Two-disc release.
Anyway, I know I'm all over the place right now, but: for Benny, outside of the box sets there are, except for specials like Many Happy Returns, series. So instead of taking the BF website's "Bernice Summerfield - Box Sets", etc. names, we should just define it as the Bernice Summerfield (range), currently at Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series, and then further divide the range into series, with box sets and then special releases being their own thing at the bottom. Well, at the bottom before the prose stuff. We shouldn't consider Benny box sets to be series of "Bernice Summerfield - Box Sets". They are box sets. Singular releases within a non-numbered series of Bernice box sets, as part of the Bernice Summerfield range.
Amorkuz wrote: I'll address other points separately, but let me answer one question. The Companion Chronicles: The Specials is actually a collection of three stories previously available as free downloads for DWM and main range(?) subscribers. This is also my example of a 4-tier structure, because it is a release within a range that contains three parts, of which the first consists of 12 stories.
We'll have to go over all the non-numbered releases later (ie. any BF release with no number at all, or marked as "0." at the top).
- CzechOut
Wikia's search bar/autocomplete feature will return a limited number of responses to terms which start a search. So if you enter series 1 into a search bar, you can just about get what most people are looking for: DW, SJA, TW, K9, CLASS and the dab term Series 1 itself. If we continue on with all these audio things, it's going to make the writing of articles and the searching for them needlessly more complicated. Audio anthology was chosen as a specific way to respond to the realities of the Wikia search system. It reserves the term "series" for the main things people look for.
Is that, technically, an abnegation of our general consensus to treat all forms of DW equally? Superficially, yes, but when you look deeper, I don't think it is. Thing is, there actually are audio anthologies out there. And almost every so-called "series" have some element of "boxed-set-ness" to them. Benny, in particular, goes from seasons where you buy each story individually to things that are consumed at once, in a single boxed set.
Either way, it's one of those things where technical limitation determines our course of action.
At the end of the day, our utility to the casual user of the site should probably outweigh other considerations. It would therefore be wrong to conclude that the "series x" nomenclature was never considered for audios. It was considered, and then positively rejected.
People do tend to think of the television series as having "series" — and thus they'll search for the term "series". It's not a particularly well-known fact that some of the audios have series — and where it's known, it's debated — so it's better to start those articles with not "series" but the name of the range.
- SOTO
Test
- Amorkuz
The repetition of the proposed changes, taking into account the new information kindly provided by CzechOut just above that Series N (range) was "positively rejected" and using his suggestion "to start those articles with [...] the name of the range". Just to make it easier for everyone to decide if they like it.
I make only one more change. If the search is not guided by the uniformity of "Series ...", wouldn't it make sense to follow whatever name is used by BF, whatever name stands on the box (perhaps using Series if nothing is stated in the name of the box, or mimicking the scheme used for all other boxes in the range)? So I'm showing how this would look below. For the other variant just replace Series everywhere.
Page creation
- Ranges
- Dark Eyes (there is currently a redirect from this page to the first box set in the range; this redirect is to be removed)
- Doom Coalition
- The War Doctor (audio range) — name to be discussed: it's not a range on BF website
- Box Sets
- The Diary of River Song Series 1
- Jago & Litefoot Series 1
- Jago & Litefoot Series 2
- Jago & Litefoot Series 3
- Jago & Litefoot Series 4
- Jago & Litefoot Series 5
- Jago & Litefoot Series 6
- Jago & Litefoot Series 7
- Jago & Litefoot Series 8
- Jago & Litefoot Series 9
- Jago & Litefoot Series 10
- Counter-Measures Series 1
- Counter-Measures Series 2
- Counter-Measures Series 3
- Counter-Measures Series 4
- Charlotte Pollard Series 1
- The First Doctor Box Set
- The Second Doctor Box Set
- The Fourth Doctor Box Set
Page renaming
- Ranges
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio series) -> The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio range)
- Charlotte Pollard (audio series) -> Charlotte Pollard (audio range)
- Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (audio anthology) -> Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (currently there is a redirect from the latter to the former; if the page is moved this way, it can be used for both the range and its only box set)
- Jago and Litefoot -> Jago & Litefoot (this renaming has already been proposed; currently there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Box Sets
- Dark Eyes (audio anthology) -> Dark Eyes 1
- Dark Eyes 2 (audio anthology) -> Dark Eyes 2
- Dark Eyes 3 (audio anthology) -> Dark Eyes 3
- Dark Eyes 4 (audio anthology) -> Dark Eyes 4
- Doom Coalition 1 (audio anthology) -> Doom Coalition 1
- Only the Monstrous (audio anthology) -> The War Doctor Volume 1 — name of range to be discussed
- The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (audio anthology) -> The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield Volume 1
- The Triumph of Sutekh (audio anthology) -> The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield Volume 2
- Extinction (audio anthology) -> UNIT: The New Series 1 -- this requires some thinking: it doesn't look good in this variant
- The Third Doctor Adventures (audio anthology) -> The Third Doctor Adventures
- The Fifth Doctor Box Set (audio anthology) -> The Fifth Doctor Box Set (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Companion Chronicles: The Specials (audio anthology) -> The Companion Chronicles: The Specials (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Epoch (audio anthology) -> Bernice Summerfield Box Set 1 — discuss the range name
- Road Trip (audio anthology) -> Bernice Summerfield Box Set 2 — discuss the range name
- Legion (audio anthology) -> Bernice Summerfield Box Set 3 — discuss the range name
- New Frontiers (audio anthology) -> Bernice Summerfield Box Set 4 — discuss the range name
- Missing Persons (audio anthology) -> Bernice Summerfield Box Set 5 — discuss the range name
- The Worlds of Big Finish (audio anthology) -> The Worlds of Big Finish
- Circular Time (audio anthology) -> Circular Time (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- 100 (audio anthology) stays put because the dab term is required even without conflicts, as per SOTO
- Forty-Five (audio anthology) -> Forty-Five (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Company of Friends (audio anthology) -> The Company of Friends (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Recorded Time and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> Recorded Time and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> Breaking Bubbles and Other Stories (currently, there is a redirect from the latter to the former)
- You Are the Doctor and Other Stories (audio anthology) -> You Are the Doctor and Other Stories
- The Worlds of Doctor Who (audio anthology) stays put because of a conflict with the soundtrack CD of the same name
- The First Doctor: Volume One (audio anthology) -> The Companion Chronicles Series 9
- Short Trips: Volume 1 -> Short Trips Volume 1
- Short Trips: Volume 2 -> Short Trips Volume 2
- Short Trips: Volume 3 -> Short Trips Volume 3
- Short Trips: Volume 4 -> Short Trips Volume 4
Regarding the Benny ranges. BF makes a super-range for her, which is divided into four ranges, which are messed up.
- TNAoBS releases are also part of the Box Set range
- TNAoBS is also a range within the Doctor Who superrange
- The numbering of Benny Box Sets suggests series 1-5. But the numbering of single releases follows the two-number system suggesting series 1-11. I don't know how to reconcile the duplicate series numbers without splitting box sets and single releases into separate ranges. And TNAoBS is of course explicitly series 1-2.
- Ranges
Shambala108's closure this month of Thread:204223 determined that the name of that release on this wiki will be Extinction (audio anthology), and so she effectively answered the original post.
As for the rest of the thread, T:FORUM says:
- ... you should make every effort to stay on topic in any given thread. Posts which stray from the point may be deleted without warning.
I think it's pretty fair to say that while the discussion is related to the original post, and contains some very thoughtful and detailed observations, it's gone quite a bit further than the original post's ambitions.
I'm therefore ruling that all the other proposals in the thread have failed. All names will remain where they were.
Let me go a little further, though, and say that the reason we use "audio anthology" as a dab term is to tamp down on the total number of dab terms. The fact that we use parenthetical dab terms at all is confusing to any number of people because they aren't super common in the wider Fandom network. The last thing we wanna do is to become so precise with the definition of "anthology" that we start creating a number of other terms with which to further confuse our beleaguered readers. So for our purposes, an "anthology" is just a collection of separately-titled stories, whether or not those stories are related. There are good reasons to keep a singular dab term for this kinda collection of stories, some of them technical and having to do with a lack of desire to change templates that depend on this standard nomenclature.
And, as both SOTO and PicassoAndPringles will well-attest, Big Finish have odd marketing practices that really don't consider our desires here at the wiki for consistency. It's therefore up to us to hold true to our own definitions and not give in to their shifting "marketing speak".
Finally, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There was a good faith effort here to kinda go through all these multi-part releases, one by one, and figure it all out. That can continue, if the parties involved still think it important. However, neither these forums or the new Discussion product are the right place for such a complicated suggestion. If the parties to the latter parts of this thread wanna try again, please create a normal wiki page, say in the User or Tardis namespaces, and lay it all out so that it can be more easily grasped in one reading. Use these forums only to direct people there, and have the discussion there -- much in the same way that Tardis:User rights nominations are handled.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185499
On the top navigation bar, there are menus that appear if hovering over certain menus.
Unfortunately there is a small gap between the hovered menu and the menu that appears below it.
Chrome (Canary) is, at least on my PC, rendering so quickly that it removes that menu when one tries to move the cursor to it, instead of leaving it there for a moment like Firefox does.
I propose that the gap is removed in the CSS, lest the number of users that cannot use the navbar properly continues to grow.
However, please bear in mind for the future that Wikia does not actually support Chrome Canary, as it's right on the bleeding edge of Chrome development.
Nevertheless, as many experimental features of Canary do make their way into official, stable versions of Chrome, Wikia would love to get your bug reports.
So if you give me a buzz here at Tardis, and I tell you that really there's nothing wrong on Chrome regular, feel free to go ahead and notify Wikia through a Special:Contact message that a new problem might be coming in a future version of Chrome regular.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185517
They is the force that put Ashildr up to luring the doctor into Trap Street and teleporting the doctor to where they are.
the quantum shade is just the raven, the raven is now left behind us and is probably only a part of face the raven. we can expect too see whoever they is later. there is no proof that they are connected and if they are we have no proof yet.
- Danniesen
What you say is only your theory.
- Mewiet
I agree with you. It should not be stated that the Quantum Shade/Raven is the one who told Me to hand over the Doctor.
- Danniesen
The Quantum Shade is not the Raven. The Quantum Shade is the gas that possessed the Raven. A living gas, capable of speech, like the Gelth. They is the Quantum Shade.
- Mewiet
Danniesen wrote: The Quantum Shade is not the Raven. The Quantum Shade is the gas that possessed the Raven. A living gas, capable of speech, like the Gelth.
Quotes pertaining to the Quantum Shade:
The Doctor: "It's called a Quantum Shade. It's kind of a spirit. Once it's bound to a victim you can flee across all of time and all of the universe, it would still find you."
Rump: "Two ways to survive the Quantum Shade: the Shade's master removes the chronolock or you can give it to someone else."
Mayor Me: "Clara, I made a contract with the Shade when I put the chronolock on Rigsy. I promised it a soul and only I can break that contract. When you took it from him, you changed the terms. You cut me out of the deal."
None of them support any of your assertions. None of those say the gas possesses anyone. None of them say the gas can talk. What one does say is that the Quantum Shade has a master and in this case, that master is Mayor Me.
This is the statement about "they":
Mayor Me: "I made a deal to protect the street. They take you, I take the keys, you can't be traced. I do as They tell me and the street is safe."
The Doctor: "'They'? Who are 'They'?"
Mayor Me: "One more thing. Your confession dial. They have other means of procuring it, but I understand it's likely to be on your person."There is no provable link between the Qunatum Shade and "They." It's pure speculation. I can equally argue that the Doctor questioning who "They" is suggests that the Quantum Shade (which he is evidently already familiar with yet doesn't come to the conclusion that the Quantum Shade is responsible) and "They" are separate entities.
Danniesen wrote: They is the Quantum Shade.
That is your theory.
- Danniesen
Yeah, perhaps. Or perhaps the Doctor doesn't know that "They" might be the Quantum Shade, just like when the Gelth managed to cheat him into believing they were few and just searching refugee.
No. The lines doesn't speak out that the gas possesses, but if you watch the episode, the gas seeks out the Raven and possesses it, after which the Raven seeks out the chronolock. The gas is the Quantum Shade. The Raven was just a tool (or body) used by the Quantum Shade.
Whether They and the Quantum Shade are the same or not, can we agree that the Quantum Shade is the gas, not the Raven? The Raven is possessed by the gas as shown in the episode.
Perhaps the Doctor thinks that it is just the one Quantum Shade, Perhaps "They" are a council with Quantum Shades of some kind.
Yes, I know that that is my theory, I haven't said it wasn't. That is just as much my theory only, as the other one is his theory.
- 83.139.146.146
"They" is most probably timelords, no?
- Bwburke94
Possibly, possibly not. At this time, we cannot outright state what "They" is or is not.
- Danniesen
That was actually my other theory. But given (look at Series 9 for spoilers), I think that could be a good guess too.
- Shambala108
Ok, if all we have are user theories and hints of spoilers, maybe this discussion needs to be put to a rest until more is known.
- NarnianAslan1
They exist. for sure and have a big part of the episode
- NarnianAslan1
its likely they are timelords. and they are. but that isnt valid since its a next time to an episode not around
- NarnianAslan1
We don't know who they are. Or what they are. But we know they are significant
- Danniesen
We don't know any of those things. We can't say anything until the rest of the episodes are broadcast.
- Shambala108
I'm going to remind everyone posting to this thread to carefully read Tardis:Spoiler policy. This thread will be closed if users can't/don't follow this policy.
- 203.206.208.107
i'd more likely believe "they" are The Darleks and Missy since we didn't actually see them kill her. we've seen Darleks use other agents to get to the Doctor and his companions and Me knew about the Confession dial, something Clara didn't know about despite seeing the Doctor's timeline. also the next episode is probably another 2 parter given the names and Me has been the only re-visited Hybrid
- Bwburke94
We're getting into speculation here. There's nothing to discuss until the next episode airs.
- Danniesen
Yeah, let's put an end on it 'til we see the next episode.
- NarnianAslan1
we need to merge it with time lords
- Danniesen
Yep.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185694
You guys are the least vain people I know. You have just hit 50,000 articles and no one even raised an eyebrow. Well, if you are too modest to point that out, I can: I have not created a single page, so this is really not my achievement. Congratulations! It's a big milestone.
- Bwburke94
Yes, it is, but we have better things to do than celebrate milestones.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185782
So, going on from Heaven Sent, is the Doctor, in the end, a clone of the original one who arrived "700 years ago," or are the dead Doctors merely from an alternate timeline where he failed?
- Danniesen
If the timelines are alternate, then he wouldn't have made any progress on that wall. And each time he got closer and closer. That's all I'm saying.
- Digifiend
If he's a clone, he has been since he first used a transmat.
- BananaClownMan
Okay, having rewatched and evaluated, I think that, instead of cloning, the Doctor is just rebirthing himself with the teleporter, and that's why he disintegrated after falling down, rather than when he is "burning" his energy into the machine.
- Danniesen
He needs to revert himself to the state upon arrival, just like the rooms did. It's not rebirth.
- IJosh64
I think this whole episode was crazy.
- 90.204.145.40
Something that doesn't make sense to me is why the rest of his body faded/ reset, but not the skull. How do these new skulls keep getting made if each Doctor is made up of the same material each time from a reset?
- Danniesen
Sometimes things can't be explained. Just like how did he get the cup of tea in The Witch's Familiar.
But I can try... Maybe it was because only his skull was wired up into the machine.
- 90.204.145.40
But why would that leave his skull there, especially without his body reforming minus a skull (so The Doctor leaves the teleporter and his head immediately flops in on itself)? Why would it be just the skull, the whole skull, nothing more and nothing less?
Probably looking into it too much, but it does make it difficult to make sense of what's going on when there's no explanation (that I can think of) that satisfies how so many skulls were produced.
Also the room resetting is confusing; if the skulls are piling up outside, surely the stools he throws out of the windows should either pile up or just not respawn?
- MystExplorer
It's explained in the episode that the castle resets itself every 82 minutes (i.e. the flowers being put back together). So presumably, the stool returns to its original position and the window repairs itself. The Doctor is not part of the castle, which is why his skull(s) remain behind.
- 90.204.145.40
So how can there be so many Doctors if The Doctor isn't resetting? Where are all the atoms coming from to build all these Doctors? Is the original Doctor dead/ is the current one a clone?
- MystExplorer
The confession dial's hard drive retains a copy of the original Doctor. That's where all the "new Doctors" keep coming from.
- 82.72.148.149
Yes and no.
The Doctor's "essence" - for want of a better word - is stored inside the teleporter's hard drive. The teleporter acts like a 3d printer, i.e. it uses the data like a blueprint to construct a copy that is, presumably, exactly identical. All of the Doctors are the original because they're based on that blueprint, but the one who was given the teleport bracelet by Ashildr in "Face the Raven" is dead ... along with some seventy billion exact duplicates.
- 90.204.145.40
But where would it get the material to produce all that? If we're using the 3D printer comparison, it wouldn't work to simply keep it plugged in and print off something infinitely, it would run for a little while then run out of material, meaning it can hold the blueprint but not be able to produce anything.
Also, was the dust supposed to be The Doctors that have disintegrated? Because surely the dust would fill the room in 2 billion years and/ or fall in the water, raising the water level higher and higher until it floods the place? Wouldn't the skulls alone pile up higher than the castle?
- 82.72.148.149
The energy that the dying Doctor feeds into it is converted into matter (i.e. the next Doctor in the cycle).
It's whether his consciousness was passed along, too, that interests/worries me. If not, then this is a new Doctor.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:185891
I can't help but think we are not using the Twitter feed to the best of our advantage. We have had no tweets since October 7th when DW must have been trending high and we could have got some exposure for the site.
I'm happy to try and utilise this a bit more if you would like?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:186058
In the page Heaven Sent, it says the Doctor, when faced with the Azbantium wall, remembers what he has to do and all his past lives. Personally, I think what actually happens, and what makes more sense, is that the Doctor realises what he has to do, and that he's been doing it for a long, long time. This makes him break down because he knows he's trapped in a cycle, and he needs to die so the next him in the cycle can live.
I don't think the memory thing makes sense as he would have no mental connection to his past lives. Unless someone from the cast or crew has actually said that he remembers, can the page be changed?
- Thefartydoctor
The Doctor simply works it out. He works out that this prison has ever only had him as a prisoner. The Veil is evidence of this because, if a prison had the capability to pluck things out of your nightmares, why would you use the Doctor's nightmares against other people rather than their own nightmares against themselves?
Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with memory. The Doctor looks at the evidence around him and works out that he is one in a very long cycle of Doctors that have been running around that castle. By the time he faces the Azbantium wall, he's merely accepted what he has to do and gets on with it.
In summary, I agree with you haha. The only way memory could play a part is if the Doctor had implanted it into his replacement's subconscious when he connected himself to the teleporter. As that is never mentioned within the episode, that remains just a fancy speculation. :P
- Fantomas
He talks about remembering though, just before Clara speaks to him: "But I can remember, Clara. You don't understand. I can remember it all. Every time... and you'll still be gone. Whatever I do... you still won't be there."
- MystExplorer
Fantomas wrote: He talks about remembering though, just before Clara speaks to him: "But I can remember, Clara. You don't understand. I can remember it all. Every time... and you'll still be gone. Whatever I do... you still won't be there."
I wouldn't take that quote literally. I doubt even the Doctor is capable of holding two billion years' worth of memories. One interpretation of "I remember it all" is that he's talking about the time he spent with Clara. He's despairing at the realization that no matter how many times he goes through the cycle, Clara will still be dead.
- Dragonofelder
@Fantomas
Well that doesn't make sense. There is literally no seen physic connection between the Doctors, so how would he be able to remember his past lives? Could he have been talking about something else?
- Fantomas
MystExplorer wrote: I wouldn't take that quote literally. I doubt even the Doctor is capable of holding two billion years' worth of memories. One interpretation of "I remember it all" is that he's talking about the time he spent with Clara. He's despairing at the realization that no matter how many times he goes through the cycle, Clara will still be dead.
That's one interpretation, but it ignores the "Every time," which is why I feel he's specifically talking about all these lives and cycles.
Dragonofelder wrote: Well that doesn't make sense.
I don't see why not. Within the realms of what this show has done and presented to us, it's not outside the realm of possibility (heck, earlier in the same episode The Doctor talks a locked door into opening for him). The Doctor transfers his life energy into a new body, it's not much of a stretch to imagine the memories of the cycle transfer across, but are temporarily locked away... sort of like forgetting a bad dream until a specific word or event reminds you of it.
- SOTO
Logically, it doesn't make sense that the Doctor's brain could hold memories of a life he'd never personally lived. But it's not what logical that counts. It's what the story says. I'm not sure that line about remembering is unambiguously about remembering the previous loops, but that seems to be the most obvious interpretation, given the timing. He says it at the time where, at least in other loops, he makes the speech about the bird and realises what's been going on.
- AeD
I'd sort of assumed it was his Time Brain catching up on relevant information, like it does in Kill The Moon, but an assumption is all that is.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:186225
On the wiki page for Heaven Sent, there is a line in the production errors which states "Some of the scenes that are re-made, and meant to be identical, have been slightly changed. One example is the Doctor's threat after stepping out from the teleport." but is this strictly an error?
The events of Heaven Sent are not a time loop but a continuing struggle of new Doctors going through the same puzzle and challenges but this doesn't mean that some would come to ideas in a slightly different way while going through the same solutions due to subconscious quirks.
A couple of differences are for certain, firstly the first version would not of had any interaction with skulls or the bird message and secondly any time the Doctor measured time by the stars he would have a different thought pattern which could result in later differences. Also, the length of time it would take to say longer time amounts (E.G. saying Seven Thousand years and saying Two Billion years).
A lot of this is speculation on my part but I couldn't see any evidence within the story which says each loop MUST be identical.
This is especially true if there is some memory transfer between Doctors (as suggested by the end but not confirmed), then there maybe some bleed between Doctors resulting in subconscious changes.
- Shambala108
Canis L Sapien wrote: On the wiki page for Heaven Sent, there is a line in the production errors which states "Some of the scenes that are re-made, and meant to be identical, have been slightly changed. One example is the Doctor's threat after stepping out from the teleport." but is this strictly an error?
Story elements aside, anything that is done by choice by the production team, including this example of remaking scenes that are not quite identical to the originals, is not a production error as considered by this wiki (unless the production team makes some kind of statement saying it was an error).
- Bwburke94
The loops aren't completely identical. They are all subtly different loops leading to the same conclusion.
- 168.1.75.19
What I don't understand, something I am yet to find an answer to, is how could he chisel away at the wall over the period of 4.5 billion years when the entire castle resets itself every time he confesses/starts the struggle again? for example when he digs the grave to find 'I am in 12' he comes back to find it undisturbed. The skulls continue to amass too but this is outside the castle... maybe this wall is not part of the resetting process?
- Thefartydoctor
168.1.75.19 wrote: What I don't understand, something I am yet to find an answer to, is how could he chisel away at the wall over the period of 4.5 billion years when the entire castle resets itself every time he confesses/starts the struggle again?
I think it's suggested that most, but not all, rooms are reset. For example, if all rooms were reset, then there'd be a bit of an issue with the skull and 'BIRD' in the teleport room. They'd both disappear and then the Doctor would never get his inspiration to tell the story while hammering the wall (and the skulls would never fall into the ocean). It could be assumed that this is the Time Lords' doing. They know the Doctor is stubborn and would need persuading, so allowing him to see all of those skulls building up and reach the conclusion that they are all his own would frighten him.
In summary, it's clear that not every room resets, and it's a wise to reach the conclusion that the Time Lords intended this to happen in their attempt to know more about the Hybrid.
- Canis L Sapien
168.1.75.19 wrote: What I don't understand, something I am yet to find an answer to, is how could he chisel away at the wall over the period of 4.5 billion years when the entire castle resets itself every time he confesses/starts the struggle again? for example when he digs the grave to find 'I am in 12' he comes back to find it undisturbed. The skulls continue to amass too but this is outside the castle... maybe this wall is not part of the resetting process?
My interpretation of this was not that the rooms reset but that the puzzles/trails the Time Lord is meant to face in order to reflect on their lives reset. This would easily allow for why there's skulls and a burnt out Doctor and markings and everything else laying around but the tasks like the grave reset. After all, the dial was not meant to be used in this way on a living Time Lord so why would it be set up to understand multiple iterations of the same attempt.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:186233
Shouldnt claras splinters be considered part of her timeline since she experienced all of them i guess. Especially because of her memories of them.
- Digifiend
Clara Prime doesn't have her splinters' memories.
- NarnianAslan1
apparently she does
- Digifiend
When has Clara ever mentioned what she did in The Snowmen or Asylum of the Daleks? If you're thinking of the Run You Clever Boy line, she also said it in Name of the Doctor.
- Danniesen
She doesn't know what her splinters did.
- Mewiet
The "run you clever boy and remember" was a mnemonic device Clara Prime came up with to remember the Maitlands' Internet password. That was the last thing she said before jumping into the Doctor's timeline and it was passed onto (at least) the Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswin Oswald echoes.
While Clara was still in the Doctor's timeline, she told the Eleventh Doctor that he was the eleventh, indicating her echoes never encountered War or Twelve, or at least she didn't remember if they did. As far as I recall, that's the only on screen indication she had any sort of memory of her echoes' lives.
According to Into the Nowhere, a short story by Jenny Colgan which this wiki considers as valid and thus equal to television continuity, Clara could only remember fragments of her echoes' lives and some recollections were so limited she only recalled them as dreams.
Unless there are any other stories I haven't read personally, that's the only story I know of to directly reference the issue. Blood and Ice does deal directly with Clara meeting one of her echoes, but I haven't read it myself. From what I know of the story, it sounds like Clara is surprised to meet the echo and doesn't inherently know of Winnie's life, which would indicate to me she doesn't remember it, but I don't know if the story makes any reference to her remembering part or all of any of the other echoes' lives.
- Bwburke94
Clara doesn't know everything of her splinters. Into the Nowhere makes that clear.
- NarnianAslan1
still it is part of her experience but yes it was a dream.
it is clear some of those echoes knew who she was of how they knew he was the doctor. but thats speculation but i think its true despite being speculation
- Danniesen
Some splinters didn't know he was the Doctor, namely Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswin Oswald.
- NarnianAslan1
i know
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:186606
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:953191 A change in today's Wikia patch means that the pagetitle is now Tardis - Wikia, and not Tardis Data Core, the Doctor Who Wiki - Wikia. That means it neither has the full name of the wiki nor the name of Doctor Who, which will cause problems in search engines. Anything you can do about that?
- SOTO
Hmm. Tardis is our sitename, which is why with that change it's what is displaying. Pagetitle means nothing as of this week; it is now automated.
I agree that this might cause us problems in search engines. If Wikia's not willing to make an exception or help us along, maybe we should change the sitename? Were there benefits to the short sitename of "Tardis"? I've bumped user:CzechOut to check out this thread when he has the time.
Our search engine results are the same as, and for some searches wholly improved upon, what they were before. Wikia have not, and I speak here fully as a Tardis admin, screwed up our SEO. They've helped us.
I find it helpful when there's a change in life to look at things empirically. So I did a few experiments.
In searching on "Susan Foreman", "Fifth Doctor" and "An Unearthly Child", we are currently ranked #1 (discounting Amazon's paid results) on DuckDuckGo (a search engine I'll use for experimental "control" here) for all of them. When we move over to the Google side of the street, we find we're number 1 for Susan Foreman, which represents improvement over this time last week — and we lose to Wikipedia for the other two terms. However, "losing to only Wikipedia" is what we've done for years and years and years — so it's no change.
Let's look, though, at more ordinary nouns. If you Google (or DuckDuckGo) "decapitation Doctor Who" we get lost "beneath the fold". If, however, you look at "sexuality Doctor Who" on either search engine, we're number 1.
Why is this? Well, it goes back to what SEOkitten — a fellow staff member with whom I'm in good contact — says in the announcement thread at Community Central:
- "Our communities' pages succeed in organic search because of the countless hours editors and admins spend creating unique, engaging content that provides the best possible answer to searchers' queries. Removing extra terms from the title tag will not change that." — SEOkitten
See, decapitation fails a bit on the search term "decapitation Doctor Who", because there's no behind the scenes section where the words "Doctor Who" appear. Sexuality succeeds because it's got a massive BTS section, and because sexuality in DW had its first flower in an episode called "Doctor Who". So between the references to the kiss-friendly TV movie and the BTS exploration of a programme called Doctor Who, it's no wonder we're the #1 article about "Doctor Who sexuality" on the net. (And, btw, kudos to SOTO for seeing this as an important subject for us to explore.)
Now, this doesn't mean that we should run out and create huge BTS sections. Our articles need to be what they are, and not "forced" into some kind of SEO honeypot. SEO spiders are increasingly intelligent and they'll start to penalise us if they see what appears to be unnatural repetition of terms. We just need to have faith that people will search in reasonable ways. "Decapitation Blon", for instance, puts our article right back at the top of the list. Other terms, like "Decaptiation Boom Town" are less successful because that's just three completely ordinary nouns in a row. We have to have faith that the people who are looking for us when it comes to completely ordinary nouns will be able to find more specific terms.
What the search results are telling is here is simple: the algorithmic relationship between "Decapitation" and "Doctor" and "Who" isn't very strong. And it's not. Truth is, what we see more often in DW is the threat of decpitation, which is why googling "Noose Doctor Who" puts us at the top of the pile again.
In any event, SEO is a bit tricky or our favourite intellectual property. "Doctor" and "Who" have always returned ambiguous results, haven't they? We're a bit unlucky in that regard. It's really only been that comparatively recently the terms "Doctor Who India" would return Doctor Who-relevant terms, and that's largely been because of the recent sale of the programme to India. Nowadays, even after this SEO switcheroo, "Doctor Who India" puts our article about India at the top of the Google list. But it used to be that you'd get a result like you still do for "Doctor Who Madagascar" — articles about real life physicians in that island nation well above our article about Madagascar.
Let's face it, we are somewhat cursed with a name which is SEO-ambiguous. Search engines have always struggled a bit with the difference between "The British TV programme, Doctor Who" and "A doctor who happened to be at the accident scene".
That's why, to my mind, it's important to push out the "Tardis" bit to the fore. It's much less ambiguous — as a comparison of search results for "Tardis Madagascar" and "Doctor Who Madagascar" will instantly prove.
And that's precisely why, all those years ago, we switched from doctorwho.wikia.com to tardis.wikia.com. We absolutely are Tardis — not the "Doctor Who wiki". And it, on balance, helps our SEO to say so.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:186659
Why this wiki doesn't consider Legacy (video game) a valid source has been bothering me for a while. A previous Panoptican discussion dismissed this game because 1. there is already a DWL wiki and 2. this would mess up story pages (EX. The War doctor could be used in a level based on "Hell Bent", meaning this wiki would have to be put the War Doctor onto the Heaven Sent page). Both of these arguments are ignoring some of the facts of the matter. First off, the DWL wiki covers many aspects of the game, all the levels, enemies, characters, and unlockables are covered very well, but only the gameplay aspect is covered. TARDIS Wiki wouldn't do this if we consider Legacy a valid source, only the story aspect would be covered! Secondly, the story of Legacy takes place in an alternate timeline of sorts. Legacy takes place after Sontarans gain access to superior time travel technology and accidentally break the web of time. When the Doctor and friends fight the Mire in a viking town they aren't experiencing The Girl Who Died ,they're fighting the Mire in this fractured timeline. I really hope we can reconsider this game's validity.
- Bwburke94
The fact there is already a DWL wiki has nothing to do with whether the game is a valid source.
- TheChampionOfTime
Exactly!
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Not relevant but why when I post to the Panopticon it says Undefined, what does this mean and how do I go about it?
- AeD
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Secondly, the story of Legacy takes place in an alternate timeline of sorts. Legacy takes place after Sontarans gain access to superior time travel technology and accidentally break the web of time. When the Doctor and friends fight the Mire in a viking town they aren't experiencing The Girl Who Died ,they're fighting the Mire in this fractured timeline. I really hope we can reconsider this game's validity.
I'm pretty sure that's why it's not considered a valid source.
- TheChampionOfTime
This isn't like the Unbound series. Stories like "Blood Heat" and "The Ripple Effect" take place in alternate timelines, but are valid because they are visited by the Doctor from the prime timeline. Legacy may take place in an alternate timeline that has spiralled out of control, but the Doctors, Companions, and Masters are very clearly from the Doctor Who Universe.
- Amorkuz
Another argument I found in another thread used against some other games was that the gameplay can differ from player to player. This seems to be a common reason not to consider games a valid source. And this argument is barely applicable to DWL: the storyline is linear, well, as linear as a Doctor Who storyline can be.
My main problem with DWL being a valid source is their constant tinkering with the whole of the game. They put new companions to very early levels making them available earlier. They add new waves to old levels. In terms of storyline a big change only happened once in my memory. But it was big indeed: they've added tons of dialogue all through the game, including retconning the arrival of doctors just added to the game. My problem is that keeping track of all these changes is extremely hard if at all possible. Sure, they advertise the big ones, but many others pass as under-the-hood.
This instability may be a general feature of mobile games as opposed to old-school PC-style/console games. In my mind, it disqualifies them from being a valid source or a source in general.
- TheChampionOfTime
Comparing mobile games and PC/Console games is quite difficult. DWL wasn't released in 2013 with a complete story, the story has instead been gradually building with new levels and content with changes made based on player reactions. Adjusting and adding new characters to old levels was a one time thing; the developers heard that early game was too hard and were inclined to fix it (although a new storyline is currently beginning where a mysterious foe is "altering the Doctor's past" by changing levels. This could also explain the changes.). As for adding dialogue to older levels, sure we have a bit more details, but the story hasn't changed (although again this isn't a regular occurrence). Adding a bit where the eighth Doctor "stares sadly" isn't going to change anything, and also the retcon that was mentioned was simply adding a Doctor who had previously been available in a non-story level. Both of these types of changes are not regular and are not good reasons to disqualify Legacy.
- Amorkuz
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Adjusting and adding new characters to old levels was a one time thing; the developers heard that early game was too hard and were inclined to fix it (although a new storyline is currently beginning where a mysterious foe is "altering the Doctor's past" by changing levels. This could also explain the changes.)
Some more details on the new storyline from their last newsletter: "an enemy who starts to infect the storyline of the game". This doesn't sound promising for the stability of the said storyline.
- TheChampionOfTime
Why do instabilities make a game non-valid? Short Trips: Re:Collections updated many of it's stories, Doctor Who: Legacy basically does this on a more frequent smaller scale. As for this new storyline, neither of us knows exactly how it will work. The thing to remember about video games is that they can tell stories in ways unlike any other medium, this new storyline will tell a tale similar to A Death in the Family (audio story), except in a game you can experience the timelines shifting! We know that to some extent this storyline will be permanent, so perhaps the "infections" will be too, but All we're doing right now is counting our chickens before they hatch.
- TheChampionOfTime
Well, I think this weeks update has answered some questions! It appears that "The Event" will be serialized and each change will only last one week (the game is updated every Sunday). Most of "The Event" will take place inside it's own level group in the special tab, this level group is comprised of three levels. Today the level called "The Future" has been updated, completely new dialogue and a different enemy, the old version of this level is not currently in the game. Are these "instabilities" which will form a concise story and only last for a week really such a problem?
- TheChampionOfTime
The important details of "The Event" have been revealed in this week's twitch. At about 23 minutes into the stream you will find out the fate of these "temporary" levels.
- Amorkuz
And this is an excerpt from the newsletter: "As the Trickster Event unfolds, the Trickster will begin messing with various levels throughout the game, offering new challenges to both new and veteran players."
- TheChampionOfTime
Each week, levels based on TV episodes will be replaced with "what if" scenarios (Example: What if Amy Pond was converted into a Dalek Slave during the events of Asylum of the Daleks). Every level will start with dialogue. From the perspective of the Doctors these levels will take place during "The Trickster Event", not during Chapters 1, 2, 3, or 4. After the event ends, in the beginning of April, all changes made by the Trickster will be undone, but every now and again DWL will have "Trickster Weeks" where the Trickster levels will replace the originals. Both level types will be preserved. Where is the problem?
- OncomingStorm12th
Well,as the game is all built with direct approvals of the BBC (any art or script that gets into the game is approved by them). Same goes for who can be used as allies and enemies,so I think that it respects the TV/Big finish/Comics;Books cannon as much as possible (thus I consider it valid. At most, I picture it happening on an alternate timeline).
However, due to the fact you can play any level with any avaliable characters, I think that only the dialogue should be used on the in-universe pages. Also,there is confirmation that new allies and enemies will be introduced on the storyline (allies/enemies that have never appeared in any other medium), so I think it should be valid to create pages that cover them as well. There's also going to be, with time, books and big finish content (meaning we'll get to properly see some characters art for the first time,like what happens with Cinder), so it could also be used on their pages
- Shambala108
CzechOut stated the wiki's position when he closed the previous thread at Thread:161867: "The wiki's position on the matter is pretty clearly laid out on the game's page here. It would be utter chaos to admit this game as a valid source for the writing of our articles."
This comment from above ("However, due to the fact you can play any level with any avaliable characters,...") expresses exactly why we don't consider this valid: the possibility of different game players using different characters for the same tasks means that there are several versions of the narrative and therefore that is why this game was ruled invalid.
The reasoning is the same as that of stage plays, which is quoted here from Tardis:Valid sources: "Stage plays are deemed to be invalid because they are ephemeral. You may see something in the evening performance that wasn't there during the matinée. Or by the time it comes to your town, an entire section might have been removed from the performance. An actor that was at the Glasgow run may have given a line-reading that was meaningfully different to the guy playing the same part in London." Similarly, different game experiences will result in different narratives for different editors.
- TheChampionOfTime
There is a difference between story and gameplay. Imamadmad expressed this on the page's talk page.
- I do thing the story is consistent enough to count under this wiki's policies. In fact, the story is identical, regardless of which characters are in your team or how many times you fail a level. While the narrative elements aren't as strong in the early chapters, by late chapter three there is a very distinct story line about the various Doctors and allies fighting against various incarnations of the Master. The parts of the game which give the story line, the text when certain levels are begun, finished, or even certain waves of enemies are destroyed, are always the same regardless of who is on your team, how many allies you've collected, which Doctor you're playing with, or how many times you've played a level. The story therefore does not change between users. The game play does change obviously by how and how easily enemies are destroyed, based on character choices and player skill, but that's the non-narrative part which is irrelevant. The enemies themselves stay the same between playings of levels and, to be honest, are only occasionally relevant to the plot line. While the story behind DW:Legacy I think is pretty clearly not in the normal timeline of events, I think it's safe to say that it is an alternate timeline with a story which falls perfectly within this wiki's inclusion policies.
Also, within context Czechout's "utter chaos" has nothing to do with the ability to choose characters. It seems, to me at least, that the quote concerns the fact that there are levels based on TV stories. Look at this debate's first post for more information.
- TheChampionOfTime
It's been a while, and the Trickster Event has ended. Whatever plot it did have was paper thin, with all of the dialogue in the first levels. The changes to previous levels were all just chaos in the timelines, with nothing story wise until the final level were the Trickster gained physical form and was defeated by the Tenth Doctor, Sarah Jane, Peri, Saibra, a Zygon, and the TARDIS.
Is there anyone familiar with this game who can see a reason why this should remain invalid?
Alternatively, is there anyone unfamiliar with this game who can see a reason why this should remain invalid?
- Shambala108
You quoted Imamadmad's statement: "the story is identical, regardless of which characters are in your team or how many times you fail a level."
This statement confirms that the game should remain invalid. By our policies, any story that can vary from viewer/player to viewer/player is not considered valid.
I'll quote an example from User:CzechOut at Thread:161867, the thread on which this game was previously declared invalid:
- "The fact you can have so many different combinations of team-members means that it is of course not a reliable source. To whom did Nightmare in Silver happen? The answer of this wiki is 'The Eleventh Doctor, Clara Oswald, her two charges, Porridge, and some near-reject soldiers'.
- The answer is not 'The Second Doctor, Jack Harkness, River Song, Strax, and an Adipose'."
The full statement of the policy can be read near the bottom of the forum thread Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? (specifically the penultimate paragraph) and of course at Tardis:Valid sources#When the licensor is the BBC.
- TheChampionOfTime
The characters that the player chooses only affect gameplay, not the storyline. Even if they aren't aren't on your team, the Eleventh Doctor will still talk to Amy, Rory, the First Doctor, the Third Doctor in level 69 of Chapter 3. It is stated in multiple chapter 4 levels that the events that occur within the game are experienced by all of the characters.
There are even some levels where the average player will have a team that does not match up with the story being told, such as level 28 of chapter 4 which narratively only happens to the Twelfth Doctor and Clara. This shows that the gameplay is separated from the story. The story will affect the gameplay, but not vice versa. All the characters do is give you abilities and change your attack, defence, and health.
- Shambala108
I don't really know how to make this clearer. The fact that each player can experience different gameplay means that there is no one "official" storyline. The idea that gameplay and cut scenes are separate, and that we should allow the cut scenes as the storyline, does not take into account the mess that would be created with new wiki users who would potentially see the entirety of the game as valid and edit accordingly.
Incidentally, CzechOut's use of the word "chaos" above has nothing to do with the timelines of the game. He's referring to what I stated in the previous paragraph: the chaos that would result on wiki articles if we allow only some of the game to be valid while keeping other parts of it invalid. Not to mention the mess of trying to figure out how to indicate which parts are valid and which aren't and how to categorize a game with both valid and invalid parts. Sometimes we rule things invalid because the difficulty of the work involved isn't worth it.
Based on my experience with the rules at Tardis:Valid sources, I do not see any information about this game that would allow it to be valid.
- TheChampionOfTime
Thank you for all these fast replies, but I'm far too hard headed to agree with them just yet. First things first, there is most definitely an official story which is experienced by every player. Just look at the plot summary at Legacy (video game).
I'm not saying that the entire gameplay is invalid, the story of the game couldn't be told without the enemies that the player fights in the levels. The companions are only involved in the part of the game that involves getting three or more in a row. Is it difficult to indicate that River beat the Cyber King by smashing it with the TARDIS and not by stacking four green Toclafane, even though one was directly stated in dialogue. Is it difficult to indicate that the Doctor isn't saving the universe by arranging circles in a row and having Charley Pollard use her "Edwardian Adventuress" powers.
Almost every second level in this game has dialogue and it is the exact same for every player. It explains everything that's going on in the game. If you were to strip the game down to just the gameplay that involves the companions, Legacy would basically be Candy Crush. I don't see how any information could be gained from the gameplay. As I stated in my last message, there are parts of the story where the story only involves one or two characters, but the player is allowed to use three or four companions of their own choosing. These companions are just for gameplay strategies and are not in the narrative.
- Imamadmad
Shambala108 wrote: You quoted Imamadmad's statement: "the story is identical, regardless of which characters are in your team or how many times you fail a level."
This statement confirms that the game should remain invalid. By our policies, any story that can vary from viewer/player to viewer/player is not considered valid.
What part of "the story is identical" do you not understand? If you're gonna quote me, at least read what I say!
Sorry, sorry, sorry. I shouldn't shout. That was uncalled for. Sorry Shambala. But the fact of the matter remains, the story is identical regardless of who is on one's team. In fact, as far as the dialog (the actual story) is concerned, every character that could possibly be on one's team (and on some occasions those that can't, for example the First Doctor appeared before he was dropped) all exist travelling together at the same time. To put a more precise name on it, such as one could use in an article, it is the Doctor and his allies participating in every event in the game, except when the story specifically states otherwise (in which case the cast of characters to play with is usually restricted anyway).
Let's state this another way with an example. Let's look at the Chapter 2 episode "The Girl Who Waited: Apalapucia?". Specifically, let's play it with a team comprising of the War Doctor, Young Sarah Jane Smith, Joe Grant, Ace, Donna, and the Brigadier. Here is the following story:
Eleven: ...Apalapucia. Rory: No! Doctor, I can't. We can't. Rory: Not here. Not again. Eleven: We have to. We must stabilize (sic) time, Eleven: And clues to the future of reality itself could be found anywhere, Eleven: Even here in the two streams facility. Rory: This isn't fair. Rory: Nobody should have to go through this place once, let alone twice. Narrator: The Doctor grabs Rory firmly but kindly by the shoulders and looks him in the eyes. Eleven: We must. We have no choice. Eleven: We must stay strong. Eleven: This is just the beginning - far worse exists in my past. Narrator: The 8th Doctor looks around the room at his collected allies, a look of infinite sorrow in his eyes. ''Gameplay begins with the Doctor and his allies having to defeat first two hand bots, then three, then two, then three more'' ''The level ends''
This dialog stays consistent for every possible team and any possible number of times a person has played a level. That level in particular I have played many, many times because it's a good gem farming level, and every time I've watched the story, the dialog and actions have been identical. You may have noticed that none of the characters that were on my team took part in the dialog, and you may also have noticed that multiple Doctors took part in the interaction. The clear intention of the writers is that all the Doctors and all allies take part in the fulfilling of the levels, and so it doesn't matter who in particular the user chooses to focus on in their game play.
I see nothing wrong from just the given episode alone from mentioning, say, on the Two Streams Facility page that:
- In a parallel timeline, the Doctor and his allies returned to the Two Streams Facility to try and find clues to help them stabilise the broken time stream. Rory was particularly distressed by this encounter after his previous time in the facility, but the Doctor told him to press on for the sake of time itself. (Game: Legacy)
From the people who have actually played the game, can anyone see any reason at all why that shouldn't be allowed? DW: Legacy is explicitly set in an alternative time stream where time is crumbling apart, so there's no conflict with existing stories. Indeed, conflict with existing stories has never ruled out a story on this wiki. In fact, let us examine the famous Four Little Rules:
- Is it a story? Yes, it clearly is.
- Is it licensed? Yes, by BBC Worldwide
- Has it been officially released? Yes. While different parts are still coming out, the episodes that have been released should certainly count, just like sequential releases of episodes in a comic story, or indeed like sequential episodes in a TV season.
- Is it intended to be set inside the DWU? Yes, but within a parallel timeline/alternate timestream.
Quite frankly, it passes all four rules. There is no variation in story from user to user. There is no reason for it not to be included on this wiki. We at Doctor Who Answers are happy for the content from the story to appear in our answers, not that you care about that. If anyone still thinks it shouldn't be included, please go play the game at least up to the middle of Chapter 2 before making further judgement. The game is free after all, and available worldwide (unlike the Adventure Games), so there's nothing stopping you. I'm sure if you had a more informed view of the topic, you too would understand why it should be included. There is no reason not to!
- TheChampionOfTime
I'd just like to clarify that while the story takes place in an alternate timeline, many of the characters, such as the Doctor and the Master, are from the main timeline.
- Amorkuz
If anyone still thinks it shouldn't be included, please go play the game at least up to the middle of Chapter 2 before making further judgement. The game is free after all, and available worldwide (unlike the Adventure Games), so there's nothing stopping you. I'm sure if you had a more informed view of the topic, you too would understand why it should be included. There is no reason not to!
With all due respect, having the same knowledge as you does not necessarily imply having the same opinion as you. I played the game extensively and know exactly what you are talking about. I don't really have a strong opinion on inclusion/non-inclusion, with a slight preference for non-inclusion. I do think, however, it is necessary to provide full information about the game for the admins and elders of the Wikia to decide whether the four rules are satisfied.
For instance, I was a bit puzzled by your description of the dialogue in the Apalalpucia level above. Why say "the Doctor" instead of "the Eleventh Doctor" and then "the Eighth Doctor". But the difficulty is, there are two of each in the game: the normal one and the expert one. Some also have a fan variant. And by now probably fourth copies from the signature series. And then some characters were given a fifth variant, prefixed SA. And I am not talking about two copies of the same individual taken from different points in their timelines, like young Sara Jane and old Sara Jane. I'm talking about multiple duplicates of the exactly same character. Take River Song, for instance, we have:
- Professor River Song (who is a Doctor, within the game's definition thereof)
- Professor River Song + (who is not a Doctor)
- River Song
- River Song +
- SA River Song
I do not remember a slightest attempt to explain the presence of multiple duplicates of the same individual from the point of the storyline.
- TheChampionOfTime
Professor River Song and Regular River Song are the same individual taken from different points in their timeline. This is pointed out in "Back and there again" in Chapter 4.
Professor RS is a Doctor in gameplay only. Being a Doctor only means that the character can go in the Doctor slot, and nothing else.
SA RS is the normal young River Song, the only reason she is a separate character is to give her a new ability for the gameplay section of the game. The dialogue in SA's first level indicates just this. This is the same for the Trickster characters, Trickster Sarah Jane in normal Sarah Jane.
As for the expert River Songs, they cannot be gained through any of the story levels. They are from levels that were made for "expert" players. Again, all the expert characters do is give the characters a new ability for the gameplay. All the signature characters do is give the player a new ability for gameplay and give you a costume with the actors signature. All the fan characters do is give the player a new ability for gameplay. All of these copies are accessed through sections of the game that are cut-off from the rest of the game. These sections have no story. Most levels in the fan area are stated to be previews, prototypes, or special "thank you" levels.
Again I would say that this is another example of the separation between the gameplay and the story. The bonus characters have no presence in the storyline.
- OncomingStorm12th
Actually, there IS an explanation for the Expert characters in-game. When you first open the "expert levels" tab. it displays the following text:
"The ongoing battle with the Doctors enemies has opened a massive rip in space and time. bringing through characters from a parallel dimension!"
As for the "Trickster Event", during the final-boss level against the Trickster, the team's characters can be seen being put under his control (also being later summoned by him on gameplay to help him)
For the SA characters, during the first level of the storyline, the first Doctor states "Then the team is assembled. Let us start our adventure!" meaning that these versions of the characters are simply a mini-team that was put together to recover devices (only being different characters in a gameplay sense)
Finally, the fan area/signature are not part of any storyline of the game, so it wouldn't really affect anything
As we've said many times about several things on the wiki, the declaration of invalidity has nothing to do with what's "canon" or what you personally can believe about "Doctor Who truths".
By contrast, the writing of our articles here at Tardis requires some level of certainty. It's basically impossible to deal with single events that might have involved different characters or different outcomes, depending on who's playing the game. This is a game that involves every major character in the DWU, and yet it happens -- for you -- only to those characters that you actively choose. I can play a level using Ten, Donna and Strax. You can do the same thing with Four, Vicki, and Polly. I can be victorious on my first go. You can take several hundred attempts. So what's the real story? Was it a Fourth Doctor Adventure? Did it happen to Donna? Was it an easy victory or a hard one. And how was the victory achieved? Were they using weapons that looked like balls? Or jack-o-lanterns? Or Christmas trees? Who scored the killing blow? The Doctor? Donna? Sarah? We just don't know for certain. It's equivalent to a choose-your-own-adventure book, and those have long been disallowed.
Additionally, the notion that there is some divorce between gameplay and story must be strenuously rejected. The fact that the dialogue in the interstitial "moments" stays the same doesn't prove anything about authorial intent -- except that they're trying to keep the file size low enough to be played on a wide range of devices. It's a technical choice, not a literary one. After all, there's no technical barrier -- other than the memory of the small devices on which the game is to be played -- to having the interstitial moments played out with every character combo available. It could have been programmed that way, but it wasn't.
Perhaps the biggest objection, though, is that it's illogical to suggest that if you spend all your time with your bespoke team that you're supposed to believe you're actually playing with some other team. Arguing that you're not supposed to believe that the fighting happened as it happened for you is a bit like saying, "Well, I saw Luke get into his X-wing right before the Trench Run at the end of Star Wars, but some other dude actually piloted the craft to victory."
No. stories are not a series of set-ups. They're a series of conflicts, portrayed in their entirety. You see Luke strap in, you see him go into the Death Star trenches, you see him successfully land his shot, you see him go home. Nobody else, save R2, is in that ship along the way.
That's why Legacy is not a story. It's a game with narrative elements that attempt to add verisimilitude to the mix -- and to distinguish it in the marketplace, as was pointed out above, from Candy Crush.
Therefore, Legends posits an impossible, irresolvable conundrum that we just can't allow administratively.
Fortunately, there's a reasonably large wiki which already exists to take your edits about the game. This matters because no one is saying that your edits about it aren't valuable; they're just not a part of the mission of this particular wiki.
Conclusion[[edit] | [edit source]]
Having had nearly six months of fresh discussion on the matter, and following an original discussion that was itself lengthy, no new information has been presented to alter the original decision. Accordingly, this thread is now closed. Please don't open yet another one on this same topic.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187040
What about a list of NOT VALID stories, so people can distinguish the difference?
- AeD
I'm not sure what you're intending to get out of this, but try Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Invalid? It's a list of every page the little INVALID SOURCE box shows up on.
- AeD
There's also Tardis:Valid sources and Tardis:Valid sources/Detailed list, both of which will probably help clarify this wiki's validity policies.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Ok, cheers
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187052
I understand flashbacks with new footage count but archive shouldn't, with the exception of The Day of the Doctor where archive footage was used as actually being present not a flashback.
The War Games appearances of Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, Yeti and Dominators were all new footage, so why don't they count?
- Bwburke94
We've discussed this before, haven't we?
- SOTO
We most definitely have. Can't find the discussion right now for the life of me, though.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187273
Should we create a list of Spin Offs? Such as List of Spin Offs on Television and Home Video such as P.R.O.B.E. and Torchwood and List of Spin Offs in PROSE such as Lethbridge-Stewart and Erimem, I know we have one for audio, so should the above be the case?
- PicassoAndPringles
We do, at Doctor Who spin-offs, but it's not up to date.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thanks P&P
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187331
Why is Search Out Space NOT VALID?
- AeD
I haven't seen it, so, y'know, pinch of salt, but I'd imagine it probably breaks rule 1 or 4 of the four rules.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187601
The Husbands of River Song shows the Twelfth Doctor with River Song visiting Darilium and the Singing Towers. But does that make Last Night invalid. In Last Night the older Eleventh Doctor confirmed to the younger Eleventh Doctor that THAT was their last night before he sent her to the Library (in Forest of the Dead/Silence in the Library). And wasn't their last night together the point where he gave her the screwdriver? And in Silence in the Library River said that the Doctor showed up on her door-step with a new haircut and a suit, and he shows up like that in Last Night AND The Husbands of River Song. Plus The Husbands of River Song doesn't say that this is their last night, but the Doctor says this himself in Last Night. The title even says this.
I'm confused at this The Husbands of River Song/Last Night thing.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I think it's a time before???
- Thefartydoctor
Nonono. It's suggested that Last Night was just another occasion where the Doctor couldn't bring himself to take River there and thus cancelled it. Remember how River mentioned the Doctor constantly cancelling at the last minute?
Furthermore, if you rewatch Last Night, the past Eleventh Doctor asks the Future Eleventh Doctor whether or not he was about to attend River's final night. He responds with "Spoilers" rather than a yes or no.
Just some food for thought but, in my opinion, this was just another story depicting them mid-adventure with the intent of reaching Darillium but, as usual, the Doctor simply cancelled due him knowing the significance of this trip and not feeling ready.
- Danniesen
Thanks. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187609
Why in the categories isn't Voyage of the Damned classed as being set on Christmas Day. It is, the scene with titanic and the end with Mr Copper.
- Thefartydoctor
I also am intrigued. Wilf states "London? At Christmas? It isn't safe." I'm wondering whether the TARDIS Wiki crew is simply assuming Wilf could be referring to the Christmas period rather than the day. Either way, as the Titanic is heading for Buckingham Palace, the newsreader does state that Christmas was underway and that it seemed to have gone without alien intervention. Furthermore, the Queen wishes the Doctor "Merry Christmas".
If we also wish to drag forward Turn Left as a last resort, despite it being a different episode altogether, their version of this event does indeed take place on Christmas Day.
- SOTO
Huh. I don't see why it shouldn't be added to the category, but now that this is a public discussion let's see what others have to say. Maybe there's a reason behind this, after all.
- Tybort
I need to rewatch, but it crosses over to midnight on Christmas Day at some point, doesn't it? I think one of the people on the Titanic looks at a watch. Certainly if the Doctor expects people to be Christmas shopping, then it (not the whole episode, but the scene when the Titanic passsengers teleport down and the Doctor speaks to Wilf) not ON Christmas Day, because the presents would have been bought and people off at home.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
The end with Mr. Copper and the titanic crashing.
- Thefartydoctor
I watched it only a couple of days ago. The scene with Wilf, now I think back, indeed mentions Christmas shopping. You're right there. But the day scene featuring the Queen and Buckingham Palace must surely take place on Christmas Day due to the news reporter stating that this year Christmas seems to have taken place without alien intervention.
If that's not enough to bring to the debate then maybe the scene at the very end with Mr Copper and the Tenth Doctor. Mr Copper wonders whether the snow is the ballast of the ship burning up in the lower atmosphere. The Doctor hopes that one Christmas there'll be real snow. If we include this as one of RTD's annual "fake snow" in-jokes, then this just adds to the case.
- Tybort
I'm pretty sure the first scene with Wilf is on Christmas Eve and by the time of the Titanic is crashing and about to hit Buckingham Palace it's become Christmas Day. But it's not fresh in my memory to confirm it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187718
I noticed that the Skaro page seems to be in a jumble and I need to make sense of it. Is the bellow right?
^ Skaro was born ^^The Seventh Doctor destroyed it in TV: Remembrance of the Daleks. ^^^The Daleks rebuilt it in the Last Great Time War. ^^^^It was later destroyed in the war according to TV: Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks. ^^^^^ The New Daleks saved it from an the final days of the war (probably the whole left by Caan) in TV: Asylum of the Daleks. ^^^^^^ The Daleks then recreate it ready for TV: The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar.
Am I right???
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187721
I was wondering if i could start a project on this wiki where I create pages for each piece of incidental music of that hasn't already been done? May I do this as I don't want to step on anyone's toes?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:187727
Just adding some pages for BBV Production actors that having got any, such as villagers and UNIT Soldiers from Auton 2. Any tips I should know?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188213
This may be just future proofing. I am yet to find existing examples where it is needed (I will try). Such a situation, however, was discussed as a possibility in Thread:183821.
The unlikely situation I propose allowing additional redirects for is when there is a character
- whose name requires a dab term and
- who appears in different media.
The T:DAB policy says: Characters are named according to the story (or episode) they first appeared in, even if they appear in subsequent stories for which they are arguably more famous. Experienced users interpret the first episode as being the first across all the media where the character appeared.
A good example from the above mentioned thread was Martha Jones, whose dab term would have been Martha Jones (Made of Steel) (if it were needed). Meaning no disrespect to the novel, personally I would have trouble finding the proper Martha among those I am searching for (if there were more than one). The policy also states: Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever the possible topics might be.
I am not proposing to change the dabbing policy for the actual page. I understand that simple rules are easy to follow, which makes editing more accessible. But I think I have found a compromise that simultaneously makes searching easier and the Wikia more user-friendly.
Why not allow creating a redirect from the first appearances in other media to the properly named page?
For instance, were Martha in need of a dab term, we could have a redirect Martha Jones (Smith and Jones) to Martha Jones (Made of Steel). The point is that the search field shows redirects. Try typing "Melody Pond" in the search field. By the end of it, you will have only one hit: "River Song". Thus, in presence of such a redirect, typing "Martha Jones (S" would presumably result in only one hit, the correct one.
I do not propose this as a universal blanket policy for every character appearing in more than one medium. But the current policy explicitly mentions possible difficulties when a character is famous for some subsequent episode, exactly the case of Martha. One could object by saying that the disambiguation page would guide the search. There are, however, two problems with sending people to the disambig page
- It makes search longer than just using the search field.
- The policy advises against a disambig page if there are only two characters with such a name.
So at best one would need to go through an extra step of going to a disambiguation page. At worst, he/she would need to read both of the character pages to figure out which one they need. It is for such cases that a redirect would improve user experience.
There is a real case like this actually that is handled in a non-traditional way (again, this is not my example): Jack Harkness vs. Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness). The former one is seemingly treated as a primary topic instead of giving him a dab term: Jack Harkness (The Empty Child). The second character is only present in the Torchwood series, so someone familiar with Torchwood and this Wikia policies but unfamiliar with Doctor Who might benefit from a redirect from Jack Harkness (Everything Changes) to whatever the page for Jack is named.
- SOTO
You have to remember, though, that redirects don't only affect search queries. Autosuggest also pops up when you're editing. Do we really want links popping up across the wiki that do point to the right place, but use the very much incorrect disambiguation term?
Yes, blanket rules can be troublesome with certain cases, but they're also useful at making sure certain dilemmas can never happen at all. They're also great with blanket rule forts.
On the other hand, this is the cleanest solution to that sort of problem if we do propose solving it in any way. Redirects, especially redirects with just a difference in disambiguation, are pretty muted. Without looking at the source of an article which uses that dab, you might not ever notice any difference. Perhaps we'd maintain a bot list of these redirects, and every once in a while I'd run my bot to replace Jack Harkness (Hidden)—for his first audio story—with Jack Harkness (The Empty Child). (I'm assuming here that in your final example, you meant to suppose that's how we'd treat it if Jack Harkness were, in fact, dabbed.)
- SOTO
Also, if this were at all implemented, I think we would make it convention to create these redirects for every dabbed character who appears in more than one medium. Rules need to be clear. If we say dab the article with the story in which the character first appeared, and then create redirects with dabs for each first story in other media, then we still have a clear rule.
This is certainly an interesting new idea brought to the table. I can't say yet whether or not I support it.
- Amorkuz
Just to avoid misinterpretation, in the bot example above, I meant the redirect to point to Jack Harkness (The Empty Child), I think that is his first ever appearance.
- Bwburke94
The problem here is that Amorkuz has a tendency to define "medium" differently than how this wiki defines it. Until we know what was actually proposed, we can't go forward with this.
- Amorkuz
I actually agree (though I've only realized my understanding of a medium was different after proposing this). However, this really doesn't matter. No one's gonna change the Wikia's definition of a medium on account of me. And we should not treat different media differently anyway (I'm too short on time to search for the link to the neutral-point-of-view policy). So, for instance, we should not separate different TV shows if we do not also separate different Big Finish ranges or at least audios produced by different companies, etc.
I think the only thing worth discussing is whether my suggestion makes sense for the standard accepted definition of a medium.
Notwithstanding, I would be happy to explain what I meant (and what I think of it now), but a bit later, say, in about a week's time.
- Amorkuz
Okay, I'm almost back to DWU.
My proposal is based on the model of a Whovian as someone who is only aware of some part of the DWU. This part can be larger or smaller, but I'd hazard a guess that very few of us are familiar with TV and AUDIO and COMIC and PROSE. Worse than that, many of us do not care to be acquainted with all of them. The reasons can be multiple: from the lack of money to buy everything to the desire to minimize inconsistencies. Yes the latter desire runs contrary to the policies of this Wikia. But I believe the policies should be applied to articles, not to users. If I am not willing to entertain the alternative stories from Lungbarrow (novel) for the time being, I still should be able to navigate this Wikia.
Notwithstanding the neutral point of view policy, I tried to imagine various information flows a person can exist in. I know I am completely separate from books and comic books: so no reference to them is useful for me. This also means that I cannot suggest an efficient way of implementing this proposal for these two media (in the standard sense). I simply do not understand the information flows there.
Let me replace the term medium, which I used to misuse, by a neutral one: DW source, a source of DW stories. For me the DW series is a source (maybe even two sources). Torchwood is another source. Sara Jane Chronicles is a third. Big Finish audios is a source. AudioGo audios is another source.
Where is the boundary of a source? How do I determine that this is the end of one source and the beginning of the other? By the way information about it is presented by the producer and by way the character is introduced in the story. Why do I think that Torchwood is its own source but BF Main Range belongs to the same source as Companion Chronicles (I do not pick the hardest examples on purpose)? Because I am likely to check BF website when checking the Main Range releases and there is information about Companion Chronicles there. Because Behind-the-Scenes mention characters jumping back-and-forth. Because subscribing to the Main Range I get a discount for the Chronicles. So, in my mind, a person interested in the Main Range would be aware of Companion Chronicles and vice versa. Here's a simple example: when you see Charley in the companion chronicle Solitaire (audio story), she is not introduced as a new character, and I fail to imagine a person considering the information about her prior travels with the Eighth Doctor irrelevant.
By contrast, if you turn on Netflix and start watching Torchwood, you don't get much info about Doctor Who. Jack Harkness gets an introduction. References back are done in such a way that one does not need to watch Doctor Who. The case of Sara Jane is even clearer as it was intended for younger viewers, for whom supposedly Doctor Who was not yet appropriate. Also it's hard to require all Whovians to watch something they might dismiss as a teeny show.
So yes, for me each TV series is a separate DW source because I can imagine people watching one and not being aware/caring to be sufficiently aware of the other. In other words, I break the medium TV into DW sources by series name. I apply a different principle to the medium AUDIO based on my own experience. I break AUDIO into DW sources by producer. If you listen to Big Finish, you may not be able to buy all of their releases, but you are likely to treat them all with equal respect and would benefit from the knowledge of other appearances of the same character because there exist story arcs connecting different ranges. At the same time, various other audiobooks produced by AudioGo I am truly not aware of. They have a different production team, I cannot be sure this production team sees eye-to-eye with the BF one. I have the right to concentrate on one of them.
Bottomline. If I watch Doctor Who, it is somewhat likely that I've never seen a title of a single Torchwood story. If I listen to Big Finish, it is rather likely that I've never seen any AudioGo titles. If I watch new Doctor Who, I am likely to pick up some relevant/famous classic story names. If I listen to BF Main Range, I am likely to bump into story names from other ranges on the website, in the Vortex, in the CD Extras, etc.
How the book and comic strip readers search for information, I don't know. My first guess would be by producer: If I'm browsing through Titan Comics on Comixology, I am likely to see various titles by them. But if anything is decided, an input from those familiar with these media will be needed.
Now, if we assume that for each two DW sources, S1 and S2, there is a person interested in S1 but not aware of S2 where a character first appeared, this person would benefit from the proposed redirect from Character (First story in S1) to the actual page Character (First story in S2).
My guess is that there would be not too many of such redirects needed. If a character was reused, he/she/it/they are usually important enough to be given a unique name. If a character is used in more than two sources requiring multiple redirects, he might turn out to be a primary topic, so that redirects would not be needed.
- Bwburke94
By this point, I have no clue what the original poster is trying to say. I've given up on this proposal for being too complex.
- Tangerineduel
I'm a little puzzled by Amorkuz's questions as they're all laid out in our policies.
- A source is defined at T:VS.
Things that are in the behind the scenes, on the BF website or wherever else, aren't.
For Amorkuz "model" for someone who's not familiar with the Doctor Who universe. We've constructed the wiki to provide all the information in the Doctor Who universe, governed by our policies. We can't design it based on a perception of what someone who doesn't know / doesn't want to know about certain parts of the DWU.
- Amorkuz
Tangerineduel wrote: I'm a little puzzled by Amorkuz's questions as they're all laid out in our policies.
- A source is defined at T:VS.
Things that are in the behind the scenes, on the BF website or wherever else, aren't.
For Amorkuz "model" for someone who's not familiar with the Doctor Who universe. We've constructed the wiki to provide all the information in the Doctor Who universe, governed by our policies. We can't design it based on a perception of what someone who doesn't know / doesn't want to know about certain parts of the DWU.
My god, so "medium" and "source," which I used in their dictionary sense, are technical wiki terms I accidentally misused, and "information flow" is too complex to comprehend.
However it may be, if indeed this wiki is not designed for people who do not yet know all parts of the DWU and is not designed to help them learn, then clearly my proposal makes no sense.
I based it on an assumption that the level of knowledge expected of the users is if you've made it here, you know that Doctor Who is a British television programme, as well as some other very basic details. (T:EVIL TWIN)
- Amorkuz
An example has presented itself that perfectly illustrates my original idea, however unclearly it was presented originally.
The page Gully (In the Blood) was created based on the audio story, released May 16, 2016. It was not known until today to any of the editors that the same character also appeared in the book In the Blood by the same writer released May 12, 2016. I just put the page for a speedy rename. But it makes sense to leave a redirect from "Gully (In the Blood)" to "Gully (In the Blood)". It was such redirects that I was proposing.
- Bwburke94
This is a perfect example - it shouldn't happen in every case, only for those in which there can be legitimate confusion over what story the character debuted in.
- Amorkuz
I adapt my original position and agree with Bwburke94 that it should not be applied in all cases. To provide an actionable rule, here is a proposal:
If
- a character is first introduced in a story released by one production company,
- within 3 months from its release, the same character appears in a story released by another production company and
- the character's name requires a dab term,
then a redirect from "Character (Story 2)" to "Character (Story 1)" is created.
Justification for the time period. After some time, it is reasonable to consider the character established in the DWU. 3 months seems a reasonable time period. Note that the releases of some stories are dated only by a month. In such cases, a 3-month window still guarantees at least 1 month between the actual releases.
Additional justification for the redirect. The case of Gully highlighted another possible problem. The events of the book In the Blood, published by BBC Books on May 12, happen after the events of the audio story Time Reaver, published by Big Finish Productions on May 16. The two stories are written by the same author, but I can't imagine it was the author's intent for the book to be read first. At least one professional reviewer complained that reading the book ruins the suspense for the audio by revealing the fate of Gully. While it can be argued that the same production company should take care of such things, release processes can be hard to control in different production companies. Thus, a proposed redirect may serve to partially fulfil the authorial intent destroyed by production cycles.
- Bwburke94
Bumping.
I'm not sure exactly what the real-world timeline is for Martha Jones, but she'd be an obvious example here if she were to require a dab term.
Opening a new discussion on this topic does not violate Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. Anyone wishing to open a new discussion on this topic, please provide a link to this one.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188305
How about individual incarnations of the master pages, like the Doctor (a main one and individual). We don't specifically know the numbering of the Master except that Delgado-Pratt-Beevers are all the same incarnation, 13. But when as this ever mattered, if it did The War Doctor would become nine and the ninth would become 10 and so on. The titles could be based on conjecture for example (""Tremas" Master" is a title based upon conjecture.)like Donna's World ("Donna's World" is a title based upon conjecture.). So how about individual Master pages like this;
First Master (We know this from The Sound of Drums) William Hughes (Maybe 2nd-12th individually as we know they exist from The Deadly Assassin and The Dark Path) Thirteenth Master (As we know The Deadly Assassin, Legacy of the Daleks) Delgado, Pratt, Beevers and the "John Smith" version which is practically this master reverted to before body jumping. "Tremas" Master ("Tremas" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) Ainley, Tipple (If not confirmed behind the scenes section) "Bruce" Master ("Bruce" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) Eric Roberts, Paul McGann "Tzun" Master ("Tzun" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) War Master ("War" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) Alex MacQueen Yana or "Yana" Master ("Yana" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) Derek Jacobi Harold Saxon or "Saxon" Master ("Saxon" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) John Simm Missy or Mistress or ("Missy" Master is a title based upon conjecture.) or ("Missy" is a title based upon conjecture.)
How about that, we just need to decide as a group if this is what the wiki shall do, hence why I brought it to the Panopticon for discussion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188839
I've been discussing this with SOTO and Amorkuz and we need to know what you think. A category for Sound alikes of the Doctor, though JUST voice not appearance (even in audios if they're intended to look like him). In the category we could have, the Silver Doctor and some of David Tennant's audio roles (which we know sound like the Doctor). Are there any more? What do you people think?
- SOTO
I've voiced my opinion on your talk page. I can't really see how this could pass T:CAT NAME. First off, "sound alikes" isn't really a term. Secondly, as you just pointed out, it could be used both for articles like the Silver Doctor—meant to be a Doctor duplicate, sounds like him—and for those characters who are simply played by an actor who portrays the Doctor. If no connection is really made in the DWU source, who are we to go beyond that and speculate, based on something that's really quite common in productions like those, and not intended to have any meaning at all (using/reusing actors who've been in other, possibly major roles).
Another big issue with the proposed category is that it would undoubtedly overlap with category:Look alikes of the Doctor quite a bit.
Please take note that, while this discussion is ongoing, you cannot create or populate that category, as it would be violating T:POINT.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
ok SOTO =D
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188848
I came across this in the main episode list, what is it? I've search and can't find it.
- AdricLovesNyssa
It's fan fiction the user who has added has previously been banned for adding fan fiction to this wiki
- DENCH-and-PALMER
oh okay, thanks =D
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188874
Can I start a category for stories that do not feature the Doctor?
- KingOrokos
I don't see why not - I'm presuming it'd have to be 'Doctor Who Stories which do not feature the Doctor', or something like that, otherwise you'd have to include most of SJA, Torchwood, etc (unless that was what you were going for).
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Doctor Who stories without the Doctor was my intention =D.
- SOTO
Might I remind you again that whilst any discussion is ongoing, you may not act on it. I would advise you to undo your recent work adding to the category which you suggested, and then mark the category for deletion. Until a discussion is closed by an admin—and unless the ruling was in favour of said action—you may not edit the wiki to reflect your opinions on the matter being discussed.
T:POINT is a serious—and often blockable—offense. I'm glad that you're bringing up suggested categories in the forums, and I do think you should continue doing so rather than simply creating the category itself. That way, if it doesn't pass T:CAT NAME and cannot be allowed to stand, you won't have wasted your time populating it, and we won't have to clean up after it either. With that in mind, please don't create categories while they are in discussion unless an admin tells you that you may. Thank you.
Also, the category you might be looking for is category:Doctor-lite stories, though that category may as well be deleted, because it does seem to violate T:CAT NAME by being too vague and undefined, and therefore impossible to maintain.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Sorry, Soto, I wasn't aware of this. How do I delete the category I created? I'm sorry Soto, I didn't mean any harm. I do hope we can still remain friends. Sorry for an inconvenience caused.
- SOTO
Once you're removed all the pages, just slap the template {{delete}} at the top, and I'll take care of it. Non-admins cannot delete pages themselves. :)
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Without sounding foolish, how do I remove the pages?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I've got it, =D. sorry for the inconvenience.
- SOTO
I would recommend at this point that you start trying out source editing. If you click on the little arrow next to edit, a dropdown will give you that option. There, in the bottom left corner, is a list of all the categories on the page. You can remove this category from each page there by hitting the trash button next to the name.
Otherwise, in VisualEditor (the editor I'm assuming you typically use), you remove categories the same way you add 'em. Options > Categories > Click on category > Hit trash
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I've removed them all, how do I delete the category page?
- SOTO
Again, leave the {{rename}} template at the top, and I will. I just want to make sure you know what do, for future.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I can't find the category page Soto, sorry =(.
- SOTO
It's at category:Doctor Who stories that don't feature the Doctor and indeed empty. Good job.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
=D Thanks pal
- SOTO
The category page has been deleted. Any thoughts from others on this category proposition?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:188998
Following discussion on the topic yesterday, I split the Trap street article into two articles - one for the concept, one for the specific location - Trap Street, London. This creates a problem as most of the articles that link to Trap street are referring to the location, not the concept - meaning they are now incorrectly linked. I've been going through and fixing the links manually, but I don't have time to do all of them right now. Is anybody else willing to go through and fix them? There's a list of pages which contain links to 'Trap Street' at http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Trap_street
If there's a really obvious solution to this that I'm not aware of, or if this is the wrong place to be posting this sort of thing, my apologies. If nobody else has the time to do it I'll get round to it eventually, but it'll be over the course of a couple of days.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189026
I first noticed something was out of place when The Wikipedia story count counts The Husbands of River Song as story 261 whereas this wiki counts it as 160. I decided to find where the problem lies and then I found that this wiki counts A Good Man Goes to War / Let's Kill Hitler as 1 story whereas on Wikipedia it's 2. I'm not sure which is the most accurate or whether it should be changed?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
AGMGTW and LKH are two separate stories.
- Bold Clone
At the moment the matter (whether or not they should be considered a two-parter) is under discussion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189040
If one was to refer to a single episode of a story e.g. Destiny of the Daleks, would the story name and part/episode number be separate by a ',' or a ':' or anything else. as in Destiny of the Daleks, Episode one or Destiny of the Daleks: Episode one.
- Tangerineduel
Citing on in-universe pages putting the story title's is enough. You don't need to narrow it down episode, see T:CITE.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189256
I've noticed that we have two separate pages, one for Peter Capaldi and the other for Peter Capaldi (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who), this is good. Should we do this for Stephen Fry and Miles Richardson who are also in universe. For example In Universe and Real World are totally different places, so wouldn't it be "normal" to create one in universe page and another Real World. Can't wait to hear what you guys think, personally I think it's a great idea.
- Bwburke94
We have a previous discussion regarding this. See Thread:184716.
- SOTO
The issue becomes one of diambiguation. For example, Matt Smith (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) is dabbed as an exception to regular T:DAB rules because it would simply be absurd to move Matt Smith—the real world actor—to Matt Smith (actor), simply because of an appearance in one comic which takes place in an alternate universe.
See the thing is, when something from the DWU and something from the real world have the same name or title, we always dab the real world topic, but never the DWU one (unless there's another DWU topic by the same name).
But if we break that for Matt Smith, Peter Capaldi, etc, this then becomes a debate on—should John Cleese be the DWU character, or is real world Cleese's single Doctor Who contribution significant enough for him to get the same treatment? Or does the real world info just go in a behind the scenes section? That's what we do at Brian Blessed.
And so you see, at that point we're in a place of extreme ambiguity, where editors call precedent from different examples, and do very different things for different people that don't necessarily have any basis in policy.
Really, there can be only two ways to approach that:
- Define very clearly the limited scope of which real world articles are primary topics. Let's say, just for example, any actor who is in the primary cast of a season or series in either TV or audio—Peter Capaldi, Patrick Troughton Elisabeth Sladen, Lalla Ward, Lisa Bowerman, etc—is deemed to be the primary topic for that name, but only those cases.
- Make an exception for every topic which we cover somebody—the exact same person, the same singular entity—from both in-universe and real world perspectives. This would not apply to any situation where the DWU character is different from the real world person, despite the shared name. This only makes any sense if it's because we're covering the same person. However—this does not make for a very clear rule, because we want T:DAB to be as straight-forward as possible. I do not recommend this option. I'm also weary of this because John Cleese, for example, is mentioned in more than one story, and it would make much more sense to simply house him at John Cleese rather than whichever one happened to have been published first. And what would count? TV Action! is his only true appearance, so is that the first one? And what if the first mention doesn't give the full name, but the second one does? For cases like these, if split up, it would make muuuuch more sense to simply have John Cleese and John Cleese (actor).
In short, if we are to make more in-universe articles for real world Doctor Who actors and production crew, I think the only way to properly go about it if to give the undabbed name to the DWU individual, only making exceptions based on one clearly defined rule:
- If an actor's name is featured pre-titles for a season (or is a primary character/companion for a great deal of audios), that real world actor is a primary topic. If a crew member is above the line—director, producer, writer, script editor in old Who—for a great deal of TV stories or for an entire season, they might be primary topics too. (Not sure on that last one right now. But by that rule, if Chris Chibnall for some reason were to appear in a DWU story, he'd get the main name and the DWU character would get dabbed.)
And you can see this is a messy issue, from a technical and from an administrative point of view. We always place priority on in-universe topics, and I think exceptions like Matt Smith should be few.
Keeping the two on one page—whether a DWU page with a "behind the scenes" section, or a real world page with an "in the DWU" section—is often a very simple and clean solution.
More questions arise than answers once you start to delve into the crossroads between the two worlds, which we treat very, very distinctly here. Should Bill Bailey be an in-universe topic with a behind the scenes section covering his one acting credit? Or Bill Bailey and Bill Bailey (actor) for the real world guy? Bill Bailey certainly shouldn't just be the RW actor, because he's in no way a primary topic, and T:DAB always, always applies, with very few exceptions. I'm not surprised at all that people just added DWU information to the bottom of real world pages, because this titling issue can be messy business.
- SOTO
Ah, I forgot there was a prior discussion in the forums on this.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I understand SOTO, thanks for the reply =D
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189319
It just occurred to me, if there was a Doctor Who special story which we would usually consider INVALID due to general stupidity or disregard for continuity and the Doctor present within the TV story/comic/novel/audio/skit/webcast/game/short story specifically stated that the story was INVALID (breaking the fourth wall) would it be canon? As it would have been stated as VALID though would it's INVALIDicity overrule the fact it's established Validity? Or would it's Valdity be enough to make it Valid? Just wanted to know in case something like this occurred. For example Dimensions in Time, if it said in a through away gag that it was VALID, would it be and would this apply for any BBC INVALID stories?
- PicassoAndPringles
Doctor Who doesn't have a canon. See Tardis:Canon policy.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well it does but I understand not here, however replace Canon with the word VALID and Non Canon with the word INVALID, do you see what I mean?
- SOTO
Doctor Who does not have an established canon. It does not. No one with the authority to state what is or is not "canon" has attempted to do so, with the only one exception being The Adventure Games. Please read through T:CAN, also linked above.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I understand that but non canon is often enough established, so usually what's left would be the canon (most cases). Though I do value what you say.
We simply cannot declare stories valid on the basis of their "stupidity" or their challenges to continuity. Were we to do so, we'd be forced to call contradictory television stories invalid, and we have no mechanism for deciding which of the contradictory (but otherwise valid) stories were the more "correct".
Truth is, there are an awful lot of stories in all media, which challenge each other. As has been pointed out by many writers, this is the natural result of time travel.
So that's why we choose which stories to include in the writing of our in-universe articles by means of our broadly inclusive four little rules. And that naturally means your question is based on an incorrect assumption about our policies, and, as has been pointed out by other good people above me, a misapprehension about the nature of "canon".
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189427
I was wondering if I could add a list in the behind the scenes section a mini-list stating that they also appeared in... For example the Master from The Curse of Fatal Death is definitely not the Master, so my idea wouldn't include this. My idea includes the Seventh Doctor (for example), say in the behind the scenes section we add a mini-list of other appearances of Sylvester McCoy as the Seventh Doctor, so for example Search Out Space and Dimensions in Time. However the Daleks did appear in The Curse of Fatal Death, maybe not the same Master or Doctor but the Daleks did, so in the Daleks section we could have; not valid appearances include The Dalek Movies, The Curse of Fatal Death, The Last Dalek (game) and LEGO Dimensions. This wouldn't include parodies or pastiche just actual Doctors and actual Species in stories that are just invalid due to general discontinuity. actual Daleks and actual Incarnations of the Doctor (not parodies), may I go ahead, it seems sensible and complete.
See, you're kinda not quite getting the status of "invalid" (or NOTVALID) stories on this wiki. Perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear, so I apologise if I've been ambiguous.
Let me try again.
We don't declare things invalid because of discontinuity. Far too many instances of discontinuity exist in televised Doctor Who alone for that to possibly be an organising principle for this wiki.
Rather, we go by our four little rules.
By wiki convention, an invalid story is wholly valid — or it's not. So if, as in your example, Dalek props are used in a story declared invalid, like Curse, the DWU species known as "the Daleks" aren't deemed to have appeared in any sense that is of use to this wiki. The story is itself invalid, and so the appearance of everything within also is also invalid.
To make this crystal clear, the following things are true, as far as this wiki is concerned:
- Daleks didn't appear in The Curse of Fatal Death.
- Neither the Sixth Doctor nor the Brigadier appeared in Dimensions in Time.
- Dr What is not Dr Who, the Doctor, or indeed the First Doctor
- Category:Second Doctor stories should not include LEGO Dimensions.
NOTVALID means, well, not valid. There should be a clear, bold, bright red line of division between everything that's in NOTVALID stories and everything that's in valid stories. Please stop trying to find any which way to bring greater prominence to NOTVALID stories by mixing their contents into the larger pool of DWU information.
This wiki is not primarily about NOTVALID stories. Please stop putting so much energy into these kind of stories. And in particular, please stop mixing information about invalid and valid ones by putting them in the same categories, creating lists of appearances, and the like. We are seeking to more definitively separate and de-emphasise information about NOTVALID stories — not make it more prominent.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189606
Woah! it seems that wikipedia.org is now again considering The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived as separate stories. AND Hell Bent / Heaven Sent are now separate stories. It's almost as if every time I look at the list of serials it's different. Why is it so fluctuant?
- AeD
This site has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so you'll probably have better luck asking this question on a Wikipedia talk page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189618
I know we may have talked about this befopre but can someone remind me of the answer, does archive footage (in the sense of a Flashback) count on the Metaltron and Face of Boe pages it seems to, where as others it does not?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:189696
The "Time Field" page went through much discussion over the name being changed from "the cracks" or "cracks in time" to it's current name, which seemed to only be mentioned by the Eleventh Doctor in one episode. We later find out that these cracks, this Time Field, is caused by a Total Event Collapse. I want to propose that the two articles are, in essence, the same thing and, while not merging the pages, information should be transferred from one to the other.
It occurred to me that, if the TEC made every star go nova at every point in time, thereby causing the whole universe never to have existed, then how/why would it leave cracks, two parts of time and space that should never have touched? I think the War deals with this, where parts of an event can drift backwards in time, so that would make sense. But this is almost like classifying an explosion and the flames from it as two different things (I understand they are different, but they are connected as well). I also wanted to suggest this because the bulk of "Time Field" is centered on the cracks, when there are multiple sources that refer to other time fields, in another context separate from the cracks. "Time Field" would become like "time stream," with multiply references listed, while the primary information concerning the cracks in time be moved to "Total Event Collapse" as that's the event that creates them. What do people think?
- HarveyWallbanger
I think it would be a good idea to have:
- one single page for "Total event collapse" and "Cracks in time" (this one as a sub-section)
- a "Time field" page with any other meaning and use of the title, with a mention to the cracks in time and a link to that sub-section
- SOTO
Note that this will require a lot of links to be changed, at least semi-manually.
I do agree, though. Having the information at Time Field always felt very odd to me.
I actually wouldn't mind at all fully capitalising Total Event Collapse (though not time field), because it is an event. It's the name given to an event, much like Big Bang or Big Bang Two.
Incidentally, shouldn't that be Big Bang II? We tend to use Roman numerals for events, people and planets. I'd be interested to know what UK subtitles say, though.
- Steed
Subtitles, or even the scripts if someone can access them; depending on how the other sources spell it, it could be "Time Field" or "time field" or "time-field" or "temporal field." My point is that the cracks stem from the collapse, and are not the only time field.
- SOTO
I was also wondering how subtitles give us "Big Bang Two" and "Total Event Collapse". Can somebody check their copy?
- Steed
I would like to reiterate the point of this page. The "time field" currently relates to the cracks in time in series 5, but there are numerous references to other time fields, meaning the article should be an overview.
- 176.248.117.34
I think that parts of the Time Field section may want merging with the Total Event Collapse, mainly the cracks caused by the collapse but the parts on the Classic definition should remain seperate or possibly be merged with the Time Vortex, given it seems that they are closely linked or possibly the same thing, depending upon your point of view.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Personally, I feel like all three pages are warranted.
Total Event Collapse was, by my understanding, the final consequence of the TARDIS's exposion, namely all of time and space disintegrating, “every sun going supernova at every moment in History”, etc. It's not a perfect analogy, but covering the Cracks on Total Event Collapse is not unlike covering the Hand of Omega on the page Destruction of Skaro.
As for a Time field, it really isn't the same thing. The Cracks emit a time field, but they are not, nor are they ever referred to, as "time fields" per se.
Plus, there is the issue of clarity for readers. People will be looking for the Cracks in Time, because that is what they're always called; they won't go looking on the page for the phenomenon of Total Event Collapse, and certainly not on that of the wider concept of Time Field.
- Steed
Fair point. Even though I still think the cracks are part of the collapse, I think it would be far better if the cracks in time were distinguished from time fields.
- NateBumber
Scrooge MacDuck wrote: Plus, there is the issue of clarity for readers. People will be looking for the Cracks in Time, because that is what they're always called; they won't go looking on the page for the phenomenon of Total Event Collapse, and certainly not on that of the wider concept of Time Field.
I think this is the most important concern. Currently, Time field is dedicated to covering the phenomenon known to most of the not we as "cracks in time". This does not work because multiple Doctor Who stories have featured a "time field" completely separate from the cracks in time, and we need a page that covers the generic idea of time fields. For the reasons Scrooge gave above, it doesn't make sense to move the information about the cracks in time to Total Event Collapse, and “Time field (The Time of the Doctor)” wouldn't make much sense.
- NateBumber
Per my response above, I posit that the best solution is to
- Create a page called Cracks in time for most of the information currently present on Time field, plus an explanation of the cracks' connection to the time field; and
- Turn Time field into a neutral hub for the idea of a time field, with links to Cracks in time as well as discussions of other time fields like The Time Monster, The Claws of Axos, etc.
- Leave Total event collapse alone, it's fine.
- HarveyWallbanger
I agree, NateBumber, that's what I had been advocating for years.
- Steed
I kinda do understand how the cracks in time, although caused by the TEC, are their own phenomenon, so if there are two separate articles that'd be good. As long as the time field page refers in general to the various instances of time fields and the cracks in time are their own article. I don't know anything about administrating the wikia, is there a way we can move forward on this and see if it can get approved?
- Shambala108
Can I just ask, in a general way, for people to stop red-linking pages or images that aren't meant to exist? It's extra work for the admins to have to clean up thanks.
- NateBumber
We just need an admin to stop by (as User:Shambala108 just did above) and give us the thumbs up to make the changes!
Steed wrote:
I don't know anything about administrating the wikia, is there a way we can move forward on this and see if it can get approved?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190172
As they weren't advertisements but actual prequels, can we add pages for them. Strax's Cinema Introduction (theatrical story) or Untitled (Strax Cinema Introduction) or The Day of the Doctor prequel 1 (theatrical story). AND. The Doctor's Introduction (theatrical story) or The Day of the Doctor prequel 2 or Untitled (Doctor Cinema Introduction). AND. Deep Breath: Cinema Introducion (theatrical story) or Deep Breath prequel (theatrical story) or Untitled (Deep Breath cinema intro). They are proper stories, especially the Deep Breath one.
- SOTO
I remember the TDOTD intro. That was not a story. And (theatrical story) is not a dab term we use.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
The Deep Breath one definitely was. And I used the dab as a maybe thing, it was released on DVD as well.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190365
- KingOrokos
I'm not entirely sure which information takes priority. I think it's notable that Ashildr is her original name, her 'legal' name if you like, and also that all of the official scripts refer to her as Ashildr. I do think 'Me' should redirect to Ashildr, though.
- Bwburke94
- SOTO
Well me could very easily be an article on the personal pronoun, making light of the fact that Ashildr identified by that name alone.
- Bwburke94
SOTO wrote: Well me could very easily be an article on the personal pronoun, making light of the fact that Ashildr identified by that name alone.
Do personal pronouns need articles, though? I don't believe so.
- SOTO
And there could easily be a myself as well (think Day of the Doctor).
- AeD
CLARA: Who are you talking to?
DOCTORS: Myself.Well, yeah, but he's not actually talking to the individual person known as Myself. Me, on the other hand:
DOCTOR: Oh, Ashildr, I'm sorry.
ASHILDR: Who's Ashildr?
DOCTOR: You are. That's your name. Ashildr, daughter of Einarr. Chuckles. I used to call him Chuckles. Do you remember?
ASHILDR: Yes. I think I remember the village.
DOCTOR: You loved that village.
ASHILDR: If you say so.
DOCTOR: Anyone in that village would have died for you.
ASHILDR: Well, they're all dead now, and here I am. So, I guess it all worked out.
DOCTOR: Ashildr.
ASHILDR: That's not my name. I don't even remember that name.
DOCTOR: Well, what, what, what do you call yourself?
ASHILDR: Me.
DOCTOR: Yes, you. There's nobody else here.
ASHILDR: No. I call myself Me. All the other names I chose died with whoever knew me. Me is who I am now. No one's mother, daughter, wife. My own companion. Singular. Unattached. Alone. Anyway, I should get started. Jump on, I'll give you a ride. You can help me.
She's later referred to by Llewellyn and Sam as "Lady Me" a few times, and in Face the Raven two of the streetsfolk, who clearly know and respect her, refer to her as "Mayor Me", to which the Doctor responds:
RUMP: Mayor Me.
CLARA: Ashildr.
ASHILDR: Ashildr?
DOCTOR: That's your name. I keep telling you that.
ASHILDR: Do you? Infinite lifespan, finite memory. It makes for an awkward social life.
And then in Heaven Sent
DOCTOR: Ashildr
ASHILDR: Me.
DOCTOR: Me, go to hell. By my calculations, you've got about five minutes.
(I haven't read The Legends of Ashildr yet, so if anyone has, feel free to chime in.)
There's really only a single televised story where Me is okay being called "Ashildr," and three where she makes a point of correcting the Doctor.
I'll grant you [[Me]] might be confusing, but I think if anything is clear, it's that the article, if nothing else, absolutely shouldn't be at [[Ashildr]].
- Bwburke94
- SOTO
"Well, yeah, but he's not actually talking to the individual person known as Myself."
Never said he was. I believe you're missing my point:
[[me]], if anything, would be an article on the personal pronoun. There would certainly be a {{you may}}, and Ashildr would most certainly be discussed and linked to within the article itself.The issue with dabbing Me for a redirect to Ashildr is, well...She's first called Me in her second appearance. So which story goes in the dab?
- SOTO
She is consistently referred to in credits (as well as book titles) and by the Doctor as Ashildr, but never remembers this name. T:CHAR NAMES means we need to make sure to use the most common name, often the one in credits.
There's also a purely technical aspect: at two characters, readers can't search for it in the search bar, and it won't come up in autosuggest. As a general rule, pages need at least 3 characters, and this particular page is one which is visited a lot by readers due to her extensive involvement in the last series. It would simply make no sense to have her unsearchable.
- Amorkuz
Two further analogies:
- The policy regarding married names. There too a person chooses to change the name. According to the current policy, such characters "do not generally have their articles renamed". To me, the decision of Ashildr to change her name to Me is of a similar nature but for a different reason.
- There is another character who consistently corrects everyone not to use his old name, the War Doctor. Given that the "Doctor" is itself likely a chosen, not given name, it would be even more natural to switch from one chosen name to another when the new choice of name is clearly stated. When pressed for a name, the War Doctor at some point defaults to "John Smith." But his page is not renamed according to his wishes even though I am not sure he is actually called the "War Doctor" in-universe.
Ashildr is credited as such, written as such in scripts, and the Doctor continually calls her that, saying, "that's your name". She never remembers her name, so she consistently defaults to "Me", the personal pronoun referring to oneself.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190660
37 across - two-faced creature!
??n??
if anyone can this unsolvable rubbish it will be a miracle.
- Thefartydoctor
Janus from Face the Raven.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190696
Should we rename Zeno the planet into either Zeno (Planet) or Zeno (The Gaze of the Gorgons) because we now also have the Piscon individual Zeno (The Time of Piscos)?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190702
Yesterday I noticed that 'deduce' and 'deduction' had a lot of red links, so I created the page deduction (and a redirect from deduce) to fix the problem. Which worked just fine.
Today I noticed the same problem for 'retirement'/'retire', so I did the exact same thing - but all of the links on the main wiki, to either of those pages, are staying red. As in, retirement and retire are showing up red, even though those pages do exist. Does anybody know what the issue is?
- KingOrokos
As you can see from the above post, new links to the pages work just fine, but all of the pre-existing ones aren't working correctly.
- PicassoAndPringles
Can you give an example of a page where this is happening?
- KingOrokos
Just checked from another computer and they're all working fine - the problem must be with my laptop, not the wiki. Sorry for the false alarm.
- SOTO
Ooh somebody created retirement? I still must expand that article based on the links (and actually /finish/ the bot run to remove the inapplicable ones). So thanks for the reminder. :P
- SOTO
Also, you might want to try clearing your cache:Clear your cache often around here
After changes are made to this site's CSS or Javascript, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. You can always do this by going to your browser's preferences panel. But many browsers also offer keyboard shortcuts to save you that trouble. The following shortcuts work in the versions of the browsers that Tardis currently supports. They may not work in earlier versions.
- Firefox: hold down Shift while performing a page reload.
- Opera offers no default keyboard shortcut, but you can create a custom keyboard shortcut with the value Clear disk cache
- Safari users should simultaneously hold down ⌘ + Option + E. You may need to enable the Develop menu first
- Chrome: press Ctrl + F5 or Shift + F5 while performing a page reload.
- SOTO
Additionally, you really need to be careful about leads for topics from the real world. We can't allow any real world creep. So, if you can't find a good quote, description or at least example, just stick to what is stated in DWU sources. You are perfectly free to check the WLH list, and source some data from other articles there, but it is highly recommended that you only write based on sources you can access yourself, or you can't be certain of the factual accuracy of what you are publishing. If we get something wrong in one place, we don't want to get the same thing wrong on fifteen other pages as well, because nobody botherer to check. That said, if you do some research on a story and/or see that the user who added the information is an admin and therefore a likely trustworthy sources, feel free to use it. Let's not get overzealous with caution, but let's also make sure not to further perpetuate inaccuracies and falsehoods.
- KingOrokos
I'll keep that in mind. I'm sure the collective references to retirement and deduction across the entire DWU should be able to turn up something close enough to a definition - I'll see if I can find anything.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:190861
Here are two pivotal cases, the second of which is mine: About 9 months ago Tybort suggested to rename Alexandra (The Wages of Sin) to something identifying the Empress Alexandra, the Tsarina of Russia more clearly. Here is a quote: While dab rules make sense for fictional characters only known by a single name, historical figures with one name probably need an easier name to search for rather than trying to see if it's somewhere on a disambiguation page.
I would support such a renaming as the referenced novel is unknown to me, and Alexandra is a common name that can refer to absolutely anyone, while I would appreciate something in the name identifying the royal status.
Another rename is my recent proposition, and I would really hate it if it also hangs in an uncertain status forever. The page is currently called Elisabeth of Bavaria, the Empress of Austria, which is wrong because "of Bavaria" is not used in-universe, the standard name per policy would be probably Elisabeth (Empress of Austria): she does not appear in the story, she is only referenced and is not directly called Elisabeth of Austria or Elisabeth of Bavaria. My proposition was to rename the page to Sisi, a name used in-universe and also uniquely identifying the person.
It would be good to formulate a policy on what to do with such characters. Category:Royalty from the real world contains many examples of characters only known by one name who, instead of being disambiguated, are identified by an additional nickname or number (presumably used in-universe, of course). In my suggestion below, I try to cover these existing names too, although probably not all cases (neither does the current naming policy).
From my point of view, the current policy works well when the last name is omitted or unknown or the first name is the only means of identifying a person (Socrates). For royalties, first/last name is simply not the naming scheme used. I propose to record this objective difference in how we name royalties in the policy by the following amendment: If
- a character is clearly a royalty from the real world,
- a character is called in-universe by a unique name, involving his/her number, or country, or nickname that distinguishes him/her sufficiently to avoid the need for disambiguation, and
- this unique name was/is also used in real life, which would help to easily identify the character during searches,
then this unique name is preferred to First name (first story) for characters who appear in some story and to First name (description) for those who do not appear in any story.
Note that royalties are likely to be referenced only, but it is hard to guess whether a particular royalty actually appeared in some story in the DWU. This difference in handling royalties based on their cameos in the DWU makes searching even more convoluted.
PS I've just noted another seemingly systematic problem: royalties with several names but without a last name, e.g., Franz Joseph and Kublai Khan, are alphabetized on the second of the names, which I would consider incorrect.
- SOTO
Do remember that redirects exist. So if Elisabeth of Bavaria as a redirect to wherever her page goes helps people find a historical figure in the search, it should be a redirect. But it's not used at all in the DWU source, so it can't be her name at the top of the page per T:CHAR NAMES etc.
Why do you suggest that Elisabeth (Empress of Austria) would follow standard policy? We disambiguate by first story.
That said, I'm not entirely certain, that "Elisabeth of Austria" would be a wrong thing to do, because she is identified as Empress of Austria; am I correct? It would simply be following current convention to name a member of royalty "[Name] of [Place]". Or sometimes "[Name] [Roman numeral]".
...Woah, looking at the category, there are examples like "Anne (Queen of France/Great Britain)". I don't know what's up with that. Anne of France, if not Anne of France, is certainly Anne (The Church and the Crown). But then Anne (Queen of Great Britain) doesn't actually appear. So this is why I was suggesting they should all simply follow Anne of France, Anne of Great Britain, etc, and maybe have {{conjecture}} tags if necessary.
Then you run into another naming inconsistency: Richard III of England and Edward IV of England, yet just Charles I, Leo XIII, Louis XV, Elizabeth II.
(On the topic brought up last, I actually take your point. Perhaps {{NameSort}} should not be on those pages where the second name isn't actually a surname, and a note should be added, hidden in the source, in case someone decides to re-add the template.)
- Amorkuz
SOTO wrote: Why do you suggest that Elisabeth (Empress of Austria) would follow standard policy? We disambiguate by first story.
Because the Empress herself does not appear in this story and, to the best of my knowledge, in any story. There is a character credited as "Empress" on the CD cast, but this is a puppet copy, not the human Empress herself. The Empress is mentioned several times as Elisabeth or as Sisi. And yes, she is identified as the Empress of Austria.
- SOTO
Hmm. So Elisabeth (The Silver Turk) wouldn't actually work. Would Elisabeth of Austria truly be real world creep if we're told she's Elisabeth and she's Empress of Austria? I don't really support the use of descriptive dab terms for characters, because that's not what T:CHAR NAMES is aiming for at all.
I'd be perfectly fine with Sisi; no issue there. I think you've touched on a larger issue, though, and there should be more consistency overall when it comes to royalty naming conventions.
- Amorkuz
I think I found an excellent example of how the standard first/last-name-based naming policy fails.
Meet Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Quite a colourful figure by all accounts. But, alas, lacking in the last name. Thus, two different editors, following the naming policies, made two different pages for him: Rupert (Dog of War!) and Rupert (The Roundheads). Later, a merge request was made, but a Wiki of this scale is understandably slow in keeping track of such things. (By the way, the merge request was in the wrong direction as The Roundheads was released earlier. UPD: I changed the direction of the merge to the correct one.)
The sad part of this story is that his real full name is given in the comic. So there is all the reason to call the page Rupert of the Rhine, except that, on the face of it, it could be seen as violating the current naming policies.
While the naming may remain in question, I would appreciate an admin performing the merge. I will clean up the page afterwards, combining the information.
- CzechOut
T:CHAR NAMES mostly concerns itself with the case of marriage — Should Jo Grant be renamed Jo Jones? As such, it's not the most relevant rule to this case. Instead, T:DAB is more controlling.
One of the important points of this case is that the rules laid down by T:DAB say that a person with an ambiguous name should have a parenthetical after their names to indicate the story in which they first appeared. That's very important. They must actually appear.
That does not seem to be the case here. There was no appearance, just a mention. Therefore the search, above, for the right parenthetical is wrong-footed.
What we have done in such cases in the past is to go with the shortest, least ambiguous term, and then just make sure the BTS note clarifies the fact that the character didn't appear. Then we say that the story strongly suggests/directly states/whatever the case may be that it's the person we're claiming it to be. And then we slap a Template:T tag at the top of the article.
So, in this case, the best name would be Elisabeth, Empress of Austria.
- As always, you will find some examples to the contrary, but pages like Camilla (Queen) need to be moved, and we shouldn't propagate their errors any further.
- Amorkuz
Thank you for the reply and explanation.
I have realised since the original post that the example that brought me to this topic (Elisabeth of Austria) is not, in fact representative of the topic because she did not appear in the story.
There are, however, multiple other royalties and noblepersons who do appear in their respective stories. Two examples from above are Alexandra (The Wages of Sin) and Rupert (The Roundheads) (the latter has a second page Rupert (Dog of War!) that needs merging). Another very recent example is Rudolph (Death and the Queen). For all of them, the use of the dab term seems to be unnecessary because their full names are given in the stories and uniquely define them: Alexandra of Russia, Rupert of the Rhine and Rudolph of Goritania. In case of Rupert, the use of dab terms prevented identifying characters from two different stories as one person and resulted in two unrelated pages.
Thus, I am still proposing to make an explicit exception for royalty and nobility from the policy: In most cases, you should title an article with the first and last name of a character. The full name of Rupert of the Rhine is Rupert of the Rhine. He appears in two stories. His full name is stated in one of them. The fact that his full name does not include a last name, is not a reason to use a dab term.
PS As for Elisabeth of Austria, I've solved the problem by brute-force counting. The name Elisabeth is mentioned in the story only 2 times, whereas her nickname Sisi is mentioned 7 times. Hence, the most common name, which also happens to be unique, is Sisi.
- Amorkuz
Small separate question regarding the BTS note in cases when the person in question has not appeared in the story. For Sisi I put this information in the infobox, i.e., I used "first mention" field instead of the several appearance-related fields. Is it sufficient as a statement that Sisi herself did not appear in the story or should I add the BTS note?
- Amorkuz
Since CzechOut agreed that, at least in some cases, the dab term is used incorrectly, I will list below the pages from Category:Human royalty that may deserve a second look by someone with moving rights:
- Anne (Princess) might be "Anne, Princess Royal" (she does not appear in the story). It seems that "Princess Royal" is not a very common title (only 7 holders in real universe), so would be good for dabbing.
- Anne (Queen of Great Britain) might be "Anne of Great Britain" or "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" (she does not seem to appear in the story) by analogy with "Elisabeth, Empress of Austria" mentioned above.
- Camilla (Queen) is an interesting case as she is not (yet) a queen in real universe and only one of three stories mentioning her has her as a queen, a queen consort to be precise. Thus, it appears that the current name is not factually correct. This seems to be a tough one, not subject to any general policy.
- Edith (Seasons of Fear) is a typical case that I meant (she appears in the story). The current dab term can prevent identifying "Edith of Wessex" or "Edith of England" (depending whether "of Wessex" is mentioned in the story) in other stories.
- Empress (Marco Polo) could be named "Chabi" (see Talk:John Wisden for an argument why real names are better than dab terms for real people even if not mentioned in DWU). On the other hand, knowing her name is not relevant to this story, as was in case of Wisden.
- Cleopatra VII (State of Change) does not even need a dab term at all.
- Anne (Queen of France) goes against the T:DAB as she appears in the story. It could be "Anne (The Church and the Crown)" but my proposal was to call her "Anne of Austria" or "Anne of France" (depending on what is clear from the story).
- Cassandra (The Myth Makers) appears in the story. I would call her "Cassandra of Troy".
- Paris (The Myth Makers) (appears) could be "Paris of Troy" as his sister.
- Alexandra (The Wages of Sin) appears in the story. I would call her "Alexandra of Russia" or "Alexandra Feodorovna"
- Aurelia (100 BC) could be named "Aurelia Cotta"
- Isabella (The Doctor's Tale) appears in the story. She could be named "Isabella of France" (I remember that her French origins were discussed) or "Isabella of England".
- Joanna (The Crusade) (appears) should probably stay this way as the standard name is Joan, not Joanna.
- Judith (The Kingmaker) (appears) should probably stay this way because the correspondence to the real world person is not complete. Judith Quiney was not royalty.
- Susan (The Kingmaker) is same, should stay as is
- Richard (Sometime Never...) (appears) could be "Richard of Shrewsbury"
- Rupert (The Roundheads) and Rupert (Dog of War!) (appears in both stories) should be one page and probably called "Rupert of the Rhine"
- Theodora (The Secret History) could be "Theodora of Byzantium"
Once again, this list presents only an illustration of how my suggestion, if accepted, would affect existing pages.
- Shambala108
bumping this as User:Amorkuz' last post highlights some work that needs to be done.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:191203
Can we first of all put the Second Doctor's second species as Androgum and second of all add actors to objects such as the Melkur played by Graham Cole and the Moment.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
=
- SOTO
What's your reasoning for the first one?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well, in the Two Doctors, the Second Doctor's species became 100% Androgum. I think this should be noted.
- Tangerineduel
The infobox is for the pertinaent points of the article. Is his Androgum status mentioned elsewhere other than the events of The Two Doctors and/or does it have any affect on his character elsewhere in the article?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
it should be as it's his second species.
- Skittles the hog
To answer TD's question: no, it's not mentioned other than in a paragraph about The Two Doctors.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
yup
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:191251
For those of you who aren't aware, back in November Peter Jackson added a video to his facebook page which is titled "Home Invasion", in which he discusses recieving emails from Steven Moffat, with his daughter. Halfway through the video Peter Capaldi appears in character as the Twelfth Doctor, as does a Dalek. <removed per Tardis:Video policy>
Personaly I believe it should be added, but wanted to check here first what others think, and if it should, discuss how it should be added.
My reasons for wanting to include it are that it was obviously made in a similar style to The Fiveish Doctors Reboot (TV story) which is included, but mainly that it includes Capaldi in character as the Doctor, albeit in a similar manner to One Born Every Minute (TV story) or the National Television Awards Sketch 2011, and would obviously be categorised as NOTVALID.
However, I am aware that technically it does pose issues in terms of being licensed (or not, as the case may be), and although I guess it would be described as a webcast, I am unsure as to this wikias policy on videos released through facebook.
Thoughts??
- MadeIndescribable
PS, the video was also released on youtube as well as facebook, and can be found here <removed per Tardis:Video policy>
- JohnSmith5000100
Do we have any way of knowing if it was officially licensed or not? If not, then it should not be included, if so then it should.
Based on the presence of Peter Capaldi, I would guess it was, but we need to find out for sure.
- MadeIndescribable
I haven't found anything to specifically say that it is (but then i haven't seen anything saying it isn't either). Given it was released within a week of Capaldi's Doctor Who Q&A session in Auckland though, it is at least safe to assume it was filmed while he was in NZ on official Doctor Who business.
- JohnSmith5000100
I will add it for now, and if an administrator brings it up we can have another The Infinity Doctorsesque argument about it.
- SOTO
Please just wait until consensus is reached here. If a discussion is active, do not edit the wiki based on your views or opinions on the thread. The discussion here is not over.
- JohnSmith5000100
Sorry for the blunder, I am still unfamiliar with a lot of this kind of policy.
- MadeIndescribable
I'm guessing that without confirmation of being officially licensed then it can't be added (I have to admit I don't know the exact criteria of what is and isn't allowed, hence starting this thread), but have expanded the details of the video on Peter Jackson's own page.
I am presuming that discussions of Jackson directing an episode would only violate the wiki's spoiler policy if commenting on an official announcement?
- SOTO
That's okay. Take a look at our four little rules. I think we need more information here.
- MadeIndescribable
Thanks for that. As it stands, the story isn't valid under rule 2, so I'll only add an article if anything states that it has been officially lisenced.
- AeD
I'm pretty sure no part of the BBC has made any kind of official comment on this, and given that I don't think there's anything here for the BBC to comment on, I wouldn't expect that to change. If it's licensed, that's a lot of effort for a 3-minute gag video made by people who are clearly friends. (And there probably would be some kind of copyright notice.)
Personally, I think it's more akin to any of the things on the page Doctor Who parodies than to Fiveish Doctors.
- MadeIndescribable
I've also had a look at the spoiler/rumour policy regarding Jackson directing an episode and updated his page so that the source is now a Steven Moffat quote from a BBC website. As far as I can tell there are no violations (it only mentions there have been discussions without making any speculations), but please feel free to double check.
- Tangerineduel
It's also not the only cameo/gag video Capaldi featured in <removed per Tardis:Video policy> in which he appears and goes into a Police Box.
I think it can be noted as part of the promo tour / Doctor Who live tour Capaldi cameoed in various videos, but it's not licensed or anything like that.
- AeD
Oh, yeah, if there's a page for that tour, that's definitely where it should go -- there's no reason to treat it like a narrative like you would a webisode.
- Pluto2
Anyone got any comments?
Or shall we close this?
- Shambala108
My comment is that it is against Tardis:Video policy to link to offsite videos. All offsite links have been removed from this thread.
- Shambala108
Pluto2 wrote: Anyone got any comments?
Or shall we close this?
There is no "we". Only admins can close discussions. Until this one is closed, no action is to be taken.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Anyone got any comments?
Or shall we close this?
There is no "we". Only admins can close discussions. Until this one is closed, no action is to be taken.
That's what I meant, sorry.
- MadeIndescribable
Pluto2 wrote: Anyone got any comments?
Or shall we close this?
As the original poster, I've had my question answered, it hasn't been given its own page, and no one seems to have any problems with it being discussed on Peter Jackson's page, so I don't see why it shouldn't be closed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:191580
I think we could connect The Legends of Ashildr and The Legends of River Song in the same way as The Wheel of Ice, Harvest of Time and The Drosten's Curse.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:191821
I recently purchased Titan comics Achieve edition of Prisoners of Time. In the achieve, each chapter is given an umbrella title, not unlike The Forgotten.
What should I do with this information? Should I rename the chapter pages with the umbrella titles, or just add the titles to the page entries?
- Bwburke94
Just add the titles, probably. Don't move any pages for now.
- BananaClownMan
Done and dusted.
- OncomingStorm12th
Bringing this discussion back since no admin gave it's in-depth on the matter. Should we simply leave the individual issues as they are, or rename them with their umbrella titles?
Also, may I suggest that, on those pages, we move the current infobox image to the "COVER GALLERY" section, and add a interior comic art in it's place (like most comic pages have)?
- Shambala108
If you could explain in more detail what the situation is here for those of us who don't have the story, that would be helpful.
And just a reminder, only admins are permitted to rename/move pages on this wiki for technical reasons.
- Shambala108
test
- OncomingStorm12th
test
- OncomingStorm12th
A few months ago, Bananaclownman purchased the Titan Comics collection for "Prisoners of Time". There, each issue has it's own title (like an ongoing series).
Therefore, I wondered if/suggested those pages should be renamed with their umbrella titles (Unnatural Selection for issue 1, Bazaar Adventures for issue 2 and so on)
Additionally, I sugested we moved the current infobox image to the section "Cover gallery" and add an interior comic art in it's place.
- BananaClownMan
It's true.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:191937
Lately I've been foraying outside of the televised stories, into Big Finish and some of the BBC audiobooks, and to help me make sense of it all, I've been looking for a guide that lists all the expanded universe stories in biographical order (i.e. the order that the Doctor experiences them).
I've had a bit of luck with lists like these: http://www.eyespider.freeserve.co.uk/drwho/compleat.html http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm#11TH
...but I was surprised not to find such a list on the TARDIS wiki, since I normally rely on it to be the best indicator of canon (or as close as you can get with Doctor Who).
Is there a reason for this I don't know about? There are already lists of appearances per Doctor organised by medium, and the biography sections of the Doctor pages include expanded universe stories, fitted into where they most likely occur, so it would seem the bulk of the work has already been done.
The way I imagine it, each Doctor would have their own timeline page, listing their stories in the order they occur in their biography. I know some stories are harder to date than others, but we can always include a notes column to flag these instances, as well as explaining why a story has been placed where it has. And in the same way the biographies do it, some stories may have to be placed in an undated section.
I think such a list would be a great way to help people to access the expanded universe.
- Shambala108
- AeD
I think the biggest issue with integrating this kind of thing too deeply into the wiki is how subjective a lot of the placements can be -- for a lot of the Short Trips stuff, for example, the only real clue towards placement is Doctor/companion, so who's to say exactly when a DWA Eleven/Amy/Rory story takes place? A lot of First Doctor and Susan stories could be either pre-An Unearthly Child or Ian and Barbara could be just off-screen. Even if you can identify the TV gap it takes place in, who's to say in what order Weapons of Past Destruction, The Deviant Strain, Only Human, and Night of the Whisper occur inside that gap? A good way to illustrate this is to look at how different Kearley and DWG list the pre-AUC stories -- neither order are wrong, and neither is more right than the other.
- Dgym
Ah, sorry to ask for something that already exists :S
Completely understand why such a timeline wouldn't be integrated into the main body of the wiki, since so much of it is guesswork. Although it's a little odd that that information exists in the biography sections of each doctor in the main wiki, but I'm guessing there's less information there than in the apocryphal timelines?
It'd be great if those timelines were easier to find, though.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:192588
So, there is a new mobile app. I understand that it's most likely going to be considered a non-valid souce (because everyone can create it's own story), but there is also going to be an original story wich is going to be launched montly, called "A Stitch in Time". Is THIS story, and this story only, cosidered a valid source? If it is, I would apreciate if someone could create a page for it.
https://itunes.apple.com/app/doctor-who-comic-creator/id1083403621?ls=1%26mt=8
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bbc.doctorwhocomiccreator
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:193167
About a month ago, I noticed that Template:Doctors only includes Doctors from televised stories. Understandably, the template can only be edited by administrators. So I submit this:
| Incarnations of the Doctor | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The Other | Past | ||
| 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • War • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 | Present | ||
| Muldwych • Merlin • The Curator • The Valeyard • The Blue Angel • The Cabinet of Light • The Dalek Factor • Party Animals | Future | ||
| Lord of the Manor • Burner Doctor • Theta Sigma • Johann Schmidt • Tardis Tails • The Relic • Inferno Earth • Who's Who? Earth • Infinity Doctors universe | Alternate | ||
| The Watcher • Meta-Crisis • Dream Lord • John Smith (7) • John Smith (10) | Other | ||
There might be some things that will need to be changed, but I think that my version is much more informative and inclusive to all media than the current one.
Thoughts?
- EDIT: For a clearer table visit my sandbox.
- SOTO
While your efforts are noted, I can't say such an extensive infobox will be implemented. For one, infoboxes are not meant to contain all information, only the most relevant stuff need be on display. I appreciate that you're trying to be inclusive of all media, but this is far too much to sit atop an article, much less several articles as popular as these ones.
The sections are largely arbitrary, as there is no past/present/future per T:POV, for example, and this also allows for ambiguous cases where a character is not at all stated to be the Doctor, to be displayed there anyway. Merlin is not the Doctor. The Curator is not the Doctor.
On a practical level, too, this version would greatly expand the vertical height of the template, which is a real concern for mobile devices. Because it's incompatible with mobile, even the current version may not last forever. So I'm afraid this particular endeavor is gonna have to stop here. The short list that's there now, which may well be discontinued, is more than enough for the purpose it serves.
- TheChampionOfTime
Ah, thank you for the explanation. I agree that the above list is quite large and links to some fairly unimportant pages. However, I believe that something like this is quite useful. Would it be acceptable to separate Template:Time Lords into 2 expandable sections: "The Doctor" and "Other Time Lords"?
- P.S. In case you were unaware, the Curator is not an incarnation I added to the list. He can currently be found on the template because The Then and the Now (comic story) shows him as a "future" Doctor. Also, this wiki seems to consider The Doctor (Battlefield) (AKA Merlin) to be a valid incarnation.
- TheChampionOfTime
What about a seperate navbox for the Doctor? Something like this:The Doctor
5 7 10 11 Alternate Doctors 2 3 5 6 7 8 11 Duplicate Doctors 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:193299
I've noticed this over the past few months, but is there a reason more categories are being created? It seemed like the old categories of "other realities" or "time travel" were just fine, but now there are categories for "nowhere," "never," "nothing," "problems with time," and so on. "Theories and concepts" has become "concepts." There also seems to be circular cataloging, which I thought the wiki tried to avoid years ago, where a page will fall into several categories and then those categories are placed inside each other, kinda. I'm just wondering why this is, cause the old categories worked just fine. I understand the need for specificity, but it just seems odd. Does anyone know?
- RoseTenthFan
I saw it too. E.g. "Queer identity" was a subcategory of "Sexuality" and vice versa. I'll eliminate such circular categorisations if I find another examples.
- Steed
I mean, can we eliminate them? Or is this a new format that we're supposed to start using. I think a few of these new categories are in the Zero Room.
- RoseTenthFan
If there are any categories you'd like to see in the Zero Room, nominate it for deletion. Every case should be considered individually.
- Steed
Does the Zero Room equal deletion? Because a page can still be put in a category in the Zero Room, so we would still have to go through and remove the categories from pages.
- RoseTenthFan
Affirmative. If a category is deleted, one will have to remove it from pages.
- SOTO
Heh. Hit me up again in a week or two, and I'll do my best to delete and simplify. I agree that's there's a lot of redundancy and a whole bunch of questionable category names I should really look back on. In the near future, if someone reminds me, I'll clean things up and streamline a bit :)
Steed wrote: I've noticed this over the past few months, but is there a reason more categories are being created? It seemed like the old categories of "other realities" or "time travel" were just fine, but now there are categories for "nowhere," "never," "nothing," "problems with time," and so on. "Theories and concepts" has become "concepts." There also seems to be circular cataloging, which I thought the wiki tried to avoid years ago, where a page will fall into several categories and then those categories are placed inside each other, kinda. I'm just wondering why this is, cause the old categories worked just fine. I understand the need for specificity, but it just seems odd. Does anyone know?
This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Too many users think that categorization is the life-blood of the wiki. This happens in part because the Game of Rassilon awards points for adding categories, so many users, especially new users, can't resist.
Personally I think we need a major category overhaul, similar to what we did with prefixes back in Forum:Prefix simplification.
I've been cleaning up Special:Wantedcategories, which are non-existent categories added to pages. Some of these have now been created, but most of the ones I removed fell short of our guidelines. I've also started working on currently existing categories that fail our rules.
A few things to keep in mind while this discussion continues:
- Be sure the category you add actually describes what the article is. For example, Anti-radiation gloves are not radiation and energy (they are clothing), and should not be placed in the "energy and radiation" category.
- Categories must have at least three entries, per Tardis:Rule of three. The categories I have been deleting do not fall under the exceptions to that rule.
- You have to actually create a category if it does not exist. You can't just assume a category exists; when you add one, preview your edit to test the existence of the category. Let's keep the list at Special:Wantedcategories to a minimum.
- Read through the guidelines at Tardis:Don't over-categorise. There are quite a few very specific or very broad categories on this wiki that fail this policy.
- Most importantly (and that's why I put it in bold): The purpose of this wiki is to create articles. Categories are never a substitute for writing an article. If you feel a category is justified on a page, then that info should also be included in the article.
To quote from one of the most important guidelines at Tardis:Don't over-categorise: "This wiki is over a decade old. If it's missing a category you'd like to create, there is likely a reason for it."
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:193396
The new companion has been revealed, and the character's name is Bill. Can a page be made for her (and her actress, Pearl Mackie), and a link to it added at the Bill disambiguation page, or would that violate T:SPOIL? She has already appeared in a two minute scene shown at half time during a live football match, and the BBC website claims this to be a scene from an upcoming episode.
- MystExplorer
Pearl Mackie talked about filming the "trailer", meaning it's not a scene from an upcoming episode. Trailers aren't considered valid sources but it might be worth creating a page for the scene with an Invalid tag at the top. As for creating pages for the actress and character, well, there's no real precedent for this so a community discussion is most likely needed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:193754
I propose to codify a policy for naming BF audio stories, analogous to the existing policy T:SERIALS for BBC TV stories.
Why is such a policy needed? There are several ongoing debates about names for stories and boxset releases; some of the boxset pages have already been moved. BF has been changing both the format of its releases and the way they are marketed. A policy would eliminate the debates about future releases and would make changes in marketing irrelevant.
Separating stories from anthologies. The anthologies are treated differently by current policies (dab term is not mandatory; not all anthologies have a dedicated page). Hence, the naming policies for stories and anthologies should be separate. This one concerns only stories, which is the simpler of the two.
Proposed policy in general. As for BBC TV serials, the name should be derived from the official listing by BF, more precisely, from the name of the story on the Big Finish website.
- For stories released as part of an anthology, the name can always be found on the BF page for the anthology. Little debate to be had here.
- For stories with stand-alone releases, the name should be taken from the all-capital boldface title of the BF page for the earliest such release. However, it has been a long-standing practice of this Wiki to eliminate repetitive prefixes from such titles (these prefixes have also been known to change over time). This policy codifies which prefixes form part of the name and which do not. The latter should not be used in the page name on this Wiki because their presentation by BF is unstable and because having many pages with identical prefixes impedes the usability of search-box suggestions, which are limited to only six page suggestions.
Prefixes to always be ignored. The name of a story should be unique to the story. Prefixes indicating the place of the story within the production line of BF are not part of its name. They are always separated from he name proper by a period, colon or dash. These prefixes are divided into the following categories:
- Name of the relevant range. Currently, we code
- "Cyberman: Scorpius" as Scorpius (same for all stories from Season 1 of Cyberman range)
- "Dalek Empire: Invasion of the Daleks" as Invasion of the Daleks (same for all stories from Season 1 of Dalek Empire range)
- "Gallifrey: Weapon of Choice" as Weapon of Choice (same for all stories of Seasons 1-3 and 7 of Gallifrey range)
- "Sarah Jane Smith: Comeback" as Comeback (same for all stories of Sarah Jane Smith range)
- "UNIT: The Coup" as The Coup (same for all stories from Season 1 of UNIT range)
- Words "Doctor Who" emphasizing that one of the Doctors is featured. Currently, we code Doctor Who: Excelis Dawns as Excelis Dawns (same for two other stories from Excelis range)
- Modified range name. Modifications currently include
- the addition of the season number to the range name: we code Dalek Empire 3: The Exterminators as The Exterminators;
- the addition of the words "Doctor Who" before the range name as in Doctor Who - Dominion (double prefixing);
- creative modification of the range name: Jago & Litefoot & Strax in Jago & Litefoot range in the story Jago & Litefoot & Strax - The Haunting.
Fake prefixes that are always to be included in the name.
- If the initial part of a title is separated by a punctuation mark but is unique to the story. For instance, in Destination: Nerva the word "Destination" is a part of the name because no other story begins with "Destination:".
- If the initial part of a title is a character's name separated by the word "and" instead of a punctuation title. For instance, in Peri and the Piscon Paradox "Peri and" is a part of the name.
Boundary cases. If a prefix is separated by a punctuation mark, used in several stories but is neither "Doctor Who" nor a (modified) range name, special consideration is required. There are only three such prefixes, so I'll discuss each of them.
- The Key 2 Time - is used by BF for three consecutive stories forming an arc in the main range. It is currently not used in their names as, for instance, in The Judgement of Isskar;
- 1963: is used by BF for three consecutive stories forming a trilogy in the main range celebrating the 50th anniversary. This prefix is currently used in their names as in 1963: Fanfare for the Common Men;
- Project: is used by BF in the names of three non-consecutive stories forming a loose arc in the main range and one companion chronicle story featuring the same common element. This prefix is currently used in the story names as in Project: Twilight.
To explain why "1963" and "Project" are parts of the name whereas "The Key 2 Time" is not, one needs to look at the cover art. All of these stories are from big ranges with established place for the story title on the cover art. Thus, it is clear that "1963 and "Project" were intended by BF to be part of the story name, whereas "The Key 2 Time" was an additional arc name.
Required modifications to existing names. The above policy explains all current names of BF stories, except for two:
- UNIT: Dominion should be Dominion, in line with the 1st season stories of the same range.
- Jago & Litefoot & Strax should be The Haunting. This renaming was first proposed by RogerAckroydLives, and it was the fruitful discussion with him that led me to formulate this policy.
In thinking about this policy I also relied on ideas and comments mentioned at various times by CzechOut, Shambala108 and SOTO (which does not mean, of course, that they would agree with my interpretation, but the credit is due).
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'd say that UNIT: Dominion should stay as that - like in the "boundary cases" section, the "UNIT" prefix is in the title section of the cover, which I'd say indicates that it's part of the title of the story, unlike "Doctor Who" (and like "Project:").
- Amorkuz
I'm glad that you raised this issue. Perhaps, RogerAckroydLives is more of an expert when it comes to covers. It was his idea originally to use them as a determining factor.
For me, the question about Dominion is: Why is it different from all the other stories from the range, for which UNIT was not considered part of the title? The range features three styles of downloadable covers:
- The Coup (1 cover)
- Time Heals --- The Wasting (4 covers)
- Dominion (1 cover)
All three types of covers feature the word UNIT (the 2nd type even features it the second time within the UNIT emblem). Typographywise, the 1st and 3rd types seem closer to each other than to the 2nd type: for both UNIT is immediately above The Coup and Dominion respectively and is sized in such a way that both lines have the same width. The main difference of the 2nd type is that the second line is slanted and narrower and UNIT is khaki-coloured. But by and large it is the same arrangement.
I was not able to guess why Dominion was singled out. Does anybody remember?
- JagoAndLitefoot
UNIT: Dominion is not really part of the previous UNIT range. It is grouped with it on the Big Finish site for convenience, but the story is not connected in any way, there are no recurring characters, and it is simply a special Seventh Doctor release featuring UNIT, and part of the larger Elizabeth Klein story arc.
- Amorkuz
Oh, boy, I hope we're not gonna question BF's definition of its ranges. Range is one thing we're given that we don't have to argue over. There is still no consensus on what one story constitutes. Please, not the range too. Please. Plus, there are few ranges with one recurring character throughout, let alone a common story. To give just one example, Solitaire would not be part of the Companion Chronicles under the proposed definition of range.
In addition, while it's true that BF is known to rearrange its ranges from time to time (for instance, Dark Eyes used to be part of Eighth Doctor Adventures), this is not the case with Dominion. The physical release bears the number 2.1 on the spine, meaning that it was part of the UNIT range from the get-go. And that is a good explanation for having UNIT on the cover, in keeping with the style of the previous releases of the range.
- JagoAndLitefoot
Keep in mind that UNIT: Dominion is on the website under both the "UNIT" range and "Doctor Who: special releases" range. I don't see why we should only consider it as one of them, and not as the other.
- Amorkuz
That is exactly my point: it belongs to both ranges. It has Doctor Who on the cover (in the standard Doctor Who-range style) and in the title of the webpage [5] because it belongs to the Special Releases range. And it has UNIT on the cover (in one of the UNIT-range styles used before, which is now used for the New Series) and in the title of the BF webpage because it belongs to the UNIT range. The other releases from the UNIT range do not have Doctor Who exactly because they are not from the Special Releases range.
This is exactly the reason I believe that the story name is simply Dominion, and the range names should not be included in it.
- Amorkuz
It took some time and unrelated discussions but now both The Haunting and Dominion are renamed.
It remains to check the Big Finish titles released since the last post to see if the modus operandi of Big Finish still fits the proposed rules.
- Amorkuz
A closer observation uncovered more fake prefixes:
- "Dalek War" in Dalek War: Chapter One-Dalek War: Chapter Four
- "The Fearless" in The Fearless: Part 1-The Fearless: Part 4
These are not really prefixes. These are the name of the story, with the suffix after the colon giving the part number. This usage is analogous to the use of Children of Earth: Day One for television stories.
Please note that Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective, though fitting the proposed rule, is not a Big Finish audio drama and, hence, is not covered by the proposed policy.
- Amorkuz
I have trawled the Big Finish releases from May 2016, when the thread was created, till May 2017. And I am pleased to say that the proposed policy has withstood the trial by time. In the last year, the old prefixes were used again, new prefixes were introduced and fake prefixes were obviously fake. In all the cases, the pages created for these stories were named exactly the way the policy predicts (most probably independent of this thread, which everyone forgot about). Here are the new cases:
New uses of range names as prefixes:
- prefix Gallifrey was omitted from Enemy Lines (audio story);
- prefix Torchwood was omitted from Outbreak (audio story).
New modified range name used as prefix for "Philip Hinchcliffe Presents" range appended by the volume number:
- prefix Philip Hinchcliffe Presents Volume 02 was omitted from The Genesis Chamber (audio story);
- prefix Philip Hinchcliffe Presents Volume 03 was omitted from The Helm of Awe (audio story);
New boundary case:
- prefix The Tenth Doctor Adventures was omitted from Technophobia (audio story), Time Reaver (audio story) and Death and the Queen (audio story). It is not a range name but is clearly a series of unrelated stories, which may still become a range.
There were a couple titles that could be read as fake prefixes but did not include a colon, like The Jago & Litefoot Revival (audio story) or The Torchwood Archive (audio story). So these were no-brainers.
- Bwburke94
I have no issue with this becoming an official policy.
- 95.150.162.56
i have just been reading this thread and i do not agree about UNIT: Dominion as the covers for the CD's and the slip case is a better mach for the Doctor Who release than the UNIT release in fact on the CD's the tital UNIT is under the actors names just like the project story's
- Amorkuz
Could you please provide the images you are describing?
- 95.150.162.56
- Amorkuz
- 95.150.162.56
i have looked on line and the story is called
DOCTOR WHO - UNIT: DOMINION on the big finish website it called Dominion in the Behind the Scenes section of the website and as noted in my previous coment UNIT DOMINION on the cover wille over websites ever use UNIT: DOMINION or UNIT DOMINION
- Bwburke94
"UNIT" and "Dominion" are on separate lines, so the lack of a colon means nothing.
- Amorkuz
Yes, indeed, a line break is often used on a cover as a separator, which becomes a colon when written inline (see this literary example [6]). This is typically an indication that the part before the colon and the part after the colon are not part of the same phrase/sentence.
But let us examine the visual evidence. First of all, it should be noted that the provided Dominion image is a cover for a part of the story. So comparing it with CD covers of Project: stories is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But even so. To the right is the closest image I could find, the cover of Project: Destiny. Here "Destiny" is on the second line, but the colon is retained. Secondly, "Project:" and "Destiny" are typed in the same font and the same size. As opposed to that, the colon between "UNIT" and "Dominion" is removed when "Dominion" is on a separate line, and "UNIT" is typed in a font that is much larger and boldface.
- Bwburke94
Project is not the name of a range. UNIT is.
- JagoAndLitefoot
It is, but it doesn't mean it can't also be part of the title.
- NateBumber
Question: Several Iris Wildthyme releases have different names on their covers vs the Big Finish website, eg The Sound of Fear and The Land of Wonder, and we've chosen to go with the version on the website, per the proposed policy. However, Iris Wildthyme and the Claws of Santa seems to break that trend, with both the website and the cover using "Iris Wildthyme and", but the current page for it on the wiki is just The Claws of Santa. Under this policy, would the page be renamed to match the website, or would "Iris Wildthyme and" be classified as a removable prefix?
- Amorkuz
Thanks for pointing this out, NateBumber. I did miss this. And still, there is a clause in the OP just for this: it is proposed to consider a "fake" prefix and not remove:
If the initial part of a title is a character's name separated by the word "and" instead of a punctuation title. For instance, in Peri and the Piscon Paradox "Peri and" is a part of the name. This clause is based on a good precedent of Doctor Who and the Silurians. But also linguistically "somebody and" is not considered to be a removable part of a sentence.
As for the case when BF themselves are not sure, the purpose of the policy is, in part, to find a way of dealing with the inconsistencies of the BF website. The webpage name can be changed (and in many cases has been changed), whereas the CD cover (especially the physical version) remains constant. There may be alternative covers, but they do not replace the original one completely. Thus, for me it is better to go with the cover. If "and" is present there but not (at the moment) on the website, follow the cover.
- 95.150.162.56
with UNIT dominion
1st off a line brake on the cover dose not automatically mean a separate sentence as can been Sean by this years main rang relesas https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/v/monthly-series 2nd unlike other series the numbering before the title on the web sit dose not continue from the UNIT series which on the web site is numberd 1.0 to 1.4 the numbering then stops and is not continued on dominion 3rd the cover marchers slimier doctor who box sets like dark eys or the 5th doctor box set both on the slip case and the disc covers in the set.
- NateBumber
Thanks for the speedy answer, Amorkuz; I completely agree that the title on the cover seems more trustworthy than the title on the website, if the two conflict. If that clause were added to the proposed policy, I would throw my absolute 100% full support behind it.
P.S.: This was really a great idea for a policy, and a very well thought out approach. I look forward to seeing it eventually implemented!
- Amorkuz
95.150.162.56 wrote: with UNIT dominion unlike other series the numbering before the title on the web sit dose not continue from the UNIT series which on the web site is numberd 1.0 to 1.4 the numbering then stops and is not continued on dominion
Let me emphasise again: BF can and has modified the presentation on the website. But it would be very hard to argue that Dominion is not part of the UNIT range given that it is on the BF website. Physical copies provide sufficient and independent evidence:
This was also a continuation of Big Finish's UNIT audio series (as indicated by the numbering on the spine of the CDs as 2.1 etc)
Plus, the production code for Dominion is
- BFPUNITCD05.
Compare it with the production code for the last CD of the regular UNIT series:
- BFPUNITCD04
and contrast it with the production code for the first CD of the new UNIT series:
- BFPUNS01.
While it is true that being on a separate line does not "automatically" mean that this is just the range name, here we have an overwhelming evidence that it was.
I do not understand your final point. I would be happy to respond if you elaborate. For now, I'm not sure where you see a range name/story name separation in Dark Eyes or the The Fifth Doctor Box Set, especially given that none of them is a story: they are collections of stories, which are traditionally called "anthologies" on the wiki.
- Amorkuz
Returning to the titles on the cover. It turns out that many of the original Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series single releases bore "Professor Bernice Summerfield and the XXX" on the cover. The BF website consistently names them "The XXX", but on the cover "and the" are on the same line and in the same font. So it appears that these stories would have to be renamed too. Here is an example:
. The affected Benny stories are
- 4/4 in Series 2
- 5/5 in Series 3
- 3/4 in Series 4
- 4/4 in Series 5
- 5/5 in Series 6
Starting from Series 7, the artwork changed and "and" was not used anymore.
- Scrooge MacDuck
This seems like the correct thread to put this, but: while referred to everywhere online (BF website included) as Enemy of the Daleks, the story we peg as Enemy of the Daleks (audio story) is actually titled The Enemy of the Daleks on its cover:
At any rate, the post directly above details an issue already discussed for the Benny novels over here, if anyone's interested.
- JagoAndLitefoot
The cover shown on Big Finish website actually doesn't have the "The", nor does this photo of the CD box: https://www.antiquesnavigator.com/d-815812/doctor-who-big-finish-cd-enemy-of-the-daleks-sylvester-mccoy-7th-ace-hex.html
Looks like the cover we have in the article is an early pre-release version from BF website and the definite article was dropped on actual release.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:194337
Problem. Spelling of proper names in audio stories can be hard to figure out. While TV stories have subtitles, only limited number of audios have scripts published, and the scripts are only provided for limited number of listeners.
Current state. When an editor has no scripts available, the best strategy seems to be to create red links for some guessed spelling without creating pages. Sometimes, another editor could fix the spelling. Sometimes, promotional materials would feature the correct spelling later. But there is currently no way to warn other editors not to create pages out of these red links before the spelling is verified.
Proposal. A "Spelling" template adding a note Spelling uncertain, similar to the "Fact" template, would both put a request for additional spelling information and alert other editors not to create a page.
Proposal maximum. I don't know the mechanics of the Wiki enough, but perhaps, it is even possible to collect all such spelling requests on one page, preferably labeled with the name of the relevant story. Then an editor in possession of the script for a particular story could easily check if he/she can clarify some spellings.
Why I think it makes sense. I've been personally struggling with guessing spellings, so I can see how it would help me. When pages for new stories are created, scripts might not yet be accessible. So I imagine, it could also be helpful for those brave souls who create something out of nothing. Finally, if a page is created with a wrong spelling, links begin multiplying quite quickly. Fixing the situation after that requires an intervention by an admin. Wouldn't it be nice to streamline the process and avoid page moves?
- PicassoAndPringles
It would certainly be possible to create a template like {{spelling uncertain}} or somesuch with the functionality you describe, including the page collecting the requests like Tardis:Speedy renames. I'm just wondering if this is a common enough problem to warrant such a template. How many examples are there of page moves that could have been avoided had the script been available?
- Amorkuz
Let me first list some of the page moves I was a culprit of because the spelling could not be determined until I found a very kind fellow editor with a script:
I was really lucky to get help in figuring out a correct spelling. And I stopped creating pages early enough. But in the same story there were other names I spelled wrong at first.
Note that this usually happens with minor characters and places. So it's hard to find such cases if you were not working on the story yourself.
On the other hand, there were several recent cases where a correct spelling was found early enough, before the page was created:
- Aldriss plays an important role in the second War Doctor trilogy. Despite this, no official public materials provided the spelling at the time of release. BF has released another news pertaining to this release in about a week with the spelling spelled out.
- Kram from the 10th Doctor Adventures is spelled "Kran" in the script. I made a note about this on his page. It might still lead to a renaming.
- Goratania from the same release is spelled "Goritania" in the script. I should make a note of that too. UPD: I've just initiated a speedy rename based on [9]
- Mephistols is spelled "Mefistoles" in the script. But the singular spelling is not given.
- Silvi was originally spelled "Silvie" on the story page with a telling note "Voice of Silvie as Uncredited Cast. If you find an alternate spelling, feel free to respell." Essentially, Thefartydoctor tried to put exactly the note that the proposed feature would make, but it was not very visible, so I missed it at first. Again, we were lucky that a script owner corrected the spelling before anyone created a page.
- Kamishi page from The Diary of River Song has not been created yet but there are links to it, for instance on the page for Mr Song. I still have no idea how to spell it correctly. If anyone creates the page now, it might need renaming later.
- The page for Varaxils from The Witch from the Well has not been created for more than 3 years, which is really a stroke of luck. There were at least three spellings used in red links. (I have already ascertained a correct spelling and will create the page pronto.)
Those are the ones I am aware of. Perhaps, others could remember other pages.
- Amorkuz
One more note: I strongly suspect there is also a hidden cost. When some editors create red links with an uncertain spelling, others would simply not create a link or, worse yet, would choose not to write anything about the object. I think I even observed this about Aldriss I mentioned earlier. It should have gone into the "setting" field of the infobox of the story Legion of the Lost. But it wasn't added at first, and my guess is that no one was sure what to write so did not write anything. It is, I'm afraid, impossible to determine the number of names that are not present on the Wiki because of this.
- CzechOut
While I'm generally in favour of getting the spelling right the first time out, I think there are orders of magnitude.
Should we get the names of episodes right, the first time out? Yes, wherever possible, because those episode names are going to be used as references across multiple articles. That's principally why we're so strict with T:OFF REL. Also, with episode names, we're not going to have to wait forever to get the name right. We know exactly how long we have to wait.
What Amorkuz seems to be talking about, by contrast, are comparatively minor names. I'd rather have editors being bold and taking a shot at the spelling. Chances are the attempt they make will be at least useful as a redirect. If you heard it as "Mephistol", chances are so did most of the other people who listened to the audio play, and so that's how they're probably going to look it up. If the page then corrects the very logical spelling to the rather absurd "Mefistol" and leaves a BTS note that the script spells if that way. even though it's an obvious play on "Mephistopheles" — fine! That's what the site should be doing. But the page has to exist at "Mephistol", at least as a redirect, so that people can look up the more logical spelling.
Then, there are clearly times when the script is wrong, or ambiguous. To take one old example, the script to The End of Time has us believe in the Zaggit Zagoo bar as the location of Captain Jack's final meeting with Ten. Only it was never said — that's just a thing from the scene description, and really, truly isn't all that admissible under our house rules. But we got nothin' else, so we use it.
By contrast, the script can be flatly wrong. It is not at all wrong to spell "Ringstrasse" as "Ringstraße". Those are equivalent spellings, and if I were asked through Template:T to make a change, I absolutely wouldn't. Equally, the example of "Kran" from one of the Tenth Doctor audios being moved to "Kram" because of the script is insupportable, in my view. It sounds like "Kran". There might be some pronunciational leeway with diphthongs or vowels, but single, unblended consonants? No, something which sounds like "Kran" is "Kran", and the script can be safely assumed to have a typo. Put more simply, the performance itself is a better source than the script.
It's probably a bad idea to create a template which allows people to doubt themselves so much that they are too paralysed to start relatively minor articles.
Nor is it likely a great idea to create a long-ish list of articles whose spelling needs to be checked. Especially since the thing we'll be checking against — the script — may well have typos. Or it just may not be the audio equivalent of a "shooting script". The writer could well have meant "Kram", but on the day the director and actor(s) chose to swim away from the author. And if Big Finish didn't go back and reflect that change then we're actually introducing an error by using the script.
So I personally think it's awfully dangerous to see the script as definitive.
At the end of the day, if people make a good faith effort to hear character/object names in the audio, and then they create links from the audio's page to their character/object page, I think most readers will be able to follow along in their hymnbooks.
Indeed, the problem with incomplete cast lists on audios that Amorkuz has sited in the last paragraph of the above post isn't, I don't think, a spelling problem. It's a problem that afflict a ton of story pages. It's simply a lot of work to do a story page well, and people don't want to do it, even when they've got the names of all the characters right in front of their noses.
So I wouldn't create the proposed template, because it's just going to generate a lot of self doubt for editors. If they start seeing we're marking pages based on the fact that it's an audio-only name, then they'll probably start slapping the name on a lot of pages, and there'll be a mountain of spelling checkup work to do — using scripts that may or may not be accurate in the first place.
Scripts are questionable sources. If we allow 'em in for audios, we'll have to give them primacy over television, and that's a whole other can of worms. And then you've also got to think that some things that were on television made their print debuts in comic books and prose, and you get into this situation where you can have a standoff between a script and end credits, or a script and a comic strip, or a script and the (at least 2) versions of the closed captioning. And it's just an administrative mess.
- Amorkuz
Thank you for a comprehensive reply. It touches upon many things. I would like to discuss them separately. Firstly, the information that scripts are the least respected source compared to the audio itself is probably self-evident for experienced editors. Luckily for me, I've been explained before that in-universe perspective (sound of the audio) always trumps anything out-of-universe (production materials). However, I do not believe this is explicitly formulated with respect to spelling in the Naming conventions or Spelling policies. And I think new editors could benefit from being able to read this information in the policies. My own ranking of valid sources in determining the spelling is as follows:
- Sound on the audio
- CD packaging and booklet
- Web page of the release
- Other promotional materials published by the producer of the audio, e.g., release announcements, news about the release or Vortex magazine. (Two recent examples of spelling verified using such sources are "Aldriss" [10] and "Goritania".[11])
- Scripts published by the producer of the audio
If I am wrong, please correct this ranking. But putting the corrected ranking to the policy pages would, IMHO, help in both resolving disputes and suggesting ways to verify spelling for new editors.
To be continued...
- Amorkuz
Timeframe was something that I myself was unsure of. I agree with CzechOut that putting a tag preventing a page creation and waiting indefinitely for a correct spelling would have been a bad practice. I would like to point out, however, that virtually all of the above five sources of correct spellings appear no later than a month after the release of the audio. Let me detail the information flow to make my point clearer:
- On the release day, everybody gets access to the web page (3rd source above). Note that pages for the story are often created by editors not owning the story, with minimal information.
- On the same day, those who bought the audio get access to the audio itself (source 1), but it normally takes at least a day or two for them to listen to the audio.
- Those who bought the CD receive a physical copy (source 2), say, a week after the release (depending on where they live). CD packaging in most cases contains a longer cast and might contain additional information. Note that this additional information is typically not yet available when the page for the story is created.
- Promotional materials with spelling revelations (source 4) can arrive even later: "Aldriss" has appeared on the BF website on March 5, while the second War Doctor box set was released on February 22. So almost two weeks after the release, there is still a chance to get new information.
- I'm guessing that two weeks after the release, also the scripts have already been made available for those who subscribe to the main range or buy special editions.
What I am saying is that waiting only two weeks after the release of the physical CD can resolve several spelling disputes.
Thus, having a spelling-enquiry template that states the date of the enquiry and puts only a temporary, 2-week moratorium on page creation would solve the problem of pages never being created.
I suspect that buyers of CDs are not always aware that they're sitting on a trove of information useful for page creation. A tag with a request for information could motivate them to share.
Thus, when one starts looking carefully into the available sources, scripts become just one of many. It was my mistake to concentrate on scripts in my first post. CzechOut's reaction to this focus on scripts was rightfully negative. It's neither the only thing nor the main thing. Notwithstanding, it seems beneficial to wait 2-3 weeks until CDs arrive in the post and sometimes additional clarifications appear on the website.
Is there a better way to alert editors about such a wait period?
To be continued...
- Amorkuz
Now, regarding the kind of ambiguities in spelling that arise. Let's leave Kram/Kran aside for a moment. I know I'm supposed to be able to tell them apart. But I can't, I'm sorry, and happy to concede to those who can. That's not the worst case.
I mentioned that minor characters often do not make it to the credited cast. There is, however, a different reason for not including a character in the cast: misdirection. BF (like BBC before them) do not want plot twists to be revealed already in the cast announcements. Yes, in many cases such reveals mean an appearance of a well known character whose spelling is known. But not always. In Technophobia no aliens made it into the credited cast, not even Lobo, the leader of the invading force. Clearly, crediting Chook Sibtain with the minor role of Brian rather than Lobo, who is the main enemy in the story, was done on purpose, to make listeners think that this is a story about technology gone mad, not about an alien invasion. Another case of a misdirection is not mentioning the name Varaxil in The Witch from the Well. The listener is not supposed to know about the aliens too early. So their name would not be in any public production materials other than scripts.
However, characters' names are in a better shape still. At least, many are bound to be mentioned in the cast. There is no such obligation for locations, planets, species, or objects. At the risk of repeating myself, Aldriss is the planet of the Technomancers, the main location of Legion of the Lost, hardly an unimportant detail. My initial guess at spelling was "Olldris", as funny as it may sound now (wait, it sounds the same---it looks funny). That's not even in the same place alphabetically.
The letter combinations producing exactly the same sound are numerous and varied: f vs. ph, k vs. ck, v vs. ph, almost any consonant can be doubled, ea vs. ee, c vs. s, t vs. dt in German names, silent e can be added at the end of words. Think of it this way: there are scores of Stevens and scores of Stephens already. Would it not impede the search further to have additional redirects from Steven ... to Stephen ... and back?
Then there are cases where speech is distorted on purpose. According to BFX, I was not the only one who could not understand a single word of Galileo Galilei's stone record to the Doctor in Doom Coalition 1. In less severe cases, strong Briggsification can really add mystery to the simplest words that might as well be important for the story.
Further, there are foreign words that we should know but don't (at least not all of us). When the Doctor mentions Filippo Bruno, an educated person or an Italian is supposed to know it's one l and two p's. What if I'm neither and do not know I should search under Giordano Bruno. When the Doctor mentions Sisi, every Austrian would spell her correctly (you can hardly walk 500 feet in the centre of Vienna without seeing her portrait). But we're not all Austrians. And for several years she's been spelled Cissy. Even an Austrian would not easily guess it's the same person without listening to the audio. Just to be clear, I'm not saying people were wrong in guessing a spelling or creating these pages. I thank them for their bravery: I myself am too afraid to be wrong. I am saying that asking for advice on spelling is useful in all kinds of situations, sometimes related more to our collective real-world knowledge than any production materials. It is impossible to expect everyone to know correct German, and French, and Italian, and Spanish spellings. But I am sure that we have at least one expert in each of these languages.
What seems to be lacking currently is an efficient mechanism for addressing these questions to an appropriate party. There is the Ref Desk, true. But it's not dedicated to spelling questions. And I'm not sure how many people check it out regularly. Say, I hear a phrase "Svetyj Pyotr" in Minuet in Hell and suspect it's Polish. It's not completely unimportant to the plot as it appeals to St. Peter in order to fight demons. What are the chances that there is a Polish speaker regularly checking Ref Desk. And what if it's actually Czech? On the other hand, if I have, say, basic German proficiency and know that there is a place where this proficiency could come to a good use, I would be checking it regularly.
And if no one came up with an answer within a month, again, it makes no sense to wait longer.
To be continued...
- Amorkuz
One final thing that CzechOut touched upon. There are different psychological types of editors. Some editors are comfortable creating pages guessing a spelling, but would stop doing so if a prohibitive tag is put on. Others, like me, are comfortable pointing out that a page is to be created after the spelling is correct, but would avoid writing anything, terrified that somebody would create a page with a wrong spelling because I put it there. Surely, I can't be alone in the second category.
I'm sorry about the verbosity. As you can probably see, it's something that's been bothering me for quite some time. And I'd like to find a better way of overcoming individual cases of both "spelling stupor" and "spelling spree". I'm not at all claiming that what I've proposed is necessarily the only solution or the best solution. But I hope I've succeeded in identifying a problem. And I'd be happy if my suggestion would be improved or if an alternative solution is proposed.
PS And please say something about it in the policies. If after all it is preferred that we create pages with our best shot at the spelling, please put it in the policy. Because currently, a new editor really doesn't know what to do and probably defaults to his psychological type. In other words, assuming there are roughly equal number of people of each type, without a clear policy, about 50% of people do not do what they're supposed to, independent of what we are supposed to do.
- Bwburke94
Even outside audios, there have been cases of questionable spellings – Merry Gejelh/Galel is the best case I can remember, as her name is not spelled as pronounced.
- Amorkuz
Fascinating. And there I was thinking that subtitles in iTunes are 100% reliable.
- 2.26.183.190
Using official sources is the best option as it reflects the view of the program makers to be reflected the only problem with using official statements is that the trial of a time lord is often referred to as 4 story’s and one at the same time but is counted as one in official program guides another reason is that the proposed rules can produce false positives as with the 1st two episodes of torchwood and false negatives and the rules would have to change when the why doctor who is filmed and witan for example cris chibnal is already roomed to be introducing a whites room witch may affect how witers are credited and divide up the witting duties wats more wats to stop a two part story being divded between series as happens often in us TV like the star trek episodes best of both worlds parts 1 and 2 witch if doctor who did something similar under the proposed rules whud cunt as two story’s there for using what is stated in official publications is the best policy
- Bwburke94
We should definitely have an {{Unknown spelling}} template for these kinds of situations.
So I myself could not have figured out this reference. And it's doubtful my suggested spelling of Faircut would have suggested others to look for a reference, especially if I called it a planet. On the other hand, a fellow editor with the script (could have also been someone with knowledge of astronomy) did help to establish a connection (for which I'm deeply grateful).
If it's a prohibition on creating pages that is troublesome even for a short time, fine, let's not prohibit anything. Even so, the ability to query the expertise of others would definitely help catch some of the hidden Easter eggs.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:194725
I've read the inclusion debate. Like The Infinity Doctors, Death Comes to Time wasn't written as an "alternate universe" or similar, but it's obviously and knowingly not the same as everything else. Wouldn't it be better to categorize it as another non-NOTVALID universe, so that it could get "in an alternate universe" coverage on relevant pages like Ace, the way The Infinity Doctors has on Sontaran or Omega?
- Shambala108
If you have new information that wasn't covered in Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, please post it here.
- OttselSpy25
The reason that Infinity specifically is treated that way is because of what we know about its purpose. It was meant to have a sequel book, where it would be revealed that the series was an alternate dimension/timeline/reality, and a "reset button" would have been hit. It's a very specific piece of info that shouldn't be used as a precedent for any stories that don't hold that fact as well.
As far as I know, Death Comes to Time WANTED to be a valid story, but also wanted to invalidate the 1996 TV movie. While this lead to us questioning its inclusion within our wiki, without an in-universe explanation we can't cover it very easily.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Death Comes to Time didn't want to invalidate the movie, for example Richard E. Grant (in the same series) plays the Ninth Doctor.
Death Comes to Time was supposed to be an alternate universe, Dan Freedman has even said so.
- WJDTwGL
If it's supposed to be an alternate universe it should be treated as such, not as NOTVALID. As it is, the information about the Doctor and Ace/their actions from Death Comes to Time is nowhere on this wiki. It isn't allowed to be on their pages even in an "in one universe" capacity, and if individual pages were created like "Ace (Death Comes to Time)" they would treat the characters as if that were their only appearance, not letting them be informed by their "proper" stories in any way.
- SOTO
Well it's perfectly allowed to cover it in a behind-the-scenes section. I don't know where people are getting the idea that Death Comes to Time was meant to be an alternate universe. It was meant to be completely negate the continuation of Doctor Who in the TV movie. There is no indication it was ever intended to be an alternate universe.
If you make a claim, back it up with a source, please.
- SOTO
The webcast with the Richard E Grant Doctor is Scream of the Shalka, which isn't valid for similar reasons.
- WJDTwGL
So the "Behind the Scenes" section on a character page can contain an in-universe description of what they did in "Death Comes to Time"?
- SOTO
Well no, not an in-universe account. But there absolutely can be a subsection dedicated to the events of Death Comes to Time, from a real world perspective.
- SOTO
I really think Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time says it all.
- WJDTwGL
My point is that there's no in universe description allowed, unless a NOTVALID page is made for each of those characters. In which case those pages will still treat the characters as completely separate from their appearances in valid sources, making the whole thing completely useless. It's not a problem for a NOTVALID story like Deadline that doesn't share characters with other stories, but for Death Comes to Time it means that the parts of the partially-valid characters seen there will never have proper coverage.
- Shambala108
SOTO wrote: I really think Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time says it all.
I was actually going to post this myself before I got interrupted by an emergency. To quote from Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point:
- "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic."
Please carefully read through Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, and if you have any arguments that are not already covered in that debate, post them here; otherwise this discussion will be closed by the above quoted policy.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It was supposed to be canon as was SoftS
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It was supposed to be canon as was SoftS
An unsourced comment is not a valid argument. Provide your source(s).
- WJDTwGL
Shambala108 wrote:
SOTO wrote: I really think Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time says it all.
- "Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic."
Please carefully read through Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time, and if you have any arguments that are not already covered in that debate, post them here; otherwise this discussion will be closed by the above quoted policy.
As I said at the start of this thread, I have read the inclusion debate. I'm not "wasting other editors' time" because a) you're under no obligation to be involved and so can only waste your own time, and b) what I'm saying here was not discussed in the inclusion debate. I never said "Death Comes to Time should be treated as equally valid as Survival" (though that is true), I said that this wiki would cover its subject better if it allowed information from DCtT in an "alternate universe" capacity.
- Shambala108
OK, a lot to respond to here.
First, SOTO and I suggested the reading of the policy to everyone included in the debate, not just you. If I had meant the advice just for you, I would have used your name. There is no need to be defensive.
Second, I quoted the policy because I didn't want to quote it out of context, but you're focusing too much on the "wasting time" aspect. I never intended to accuse any poster in this thread of wasting my/other editors' time. However, I'd just like to point out that I and other admins do have an obligation to be involved in any discussion post.
As for your remarks to Dench-and-Palmer (which I have removed), I will address those on your talk page.
- WJDTwGL
Sorry for the personal attack - it honestly wasn't meant that way. I didn't think through how it could be read well enough.
Shambala, you said "if you have any arguments that are not already covered in that debate." The "you" and emphasis seem to imply that what I have argued was covered in the inclusion debate, as well as that I hadn't read it - and neither of those things is true.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Dr Who guide says this
Since the Seventh Doctor apparently dies in this story, this is most likely set in an alternate timeline created by Tannis. However, it is possible that when the Doctor used his powers to take Tannis out of time, he altered history so these events never occured.
It accordingly comes from the DW website.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Out if interest, what was the personal attack?
Was it towards me?
I don't mind, I forgive you but I'm just intrigued as to what was said.
- WJDTwGL
drwhoguide.com is not a valid source. It's completely fan speculation.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I know pal, but he's quoting DWM.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
First Frontier + officially licensed source = Valid + States Dimensions in Time is a dream (valid) = Dimensions in Time is invalid.
No logic is applied to the validity of stories
- OttselSpy25
Dimensions in Time isn't valid because the creators didn't mean for it to be taken seriously as a story. OTHER books putting context for these adventures means little after that point is made.
Not sure why that was brought up.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: No logic is applied to the validity of stories
Have you completely read through Tardis:Valid sources? Or the dozens of inclusion debates we've had on this wiki? Because the policy is the end result of years of discussion trying to determine what to include on this wiki. Flippant statements do not help your argument.
If you have actual sources (preferably quoting the two people cited in the original forum thread), post it here. References that are not only invalid, but also use the words "apparently", "most likely" and "it is possible", will not be considered in this discussion.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I was referring to DiT rather than anything else.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Dan Freedman says that Death Comes to Time is not set in the DWU. Meaning it's not set in the Doctor's universe, he never said it was non canon (invalid).
- OttselSpy25
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Dan Freedman says that Death Comes to Time is not set in the DWU. Meaning it's not set in the Doctor's universe, he never said it was non canon (invalid).
citation please
- OttselSpy25
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: he never said it was non canon (invalid).
On this site, those two things are not the same thing.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It says it on this wikia, with evidence, hold a sec.
I was quoting Dan Freedman and putting what I mean by what he's said, if you follow? he says non DWU, I say invalid.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time
Someone quotes it here, I believe.
- 90.197.250.37
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time
Someone quotes it here, I believe.
In the same post however, DCTT is compared to the Cushing movies. Which the wikia has decided to be INVALID.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
90.197.250.37 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time
Someone quotes it here, I believe.
In the same post however, DCTT is compared to the Cushing movies. Which the wikia has decided to be INVALID.
A fan has made a comparison. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what they're on about in that thread. 😄
- Pluto2
Aren't we ASSUMING Death Comes to Time ends with the Doctor dying?
All we're given is a burnt umbrella. It's even made clear that they didn't find a body.
It could go either way as to whether or not the Doctor actually dies at the end. Did he die? Did he get up and walk away, leaving behind his umbrella? It's not explicitly stated either way, thus we can't say it negates the TV movie - because that's speculation.
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: Aren't we ASSUMING Death Comes to Time ends with the Doctor dying?
All we're given is a burnt umbrella. It's even made clear that they didn't find a body.
It could go either way as to whether or not the Doctor actually dies at the end. Did he die? Did he get up and walk away, leaving behind his umbrella? It's not explicitly stated either way, thus we can't say it negates the TV movie - because that's speculation.
You're right about all of that, but it doesn't matter. It was decided in the earlier discussion, and therefore is completely immutable. The point of this thread is just to have it considered an alternate universe rather than NOTVALID - a meaningless policy distinction that keeps the story from being covered in the proper context.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Aren't we ASSUMING Death Comes to Time ends with the Doctor dying?
All we're given is a burnt umbrella. It's even made clear that they didn't find a body.
It could go either way as to whether or not the Doctor actually dies at the end. Did he die? Did he get up and walk away, leaving behind his umbrella? It's not explicitly stated either way, thus we can't say it negates the TV movie - because that's speculation.
You're right about all of that, but it doesn't matter. It was decided in the earlier discussion, and therefore is completely immutable. The point of this thread is just to have it considered an alternate universe rather than NOTVALID - a meaningless policy distinction that keeps the story from being covered in the proper context.
Not meaningless.
- OttselSpy25
This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
OttselSpy25 wrote: This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?
Petty? Well BBCi aimed to continue Doctor Who, if they were trying to de-canonise the movie, then why introduce E.Grant as the "incoming important part" Ninth Doctor.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
OttselSpy25 wrote: This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?
On a less formal note, it's nice to see you on the wiki OttselSpy25. I've been following some of your work, I see we both appreciate the invalid side of life.
Though seriously can anyone provide quotes?
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Not meaningless.
You're making an absolute statement without providing any reasoning or backing.
OttselSpy25 wrote:
This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?
There are a bunch of quotes on the original inclusion debate. None of them speak directly to the alternate universe vs. NOTVALID distinction of course, since it is made up by, and unique to, this wiki.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Petty? Well BBCi aimed to continue Doctor Who, if they were trying to de-canonise the movie, then why introduce E.Grant as the "incoming important part" Ninth Doctor.
Well, DCtT and SotS aren't really the same thing. And anything about "de-canonising" is completely irrelevant, because there is no canon.
My overall point is this: NOTVALID sources like the Peter Cushing movies or The Curse of Fatal Death are not intended to be set in the world in which Survival is set, or The Eight Doctors. Operating on the assumption that Death Comes to Time is meant to feature the Doctor's permanent death in his seventh incarnation with the intention of contradicting the movie, it might not be set in the world of The Eight Doctors - but it is obviously still set in the world of Survival. If you watch it, it's obvious that the characters "the Doctor" and "Ace" are meant to be the same characters as in the original show - barring the movie. So the story isn't accurately covered unless information about the characters in it is placed in the context of their "proper" histories (albeit with an "in one universe" disclaimer).
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Not meaningless.
You're making an absolute statement without providing any reasoning or backing.
OttselSpy25 wrote:
This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?
There are a bunch of quotes on the original inclusion debate. None of them speak directly to the alternate universe vs. NOTVALID distinction of course, since it is made up by, and unique to, this wiki.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Petty? Well BBCi aimed to continue Doctor Who, if they were trying to de-canonise the movie, then why introduce E.Grant as the "incoming important part" Ninth Doctor.
Well, DCtT and SotS aren't really the same thing. And anything about "de-canonising" is completely irrelevant, because there is no canon.
My overall point is this: NOTVALID sources like the Peter Cushing movies or The Curse of Fatal Death are not intended to be set in the world in which Survival is set, or The Eight Doctors. Operating on the assumption that Death Comes to Time is meant to feature the Doctor's permanent death in his seventh incarnation with the intention of contradicting the movie, it might not be set in the world of The Eight Doctors - but it is obviously still set in the world of Survival. If you watch it, it's obvious that the characters "the Doctor" and "Ace" are meant to be the same characters as in the original show - barring the movie. So the story isn't accurately covered unless information about the characters in it is placed in the context of their "proper" histories (albeit with an "in one universe" disclaimer).
I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
And by the way. We didn't actually see Seven die.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.
That's not true. This wiki's validity policy is completely unconnected to "canon," which doesn't exist at all. Validity decides what narratives can have articles here and in what way.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
And by the way. We didn't actually see Seven die.
I know, and I absolutely agree with you. Ideally, DCtT shouldn't be considered NOTVALID or another universe, but the previous inclusion debate decided that he did die in DCtT, and that therefore it deliberately contradicts the movie, and that therefore it has deliberately separated itself from the "proper" universe. So it doesn't make any difference to argue about it anymore. This thread is only about whether it should be considered "another universe" or NOTVALID.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Fwhiffahder wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.
That's not true. This wiki's validity policy is completely unconnected to "canon," which doesn't exist at all. Validity decides what narratives can have articles here and in what way.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
And by the way. We didn't actually see Seven die.
I know, and I absolutely agree with you. Ideally, DCtT shouldn't be considered NOTVALID or another universe, but the previous inclusion debate decided that he did die in DCtT, and that therefore it deliberately contradicts the movie, and that therefore it has deliberately separated itself from the "proper" universe. So it doesn't make any difference to argue about it anymore. This thread is only about whether it should be considered "another universe" or NOTVALID.
I agree but I don't think that we should say definitely that Seven died, one because we didn't see it.
And two I don't think fans have the right to decide whether a character has died if we haven't seen it.
- WJDTwGL
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I agree but I don't think that we should say definitely that Seven died, one because we didn't see it.
And two I don't think fans have the right to decide whether a character has died if we haven't seen it.
Again: I agree. But are you saying that the inclusion debate should be reopened entirely because it never considered the fact that the Doctor didn't actually die?
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.
Nothing rude about it. The thing you don't understand is that we got a lot of users here on these forums that don't know much about the wiki. The "There is no canon" comment is almost always put first to emphasize that, well, "There is no canon", and that our discussions on valid sources are not meant to tell people what they can and can't include in their own personal canon, it's just what we decide to cover on our in-universe pages. The comment is meant to educate people who might be coming from other franchises and not realize that there isn't really a canon for DW.
Don't assume that the only people who edit/read this wiki know all the details about wiki policy. Personally, most of my posts include a lot of extra information to educate people who are unfamiliar with how we do things.
It sounds like you don't understand what we mean by "There is no canon". I suggest you read Tardis:Canon policy for its explanation of why there isn't canon and how we as a wiki choose to deal with that fact. Your statement "if there was no canon then everything would be valid" is flatly contradicted in that policy.
- NateBumber
I'll note that the "feeling of being freed from continuity" cited as justification for the NOTVALID label in the closed thread is extremely similar to how Lance Parkin felt "liberated" from continuity while writing The Infinity Doctors. The scenarios are entirely analogous, and, after a thorough read of the closed thread that's been linked multiple times, I see no reason why Death Comes to Time should be treated as INVALID as opposed to being part of an alternate universe. I agree with Fwhiffahder.
And frankly, I agree that there's no major difference between being INVALID and being in an alternate universe. Especially in the light of things like 12 referencing Shalka's backstory as part of his past, or the David Warner Unbound Doctor boxset, the line is getting more blurred with every release. I think the entire policy should be rethought.
Unrelated, but can someone link me to the inclusion debate thread for Scream of the Shalka? I might just suck at navigating Wikia, but I can't seem to find it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.
Nothing rude about it. The thing you don't understand is that we got a lot of users here on these forums that don't know much about the wiki. The "There is no canon" comment is almost always put first to emphasize that, well, "There is no canon", and that our discussions on valid sources are not meant to tell people what they can and can't include in their own personal canon, it's just what we decide to cover on our in-universe pages. The comment is meant to educate people who might be coming from other franchises and not realize that there isn't really a canon for DW.
Don't assume that the only people who edit/read this wiki know all the details about wiki policy. Personally, most of my posts include a lot of extra information to educate people who are unfamiliar with how we do things.
It sounds like you don't understand what we mean by "There is no canon". I suggest you read Tardis:Canon policy for its explanation of why there isn't canon and how we as a wiki choose to deal with that fact. Your statement "if there was no canon then everything would be valid" is flatly contradicted in that policy.
I know what validity is on this wiki but to individual readers, they probably think "Well the Pertwee era and the Dark Eyes are "canon"." But they're also thinking "That one with EastEnders and that one with Mr Bean are "non canon".
Again, I appreciate what validity is here to the editors, but we don't really edit for ourselves. We edit for the readers.
And when I open up a discussion and (I only used the term decanon as a way of not using devalidise - but that's beside the point) someone says "There is no canon" - I don't know about you but that will tee someone off, passing the Wiki's (100% brilliant) opinions as fact.
I think just pointing out that, by our policies, there is no canon. (Which is in my opinion, now after reading it, the next door neighbour of canon) Would be much better.
I'm not having a dig at anyone, I'm just helping you understand that it comes across as quite rude - and when one is typing it can be read differently to how another will read it. The latter is why I use my "best wishes" after messages, so no niceties will come across as nastiness.
- NateBumber
Fwhiffahder wrote:But are you saying that the inclusion debate should be reopened entirely because it never considered the fact that the Doctor didn't actually die?
Regardless of whether DENCH-and-PALMER is saying that, I'll go out on a limb and say it should be on those grounds.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I know what validity is on this wiki but to individual readers, they probably think "Well the Pertwee era and the Dark Eyes are "canon"." But they're also thinking "That one with EastEnders and that one with Mr Bean are "non canon".
Based on my experience with Who fans, I'd say they're more likely to be thinking "Lungbarrow is non-canon"
- Shambala108
There seems to have been an edit conflict. This comment is to answer NateBumber's question about Scream of the Shalka.
It's located at Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?, which is not obvious from the title. In general, you can find most of the older inclusion debates linked from Tardis:Valid sources (pretty much three years ago or more). For newer inclusion debates, you can ask at my talk page, User talk:Shambala108.
I don't know how many other wikis you've navigated, but this one is pretty large and we have a ton of closed and open debates deciding policy. It can be tough for experienced users to find something, so don't feel that you "suck" at this.
- NateBumber
Thanks Shambala108.
I'd also like to note that Zagreus established Death Comes to Time as an alternate timeline.
- WJDTwGL
Zagreus also considers the EDAs an alternate timeline.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: someone says "There is no canon" - I don't know about you but that will tee someone off, passing the Wiki's (100% brilliant) opinions as fact.
Did you read Tardis:Canon policy? The paragraph entitled "Doctor Who and canon" specifically states the actual policy of the BBC, not the wiki's opinion. That's why we constantly state "There is no canon", because the BBC has not declared a canon.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I'm not having a dig at anyone, I'm just helping you understand that it comes across as quite rude - and when one is typing it can be read differently to how another will read it. The latter is why I use my "best wishes" after messages, so no niceties will come across as nastiness.
So basically we admins can't win. We write to educate new editors, we tick off the older ones. We cater to the older editors, we alienate the new ones.
But it is past time to get this discussion back on track. If you have an issue with canon, bring it up at Tardis:Canon policy. If you have an issue with our valid sources policy, bring it up at Tardis:Valid sources.
- NateBumber
Regardless, the reference to DCoT is a clear in-universe statement that it's an alternate universe (ie, not NOTVALID). OttselSpy25 wanted clear citations that hadn't been mentioned in the past inclusion debate.
- SOTO
To briefly add to what's been said, the BBC cannot, legally, declare a canon, because they do not actually own all of it. Many prominent DWU elements are in fact owned by individual writers, or their estates. Even today, we can't use the Daleks without permission. That's why there are a large number of works covered by this wiki that are not licensed by the BBC, but which are licensed for their DWU elements.
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: To briefly add to what's been said, the BBC cannot, legally, declare a canon, because they do not actually own all of it. Many prominent DWU elements are in fact owned by individual writers, or their estates. Even today, we can't use the Daleks without permission. That's why there are a large number of works covered by this wiki that are not licensed by the BBC, but which are licensed for their DWU elements.
Canon isn't a legal concept. The BBC can't decide that a canon exists because of Death of the Author. The intentions of the author/editor/copyright holder have no effect on the stories themselves after their publication.
- Pluto2
I don't see what the basis was for declaring DCTT invalid because "Seven dies". That's speculation, and not stated in the narrative itself. In fact, it's left unclear whether the Seventh Doctor died. All we have is a burnt umbrella, which is very flimsy evidence. To claim "it's invalid because Seven dies" without solid narrative evidence isn't enough for me. We don't even see a body, so I think the inclusion debate should be reopened.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: I don't see what the basis was for declaring DCTT invalid because "Seven dies". That's speculation, and not stated in the narrative itself. In fact, it's left unclear whether the Seventh Doctor died. All we have is a burnt umbrella, which is very flimsy evidence. To claim "it's invalid because Seven dies" without solid narrative evidence isn't enough for me. We don't even see a body, so I think the inclusion debate should be reopened.
100% agree - it's like saying definitely that Twelve killed the half face man, we don't know that for definite. I believe the thread should be reopened.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: 100% agree - it's like saying definitely that Twelve killed the half face man, we don't know that for definite. I believe the thread should be reopened.
What thread? This one hasn't been closed yet.
- OttselSpy25
Here's how I see it.
The reasoning we use for making 'Infinity Doctors' a sort of loose-valid is that we have information on what a potential sequel to the story was meant to be like. That is, there was supposed to be a second book where we figured out what made the "infinity timeline," and everything would have been reset to the regular 8th Doctor adventures.
One could argue that this shouldn't set a precedent for many stories as it's oddly specific, but I want to try and explain what we would really need to apply it to Death Comes to Time.
The context for what the authors meant for the story is very important. We get a hint that 7 dies at the end, but was this actually meant to be final? Is there any quote out there that says "Oh, if we had done another one he would have unexploded" or what-not?
According to what I had read, the lead writer had considered that story a rebuttal to the TV movie, and that they didn't consider the TV movie to be part of that story's "true universe." If anything that only seems to explain the supposed death at the end -- what better way is there to clearly say that the TV movie doesn't count then to KILL the Doctor long before that story would take place?
It's one thing for stories to contradict each other -- Lungbarrow is still very much valid on this site, for example, and it contradicts almost every other Who story ever made -- but to go as far as to say that an entire incarnation of the Doctor doesn't count is a whole other ball park. The show, comics, books, and audios have consistently made it clear that the TV movie did happen. If the Doctor does die in that story, and it was intended to always be that way and was never meant to be un-done, then it's set in a different "idea" of the Doctor Who universe than most everything since then.
Some would put forwards that we should count them anyways and simply put scrutiny to pages about them -- this however, is simply a discussion about weather DCTT should be valid under the same precedent of TID, and without quotes to suggest that the authors DIDN'T want the story to end where it did, I don't think that there's a very strong case for this idea.
- NateBumber
I don't think that's what the quotes from the author indicate at all. Specifically, look at the following:
"No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing. You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."
In the last thread, this was read as "proof that he didn't intend to respect the narrative elements of DCOT", which is completely wrong, considering the Doctor didn't actually die in the story. Instead, Freedman appears to be saying that he intends to get the commission to produce Doctor Who on television, implying a continuation, but it would be with an all-new Doctor, with no direct in-your-face continuity linking it to the old series. When the author went on his rants about how the TV movie was terrible, he was referring to the way in which it began with a giant continuity link and presumption of audience knowledge, which he thinks is a bad idea and credits with its lack of success.
(This is in line with the "It's not going to be McGann" quote and, as czechout says in the earlier thread, rather similar to RTD's approach with Doctor Who series 1.)
In these ways, DCOT can be seen as setup, a (as he says) "stepping stone" for a soft reboot of the series, which would leave it ambiguous as to how much time, adventures, and regenerations have passed since DCOT. The Doctor is vanished ... until one day he reappears and the new series starts. This leaves room for the TV Movie, which (funnily enough) doesn't exactly contradict the idea that the Time Lords aren't running the show anymore. I still think it should be considered an alternate universe, not fully integrated, since there was no follow-through, but either way it seems to me that it fits pretty well under TID's precedent.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Though seriously can anyone provide quotes?
I've got loads of quotes.
Nev Fountain, script editor for DCTT
- "I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon , you can. or not. Whatever you prefer."
- "I think Death Comes to Time is very much a one-off project as far as I'm concerned, but perhaps this online thing will prove to be a stepping stone."
Dan Freedman, director, producer and writer (under the name Colin Meek) of DCTT
- "No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing. You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."
- Inclusion debates aren't about the narrative merits of the story, but rather any out-of-universe clues that the producers didn't think the story within the bounds of the normal DWU.
- It is the foundational precept of this wiki that articles about narrative elements — characters, locations, concepts — shall be written from an in-universe perspective.
- For this reason, a process — which, incidentally, I did not personally invent — emerged whereby we occasionally examine a story or range to see whether it should be considered a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles. If there's evidence that the creators/copyright holders did not intend for the story to be a part of the DWU, or if there's a question about the story's legal status, we exclude it.
- It's as simple as this: we pay attention to what producers/writers say because Steven Moffat's mother-in-law got Terry Nation effective ownership of the Daleks. That means the current iteration of Doctor Who is largely based on something the BBC don't even properly own. So we're kinda obliged to listen to what individual creative personnel say.
- Over the past 8 years that this wiki has been open, we've been moving slowly but inexorably towards the conclusions that have now been finally codified in Tardis:Canon policy and Tardis:Valid sources. Both place the out-of-universe statements of creators above narrative.
Please note that the discussion of this story's validity has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Doctor dies in the story. Contradictions in narrative elements do not decide validity; if they did, we'd probably have maybe one or two stories on the entire wiki.
Also, this is not a brand new thing we're deciding. This discussion was originally closed over four years ago. The burden of proof is on those who wish this story's validity to be changed, and I've seen nothing new that would change this story from invalid to valid.
- OttselSpy25
Again, us deciding to consider The Infinity Doctors as an alternate timeline/dimension didn't just come about because it was weird. It happened because we have out-of-universe confirmation that further stories would have confirmed this aspect of the book, stories which will never be made.
I don't think we can or should use this as a solid precedent to make every story that's *kinda weird* into an alternate dimension. We need more than that.
If anyone wants to challenge anything from the previous discussion, I don't see a problem with that. I know others on this site are very against the idea of bringing up problems with closed discussions, but I think it's mainly constructive when done right. But I don't think there's been a lot of that at all in this discussion, it's mainly been centered around the idea that TID and DCTT are the same -- when I simply fail to see this myself.
- Pluto2
For that matter, what was the reasoning behind DCOT being deemed invalid, if it wasn't that the Doctor possibly died?
- OttselSpy25
I believe this is the main chunk of where the thread's conclusion comes from:
- They actively chose not to involve McGann when it was clear that they had no qualms about asking other, arguably "bigger", actors to participate.
- They weren't looking to continue this continuity at all, so I think they felt liberated to do whatever they wanted with it.
- They were looking to produce DW on television at the time, and Freedman seems to be saying he wouldn't have continued this continuity on television.
- Fountain publicly backed away from definitively calling DCTT "canon" before the whole thing had actually come out.
Czech says that Freedman had pitched a continuation of Doctor Who to the BBC that was supposed to include the events of DCTT. This new series wouldn't have featured Paul McGann, but he might have been included as a "Future incarnation," meaning that (basically) the series would have starred a new 8th Doctor seperate from the one in the 1996 Telefilm. If this is true (which, to be clear, it's the one part he doesn't cite very well) then that means that 'Infinity Doctors' and 'DCTT' are similar -- but different in ways that would seem to close this whole discussion.
'Infinity Doctors' had an unmade sequel that would have connected it to the mainframe of the Doctor Who novels, explaining its ties to valid sources. Thus we can see it as an alternate timeline/dimension.
'DCTT' would have had a sequel that would have severed different parts of the DWU to make a new DWU that we can not recognise. Much like the Shalka webcast, this was supposedly made entirely to introduce an 8th Doctor whom is not valid.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mistake here, or if there was some info that was overblown, but unless someone has actual evidence that something about this interpretation is off somehow...
I want to tread lightly -- it's traditionally considered a no-no on this site to just question consensus all willy-nilly (for a reason I've never understood). But that's my two cents on the whole thing.
- WJDTwGL
OttselSpy25 wrote: According to what I had read, the lead writer had considered that story a rebuttal to the TV movie, and that they didn't consider the TV movie to be part of that story's "true universe." If anything that only seems to explain the supposed death at the end -- what better way is there to clearly say that the TV movie doesn't count then to KILL the Doctor long before that story would take place?
That's why I've been saying it should at least be considered "another universe" rather than NOTVALID. Even if it doesn't consider the movie part of its "true universe," it does include some of the stuff before that. It's not written as a completely different version of all of Doctor Who (like the Cushing movies). It's just different where the movie (and its descendants) are concerned. Hence, a description of what happens to the Seventh Doctor in it should be placed on Seventh Doctor: "In one universe, the Time Lords were like, going away 'n' shit blah blah blah. (WC: Death Comes to Time (webcast)" That way, DCtT isn't considered absolute gospel on what happens in the universe of the TV movie, but it is explained in the proper context - as another version of pre-movie characters, sharing much of the same history.
OttselSpy25 wrote: It's one thing for stories to contradict each other -- Lungbarrow is still very much valid on this site, for example, and it contradicts almost every other Who story ever made -- but to go as far as to say that an entire incarnation of the Doctor doesn't count is a whole other ball park. The show, comics, books, and audios have consistently made it clear that the TV movie did happen. If the Doctor does die in that story, and it was intended to always be that way and was never meant to be un-done, then it's set in a different "idea" of the Doctor Who universe than most everything since then.
Again, "a different 'idea' of the Doctor Who universe than most everything since then." It's not portrayed accurately if we act like it's a different version of all of Doctor Who ever, when it in fact shares a lot of in-universe history.
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: For that matter, what was the reasoning behind DCOT being deemed invalid, if it wasn't that the Doctor possibly died?
Here's the original thread: Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time. Admittedly, CzechOut never gives the exact reasons it's NOTVALID, and the thread has a variety of reasons in it that are/aren't accepted by a variety of people.
- Pluto2
Well, given the open ending, is it really a stretch to say this is in continuity with the TV Movie? What makes it an alternate universe? For all we know, immediately following the end of the webcast's events, the Doctor walks up, takes back his umbrella, and walks off. There's nothing here screaming "not compatible with the main universe". They might have been attempting to make it so the events of the TV Movie never happened, but in the end, that's not what they did. In fact, Freedman said McGann could be a future incarnation - and thus his attempt at ignoring the movie ends up as a story that is basically just an animated serial, albeit one that has a vague ending.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Pluto2 wrote: Well, given the open ending, is it really a stretch to say this is in continuity with the TV Movie? What makes it an alternate universe? For all we know, immediately following the end of the webcast's events, the Doctor walks up, takes back his umbrella, and walks off. There's nothing here screaming "not compatible with the main universe". They might have been attempting to make it so the events of the TV Movie never happened, but in the end, that's not what they did. In fact, Freedman said McGann could be a future incarnation - and thus his attempt at ignoring the movie ends up as a story that is basically just an animated serial, albeit one that has a vague ending.
Very true and very well said.
- WJDTwGL
Pluto2 wrote: Well, given the open ending, is it really a stretch to say this is in continuity with the TV Movie? What makes it an alternate universe? For all we know, immediately following the end of the webcast's events, the Doctor walks up, takes back his umbrella, and walks off. There's nothing here screaming "not compatible with the main universe". They might have been attempting to make it so the events of the TV Movie never happened, but in the end, that's not what they did. In fact, Freedman said McGann could be a future incarnation - and thus his attempt at ignoring the movie ends up as a story that is basically just an animated serial, albeit one that has a vague ending.
In-universe, it would be fine. The reasons for keeping it out are theoretically because real world stuff. Full Fathom Five would also be perfectly acceptable from an in-universe perspective, but it's considered NOTVALID because Big Finish says it's a "What if?" story.
- Pluto2
Fwhiffahder wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: Well, given the open ending, is it really a stretch to say this is in continuity with the TV Movie? What makes it an alternate universe? For all we know, immediately following the end of the webcast's events, the Doctor walks up, takes back his umbrella, and walks off. There's nothing here screaming "not compatible with the main universe". They might have been attempting to make it so the events of the TV Movie never happened, but in the end, that's not what they did. In fact, Freedman said McGann could be a future incarnation - and thus his attempt at ignoring the movie ends up as a story that is basically just an animated serial, albeit one that has a vague ending.
In-universe, it would be fine. The reasons for keeping it out are theoretically because real world stuff. Full Fathom Five would also be perfectly acceptable from an in-universe perspective, but it's considered NOTVALID because Big Finish says it's a "What if?" story.
But is DCOT a "What if?"
The argument that it wasn't intended to fit in with the TV Movie is rather silly - Ground Zero doesn't fit with the Virgin novels and audio dramas, and was a reaction against such things. Yet we accept Ground Zero as valid, do we not? If we set DCOT outside our fences due to its intention of ignoring the TV Movie, we should do the same for Ground Zero for ignoring the novels and audio dramas.
- SOTO
We do not consider stories invalid for purely narrative reasons, ever. Doctor Who has been around for a long time, and there will always be narrative inconsistencies. What makes this one invalid is the real world intent. It wasn't intended to fit in with the universe of the TV movie, as our sources say. It was intended to be a totally separate continuity from the one that we -- and everyone else -- consider valid.
And again, read this quote from Nev Fountain:
- "I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon , you can. or not. Whatever you prefer."
When those who were behind a story are saying "maybe it's part of the DWU; maybe it's not", that's a good clue that the story in question does not pass Rule 4.
SOTO wrote: We do not consider stories invalid for purely narrative reasons, ever. Doctor Who has been around for a long time, and there will always be narrative inconsistencies. What makes this one invalid is the real world intent. It wasn't intended to fit in with the universe of the TV movie, as our sources say. It was intended to be a totally separate continuity from the one that we -- and everyone else -- consider valid.
And again, read this quote from Nev Fountain:
- "I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon , you can. or not. Whatever you prefer."
When those who were behind a story are saying "maybe it's part of the DWU; maybe it's not", that's a good clue that the story in question does not pass Rule 4.
Given that this post basically repeats what I said in my most recent post, I don't see how the admins can make it any clearer. This story does not pass rule 4, by author intent, as allowed by policy.
It's been five months and there are no new arguments that refute the comments made by the folks involved in creating this story. Closing this thread now.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:194773
So some delightful little urchin has taken it upon themselves to start adding the name of the actor responsible for the German dub of some characters, which is not generally speaking terrible information to have - in fact, I find it fascinating! The problem, though, is that this information is being added simple as "Character was dubbed by voice actor name", which is delightfully non-specific.
At best, it's incomplete information. At worst, it implies that the actor did not also perform the voice for the character (which, while true in some cases, obviously isn't going to be the case for the majority of characters featured in the show).
As an example, the last line of the Behind The Scenes category for the Twelfth Doctor currently reads "The Twelfth Doctor was dubbed by voice actors Naoya Uchida, Philippe Résimont and Bernd Vollbrecht." I think we can all agree that, generally speaking, Peter Capaldi does his own voice in the English language broadcast of the show, so a little clarification and specificity might perhaps be in order.
I've gone through and changed a small handful to include the phrase "For the German broadcast," at the start of the factoid, but going through and doing this for every character to appear on the show is, frankly, tedious. I'm far more interested in Reading the TDC than in fixing it.
- Shambala108
Refrain from using comments like "delightful little urchin", which can be considered as violating Tardis:No personal attacks.
If you think what you're doing is tedious, I'm the one who added that info to the pages in the first place because someone created a ton of dub voice actor pages (not just German) without linking to them and I make it a regular chore to clean out Special:Lonelypages. Most people aren't even aware of this page or the rule that all pages have to be linked from somewhere.
If I had my way, I'd delete the lot of the dub actors, but I'm sure there would be plenty of objection to that, so I've made the best of the situation.
- Ben Paddon
Shambala108 wrote:
Refrain from using comments like "delightful little urchin", which can be considered as violating Tardis:No personal attacks.Blimey, not big on personality around these parts, eh? I assure you, no personal attack was intended, and my sincerest apologies if it came across that way. In the interests of civility I shall endeavor to excise any character from further discussion.
Shambala108 wrote:
If you think what you're doing is tedious, I'm the one who added that info to the pages in the first place because someone created a ton of dub voice actor pages (not just German) without linking to them and I make it a regular chore to clean out Special:Lonelypages. Most people aren't even aware of this page or the rule that all pages have to be linked from somewhere.Good job with the links - honestly, I applaud that - but the information as currently presented is vague and potentially misleading. Therein lies the issue. I've no problem seeing the dub voice actors credited, it's just the lack of specificity that I currently find unsatisfactory.
Shambala108 wrote:
If I had my way, I'd delete the lot of the dub actors, but I'm sure there would be plenty of objection to that, so I've made the best of the situation.Why not put it up to a vote, and let the community decide whether the articles should remain?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195034
While adding some bits and pieces for The Suffering, I've noticed that there are no pages for male or female to link to. I also remember that there was some recent controversy over male and female categories. So I don't want to do anything rash.
But it seems that the information that some (humanoid) species are divided into males and females should be represented somehow in the Wiki. Whether by male and female pages or by a gender page, I don't know, but something is missing. It doesn't seem right to reduce this to sheer Sexuality. And I fear I do not have enough experience to tackle such a global issue.
It has, however, been established in DWU, in The Suffering to be precise, that the notions of female and male transcend the boundaries of human species. The alien remains found in Piltdown (and heavily hinted to come from the planet of the Drahvins) are decidedly female. This female is able to distinguish human females from human males. She wants all human males to suffer and exploits human females to achieve this end. Also Drahvins have been established as an all-female species.
I would appreciate it if some senior and more experienced editors provided some guidance for treating this DWU information, as well as the context of past controversies (if any).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195111
This is another issue that is not local enough to deal with it on my own. A major character in The Founding Fathers is a copy of the First Doctor's mind kept in a jar. It is decidedly not the First Doctor himself, according to Steven Taylor. It has a voice (Peter Purves's). It killed a person. In short, it is a character in its own right. I haven't watched The Savages but I expect that this copy was made there and then given a kind of existence. Seemingly, it is mentioned in The War To End All Wars, which I haven't listened to.
The question is: how should the page for this copy of the mind be called? One of the problems is that I did not catch a lot of details of the physical manifestation. What I remember is that it has a voice and is kept in a jar.
- TheChampionOfTime
I've been meaning to make that page for a while (due to Template:The Doctor). I'd imagine it should be called First Doctor (The Savages).
- Amorkuz
Yes, I thought that this page could be part of several ongoing projects. Another reason I didn't want to do anything unilateral.
Is it clear that this consciousness appeared as a separate entity in The Savages? I never watch missing serials, and, from what I've read, I remember that his personality was partially transferred to one of the elders. I do not remember any mention of it being separated after that. In other words, did this copy definitely appear in The Savages?
I expect to listen to the The War to End All Wars soon. I'll write if any important info will pop up.
- Shambala108
I don't recall any separate consciousness of the First Doctor being created in The Savages, though it's been a couple of years at least since I last listened to it. His energy was drained and put into Jano, and Jano took on some of the Doctor's personality traits.
Even if this consciousness appears in The Savages, I have a problem with using the name "First Doctor (The Savages)", as the real First Doctor also appears in that story. A different dab term would be required (similar to the situation where both the Fourth Doctor and the Fourth Doctor (clone) appear in The Invisible Enemy).
- Amorkuz
Yes, I also thought of the examples of Fourth Doctor (clone), Fourth Doctor (android), Eighth Doctor (puppet), etc.
I am, therefore, in favour of the scheme suggested by Shambala108. The question is: which dab term is appropriate: First Doctor (consciousness)? First Doctor (memory)? I think it is important to choose the name that would not suggest that this is the true essence of the First Doctor because Steven vehemently opposes this view and proves his point. That's why I don't like the "consciousness" variant.
I might have an idea. Looking at the page The Savages, I realised that there was a special term in the story for the process of transferring one's mind, transference. Perhaps, by calling the page First Doctor (transference) we both emphasise the secondary nature of this individual and, at the same time, indicate the origins of this rather unique form of existence? But it might be prudent to make sure first that some story or other explicitly mentions that this Doctor-in-a-jar is a result of transference. I'm still betting on The War to End All Wars in this respect.
- TheChampionOfTime
The War to End All Wars only mentions the copy in passing, and all the information given is also in The Founding Fathers. In The Locked Room Steven tells the Doctor that the copy is "left over from your last visit to this planet". As far as I can tell, Jano and transference are never mentioned.
- Amorkuz
Thanks for the info. As always, no easy solutions.
But I think the mention of "last visit" is crucial. It means that this copy does originate from The Savages, even though it was not mentioned there. In my mind, this makes it possible to use "transference" even in the absence of a direct reference.
As I said, I don't like "consciousness" as suggesting too close a connection to the First Doctor. And I don't like "memory" because there was more of the Doctor in the copy. Much of the personality was also there.
Any other ideas?
- Amorkuz
UPD after relistening.
Transcript information to aid the naming (before the name is chosen, I will refer to it as the First Doctor Copy or FDC). If The Founding Fathers is the definitive source, then this transcript of it should be enough to make a decision.
- The FDC is definitely in a jar and has an optical scoop. The jar is constantly bubbling (both as a FX and stated explicitly by the FDC). The FDC cannot leave the jar: once tried but was forced to return almost immediately.
- The FDC is never referred to as the Doctor's consciousness. The word "consciousness" is used twice: the FDC itself says this consciousness and Steven says your consciousness. In other words, there is a contextual evidence that the FDC is a consciousness but it is never stated to be the consciousness of the First Doctor.
- Several times the FDC is called a copy of the Doctor's mind, sometimes with the emphasis that the copy is crude or imperfect. Both Steven and the FDC itself agree on both points.
- A couple of times the FDC is referred to as incomplete memory or sum of memories of the Doctor.
I still stand by the belief that calling it First Doctor (consciousness) would be inaccurate. Upon relistening, I do believe now that there is enough evidence to call it First Doctor (jar) because the confinement to the jar seems to be inherent to his existence (in the end of the story the FDC transfers itself into the system but seemingly looses its identity in the process). Perhaps, the "jar" version is less controversial and better supported by the story than First Doctor (transference). I would support either name.
- TheChampionOfTime
Just wondering, but have you listened to The Locker Room? The FDC appears there too and the jar is nowhere to be seen. In this story it's a computer program. (Jar) would only apply to half it's appearances, is (copy) too vague?
- Amorkuz
No, I haven't. By the end of The Founding Fathers it dissolves into the system. So I thought it was gone forever. I though The Locker Room has the real First Doctor. I see now I was wrong. Then I agree that (jar) is inappropriate.
For me (copy) is too suggestive rather than too vague. I would imagine a full corporeal body when reading (copy). Maybe (mind copy)?
- Steed
I thought First Doctor (copy) would've been good, or First Doctor (Steven's world) if you wanna name the planet in The Savages. Otherwise, it should probably be named after the first story it appears in. So would that be First Doctor (The Locked Room)?
- TheChampionOfTime
It's first mentioned in The War to End All Wars and it first appears in The Founding Fathers, but it cannot be names First Doctor (<insert story name here>) because the real First Doctor appears in these stories as well.
- Also, whenever this page is created it should have a link to Malbenia.
- Amorkuz
I think there is a general reason why "First Doctor (story name)" is inappropriate: this thing is not the First Doctor. Jack Harkness (Captain Jack Harkness) is really Jack Harkness, in fact the original Jack Harkness. As for various copies, there seems to be a tradition to name them by "Original (type of copy)": Martha Jones (clone), Eighth Doctor (puppet), Fifth Doctor (Dalek duplicate), etc.
I'm glad the page for poor Malbenia has been created. I had a lot of problems with its spelling, so am happy to let others decide on it. However, and sorry for being such a stickler, I was under the impression that Malb was the first name while Enia was the last name. I seem to remember Malb being used on its own. On a second thought, it could just be an abbreviated form of the name like Rob and Robert. Anyway, I thought I should mention this just in case.
- TheChampionOfTime
I don't want to get this thread off topic, but seeing as all of the other natives of "Steven's world" only have one name, (e.g. Nanina, Exorse, Edal) I'd say that Malbenia should be kept as is.
But anyway, Amorkuz's suggestion of First Doctor (mind copy) seems to be the most accurate name we've come up with so far. Even though this being is generally refereed to as a copy of the First Doctor, (copy) is incredibly generic. Robot duplicates could also be considered copies. (Steven's world) relies on conjecture.
Is (mind copy) the best dab term for this page?
- Amorkuz
It's been almost three months and no one has objected. I'm planning to create a page with (mind copy) as the dab term.
By the way, in BFX: The First Doctor: Volume One, I think Simon Guerrier mentions that he was told about this copy left on the planet in The Savages. Has anyone rewatched/listened to it lately?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195215
The problem is as follows: English painters and German painters are linked (via redirects) to England and Germany. However, when one wants to apply the same method to Dutch painters (and other Dutch things), it is not clear which of the designations is to be used. There was a discussion on a talk page whether Holland and the Netherlands is the same thing. And they're not. I don't even know the exact difference between the Low Countries and the Netherlands in the real universe. I'm absolutely sure that the information in DWU is, in most cases, insufficient to distinguish the three. Rembrandt van Rijn is a Dutch painter. Who knows whether one should link to Holland or to the Netherlands. Probably, to Low Countries? The stories are likely to be inconclusive.
Currently, Dutch is misappropriated by some robot. I propose, after the robot is renamed, to make an exception from the English to England and German to Germany redirects and make a new page Dutch that would collect all three national descriptions and outline what little is known in DWU about their distinctions. Many editors already used linkage Dutch in describing Dutch things and persons. So it is clearly a natural thing.
- AeD
Dutch person reporting for duty. Generally speaking, I'd just have [[Dutch]] redirect to [[Netherlands]], and treat the whole thing exactly like [[German]] and [[English]].
Technically, Rembrandt lived and died in "the Dutch Republic", or "the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands", the entirety of which is today part of the country "the Netherlands". Nobody would correct you if you said Rembrandt was a painter from the Netherlands.
"Holland" is a specific area of the Netherlands -- the area Amsterdam is in, so a broken clock twice a day, but this is used so uniformly incorrectly to refer to the whole country that it's best to avoid it outside of direct quotes.
"The Low Countries" is a term referring to what is today the Benelux and the top bit of France, and also best avoided -- I don't think it's in current common usage, and it's a little like referring to someone from London as hailing from the British Isles; there's almost certainly something more specific to use.
tldr: "The Netherlands" is an accurate, accepted catch-all for most ways of referring to it historically, geographically, etc., that it's best to default to.
- Amorkuz
First of all, thanks for a detailed explanation. I might benefit from it even in the real universe.
In principle, many countries have similar problems. Germany only exists in the current form very recently. Poland may or may not be part of Russia depending on the time period. In my experience, writers usually omit these details unless directly relevant for the plot. Perhaps, the Netherlands is just unlucky that "Low Countries" makes a writer sound cool and knowledgable.
My main concern is whether it is okay with respect to the in-universe point of view. Are we allowed to connect Dutch to the Netherlands without a direct quote from DWU? Certainly, if an admin okays this, I would have no problem with defaulting to the current name of the country (unless stated otherwise in the story, of course).
And if you were as eager to listen to Dutch-themed stories as I was for Austrian-themed ones, and happened on a direct quote stating the connection within DWU, it would be great to record it on the relevant pages. I'll go comb through The Roundheads once again to do just that.
- CzechOut
Hey, guys :)
Please remember that articles are about nouns. Thus Dutch was not misappropriated. There can't be an article about Dutch as regards Holland/Netherlands, because -- in English -- that's an adjective.
- Amorkuz
It is true that my proposal was to make an article for an adjective meaning of "Dutch", which makes the proposal dead on arrival. I guess, then AeD's proposal wins: the modus operandi should be Dutch just like we have English and German.
This would have created a problem with inattentive editors just being happy that an article for "Dutch" exists without checking what this article is about, a problem I observed when first encountering this problem. Fortunately, the robot (IMHO) should not be named "Dutch" for more reasons than one: there is another character named Dutch, Dutch (Criss-Cross). So unless the robot is by some miracle a primary topic, both of them need to be dabbed. This way, "Dutch" would produce a red link, hopefully prompting editors to double check.
PS Sorry to be a grammar stickler, but according to Merriam-Webster, "Dutch" is also used as a noun that means "the language of the Netherlands", while "the Dutch" (in plural) means "the people of the Netherlands" by analogy with "ze Germans are coming". As I said, it doesn't really affect my proposal to make links in phrases like "Isaac Ashton was a Dutch sailor".
- CzechOut
Well, even if we had a page for the language -- which we don't -- chances are that the dab term would, in fact, be the word "language", as with English language and Czech language. It's just a lot clearer that way -- not to mention better for SEO.
I disagree with AeD that the situation is like German and English, for a number of reasons:
- The German redirect to Germany, and the English redirect to England were both created in early 2007 were created back in the opening weeks of 2007, when Tardis probably had 2K pages, if that. They did not anticipate the number of pages that start with "German" and "English" today. Given the current realities, German and English should be redirects to German (disambgiguation) and English (disambiguation).
- Dutch is not "some robot". Junk-Yard Demon is a comic that celebrates its 35th anniversary this year, and has been reprinted on both sides of the Atlantic more than almost any other comic in DW history. The character from Criss-Cross is decidedly more minor. Until we get some more pages that could plausibly cause serious confusion, the best approach here is to just put a {{you may}} note at the top of the Junk-Yard robot pointing to the Nazi character.
- Please remember that you asked a question that muddled real life with the DWU, and AeD responded in kind with mostly real world info. Though very much appreciated for our collective development as human beings, AeD's response can't really be used to write articles here at Tardis. That would be real world creep. As you've otherwise pointed out, Amorkuz, what matters to the writing of our articles is what we can prove using DWU sources. Personally, I'm less pessimistic than you about that proof. I would lay odds there's some exchange, somewhere, where someone says "Holland" and someone else in the same conversation says "Netherlands", and someone else says "Dutch", laying out a rough equivalency between the terms.
- CzechOut
Heh. Well, we at least know "Dutch" is an adjectival demonym for "the Netherlands":
From The Waters of Amsterdam:
- "The Dutch Golden Age. At this point in time the Netherlands is the world’s biggest trading power, enjoying unprecedented prosperity." -- Five
- Amorkuz
As I removed several links from the word "Dutch" to the primary robot, I feel obliged to reinstate these links in a correct way. But I'm not an admin and cannot close this discussion. And until it is closed, I should not change things.
As a step towards closing this discussion, it seems to me that all three participants are in consensus (for different reasons) that the word "Dutch" should be linked to Netherlands.
Is there any opposition to doing this?
My own view is this: thanks to CzechOut, there is a DWU evidence that Dutch can be used to describe Netherlands. My initial hesitation was whether this description can be used universally across time (for instance, it would be strange to call Julius Caesar Italian just because Rome is a city in Italy). But User:AeD explained that using this DWU-sanctioned designation would not be considered incorrect from the real-world perspective irrespective of time. Thus, I personally now believe this to be the best and simplest solution.
- CzechOut
Here's something that at the very least allows us to say that, at least insofar as Amsterdam is concerned, "Holland" and "the Netherlands" are the same thing.
- From the Arc of Infinity novelisation:
- Suddenly, the Doctor snapped, "Tegan, where are you?" (emphasis in original)
- "Holland," gasped Tegan. "Amsterdam".
Since The Waters of Amsterdam also places Amsterdam in the Netherlands, we can reasonably assume that it is correct in the DWU to think of Amsterdam as being in both Holland and the Netherlands.
We also know that an older name for Australia is "New Holland", a term Tegan had to adjust to in order to be understood by Polsbroek -- Mayor of Amsterdam and head of the East India Company -- and that someone named Tasman sent back reports of New Holland that Polsbroek could read. Not quite proof of what Holland is, but combined with the above exchange, it's nicely supporting evidence. (And interesting to our Australian articles.)
- CzechOut
As for your latest post, Amorkuz, you've characterised me incorrectly. I never said that "Dutch" should in any way be linked to "the Netherlands". In fact, that's sorta precisely the opposite of what I've said.
The reason "Dutch" will not get a page tied to the Netherlands is because the sense in which you're mainly trying to use it, it's not a noun. It's very much unlike German, because "German" is a noun for "a person from Germany". "Dutch" does not mean "someone from Holland/The Netherlands".
In any case, I'm not wild about the current redirects from English and German. They shouldn't be used as exemplars. I think those were done a long time ago and don't follow current best practices. Nowadays, you can manually link an adjective (i.e. [[pig|porcine]]) if you really feel it will help readers. But creating an actual redirect from an adjective is a way of getting around our guidelines. And this isn't an argument to follow a rule for the sake of following a rule. Rather, by insisting on nouns only, even for redirects, you're forced to create disambiguation pages. And dab pages are much more useful to readers than redirects to a primary topic page that may only approximately fit.
And the notion of a "primary topic" is important to this case of the robot. Within the DWU, it's reasonably arguable that the robot from Junk-Yard Demon is the primary topic with that name, because -- as I said earlier -- the story has been in print so long, and in so many different places. Indeed, there just aren't many things that have the word "Dutch" in them, and there aren't likely to be. Put "German" into the search bar. Put "English" into the search bar. Compare with the number of results for "Dutch". And then consider how many stories really have anything to do with Holland/The Netherlands. The likelihood is that the robot Dutch will remain the most prominent page with that name.
Remember, the rule is not "the real life concept gets the un-disambiguated term".
So until further notice, Dutch will remain reserved for the robot. That could change, but it seems unlikely.
As for the rest of your post, I'm a bit confused. None of our articles are written so as to suggest "from the real world perspective irrespective of time". Universal truths aren't really what we're interested in, because in a show about a time traveller, no truths are universal. The Doctor has been shown to do things which alter the flow of time, and therefore change history. Some things are fixed points in time -- and some things aren't.
So what we try to do is just write what we can source. Dutch being an adjectival demonym of "the Netherlands" is true to us only because the Fifth Doctor said it in a story which we can source. We don't know for how long this situation was true, for instance. But it doesn't matter, because the length of time something is true is irrelevant to whether it gets a page. It could be true forever, and it would get a page. It could have been true for a second, but then that second got written out of the web of time -- and it would still deserve a page here.
- Amorkuz
Ah, we seem to be talking at cross purposes, constantly misunderstanding each other. Probably because, being understandably less versed in the Wiki-lingo, I'm using ordinary English that conflicts with the Wiki terminology. Or maybe because I've significantly changed my position without clearly stating it. (I'm still happy to read your extended thoughts on the matter, though, because that's how I learn.)
So let me explain what I meant in the previous post:
- I agreed that Dutch is reserved for the robot.
- Consequently there cannot be a hard redirect from Dutch to anywhere.
- To replicate the linking of the word "German" to Germany and the word "English" to England with respect to the word "Dutch", link that several editors tried to create before me, one cannot use a redirect because the redirect is not possible (see above).
- Thus, I proposed to use the pipeline trick writing "Netherlands|Dutch".
- Unlike creating a redirect that, indeed, can be based on just one moment in time, for this pipeline trick to be correct, one has to check every time it is used that this here use of "Dutch" can be attributed to the Netherlands. That the Fifth Doctor used Dutch for one object/person in one story need not imply that such a word usage can be automatically applied to another object/person from another story set in another time. Let me try to give an example: assuming there is in-universe confirmation, "Roman" in "Roman Holiday" should be pipeline-tricked to Rome, whereas "Roman" in "Roman emperor" should rightfully be pipeline-tricked to Roman Empire. (I think this fickleness of adjectives serves as an additional argument against having pages/redirects for them.)
- The post by AeD was important for me because it clearly said that it is never incorrect to apply the Fifth Doctor linking of Dutch to the Netherlands (unless in-universe evidence to the contrary occurs some day). Operationally, for me, it means that if I were, say, to create pages for "Dutch Airport Tannoy Announcer" or "The Dutchman" from the audio story Peshka, I don't need to find Peshka-evidence of whether this "Dutch" relates to Holland or the Netherlands or just Amsterdam, I can simply pipeline-trick Dutch to the Netherlands based on the in-universe evidence of the Fifth Doctor from another story.
- The phenomenon of Roman potentially meaning different things in different stories is something I started thinking of as negative real-world bleed. Positive real-world bleed makes you state facts that are true of the real world. That is against the policy and should not be done. Negative real-world bleed prevents you from unduly extrapolating DWU evidence to state facts that are false in the real world. Here is a simple example of how I use negative real-world bleed. Edward V of England is said to be 12-year-old in 1483 in the The Battle of the Tower. Can I then say that he was born in 1471 and, say, put it on the 1471 web page? But in real world he was born in 1470 (in November). Thus, the negative real-world bleed instructs me not to mention 1471 and stick to stating he was 12 years old in 1483. On the other hand, Mary Shelley said in The Silver Turk she would have been 76 years old in 1873. Since she was born in 1797 in the real world, it is reasonable to extrapolate her year of birth.
- Amorkuz
There is also a clear attribution of Amsterdam to Holland in The Roundheads:
"Winter thumped the table. ‘I’ll say it is. He plies the route to Holland and back and that’s an end to it. I’ve never known him go across to France, not in all my years.’ Ben sat down. ‘Well, perhaps he’s trying out new territory. I mean, if everyone knows he does the Amsterdam route, they might steer clear of him.’"
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote:
- The post by AeD was important for me because it clearly said that it is never incorrect to apply the Fifth Doctor linking of Dutch to the Netherlands (unless in-universe evidence to the contrary occurs some day). Operationally, for me, it means that if I were, say, to create pages for "Dutch Airport Tannoy Announcer" or "The Dutchman" from the audio story Peshka, I don't need to find Peshka-evidence of whether this "Dutch" relates to Holland or the Netherlands or just Amsterdam, I can simply pipeline-trick Dutch to the Netherlands based on the in-universe evidence of the Fifth Doctor from another story.
Just adding for any new users that might read this thread, we would never create a page called "Dutch Airport Tannoy Announcer", but rather "Dutch airport tannoy announcer". Capital letters in article names are reserved for proper nouns.
- CzechOut
Hence why the actual "Dutch airport" is capitalised as a proper noun: Schiphol Airport.
- Bwburke94
There's another hitch here: Should Dutch be reserved for the robot?
We already have some semblance of a primary-topic rule, with Jack Harkness not being disambiguated despite the original Jack Harkness also having a page. However, T:ONE NAME may block this solution for single-name characters.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195496
Should the entries for The Pageant and Maskmakers of the Pageant be merged? They are obviously referring to the same alien race, albeit with an annoying typo in their name from The Quantum Archangel. Also, in my copy of said book, it refers to them as the 'Masksmakers', rather than 'Maskmakers' (page 195).
- NateBumber
Yup, by "Masksmakers" it looks like Hinton was trying to refer to the Masksmasters that appear in The Man in the Velvet Mask. Maskmakers of the Pageant deserves only a footnote on the page for the Pageant and should be merged.
- CzechOut
This is actually really confused on the wiki at present and needs to be straightened out. Merging alone isn't going to do the trick.
There are three pages, The Pageant, Maskmakers of the Pageant and Masksmaster.
As used at The Pageant, Masksmaster appears to be a title applied to Robin Goodfellow. Is it fair to say that "the Masksmaster" the leader of various lesser Masksmasters?
As used at Masksmaster, the Masksmasters are said to be only part of the Pageant, not the whole deal. That makes merging seem unwise, in the same sense that we would never merge American with human.
Also, the categories of all three pages are not in agreement. At Masksmaster and The Pageant, it's category:Other dimension species. But at Maskmakers of the Pageant, it's Category:Time-active factions, which seems to agree with the text at The Pageant that calls them a "group"?
Those who are writing these pages need to imagine that they have never heard of these topics and write them as simply, and yet as faithfully to the source material, as is possible. There is, as yet, no clear cause for merger.
- NateBumber
Edit: I've thought about it some more, and I changed the merge template into a rename template.
=[[edit] | [edit source]]
I think it's important to clarify that we're dealing with different-yet-similar-looking words here: the pages are Masksmaster, the Pageant, and Maskmakers of the Pageant. Masksmaster =/= Maskmaker.
A large portion of this confusion comes from the fact that the text just isn't at all clear what the Pageant is. Its members are identified as aliens, and it's said that they come from outside this dimension, but it's never made clear whether they're a species or a group. Their members aren't described physically, and when they are, it's in the context of the masks and clothes they're wearing, which doesn't really help. They have some human agents, but they're clearly differentiated as agents, rather than members of the Pageant themselves. This ambiguity is reflected on the articles, hence the "Other dimension species" / "Time-active faction" category discrepancy.
You're right that "Masksmaster" is a title: one character introduces himself as "Robin Goodfellow, an artist-scientist of the Pageant, Masksmaster of Project Orbis Tertius." At another point, he's called "Masksmaster Goodfellow" by another member of the Pageant. Of course, as you argue, I wouldn't want the page for Masksmaster to be merged into either of the other pages, since it's a rank clearly separate from the rest of the Pageant.
However, "Maskmaker" is never used in The Man in the Velvet Mask. The Quantum Archangel peripherally mentions "Maskmakers of the Pageant" in a list of groups who traveled in time to help with the Millennium War. All of these groups (eg the Ministers of Grace and Faction Paradox) had previously appeared in Doctor Who stories; it's safe to say that the Maskmakers of the Pageant are definitely related to the Pageant from Man in the Velvet Mask.
If Quantum Archangel had instead said "Maskmakers of Faction Paradox" we'd obviously be like, "Oh, Maskmakers are a part of Faction Paradox," and we'd make a page called Maskmaker, but never Maskmakers of Faction Paradox. Replace "Faction Paradox" with "the Pageant", and there's my logic for making the rename suggestion.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195504
Hello guys. Do any of you guys want to join VSBattles wiki? http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who
We're basically a site that catalogues fictional verses and indexes them according to power. We could use your help in the Doctor Who profiles.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195837
At the moment, there are two pages for her: one for the human version, which died on Kembel, and another for the house, which contained her consciousness for a thousand years. After the thousand years, the house subsumed another consciousness, that of Robert (Home Truths), and created a new body for Sara, let's call her Sara II. This body was older than at the moment of Sara I's death. It possessed a different set of memories from Sara I: their experiences forked after Sara I left the house on Ely. Also, according to Sara I's talk page, Sara II claimed that she's not the same woman as Sara I.
So, shouldn't there be a separate page for Sara II? Romana II and Romana III are continuations of Romana I in the sense that their experiences are continuous, and still they have their own pages. Shouldn't the "safe-as-houses" Sara II get her own page? This page would encompass her life from the moment she was reconstituted in the human body in The Guardian of the Solar System until whatever happened to her in The Five Companions.
- AdricLovesNyssa
Sara II as you have put it is more of a clone with all of Sara's memories, I believe that is what the comment in the Five Companions means, the Sara in that story is not the same body as the one that Steven met on Kembel, it could also mean she is not the officious women she was when she travelled with the Doctor.
- 89.144.205.215
Actually, not even all of Sara's memories, only those before Sara's visit to the house on Ely. In particular, Sara II doesn't remember how Sara I died.
- Amorkuz
Sorry, that was me above, from a wrong browser.
- Amorkuz
And while we're at it, there is a fourth Sara. Let me list them now. I attribute the variant of Sara to a story only if I know the story, which means the lists of appearances are incomplete.
- Sara I - the original human Sara, present in TV: The Daleks' Master Plan, AUDIO: The Anachronauts (Parts 1-2, the end of Part 4), An Ordinary Life. She copied her conscience to the house on Ely as told in Home Truths. She died on Kembell in The Daleks' Master Plan.
- Sara's conscience within the house on Ely. It narrates stories about Sara I in AUDIO: Home Truths, The Drowned World, The Guardian of the Solar System. It is established that it has a will and desires of its own. It is replaced by Robert in the house and creates Sara II in The Guardian of the Solar System.
- Sara II in a body created by the House Sara. She appears at the end of AUDIO: The Guardian of the Solar System and (seemingly, I did not hear it myself) later appears in The Five Companions
- A dream version of Sara. She appears in AUDIO: The Anachronauts (Parts 3-4). She is destroyed with the dream.
All four are played/voiced by Jean Marsh.
- CzechOut
As far as I'm currently aware, we've never counted "dream versions" of characters as worthy of their own pages. There is no Adric (Time-Flight), for instance. Equally, there is no Fifth Doctor (Happy Deathday) to account for the video game version of the Fifth Doctor in that story. Nor is there a Liz Shaw (The Five Doctors). Incorporeal "copies" of characters typically don't qualify for their own pages, and there's nothing in The Anachronauts that would make me think this case is particularly "special".
Based on my experience of the audios, I don't really have a problem with "Sara II" getting her own page. I quite agree that she's distinct from the "real" Sara Kingdom. But, to comply with our local naming rules, "Sara Kingdom (Home Truths)" is probably the title we want to go with.
And I think you'd probably be stretching things to create yet a third article. Your "Sara III" is closely related to "Sara II" and would likely best be handled as a section on that Sara Kingdom (Home Truths) article. My understanding from hearing Guardian is that she's another step in the evolution of the "House" version of Sara. That said, we do admittedly have an article on the Tenth Doctor's hand, and one could make an argument that the situations are roughly analogous. Still, that body-enabled version of the House Sara hasn't appeared with the same sort of frequency as the Tenth Doctor's hand, and probably could be summed up neatly in a few sentences. So in this "close call" situation, I'd probably err on the side of keeping these closely related things on the same page.
- Amorkuz
This actually hits on another, more general question I've been having. But before asking that, I would like to clarify. You mean that Sara Kingdom (Home Truths), the conscience within the house, should be different from the article House (Home Truths) for the house itself?
The house article currently does not contain many details on Sara's conscience within, but it does not mention Robert (Home Truths) taking over at all. So I'm not sure if "Sara"'s actions is information waiting to be added or information not intended to be there.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195868
I was looking over the "no personal attacks" policy page (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:No_personal_attacks) and I have a question about the policy. It came about as a result of this discussion: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Theory:Doctor_Who_prose_discontinuity_and_plot_holes/Timewyrm:_Exodus. One contributor made a remark about Terrance Dicks that I believed was a personal attack and I called them out for it. This was based on my interpretation of the policy as applying not just to contributors but also to those involved with Doctor Who itself (i.e. actors, writers, directors, etc.) I know the page doesn't explicitly say that but am I correct in that interpretation?
- AeD
I'm not an admin, so what do I know, but that particular rule seems to be pretty clear, in being about personal attacks on your fellow contributors.
That said, since a "mental defect" is not, to my knowledge, something a person can be diagnosed with, and that even if it was, Mr Dicks has not, at least in common public knowledge, been diagnosed with it, the comment you're talking about does seem needlessly mean-spirited, and it's hard to imagine anyone here who is an admin would deem it appropriate for the theory namespace.
- MystExplorer
Indeed. I'm concerned that if people aren't called out for this sort of thing, it could set a precedent that anything goes when talking about DWU personnel.
- Amorkuz
Funnily enough, I've been just thinking yesterday, how strange a member of a production team must feel if they try to edit or read this Wikia. I had something else in mind, but not to steer this too much off topic, it is in principle possible, unbeknownst to us, that Terrance Dicks is one of our fellow contributors. So if we exercise proper caution, he shouldn't be attacked just in case.
The thing is, are the IP user's comments against Dicks a personal attack? Not necessarily, because as far as he knows, he's making a general comment of his opinion, not attacking someone who is reading his posts. It is a fact of life that famous people get criticized or made fun of by those who don't agree with their writing, acting, personal beliefs, politics (and the list goes on and on).
Does there need to be a policy about these kinds of comments? That's something that could be discussed, but I can't predict how that discussion would end up.
One thing that is very clear by policy is that we do not derail discussions by off-topic messages. If you have a problem with someone's comments about a member of the production team, it's better to address that on their user talk page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:195965
Why do members of this page give assumptions as fact?
There is no Evidence to suggest that Sara Kingdom, Susan Foreman, Dodo Chaplet Steven Taylor, Katrina or Adric ever visited The Black Archives. You can say "A photo exists in the Black Archives", but thats all. You cannot say "At sometime UNIT brought those people to the Black Archives, and then wiped their memory"! That is an assumption NOT fact!
- Shambala108
Regarding the Black Archive information on companion pages:
Many editors reverted PaulMorris7777's edits on various companion pages regarding the Black Archive photos. Since I have not seen the story in question, I would like to know, from anyone who has seen it, exactly when, where, and/or how the story tells the origin of these companion photos. Do we see it happen? Does someone mention it happening? Or is this just speculation because one companion (Clara?) was brought to the BA and it is assumed that all companions must have undergone the same trip?
The thing is, if the story does not tell us that the other companions were brought there, we cannot assume it. We cannot attribute it to the story if the story doesn't somehow tell us.
It would have to be enough to just say, "There was a picture of so-and-so at the Black Archive." (with the proper citation)
- AdricLovesNyssa
Kate Stewart says during the story when Clara see the pictures that they have pictures of all the Doctors known associates, taken when they visit the black Archive. So in universe they have visited the Black Archive just not seen on TV, in an audio, in a book or in a comic
- Shambala108
Well, there you go. If a character says in story that it happened, then by this wiki's rules, it is allowed on article pages.
- Paulmorris7777
When, and how was Katrina taken to The Black Archives? She died in her first adventure. She only appeared in 2 episodes! When did UNIT obtain time/space capabilities?
- AdricLovesNyssa
There might have been a landing between the Mythmakers and the Daleks master plan as one does not immediately run into the other.
- Shambala108
The specific rule here is Tardis:Valid sources. If something happens or is said to have happened in a story allowed under the rule, then we allow it on in-universe articles. We don't try to explain situations that the stories don't tell us, because we don't allow speculation on the main namespace of the wiki, so for now we don't know how Katarina was brought to the BA. And she may have only appeared in two TV stories, but she also appeared in the short story Scribbles in Chalk, where she had an adventure with the First Doctor and Steven, but only the Doctor remembers the adventure afterwards.
We do have a place for discussion of plot holes and discontinuities if you're interested. It's located at Theory:Discontinuity index.
- Paulmorris7777
Its probably Moffats fault. He really is a poor Showrunner!
- Paulmorris7777
AdricLovesNyssa wrote: There might have been a landing between the Mythmakers and the Daleks master plan as one does not immediately run into the other.
But, how did she get to The Black Archives? When did UNIT discover Space/Time travel? Huge Moffat plot hole!
- Shambala108
Sure, it's a plot hole, but like I said, it doesn't concern us as far as writing articles. The DWU is riddled with plot holes, and all we can do is work with what we're given.
- CzechOut
AdricLovesNyssa wrote: Kate Stewart says during the story when Clara see the pictures that they have pictures of all the Doctors known associates, taken when they visit the black Archive. So in universe they have visited the Black Archive just not seen on TV, in an audio, in a book or in a comic
Except, no. She doesn't say this. She says:
- "Apologies. We have to screen all his known associates. We can't have information about the Doctor and the Tardis falling into the wrong hands. The consequences could be disastrous."
Nothing about every single companion visiting the Black Archives. Nothing about every single companion, at all -- just "all his known associates". That's totally different, as far as I'm concerned. Known to UNIT. Associates, not companions.
We have to rely on the script, not our memories of the script. And we need to use what's visually in the frame.
A better course of action is not to include a note on every single companions' page that they at some time made it to the Black Archive. Rather, we should assert only that the Black Archives had records on those companions, and only those companions, we can actually identify in one frame or another of the finished The Day of the Doctor.
So, in my view, Sara Kingdom is out, and Tegan is in. Lucie Miller is out; Nyssa is in. And so on.
- AdricLovesNyssa
I thought I wasn't remembering correctly, thanks for correcting me, though Sara Kingdom is on the board, there are pictures with Sara on.
- CzechOut
Oh, cool. I've never taken a complete inventory of all the boards. If Sara's there, she's there.
But it doesn't mean that her existence on a Black Archives bulletin board is necessarily that big a plot hole, even using solely televised stories.
She does make it to Earth in the 20th century in "The Feast of Steven", and in Hollywood. It's easy to see how UNIT may have gotten a report on her showing up in the media capital of the world -- even if it was a few decades prior to the foundation of UNIT. And, of course, the whole crew has interaction with several British cops before they even get to Hollywood -- one of them could easily have filed a report that UNIT could later have discovered.
Of course, we don't know anything about the Black Archive report on Sara. It could be as simple as a one-line entry: "Sighted with the First Doctor in early 20th century Hollywood." It doesn't have to say, "Member of SSS from the 4000s."
And that's why Shambala is right to point out that it's speculation to wonder how her photo came to be in the Black Archives, or what the report said. We can only report that her picture was there.
I do know that for the Tegan and Nyssa pics, the proximate text is very skimpy indeed. Basically, it's just a name and the ordinal number of the Doctor they travelled with. (Though that's quite an amazing coup, and I think the first time we've actually seen Doctor numbering onscreen.)
- AdricLovesNyssa
Actually the Sara Pic has er interacting with Mike Yates which is interesting.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:196122
I definitely feel that the Rulers of the Universe are presented as human. But I am struggling to find any hints even, let alone definite statements of their species. Sure they call each other "people" or "man" and "woman", but is that enough? Does anyone know how this can be determined? Or is it possible to put them as human because River never commented on them not being human?
It really feels as if the author made it a point not to mention any species.
- There is one use of human. River tells Spritz who pretends to be a robot at the time: "You're more human than everyone else I've met." Note that Spritz is not currently claimed to be human on the Wiki because she is from Karaknid, a pre-contact planet.
- There is one use of woman, again applied to Spritz, the only one not likely to be human. And it clearly is used to denote gender rather than species.
- There are many uses of people. But it is applied both to the Rulers and to the natives of manipulated planets, which are pre-contact and, hence, unlikely to be human.
At the same time, the Rulers describe themselves as the most powerful and influential from across the galaxy. And later we learn that this is the galaxy seeded by Sanukuma, rather than settled by humans. Why would all the powerful people from the galaxy be humans, let alone humans from Earth?
Difficulty. But Bertie's clone blends well with humans of Earth and is contaminated by the saline drones the same way as the human Archie. Well, cloning works on River who is not completely human either. And it is not unheard of for another species to look exactly like humans: Moroks, Peladonians, etc.
This is not the full story yet. There may be a mention that Rulers are human in the last story of the box set. But so far I'm thinking more and more that there is not enough evidence that they are humans and that it doesn't make sense for them to be human.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:196411
It has been decided about Four Doctors in another thread that each issue should have its own page. The criteria were, to the best of my understanding, that it must be an American comic and that the issues are called <story name #1>, not <The Ninth Doctor #1>. Accordingly, there exists pages FD 1-FD 5. Since Supremacy of the Cybermen seems the next year instalment of the same thing: same publisher, still American; also a special Doctor Who comic day event miniseries; also issues are called "Supremacy of the Cybermen #1", etc., it appears that Supremacy should get the same treatment as Four Doctors, in particular, that pages SotC 1 or something of the sort are in order.
This post serves one of two purposes: to correct me if I am wrong or, if I am right, to alert other editors like me, who were completely unfamiliar with such a set up, that this comic strip should be edited differently from most other Titan comics. I am posting it now, shortly after the release of #1 in hopes that it would save effort on moving material from the story page to individual issue pages.
The purpose of such individual issue pages is largely to document the existence of a piece of merchandise -- the issue itself. The story page, Supremacy of the Cybermen (comic story), is there to speak of the narrative, and is generally what is referenced when writing in-universe pages about that story.
However, the issue pages are also extremely useful to have around when:
- Giving credits for people who only worked on a part of a story. This is a frequent condition. An inker, for instance, may have only worked on SOTC 3. In the case of Agent Provocateur, the artistic teams varied almost per-issue.
- Describing the story's publication history, and in particular detailing where reprints were published. A good example is The Tides of Time.
Finally, Supremacy of the Cyberman is not a comic strip but a story. This is not pedantry but precision. Within the Doctor Who franchise, there are strips -- which tend to be parodies like Doctor Who? -- and then there are stories which are told through the medium of sequential art, generally over the course of several issues.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:196485
What is the structure convention for the list of appearances articles.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:196487
Patience is listed as one of the Doctor's spouses. Surely Patience should be listed as The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe)'s spouse instead of The Doctor's.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:196929
I've read the page explaining why it's been removed, and to be frank I don't understand why a very handy resource has been deleted, purely because it didn't meet some bureaucratic criteria?
It was a very useful page for those of us who run FB groups and Twitter feeds, and who post regular birthday threads.
It was good to see all the names on one page, in date order. Just because you don't trust the Doctor Who Guide and IMDB as reliable sources, doesn't mean the basic list had to be removed. There are other places where the information can be cross-referenced, which we do regularly.
Any chance the page can be restored? The names don't have to be linked to anywhere, it can just be the useful reference guide that it was.
- Xx-connor-xX
I haven't read the reasons of why it was removed. I'm shocked as I found it interesting too.
- 75.139.100.27
Simon1962 wrote: It was good to see all the names on one page, in date order. Just because you don't trust the Doctor Who Guide and IMDB as reliable sources, doesn't mean the basic list had to be removed. There are other places where the information can be cross-referenced, which we do regularly.
I think you're missing the main point. Less than 10% of the pages were incorrectly sourced. The other 90+% were completely unsourced. That's not acceptable for this wiki. For an example of why, take a look at Talk:Shaila Bux for what happens when birth/death dates for real world people are unsourced.
- 75.139.100.27
Xx-connor-xX wrote: I haven't read the reasons of why it was removed. I'm shocked as I found it interesting too.
Maybe if you read the reasons you won't find it as shocking: Talk:Real world deaths
- Xx-connor-xX
I've just read the reasons and I still find it shocking. It is rather daft that it was removed just because not everyone was mentioned. You can't make a reference to everyone, but people found it very helpful.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197053
There are two articles on the subject of the tardis that was stolen in the episode hell bent under the names tardis hell bent and Clara's tardis I rased this issue in the Take and nothing has been don and I'm new two editing so don't now how to fix it my self
- Shambala108
Actually, you can't fix it yourself. Only admins can merge and/or delete pages.
- 2.26.183.190
Thanks
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197241
TV story pages typically contain rather detailed information about VHS and DVD releases. This information is also collected in table format on TV season pages. Some time ago, I've started adding information about digital releases (streaming/download availability). (Admittedly, this project has been slow. Currently, only Seasons 1-9 of the pre-Wales Who are covered in detail. Thanks to other users, however, there is also information about many other seasons.)
Recently, another user (sadly anonymous) joined this effort. In addition, the long-term project of creating a standardised template for all these releases has been tragically lost in general Wikia modifications. It has been suggested, therefore, to propose this topic to the whole community for discussion. I'm sure there are many aspects I may miss. But here are the questions I have and questions suggested by Shambala108.
- Should all these releases be on the main TV story page or be given a separate page? It seems that the previous idea was to have a "(home media)" page for each TV story.
- (From Shambala108 in my interpretation.) Is it feasible to track information about digital release availability in principle? Unlike a physical DVD, which exists objectively, digital stores are free to change availability of individual titles any time they like. To give an example, quite recently (and tragically), both US Netflix and Hulu lost their rights to Doctor Who completely. In principle, this may cause sudden and sometimes hard to detect changes that would make maintenance of this information problematic.
- The VHS/DVD availability is typically broken down into three separate streams: UK, US, Australia. For each there is a separate release date, separate covers, etc. Digital stores exhibit the same regional differences: each country has its own list of available titles in each of the digital stores. But there are many more of the countries. Which countries should be tracked in digital releases? Should we
- stick to the big three (UK, US, Australia)?
- add all other English-speaking countries (e.g., Canada)? or
- consider all English-language releases (e.g., in Germany)?
- (From Shambala108 in my interpretation.) How to determine dates of various releases?
I will add my thoughts regarding these questions separately below. Please, add questions of your own.
- Amorkuz
Here is what I think:
- To my mind, creating a separate page for all releases of a story resembles the treatment of comic book issues where each comic story has its own page devoted to plot, characters, etc., while each issue has a separate page devoted to merchandising questions (covers, crew, bonus material, etc.). Hence, it seems reasonable, especially when there is a lot of merchandising information, to have a devoted page for it.
- The feasibility, I think, differs from store to store. Yes, it is true that they can shuffle things all the time. But this would surely undermine their business model. Doctor Who is a big deal for them. Here are just two confirmations: 1) when Netflix first decided to drop Doctor Who, a successful petition was mounted by viewers. As the result, Doctor Who was only dropped from their library when BBC decided to change their distribution model in the US; 2) I read today that Doctor Who has become the most watched show in Amazon Video. So while they can make changes often, they are unlikely to follow this path. In my experience, changes are rare unless a big shake up happens like described above. I can remember iTunes changing a cover for the newly found serials. It also seems that BBC Store has added a few titles since its opening. But so far I alone managed to cope with these changes in Seasons 1-9. Yes, Wales Who undergoes more changes with new seasons made available and old seasons disappearing from the stores. But this should happen on an annual basis (methinks), which is also manageable. Plus some news about availability do appear on Doctor Who news aggregators. Thus, I believe digital releases can be tracked, at least for the stores I have experience with (iTunes, BBC Store, Netflix). In addition, this is information that can really be used by many. Some classic serials are hidden in the catalogs, e.g., placed in NuWho collections. I do not actually know a good up-to-date source listing various legal ways of streaming classic Who. Most guides in blogs I could find reflect the pre-shake-up status quo. So providing this information would be a service to the Whovians of the world.
- The regional differences is really a thorny issue and is, I think, more affected by feasibility concerns. The rough situation is as follows:
- BBC Store is only available in the UK
- iTunes only sells TV shows in 6 countries (UK, US, Australia, Canada, France and Germany)
- Amazon seems to be more complicated: it has 14 separate stores, only 4 of which have Amazon Video, responsible for streaming content. However, these 4 stores (UK, US, Japan, Germany) cover 5 countries, with Austria added to the German store.
- Netflix is available in almost all countries (more than 100). Availability differs greatly though classic Doctor Who is currently not available anywhere. Still, there is a website that allows to find the list of countries for each individual series.
- Hulu Plus seems to be out of Doctor Who for the foreseeable
- Google Play is terra incognita for me. I know absolutely nothing about it.
- So looking at the data, it seems reasonable to restrict this English-language variant of the Wikia to English-speaking countries to avoid the subtle differences of 100+ Netflix libraries. I suspect that VHS/DVD releases for Canada were the same as for the US, which is not anymore the case for digital releases. Therefore, adding Canada and New Zealand seems reasonable. Any other countries? On the other hand, tracking availability in Germany, France, etc. may be left to the German, French, etc. Tardis Wikis.
- As for release dates, I do not believe it is generally possible to find this information. It is often provided inconsistently even within the same store. iTunes has a tendency of putting the original airing date as their "release" date. Finding this information is a nightmare. It is not worth the time spent. Perhaps, this information can be omitted due to the unique possibility of things being de-released. When a DVD is published, its release date is not going to change. But steaming of a season can be disallowed. So in this case current availability seems more relevant that the release date.
- Shambala108
Amorkuz wrote:
- (From Shambala108 in my interpretation.) How to determine dates of various releases?
I will add my thoughts regarding these questions separately below. Please, add questions of your own.
Actually, I'm not suggesting that we include dates of release. Rather, my comment was to offer a comparison to a similar issue.
When we were creating the dates/years of release pages, we decided to only allow the date for the original country of release, rather than any/all countries, to reduce the amount of information on the pages.
In this case, similarly, we would have to decide how many language versions we count on the pages. Do we only allow the original language (English) or do we allow all language versions?
I'm not making a case either way, just pointing out some issues we need to consider.
- Amorkuz
Shambala108 wrote: In this case, similarly, we would have to decide how many language versions we count on the pages. Do we only allow the original language (English) or do we allow all language versions?
I'm not making a case either way, just pointing out some issues we need to consider.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Regarding this question, there are, in principle, three types of releases:
- English-only
- Translated-only
- With both English and translated soundtrack
I would propose to consider only the first type of releases for the following reason. I've seen dual-language releases that are advertised only in another language, the title is translated, the trailer (if any) is only in another language, the short description is in another language, and the English-language availability can be hidden away. This makes it hard for an English-speaker to even find such a release. So feasibility-wise, I would concentrate on English-only releases under the slogan.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197326
Geographical data is usually very scarce in the DWU. So maps in comic stories can potentially be very useful. I found two already (I added File:Upper_Manhattan_map.jpg to Manhattan and tried to find all already existing pages for objects on the map and add the map to these pages).
Here is my question: should all legible data from such maps be turned into pages? In particular, should pages be created for East 79th Street, East 80th Street, East 81st Street, etc.? I am not lazy and would be happy to do it. This would help find these objects easily if they ever appear in a future story. On the other hand, this multitude of similarly named streets, which probably never appeared in any story outside this map, may potentially clog search suggestions. There may be other ill-effects of such mass page creation that I do not see.
I've seen the smallest posters turned into pages in other comic stories (for instance, each store at the Fluren Temporal Bazaar has its own page). On the other hand, this is just one map. Should it generate dozens of pages?
Perhaps, admins/more experienced editors could suggest what would be best operationally.
- SOTO
I don't know about helpful, but I've done this sort of thing, myself, in the past. See: Category:Buenos Aires streets, 15 pages from a map which appears on the screen very briefly. The only real plot-significant detail in all of that, I'm pretty sure, is the location of the Wilton Palace Hotel, but I made pages for all the other streets, anyway.
- CzechOut
Yes. If a map exists within a DWU story, you can make a page for everything within that map. But you can't go beyond what's there, even if you think that it's "logical" that it would exist there. For instance, if the map showed 5th Avenue, you can't then assume that something you know to be on 5th in the real world, like the New York Public Library, exists in the DWU. That's the very definition of real world creep, something we try as much as possible to avoid.
Another example of real world creep is something like this. You know that the Empire State Building is in the DWU because of The Chase and Daleks in Manhattan. But those stories don't tell you that the building is on 5th. Elsewhere, you have a map that shows 5th Avenue, but doesn't specifically mark the Empire State Building. You can't then take the tiny leap between the two bits of known information and say, "The Empire State Building is on Fifth Avenue." You have to have something else, like a novel, which connects the two bits of knowledge.
Sometimes the information on the map is only half legible, but I can still read it. I have a suspicion though that someone not familiar with New York, who doesn't know what should be there, might not be able to decipher the same caption. In such cases, I don't think these objects should be entered because I am using real-world knowledge to read them properly.
Secondly, abbreviated names. For example, the map has "E. 79th St." Should the page be named "East 79th Street", "E. 79th Street" or "E. 79th St."? Myself, I tend to "E. 79th Street" because "St." is a very common abbreviation for "street" and streets are expected on a map. But "E." for East is a bit of a local knowledge. I could justify this small leap by the "Upper East Side" present, and the area being to the east on the map, and there being W. <number> St. on the same map. But it is still a bit of a guess. On the other hand, having these names start with "E." instead of "East" would prevent 10 such streets from showing up every time somebody searches for "East ...". So which of the three names should be used?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197548
Just suggesting, has this wiki thought of applying the same Canon/Legends versions to articles that Wookiepedia does to deal with canon discrepancies?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197680
Should articles be created for non-DW books that contain DWU stories, or should the fact that they were included in ones be only noted on the story articles? There are at least two such cases – "Nothing O'Clock" be Neil Gaiman and "Meanwhile, in a Small Room, a Small Boy..." by Robert Shearman – I noticed that a red link to Gaiman's collection containing the former.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The examples you've shown have already been published in DWU anthologies, so I don't really think its needed to have a page created that's irrelevant to the wiki. Are there any other examples?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I don't know of any other examples. I just noticed the red link on the "Nothing O'Clock" page which means there was intent to create an article on the collection. If one should not be created, the link should be removed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197747
Please feel free to direct me to an existing discussion on this, if there is one. Briefly, has the wiki considered separating the television series continuity from the audio/prose/comics on each of the pages? I'm looking for discussions of how DW continuity is presented in the wiki - thanks! RedQueenaAR ☎ 16:45, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
- PicassoAndPringles
Please read Tardis:Canon policy for an overview of this wiki's stance on the topic.
- RedQueenaAR
Ah, policies! Excellent, thanks. Still learning where everything is...
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197794
Currently, both the Prisoners of Time (comic story) and the individual pages (POT 1 et al.) are utterly inconsistent. The main page, despite being a comic story page, displays content like it is an an anthology. The problem is: POT is not like most comic events. See Four Doctors (comic story) for an example: it was published through 5 issues, but each issue leads directly into the next. With Prisoners, however, the first 9 stories are individual. Only the last 2 lead into one another. This, and the fact that each story now have it's own title, makes it look more like a comic book series than a comic story itself. Therefore, I suggest each story of "Prisoners of Time" gets it's own page, named "Unnatural Selection (comic story)", "Bazaar Adventures (comic story)" and so on (the rest of the names are on the individual stories pages).
The other problem is with the individual pages themselves. Despite being named like issues pages, but they display information as both comic story and comic issues pages.
So, if agreed, I (and other users who want to help) can start working to improve these pages
- Revanvolatrelundar
Where do the new story titles come from? If it's a decent enough source then I'd prefer to use proper titles than "POT". I always thought "Prisoners of Time (comic story)" as a massive article was better than "POT", but if we have proper titles for each issue then I'm all for that.
- BananaClownMan
They are listed by individual titles on the index of the Titan republication.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Well they're the current licence holders so I don't see there being a problem. We just need to include a note on each article and Prisoners of Time explaining where the titles have come from. I think that Spam Filtered (comic story) was a similar case in that it didn't have a title when it was first published, so its not unprecedented.
- OncomingStorm12th
So, given that there's been 1 week this thread was open (the 3rd for this subject): only 3 people who answered them (myself included) agreed on the changes proposed (one of the persons being a admin). Considering no one objected so far, if in one week (September 18th) no one oposes to the changes on the thread, I will begin making the changes.
- Shambala108
Hold the phone. Only admins can close a discussion, and Revan has not actually done so yet. There may be some technical issues to consider.
More importantly, and I can't stress this enough...
Only admins are permitted to move/rename pages on this wiki. See Thread:128198 for details.
To sum up: Please wait for admin acknowledgement before taking any actions.
- OncomingStorm12th
Oh, sorry Shambala108. I though of doing this because no pages would need renames (only content would be moved) and pages created.
But since you joined the thread, please help by saying what technical issues there are. As Revanvolatrelundar said, Titan is the current licence holders, so their naming of the stories makes sense. Additionaly, there has already been a similar situation (also added by Revanvolatrelundar). Then, I fail to see how there are any issues with the content moving proposed.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Is everyone in agreement? I'm in favour of using the new titles, so as long as Shambala has no objections, let's get it going.
- Shambala108
I didn't say there were technical issues. I said there may be technical issues and that's why only admins can close discussions. I know next to nothing about this issue, and that's why I haven't contributed, but I wanted to make sure everything was done properly.
Keep in mind that forum threads are read far more often by newcomers than our policy pages. Sometimes I find it necessary in a forum thread to emphasize policy for any newcomers that might be reading the thread.
- PicassoAndPringles
I think we should definitely do this, especially to be more in line with similar miniseries like Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor. The only tricky part will be the execution: there are a couple hundred links to Prisoners of Time that will have to be manually changed to the proper individual title.
- OncomingStorm12th
Even though I'm not an admin, if I can, I wouldn't mind helping to move these links. Perhaps we could split the stories among those who eant to help changing the links. This way, each user would be responsible for moving the links of certain stories (avoiding edit wars)
- Revanvolatrelundar
I've moved the pages over now. That took longer than I thought! There are some links still left to the old POT page names. Great work on moving them though, guys, not much left now.
- SOTO
I was very much under the impression that we were retaining the issue pages as well, as issue pages. Did something change that now we've got the individual stories but not the issues?
- PicassoAndPringles
I see no problem with having the issue pages redirect until someone makes them properly.
- OncomingStorm12th
- SOTO
So now that all 12 stories each have story pages:
- Should Prisoners of Time (comic story) retain the comic story dab term, or should it be considered now an anthology?
- Shouldn't we move out all images in category:Prisoners of Time comic story images to the categories for the more specific stories?
- OncomingStorm12th
1) I think it should be changed to anthology. In fact, The Forgotten (comic story) and some others may need the same changes as Prisoners of Time, but I guess it wouls require another thread.
2) I already started moving some images to the specific categories, and plan to cobtinue doing later today
- PicassoAndPringles
It doesn't need a dab, it's a series just like Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor. "Anthology" would be inaccurate, as it was originally serialized.
- CzechOut
Hey guys :)
Sorry I'm a bit late here. But I have a huge objection to this move, and think that all the work done to split this thing off into 12 "stories' needs to be undone.
- These aren't stories, but quite explicitly "chapter titles". Every issue begins by saying "Chapter X: <chapter title>", and every issue ends by saying "End of Chapter X".
- The first eleven chapters each end on a cliffhanger leading into the next chapter.
- The story is centrally about the same villain(s) perpetrating a crime upon the Doctors and his companions, which we see unfurl in a chronological way, from the Doctor's perspective. Look at the events from the perspective of the villain(s), and it's obviously a single story.
- By the time you get to around the Tenth chapter, the story starts to wrap up, and the chapters are less able to stand on their own.
- Chapter 12 completely cannot stand on its own, because it's the conclusion to a now-obvious single story. References to past chapters bind the previous issues together.
Breaking Prisoner of Time (comic story) into 12 separate stories is fundamentally disallowed by many of our policies, particularly those which forbid us from having separate pages on individual Hartnell episodes. But it's more fundamental than that even. It's like -- indeed, exactly and explicitly like -- giving each chapter of a book its own page.
Sometimes narratives are neat and orderly, and we would never think for a moment that we should split off individual parts. And sometimes they tell their tales in unexpected ways. But you always have to make it to the end and consider what the end is saying about the whole.
A roughly analogous work in DW fiction is The Romans (novelisation). It's split up into about 20 chapters, each with their own name. But it's very different from the TV story, and isn't told in anything like a straightforward way. There are definitely points where you might think that one part doesn't relate to another. But by the end, even if you haven't seen the TV story, it becomes clear that they are all telling the same story.
And it is no more an anthology than Prisoner of Time.
- Revanvolatrelundar
The theme of Prisoners of Time is no different to the Anniversary audio series Destiny of the Doctor. Each story is a stand alone for each Doctor with a link between all of them where the villain comes along and steals a companion. The audio series is identical to that theme, just with the Eleventh Doctor popping up in each tale.
You could argue that Destiny of the Doctor is all one story, the last story just being fed by the events of the previous ones. I believe that story titles were something that was lacking from Prisoners of Time on release, and apparently I share the same view as Titan, who have taken the move to give the story episode titles. While my opinion isn't enough warrant the change we have made, surely the intention of the company who owns the story is?
The move we have made allows us to deliver a much more concise and accurate approach to how we edit pages that refer to Prisoners of Time. We can now see much more clearly which part of the story the Quarks appeared in, for instance, without trawling through the source to the Prisoners of Time page, and having to scrawl through an article containing the information from twelve different stories to find out when it took place.
I believe that the move was a right one for the wiki, and makes for a much simpler experience when looking at this particular story.
- OncomingStorm12th
Sorry, but I must disagree that it is all "one story".
1) Each issue presents a different storyline, with different Doctors and different companions (with the exeption of issues 11 and 12)
2) "The first eleven chapters each end on a cliffhanger leading into the next chapter." - Actually, Bazaar Adventures has nothing to do with Unnatural Selection. The only thing in common with the first 10 stories is the fact that Adam Mitchell appears on the end of them, and kidnaps the companions of this story.
3) "Chapter 12 completely cannot stand on its own, because it's the conclusion to a now-obvious single story. References to past chapters bind the previous issues together." - Hell Bent also cannot stand on its own, because it's the conclusion to Heaven Sent. In fact, it could be argued that both of these stories only make total sense if you've watched Face the Raven, which would, additionally, require you to watch The Girl Who Died. Still, each of these TV stories get their own page.
4) Just because the story of Endgame picks up from where The Choice ended, doesn't mean they can't be in two different pages. Is not much different from three of the Doom Coalition 3 stories: The Crucible of Souls (audio story) begins right where The Doomsday Chronometer (audio story) ended. The Doomsday Chronometer, on the other hand, starts immediately after The Eighth Piece (audio story). Again, these get seperate pages.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Exactly, there are tonnes of stories where an episode leads into another with a different title. Take The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion for example; one story with two distinct parts.
The way the pages stand now is a much better way of navigating the stories, for both reference and editing. I believe they should remain as they are.
- Bwburke94
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: Exactly, there are tonnes of stories where an episode leads into another with a different title. Take The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion for example; one story with two distinct parts.
Perhaps The Trial of a Time Lord is a better analogy. Trial was released as a single 14-episode story split into four distinct, yet untitled, parts. These parts were later given individual titles of their own, similar to Prisoners.
- OttselSpy25
Yes, but the only reason Trial has been split up by fans is that we have precedent with the BBC and other official sources considering it several stories. Otherwise we'd all still consider Trial to be one giant serial.
It shouldn't be used as precedent is all that I'm saying. We need specific examples of Prisoners being considered 12 stories, and I've literally never seen someone call it that.
- OttselSpy25
If anything a more just explanation is that Prisoners is one story while each issue is an episode of the larger serial (sorry if I'm choosing the wrong spelling of that term, but I can't be bothered to look it up). The Daleks Master Plan also features a long storyline, and several episodes feel totally detached from others. But it still only deserves one page.
- OncomingStorm12th
The difference between The Daleks Master Plan and Prisoners of Time is: Daleks Master Plan episodes lead into each other. The events of episode 2 only happened because of episode 1. Prisoners of Time stories do not lead into each other. Look at The Body Politic (comic story). Which part of it depends of Cat and Mouse (comic story)? None. To be honest, it doesn't depend on any story before that.
In fact, I believe another analogy to this may be Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005). Most (of not all) stories on this season have tje presence of an enemy (the cracks in time) featured on the episode. 13 episodes. 13 stories.
Look also at Season 8. 5 episodes, 5 stories. All part of a season-long arc of the Master.
Prisoners of Time, in the end, is nothing more than a 12 issues arc about Adam Mitchell's revenge.
- OttselSpy25
What does the Christmas episode of TDMP have to do with all others?
Again, show sufficient evidence of publications counting the stories as separate adventures, and then we'll be getting somewhere.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Prisoners of Time is something new, you can't really compare it. New is good, everything was new when they happened.
It's a 12-part story arc, each issue is individual. If I had to compare it to anything, it'd be the new Doctor Who two-parters, for example Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks is a story however those pages are seperate because they don't have an overall title, if they did they'd probably be together.
I personally believe it's the same as saying Dark Eyes is a 16-part story, it's not that is the name of the series. I think Prisoners should be counted as one story but should be splintered into different pages.
- OncomingStorm12th
OttselSpy25 wrote: What does the Christmas episode of TDMP have to do with all others?
Again, show sufficient evidence of publications counting the stories as separate adventures, and then we'll be getting somewhere.
Ok then. Directly from the back covers of the graphic novels (Volume 1, 2 and 3):
Writers Scott and David Tipton and artists [...] bring you four exciting tales involving the first four Doctors
Check volume 2 and 3 back covers, and you'll see very similar texts for them. The point is: IDW itself inteds it to be seen as 12 different stories.
- SOTO
Now we're getting somewhere. Each volume does indeed say "four exciting tales/four more exciting tales/four more tales", indicating they're intended to be separate stories.
- OttselSpy25
That sounds like strong evidence to me.
- CzechOut
Not really, guys. Every single one of these things has always said, "end of Chapter X". They've always been called chapters by the original publisher. We can't contort the English language so much that chapter means story. And I push back hard on the notion that the individual chapters fail to make up a coherent, single story.
It is very often the case in prose that if you lift out a single chapter from a book that it will appear to be unrelated to the greater narrative. But by the time you get to the end of the book, it's very clear how it's all related. And that's the case here.
More to the point, later chapters more directly lead in to the ones that follow. It's illogical to regard later chapters differently from earlier ones -- to make, as one poster above suggested, an "except for chapters 11 and 12" rule.
Again, from the perspective of the main villain(s) of the piece, this is all one story. And the comic's producers have always portrayed it so by calling each issue a "chapter". Marketing speak on the back jacket does not trump what is actually on the inside of the book -- any more than opinions expressed in Doctor Who Confidential can affect our in-universe understanding of a TV story.
- Shambala108
Just pointing out that this situation needs to be resolved. Pages have been created for each issue, but User:CzechOut has stated this is incorrect. This situation should be resolved before too much work is done that would have to be redone or undone.
- Shambala108
Bumping this again...for some reason, actions were taken from this forum discussion when it wasn't even closed, which is majorly against policy. I don't know why this happened, and it even included several admins. So this needs to be resolved somehow ASAP.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'd keep the individual issues with their seperate unique titles. It works better and its come from an official source.
- LegoK9
Keep the pages separate, it's easier for logistic reasons. Citing info on the wiki with (COMIC: Unnatural Selection) is much more specific than (COMIC: Prisoners of Time) and more consistent than (COMIC: "Unnatural Selection").
Look at how The Many Lives of Doctor Who, a recent multi-Doctor comic with a format nearly identical to POT, is handled. All 14 stories were published in one issue, but the separate titles given for each Doctor's section were made into a separate articles. POT had 12 separate issues, which ultimately makes it closer to 12 stories than TMLODW is to 14.
Also, I did not put all that work into getting Facades fixed to Façades for nothing!
- Shambala108
LegoK9 wrote: Also, I did not put all that work into getting Facades fixed to Façades for nothing!
Thank you for illustrating so well why we don't allow changes to be made until after a discussion has been closed!
I'm not asking for a rehash of everyone's arguments; they're upthread for anyone who wants to read them
Since User:CzechOut has basically ruled against this separation of pages but didn't close the thread, he needs to address it, so we know where we stand.
In the future, however, everyone should keep in mind that acting on a currently-open thread is against policy. If it's decided that this decision is in error, then a lot of work will have been done for nothing. I know a bunch of users on this site don't mind their hard work being erased, but there are some that don't enjoy this.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:197933
I've been occasionally editing out appearances in comic stories. I tried to use the spirit of the old discussion of appearances in TV stories and audios. But much of that thread revolves around things like actor credits that are not applicable to comic stories. The other thing that is not immediately clear is what counts as "archival footage" when no film footage can directly appear in a comic book.
Given the Titanic efforts to mix and match different doctors, the appearances of various doctors and what counts as a multi-doctor story both get affected.
Perhaps, as in the above-mentioned thread, it's hard to come up with an exact rule. But it would be good to come to at least some common understanding. So let me use four examples to explain the rules I came up with for myself.
Essentially, I propose the following maxima: It is considered an appearance only if a TV production crew would be likely to shoot new footage for presenting the scenes with the character.
Example 1 from Weapons of Past Destruction. When Arnora roots out in the mind of the Ninth Doctor, she finds memories of the Eighth and War Doctors. These memories are only presented in one frame as images of their heads (see image). There is no interaction between them and the story's characters. There is nothing new that we learn about them. TV production would have found their stills and used them. No one in their right mind would think of inviting John Hurt for making one headshot. So while it's not clear whether these images are exact copies of some still frame from the TV, I would still call it a "bona fide" archival footage. In my mind, this is not a multi-doctor story as the Eighth and War Doctors do not appear in it.
Example 2 from The Transformed. When Mickey Smith recalls his relationship with the Tenth Doctor, there is a frame of them together. Maybe there is a similar still frame from some TV story, but it cannot be exactly identical. So there is little point in searching for it: a lot of time spent for an uncertain result. Instead I think of it as follows. From this frame, we learn nothing new. We learn that Mickey has eventually gained the respect and friendship of the Tenth Doctor, as opposed to his relationship with the Ninth Doctor, the Doctor in the story. Again, to illustrate something established in an earlier story, a TV production team would have probably used some existing footage. So this is again not an appearance of the Tenth Doctor, and not a multi-doctor story.
Example 3 from Hacked. There is one flashback frame showing the fight of Aesirians with various super-civilisations. In particular, one can see Sutekh sticking out his mask at the bottom. This is a narratively new scene (Aesirians were introduced in this story) that would likely require new footage, be it live actors or CGI. Thus, I think this should constitute an appearance of several species and of Sutekh personally.
Example 4 from The Fountains of Forever. The Tenth Doctor retro-regenerates into the Ninth Doctor, who proceeds to interact with other characters of the story. This is clearly an appearance of the Ninth Doctor, which makes it a multi-doctor story. And the proposed rule still works fine: one would need to get Eccleston to shoot those interactions, were it on TV.
This is how I currently edit comic stories. Are there objections? Or difficult cases not covered by the proposed criterion of narrative novelty requiring "new footage"?
- TheChampionOfTime
That's a bit subjective. Everyone can agree that these images of past doctors are completely new drawings. However, I find it hard to believe that everyone will have the same vision of what the comic would look like as a TV episode.
Take the recent Eleventh Doctor comics. In multiple stories, the Doctor's timeline is attacked and many of his other incarnations are seen melting out of his body. This effect could be done on TV using a combination of archive footage and CGI, but it could also just as easily be done with just CGI.
On the other hand, The World Shapers has exactly what you're talking about. It features two flashbacks to the events of The Keys of Marinus and The Invasion. In both cases, the artist tries to emulate the original scenes on paper. I would say this is one of the few comic stories which would undoubtedly use archive footage if adapted to TV, but I would still argue that the First and Second Doctors appear in The World Shapers.
This is because comics are an entirely different medium than television. If a comic reuses an image from another comic, then yes that wouldn't be an appearance. But if a comic creates something new that is meant to copy a scene from an episode, it is still creating something new.
- Amorkuz
First off, thank you for the valid criticism. Indeed, upon closer observation, the arguments regarding directors, budgets, etc. make the use of actor analogy hopeless. It must be forgotten. (I also wanted to clarify that for me actor appearance is no different from CGI. I mean, some monsters are purely CGI these days: they still appear in stories. But this is still about TV stories, not comics.)
Since we both agree that any frame of a comic is something new (unless copied from another comic), we need to categorise these new things into appearances and non-appearances without resorting to TV analogies. So let me reformulate the classification I proposed in purely comical terms. Needless to say, this all should only be applied to flashbacks, memories and the like:
- Any frame that provides new plot-relevant information about a character is an appearance of that character. (For instance, interaction with characters of the story proper is always plot-relevant and new. But standing in the shade of a tree is generally not plot-relevant, even if not clear from the story of the flashback.)
- Regarding the frames intended to recall scenes from earlier stories, the original TV-based discussion required an appearance to be "re-contextualised to be more than a simple memory of the past". This can be applied to the comic case too.
But before trying to refine the formulation, perhaps, it makes sense to agree on specific appearances. In other words, do you disagree with some of my four examples? Could you provide a specific comic story about the Eleventh Doctor for me to look at: the earlier the better (I haven't read any of them but have the first ones)? And do the flashbacks in The World Shapers re-contextualise the events from the TV stories (I don't have this story and have no hope of getting it)?
- TheChampionOfTime
How about instead of describing a comic, we use images. Here's a few brief comic cameos of past Doctors:
3. Petals
1. The only thing that this panel is for is to tell the reader that Planet 14 was mentioned in The Invasion.
2. This image tells us nothing about the First Doctor or the Curator. (well aside from the fact that it says the Curator is the Doctor) However, it is not a memory, it is the Doctor's timeline being attacked.
3. This one tells us nothing new about the past Doctors, but at the same time they are not there as "a simple memory of the past". In this story, it is the fact that the Doctor has had multiple personalities that helps him fight a mind parasite.
4.There is no interaction between them and the story's characters. There is nothing new that we learn about them.
- TheChampionOfTime
Now Amorkuz, I agree with you that all four of the above stories should not be considered Multi-Doctor stories. At the same time, I think that they should all be classified as appearances.
For TV, archive footage has to be "re-contextualised to be more than a simple memory of the past" to be considered an appearance. You're proposing we treat new artwork the same as archive footage. Visually, these are more than simple memories of the past. These are new takes on the past.
- Amorkuz
This thought was completely new to me: that an appearance of another Doctor may not turn it into a multi-Doctor story. It may well be that your rationale for suggesting it is different from mine, but I can also see some reason behind it (see later).
The definition of a Multi-Doctor story as one that involves more than one incarnation of the Doctor is not directly tied to appearances (as I apparently assumed for simplicity). I would be interested to understand your definition of a multi-Doctor story. However, in the absence of a direct connection between the two, this seems to be off-topic.
Now back to appearances. Firstly, I'd like to record a seemingly new type of appearances from your example 3, a mental appearance. It is likely to be almost unique to comic books: you are not likely to see on TV or hear on audio the Doctor conversing with his previous incarnations or them providing support for the current one from the depth of his cranium. (I can think of only one example from audio: the Eleven, whose rare condition makes him (loudly) converse with his previous incarnations all the time. Even so, this example is irrelevant for counting appearances because appearances of other Time Lords are usually counted independently of the incarnation.)
So yes, I wholeheartedly agree that your Example 3 constitutes appearances of other Doctors. At the same time, mental projections clearly should not make it a multi-Doctor story. For me, involving a Doctor means involving his entirety, including the body. One mind inside a later incarnation is not enough.
Your Example 2 seems more important to me than you describe it. It answers beyond any doubt an important question: is Curator an incarnation of the Doctor? This is new information. In no way is this frame a repetition of any scene present before. I think a similar situation happened in The Name of the Doctor. There too the Doctor's timeline was attacked and we saw glimpses of other Doctors. Even though their footage was mostly reused, it was decided to count these as appearances because of the re-contextualisation in the form of their interactions with Clara. Again, for me this is an appearance of all the depicted Doctors.
Concerning your Examples 1 and 4, I have harder time considering them to be appearances. I'll write about them separately after collecting my thoughts and rereading the TV appearances discussion. I think we should really stop adapting the letter of that discussion and instead try to understand its spirit.
- Amorkuz
Meanwhile, I agree with your suggestion that one picture speaks louder than a thousand words: here are the images I referred to (I omit my first example, which is the same as your Example 4)
A2. The Transformed
A3. Hacked
- Ten to Nine Retro-regeneration.jpg
- Amorkuz
Okay, thoughts collected. Though I still don't know which way I'm gonna lean by the end of the post. I tried to extract the potentially applicable points of the TV discussion and here is a list
- "why that would be any more important to recognise than verbally recounting a story?"
- "It's not at all a flashback, but rather the modern characters are experiencing the older events."
- "an appearance is only one in which the actor got paid"
- "And again, the proposed rule would require motion. Those are still images, which would never be allowed to count as an appearance."
And I remember admins insisting on rules that are clear, unambiguous and easily enforceable.
The "actor got paid" rule, of course, only works in one direction: if the actor got paid, it is an appearance. It seems that part of your argument in favour of counting all above images as appearances is: the painter got paid for drawing these new images, so it is new material and, hence, an appearance. But note the still images quote: they are never an appearance. The companion photos in the Black Archive have been done by someone in the production crew, who got paid for them. In a sense, they are also a new material, but they are not counted as an appearance because they are still images.
It would seem that excluding still images from comic stories is tricky business, but bear with me. I'm talking about in-universe still images. While comic panels are still images from out-of-universe perspective, they are (usually) intended as showing continuous action, whereas some elements within these panels are in-universe still images.
To me, this distinguishes your Example 1 from your Example 4. Example 1 is a picture representing a retelling of a story with things happening. Better than that, the caption directly implies a time period, necessary for the Cyber-Controller to say something. On the contrary, in the Example 4 there is no discernible action associated with the War and Eighth Doctors. The very juxtaposition of the two, who should not co-exist, and the placement of the scaled-down barn in between suggests that this is not a particular event. There is no action, just an acknowledgment of objects existing in the memory, a collection of three still images plucked from the Ninth Doctor's memory if you wish.
Will you agree to exclude your Example 4 (which was also my Example A1) from appearances under the "still images are not appearances" clause?
Meanwhile, we both agree that your Examples 2-3 and my Examples A3-A4 are appearances.
- TheChampionOfTime
Look at all those still images from Unnatural Selection.Oh, I've never noticed that barn! Thanks for pointing it out, but I'm sorry to say that my answer is no. I would not say that memories are in-universe still images. The portrait of the Fourth Doctor and Romana II in The Arts in Space is a still image because that's what portraits are. The memories of the Eighth and War Doctor's in Weapons of Past Destruction... how do we know that's a still image?
Meanwhile, look at the Doctor's memories seen in The First. They could be moving.We rarely see a character's memories on TV and when we do it's usually with archive footage. In comics, we see memories much more often and when we do it's almost always new artwork. Even if the artist did the artwork for free, it is still new content and comparable to a newly filmed flashback.
Let's say in a hypothetical TV episode, there's a scene where the Doctor is mentally attacked and newly shot footage of Paul Mcgann and John Hurt briefly fades into the screen. By the rules of the TV discussion, this would count as a new appearance for the Eighth and War Doctors. In Weapons of Past Destruction, this is exactly what happens, the Doctor is attacked and we see a never-before-seen image of 8 and War.
On the other hand, look at the flashback to Weapons of Past Destruction in Hacked. It just reuses the same artwork. The flashback adds nothing to the original material, so I would say that no Fluren's World does not appear in Hacked, even though we can see it in the flashback.
- AeD
But in a comparable hypothetical scene on TV, the McGann and Hurt incarnations would almost 100% certainly be represented by archive footage from Night and Day of the Doctor, in exactly the same way that the Changing Face of Dr Who montage has happened since the show came back. They've never shot new footage for those montages, to which the Weapons of Past Destruction example most closely seems to compare.
Just for comparison, over at the Complete Marvel Reading Order, in the context of flashbacks and such, we generally define an "appearance" as specifically having to be something that contributes new information, however small, to the story of that particular character. By that measuring cup, the examples from this thread:
- The World Shapers: Assuming that's exactly a scene from The Invasion: Not an appearance.
- The Then and the Now: We learn absolutely nothing about how the past (or future) doctors experience this event, but it is a new event that happens to them nonetheless: Yes, an appearance.
- Petals: A visual representation of what he's talking about -- on TV, I think you'd use audio clips of the past Doctors mixed into the soundtrack -- but it's not a new event: No.
- Weapons of Past Destruction: Unless the rest of the story illuminates events that happen to the McGann and Hurt incarnations, this is merely a visual representation of what the Doctor is forced to remember: No.
- The Transformed: Tricky, but it's still no new information. Nothing is happening, here, it's more representative of Mickey's relationship with that Doctor compared to with his previous incarnation.
- Hacked: New information. Clear appearance for everyone involved, so: Yes.
- The Fountains of Forever: Obviously: Yes.
- The Arts in Space: The Doctor and Romana don't appear, a portrait of them does: No.
- Unnatural Selection: None of these characters appear, only photographs or other in-universe still image depictions of them: No.
- The First: I'm not familiar with the story, but from the image presented here, there's nothing new here: No.
- Amorkuz
It seems that AeD's classification is very close to mine. And the new info/nothing new distinction seems to be a comic-book analogue of new footage/archival footage criterion used for TV stories. On the one hand, policies of other wikis are not directly applicable. On the other hand, it is instructive to know how a society devoted solely to comic books treats such things.
I have one proposal though. Let us exclude Petals from this discussion. I fear that it is too open to interpretation: is it mere memory? are they helping? are they watching? is he talking to them? are they talking to him? I suspect that context matters for that story and that it is one of the cases that would need to be discussed separately no matter the general rules.
- Amorkuz
I want to record explicitly one thought that I meant for a long time. The definition of TheChampionOfTime is much simpler in enforcing: any new artwork is an appearance.
And I wanted to clarify one thing, just in case: I did not intend for memories to be automatically relegated to non-appearances. I'm arguing on a case-by-case basis.
However, I can't get myself onboard. My worry is the following: appearance is not something that is almost always the case. The big discussion on TV appearances is a good indication of that. The need to credit and pay an actor serves as a good balancing point on TV: creating a new appearance is objectively costlier than resorting to something that would not qualify as an appearance. I strongly suspect that credits are used as an easily verifiable criterion rather than a deeply philosophical definition of what is and is not a criterion. But it makes sense because it goes hand in hand with authorial intent.
In comics, this balancing medium is lost. And it feels to me that the new artwork criterion is not costly enough, not weighty enough to stop artists from doing it anyway, in most cases, by default. Take that scene from Weapons of Past Destruction (WPD), where the Doctor is offering his brain for sale, already mentioned before. There are flashbacks to this scene both in Hacked and Doctormania. As mentioned above the art in Hacked is derived from a frame in Weapons of Past Destruction. Wouldn't it be natural to reuse the same art the third time in Doctormania? Instead, the picture is different and does not seem to come from WPD. Hacked was one of four stories in a special free issue. Perhaps, the time was short to put an effort. But as soon as we hit a regular issue in Doctormania, a 3-issue story, wham! new art. In fact, if one looks closely at the image in Hacked, it was not taken as is either. The speech balloons are gone. The supernova had some weird yellowish ray-shaped flares in WPD that are not rendered in Hacked. It might well be that the picture in Hacked consists of some but not all layers of that from WPD, but it still has been changed.
What I'm driving at is that creating new art seems so easy in comics and some degree of modification is so often necessary that it seems unnatural to ever not do it. (I'm not a comic artist, so obviously I don't know this for sure.) And if this is indeed the case, then new artwork would be a poor measure of authorial intent in distinguishing substantial flashbacks from mere recalls.
If I understood AeD correctly, whether new artwork is used seems immaterial in that other comic-book-related wiki. Perhaps, the reason is the one I just described? It usually is used, so the question shifts from having new artwork to having new narrative information.
For me, Example 4 is really problematic in terms of counting this as appearances. Yes, it is new artwork. Yes it might be implemented on TV as moving image, even though there is no apparent reason for it (it is neither inherently moving nor inherently still). But I have hard time imagining the author thinking that he put those two other Doctors into the story. Let me speculate a bit: why are those two images there? To show that Arnora was rooting in the Doctor's head and found his memories of the Time War. The main point is that he's committed horrible crimes, she couldn't understand how he lived with himself. It could have been done in a number of ways: War Doctor fighting Daleks, Eight Doctor seeing a planet destroyed, War Doctor pressing the Moment. There could have been action there. Like in The Innocent, when the War Doctor, in his delirium, relives some of the battles. Instead, the author/artists chose to go with a very minimalist approach: just one frame combining both incarnations who lived through the Time War with the barn where the double genocide happened (according to the Ninth Doctor's memories). This is as minimalist as it gets. I can't see how to show the Doctor participating in the Time War without showing at least one of these incarnations.
Put in simple terms, if ChampionOfTime's definition is applied, I cannot imagine this scene in WPD done without appearances of the War and Eighth Doctors. On the other hand, using the current definition of appearance on TV, this can easily be done there. And this continues to bother me.
- Amorkuz
Independently of the above examples, if we all agree that still images do not count as an appearance, then Tenth Doctor and Gabby Gonzalez do not appear in Cindy, Cleo and the Magic Sketchbook, which makes ultimate sense for a Doctor-light episode.
.jpg)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:198639
At the moment there are only two Time Lords with pages for each of their incarnations: the Doctor and Romana. I think that Iris Wildthyme deserves just the same. Unlike the Master, Iris' incarnations are pretty clear cut. Her first 6 (?) regenerations are the most well known with appearances and mentions in the EDAs and PDAs, but quite a few incarnations were introduced in one-off stories in Iris: Fifteen.
Below is a table with information on all the incarnations of Iris I am aware of. I have included notable information and what I think would be the best name for each of the Irises.
| # | Looks like | First appearance or mention | Major alias | Other info | Proposed page name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edith Sitwell | Bafflement and Devotion | Lilith | Iris Wildthyme (Edith Sitwell) | |
| 2 | Shirley Bassey | Bafflement and Devotion | Brenda Soobie | Brenda Soobie | |
| 3 or 5 | Beryl Reid | Old Flames | Iris Wildthyme (Beryl Reid) | ||
| 4, 6, or future | Jane Fonda | The Scarlet Empress | Iris Wildthyme (Jane Fonda) | ||
| 5 | The Golden Hendecahedron | Has mismatched eye colours and red hair | Iris Wildthyme (mismatched eyes) | ||
| 6 | Excelis Decays | This is the Katy Manning Iris | Iris Wildthyme (Excelis Decays) | ||
| Potential 7 | Phyllis Diller | The Golden Hendecahedron | Iris Wildthyme (Phyllis Diller) | ||
| Potential 8 | The Golden Hendecahedron | sentient puppet | Iris Wildthyme (puppet) | ||
| Potential 9 | The Golden Hendecahedron | black man | Iris Wildthyme (black man) | ||
| Potential 12 | Carol Channing | The Golden Hendecahedron | Iris Wildthyme (Carol Channing) | ||
| ? | Came to Believe | "stately woman in her late 60s with long silver-white hair" | Iris Wildthyme (Came to Believe) | ||
| ? | Gimme Shelter | Iris Wildthyme (Gimme Shelter) | |||
| ? | Our Tune | Iris Wildthyme (Our Tune) | |||
| ? | The Ninnies on Putney Common | Iris Wildthyme (The Ninnies on Putney Common) | |||
| ? | Samsara | Iris Wildthyme (Samāra) | |||
| ? | Ouroboros | Iris Wildthyme (Ouroboros) | |||
| ? | God Engine Rhapsody | Iris Wildthyme (God Engine Rhapsody) | |||
| Final | The Wormery | Bianca | Bianca (The Wormery) |
Are there any inherent problems with this idea?
- Shambala108
Considering that there is a still-open discussion at Thread:171578 proposing that we merge all the Romana pages into one, it seems like separating the Iris incarnations into separate pages is moving in the opposite direction of standard wiki procedure for non-Doctor Time Lords.
- TheChampionOfTime
The trouble is that Iris doesn't really work on one single page. In my opinion, the current page is a bit of a mess. While some of this can be fixed, it is rather impossible to put all of Iris' incarnations into a chronological order. The Jane Fonda Iris has been said to be the fourth Iris, (PROSE: The Blue Angel and many more) the sixth Iris, (PROSE: The Scarlet Empress) and a future Iris. (PROSE: From Wildthyme with Love) Almost half of Iris' incarnations are completely unnumbered. To try to put Iris' life onto a single page would be working against the spirit of her adventures.
Romana on the other hand, only has three or four incarnations that could be put onto a single page without having to choose one source over another for the biography section.
- WJDTwGL
TBH I prefer it with all of them on one page. Iris's incarnations are more fuzzy around the edges than even the Master's. It can be difficult or impossible to decide which one is in some stories, or whether it's a new one entirely. For instance, I'm pretty sure the future one in From Wildthyme with Love isn't the one in Iris Wildthyme of Mars, who is the one from The Blue Angel and is explicitly pre-Manning, Panda notwithstanding.
Also, the "Edith Sitwell" first Iris isn't the same first Iris as Lilith.
- TheChampionOfTime
First off, thanks for pointing out the Lilith thing, but I'll have to disagree with you about the rest. I would say that From Wildthyme with Love does have the Blue Angel Iris. Both are a bit more ruthless than their other incarnations and look like a young Jane Fonda. I would say that calling the Fonda Iris a future incarnation is no different than calling her the sixth Iris, it contradicts other established information, but is valid nonetheless. This is one of the reasons why I think Iris would work better on separate pages.
As for Iris' incarnations being a bit fuzzy, I assume you are referring to the Beryl Reid Iris and the Katy Manning Iris. Both are similar, but there are differences. Any story with Iris travelling with just Tom (Verdigris) is the Reid Iris. Any story where Iris is shown to be interested in having real estate is the Reid Iris. Also, the Reid Iris is almost always seen wearing a green cardigan. Like the Reid Iris, the Manning Iris often wears a large hat, but unlike the Reid Iris, the Manning Iris has much more variety in her dress sense and a tendency to call people "chuck". Any story (aside from the ones with the Fonda Iris) where Iris is travelling with Panda features the Manning Iris.
As for other fuzzy Irises, I agree that there are some which are impossible to decide. In that case, just create a new page for that Iris. Logically, the Iris seen in Gimme Shelter is probably the third or sixth Iris, but the story gives absolutely no hints as to which Iris it is, so she deserves a new page.
Is there a particular story which features a fuzzy Iris that you're thinking of?
- WJDTwGL
What I mean about the "Barbarella" Iris isn't just that the numbers don't match up. The Iris in From Wildthyme with Love is definitely from the future, while the one in Iris Wildthyme of Mars is definitely from before the Big Finish series.
I haven't read Wildthyme on Top. You're saying that even though it has Katy Manning on the cover, it doesn't have her incarnation?
Trying to number them seems ridiculous to me. The one in Gimme Shelter could be rationalized as a future Iris who is travelling with Panda again, but that's not really how it's written. It's written as "What if default-Iris (i.e. Katy Manning+Panda) regenerated into a minor?"
The problem is that nothing about Iris is ever going to be consistent or linear. Even more than Doctor Who stuff always is, she's more like a set of reinterpreted themes than a chronology. I think there are two stories in The Panda Book of Horror that end with Iris and Panda dying/being trapped in a horrible way, so that logically all their future adventures should be annulled.
I don't think the details of whether there's one attractive blonde Iris or two is really that important, but the fact that there are multiple positions kind of demonstrates my point: it's too complicated to pin down into individual incarnation pages. She's not like the Doctor, with separated eras for incarnations and lots of incarnation-specific characteristics. Stories that explicitly feature a pre-Panda Iris have Panda in them, and chalk it up to sarcastic halfhearted technobabble about timelines.
- TheChampionOfTime
I agree with almost everything that you are saying and that is exactly why I don't think Iris Wildthyme works on a single page. In my eyes, multiple positions does not equal multiple incarnations. If there were separate pages for each of Iris' faces we wouldn't have to focus on where they are in the timeline, instead we could focus on who they are and what they did. Individual pages for each of Iris' faces would eliminate the need to put them in a chronological order.
And so what if Iris and Panda die in The Shadow of Times Before, it's still features the Katy Manning Iris. What's the difference between including this information on a page for all of Iris versus on a page just for one specific Iris?
- Also, it seems to me that before she got her own series the Katy Manning Iris was intended to be the Verdigris Iris. In Excelis Rises, she mentions that the last time she met the Doctor was on Marlion with Jenny Winterleaf, an event which is also in her past in Verdigris. Wildthyme on Top is clearly set around the time of Verdigris with the Iris in it described similarly. I feel that although the Manning Iris has since been explicitly stated to be a separate incarnation, it doesn't really affect Wildthyme on Top because nothing in the stories implies that they feature the Manning Iris and The Golden Dodecahedron states that all of Tom's pre-audio adventures took place with the Beryl Reid Iris.
- WJDTwGL
But it's up for debate which Irises are different ones. You often have to rely on pretty vague indications to figure it out. Hence your assuming the "Edith Sitwell" Iris was also Lilith. I thought the one in The Ninnies on Putney Common was the same one from Old Flames/The Scarlet Empress. Which one is in Scream in Blue?
The biography page doesn't need to have a really strict chronology. With one page instead of several, it can be more free-form. The versions of Iris could be explained in order of introduction, rather than chronologically - she's metafictional enough that I think it would work better.
I think that it's probably better to focus on individual story pages when writing about Iris's life, because she's written as a sequence of stories, not a normal life. Her main page can give a more general overview, explain her character and the things she's done, but it's not really possible to write a detailed biography at all.
- It can be difficult or impossible to decide which one is in some stories, or whether it's a new one entirely.
- The problem is that nothing about Iris is ever going to be consistent or linear.
- The fact that there are multiple positions kind of demonstrates my point: it's too complicated to pin down into individual incarnation pages.
- But it's up for debate which Irises are different ones.
And to stress a point I keep having to make at various points on this wiki: There is no definitive chronology in the DWU, so there is no way to properly create a timeline for any characters. There's a reason we got rid of timeline sections on in-universe pages.
Based on the difficulty of determining which Irises would go on what pages, I'm ruling against this idea and closing the thread. There are only two Time Lords that have individual incarnations on separate pages; the Doctor is a unique case, and as I posted above, there is a proposition to merge all the Romana pages anyway.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:198688
Shouldn't TV story imply anything that can be viewed on a TV not just things first broadcasted on it.
For example "The Day of the Doctor" was first broadcast in both TV and in cinema. Stories such as The Night of the Doctor have been broadcast on both and with the future Class broadcast both online first and then TV, how would we handle that?
All I'm trying to say is that maybe we should look into this. Even home videos are meant to be viewed through a television.
It feels like we might as well put "Hardback novel" and "Paperback novel" in the same vain.
Anything that can be watched (exception of games which can be played) should be categoriesed, maybe 'Optical story' or something hitting the border of that suggestion. I'd love everyone to tell me what they think. 😊
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'd say that having the same disambiguation term for all TV/home video stories makes sense – after all, we don't distinguish between audio stories released on radio and on CD.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:198908
Currently, The Forgotten (comic story) has a problem similar to what Prisoners of Time had: its pages suffer from a heavy inconsistency.
1) Despite being a miniseries, it has the "(comic story)" dab term.
2) Continuity, Characters, Notes and Reference sections are all on the miniseries page, but, in fact, they should be on the respective story pages.
3) The page have categories of a comic story page, when it should have categories of a miniseries page.
- CzechOut
I've removed the update and rename tags, because they indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the page. It is the page about the story as a whole, as opposed to the page about the graphic novel, The Forgotten (graphic novel). This isn't an anthology of any kind; it's a single story. So it's completely standard practice at Tardis to give it the parenthetical, (comic story).
What's happened with The Forgotten is that someone has divorced the issue-level plot information from the issue itself. There is no such story as "Renewal", for instance. "Renewal" is simply the subtitle of TF 2. It's completely common practice with American comic books to give each issue a name -- even though several issues may make up a single story.
What should happen in this instance -- and probably Prisoners of Time -- is that the issue (TF 2) should survive, and the information from the "episode" page (Renewal) should be moved to the issue page. Then, after the information has been transferred, the misnamed "Renewal (comic story)" should just be deleted.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:199045
I do understand why charity publications are not covered here, but what about these short stories?
- Entertaining Mr. O from Perfect Timing 1
- Being an Extract from "The Amazing Adventures of Iris Wildthyme on Neptune" from Tales of the Solar System
- In the Sixties from Walking in Eternity
There are Iris Wildthyme adventures, written by her creator Paul Magrs, much like short stories from Obverse Books. Did Obverse Books have an approval from BBC? Did they need one? If not, why these three do?
- 81.106.187.243
I agree with what you're saying. Makes sense.
- TheChampionOfTime
Magrs may have the rights to Wildthyme, but he doesn't have the rights to all the characters in the stories. There are some things you can get away with for charity that you cannot for profit. For example, just recently Magrs has written a charity story where Morbius turns into a llama has a mind battle with Ursula Blake.
As for these stories, In the Sixties features Dr. Who and mentions Daleks, Quarks, the Master, Susan Foreman, and Mechanoids and the titular character of "Mr. O" of Entertaining Mr. O is Omega. I don't know much about Extract from 'something something Neptune', but it really is much easier to just ignore charity stories.
- Shambala108
For anyone unfamiliar with the ruling on charity stories, Forum:Charity anthology short stories and Tardis:Valid sources#What doesn't count give some information about our policy.
To answer the original post, Iris was "created by Paul Magrs for the BBC Books range" (quoted from the Obverse Books page) so they have BBC permission. Going by TheChampionOfTime's comments above, it appears that the charity stories don't have BBC permission.
- A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count.
And as if that was not clear enough, there is a clarification regarding charity publications:
- And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC.
In order to include these stories as valid, it is necessary to demonstrate that they have been commercially licensed by all shareholders. No evidence to this effect has been provided. No evidence is likely to be provided: it is strange to expect the production company to obtain a commercial license for a charity product.
The stories are not covered on this wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:199315
While this is not a spoiler, according to the policies, I would not recommend reading this post before listening to Doom Coalition 3.
I don't think such pages are usually created. There are pages for each of the Doctor's incarnations and there are Romana I, Romana II, Romana III. By contrast, the Doctor's antagonists are usually gathered on the same page, as in the Master, the Monk and Rassilon, no matter how many actors portrayed them.
There is a bit of a difference with The Eleven though. He doesn't use the same name throughout his incarnations. In fact, it seems mildly incorrect for me - worse, anachronistic - to link "Octavian" or "The Imposter" in Doom Coalition 3 stories to "The Eleven". "Brother Octavian" is the Eight, not the Eleven. And after he regenerates, he is the Nine, not the Eleven. These are separate characters played by separate actors.
Perhaps, somewhat in favour of the separation is the fact that the Master, the Monk, and Rassilon never really changed their personality much, not like the Doctor. At the same time, the Eight is a cardinal departure from the other Eleven's incarnations, which are also given somewhat different characterisations.
So I'm proposing to make separate pages for the Eight and the Nine, both of whom have appeared individually, and not only in flashbacks or as voices in Eleven's head. If this is too radical a departure from the tradition, I propose to at least make redirects to relevant sections of the page for the Eleven, namely from The Eight to The Eleven#The Eight and from The Nine to The Eleven#The Nine. That way, the linkage would not be wrong.
- WJDTwGL
I think your second option is better. If there were individual incarnation pages, there would still have to be one for all of them, and it would still need a name. For now I think the page should be The Eleven, but should make it clear that it's not always his name. When the Twelve or the Thirteen is inevitably introduced, the page should move to that. And if [s]he ever gets a name that doesn't have to do with only one incarnation, as the Nine was hoping, the page can move there.
- Amorkuz
Given that it was recently decided not to create pages for the incarnations of Iris Wildthyme and, apparently, there is an idea of merging Romana's pages, I guess the second option, the redirects leading to subsections of The Eleven, is, indeed, more in line with the current practice.
- OncomingStorm12th
As suggested by User:Amorkuz on Talk:The Eleven, I'll bring my opinion over here: I believe each incarnation of the Time Lords gets it's own page.
As per Forum:The Master, it was decided the Master's incarnation wouldn't get separate pages "There is simply no in-universe way to do it that will be commonly understood or agreed" (quoting CzechOut). And even Romana, who has no IU names for incarnations, gets pages such as Romana I and Romana II because these names are wildly used OOU. That said, we do have names for each incarnation of the Eleven.
So it makes absolutely no sense to me having information which happened to the Eight on a page called the Eleven, because they are separate incarnations. We would never describe events from An Unearthly Child on the War Doctor page, because those events happened during another incarnation.
Concerns about a "main page" (like the Doctor or Romana) seems fair, but not really a pressing corcern. Yes, we have no name the refer to the Time Lord without using an incarnation number, but pages like this are far less edited/used than incarnation pages (that is, Romana II is edited/used and linked to more than Romana). If and until we have a name for them, we'll be okay without such "main page", because we kind of already don't have it.
- Ben Moore812
My collected views on the topic;
Romana 4 has her own page, with less information than we currently have for 8 or 9 on this page, so a page for them is justified.
Separate pages would make sense. We do so for the Doctor and Romana because we number their incarnations, much like the Eleven, but unlike any other Time Lord. It’s a easy way to categorise and organise. If I were a causal user and say, I only knew Doom Coalition, I’d look up The Eleven and find his page. Then, if I wanted to find the Nine, say, I’d use the info boxes we use for the Doctor and such. You’d figure it out very quickly.
However, I think a main page, if we were to separate them all out, like the Doctor and Romana have, wouldn’t be necessary, mainly because there’s nothing to call it. So we would just link all 11 incarnations’ pages, (11 because we don’t know about the Five) with the infobox.
- Amorkuz
Procedural note: as rightfully pointed out by OncomingStorm12th at Talk:The Eleven, the scarcity of information is not a concern at all. Pages can be created with the bare minimum, as long as there is a valid story behind.
- Shambala108
Just want to point out that in Thread:171578 there was a pretty strong agreement, including several admins, to merge all the Romana pages into one. Nothing has come of it since it's a lot of work, but using the Romana articles in support of splitting this article isn't really valid.
- OncomingStorm12th
To be fair, after reading the whole thread:
- The "to merge or not to merge" Romana situation is still different from the Eleven: it came down to the matter of having or not having a clear name for individual pages (although, with Romana, the problem was only with the "third" incarnation)
- Which, again, is be no problem with the Eleven, because we have absolutely 100% clear names for each incarnation. (The One, The Eight, The Nine, The Twelve, etc)
- Even if Romana's pages get merged, it was only a matter of a bad choice for an example. The same arguments can be used keeping, for example, the First Doctor and The Doctor pages in mind.
- Shambala108
OncomingStorm12th wrote:
- Even if Romana's pages get merged, it was only a matter of a bad choice for an example.
Um, yeah, that was my point, when I said, "using the Romana articles in support of splitting this article isn't really valid."
- SOTO
Bump.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I'd support either. I think it does seem like individual incarnation pages are as accurate for the Eleven as for the Doctor, but another way to look at it would be that the way we do the Doctor isn't a logical consequence of his characteristics but just for out-of-universe convenience, as a special exception to the normal rules.
Amorkuz wrote: Procedural note: as rightfully pointed out by OncomingStorm12th at Talk:The Eleven, the scarcity of information is not a concern at all. Pages can be created with the bare minimum, as long as there is a valid story behind.
Can they? Because I believe the suggestion of an individual page for Professor Yana (which would seem to logically follow from the precedent of "John Smith (Tenth Doctor") was rejected twice on the basis that there wasn't enough info about him to justify a page.
- OncomingStorm12th
With the introduction of the Twelve, and new discussions of of this very same subject on the Eleven's talk page, it might be a good time to bump this, so more readers can see a more complete discussion.
Bringing the point of "the Twelve is now the most recent and so the page name should reflect that" that sparkled the discussion again: with the release of Ravenous 2, trying to define a "most recent" incarnation is not something that can be done, at least for the purpuses of this Wiki: the one that appeared in the latest-released story is now the Eleven, and we can't just switch back and forth every time Big Finish decides to use one of these two in a story. Also, given that the "most recent" (the Twelve) appeared during the early days of the Time War and the Time War is far concluded by the time of the Thirteenth Doctor, "recent" really doesn't make sense in this discussion.
Still, I mantain my opinion that the less messy way to deal with this Time Lord would be to give each incarnation their own page, specially because we have a non-ambiguous in-universe name for each of them.
- OncomingStorm12th
And, in the same vein of Tardis:Even good categories can be removed, (though obviously less problematic here) I'll bring one argument used by User:TheChampionOfTime on the Eleven's talk page: the Eleven was not a Member of the High Council. The One was.
Now, this is where the comparison with Tardis:Even good categories can be removed comes into the game: let's take a look at that category page on both mobile and desktop. Firstly, mobile: the Eleven's name and image are displayed there (and this is keeping in mind that we have no images of the One as of November 2018 to display there). At least in this case, the incarnation image matches the page title.
However, on desktop (Dynamic Categories mode) the missinformation caused by lumping all incarnations together is even bigger. It's the Eight's image that's shown: in this case, not only the page title displayed it's "wrong", but the image being shown doesn't even match the title we're showing.
The same problem happens, of course, with Individuals who pretended to be the Doctor but didn't look like him, where the Nine's picture should be showing (and in this case we even have said picture), but still, we see the Eight's face there, even if he didn't pretend to be the Doctor.
- Scrooge MacDuck
I agree completely.
Practical questions, though:
- would the page about any given past incarnation of that Time Lord stop at their regeneration into the next, or should the page also cover each version's continued existence as a voice in the next one's head?
- what would we call the central page? Because in all precedents, there was a central page as well as individual incarnation pages. The flipside of having clear in-universe names for each incarnation is not having a clear name for the Time Lord in general.
- OncomingStorm12th
In my opinion, information should go beyond regeneration, as those incarnations voices are still heard and "alive" in their head.
As for the central page, it's something that bothered me for a while, but if we are to make a page for it, as the general name of the Time Lord is unknown, Time Lord (The Eleven) should suffice (as The Eleven was the first story they were featured in.
- Scrooge MacDuck
OncomingStorm12th wrote: In my opinion, information should go beyond regeneration, as those incarnations voices are still heard and "alive" in their head.
See, that's where I've heard too little of the Eleven/Twelve/Whatever to be sure. Are they still "alive" in his head in earnest? Or is it genuine insanity, hallucinations that are no more real than Clara was in Heaven Sent?
- Ben Moore812
The way it seems to be is that after regeneration, the previous incarnation separates itself from the current one and becomes “alive” for lack of a better term.
They’re not hallucinations, the Eight actually takes over the Eleven to speak to the Doctor. I guess it’s like; after they die, they go to some form of afterlife in the current incarnation’s head, but have some interaction with the real world.
- RingoRoadagain
Just discovered this thread.
I agree that we should split the page into others. I think that we should have a "post-mortem" section for their actions inside later incarnations. It would be quite similar the Doctor pages really.
EDIT: I don't think they are much different to whatever happened with the previous doctors in AUDIO: Zagreus or TV: The Rebel flesh
- OncomingStorm12th
So, as both a means of bumping this thread again, and trying to move it foward, I made in my sandbox a preview of what all pages would look like, if we indeed splited them.
The first header shows what the page for the Time Lord would look like (an equivalent of the page for the Doctor. It has uses the {{TheElevenpic}}, which rotates between the images for the incarnations we have images for.
Subsequent headers display what each incarnation's page would look like.
All information present on the sandbox as of now is from the Eleven's page, with a few tweaks here and there (mostly linking and a new lead)
Any edits on the sandbox are wellcome, as well as suggestions.
- Scrooge MacDuck
Looks good to me. Is "Time Lord (The Eleven)" the best we can do as a title, though? Because a bunch of other Time Lords appear in The Eleven, such as Farina, Castelland, and, of course, the Eighth Doctor himself. So "Time Lord (The Eleven)" isn't very effective disambiguation.
Perhaps Time Lord criminal (The Eleven)? Or a more cumbersome Time Lord with regenerative dissonance (The Eleven), or any number of other options, but I'm partial to that one.
- OncomingStorm12th
Well, there certainly are other Time Lords in The Three Doctors', but we still have Time Lord (The Three Doctors). There are several of them in The Deadly Assassin, and yet there are Time Lord 1 (The Deadly Assassin) and Time Lord 2 (The Deadly Assassin).
IMO, the main concern about this should be: is there another unnamed Time Lord in The Eleven (audio story) other than the one we're discussing on this thread? Well, at least let's question ourselves this: is there another unnamed Time Lord in this story that's likely to get a page? (with this, Time Lords who only chatter in the background and stuff like that)
If the answer to both of these questions are "no". I don't see a big problem with Time Lord (The Eleven). However, if there indeed is another Time Lord in that story which warrants a page, perhaps Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven)?
- Scrooge MacDuck
For the record Time Lord 1 and Time Lord 2 at least definitely strike me as very unwieldy. This deserves its own discussion, of course, but I feel like "Golden-robed Time Lord" for "Time Lord 1", or some other such distinction, would be far smoother.
Regardless, I support Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven) as a superior alternative to my suggested Time Lord criminal (The Eleven).
In all honesty, my gut feeling is that even if Time Lord (The Eleven) might well satisfy policy assuming there are no other noteworthy unnamed Time Lords in The Eleven, it's frustratingly vague. "Time Lord (The Eleven)" seems like what the Cybermen would call him in their databanks, slavishly following the letter of their programming.
But am I really the only one who feels like "Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven)", all while also satisfying policy, is a much more fitting title?
Look at it this way: a reader stumbling upon a link to Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven), with even a passing remembrance of what The Eleven was about, will know who the page is talking about. Whereas to parse the meaning of Time Lord (The Eleven) would require the same reader to remember that there were no other Time Lords of note in that story, nor a proper name given to the titular character's overall identity, and they would also have to be familiar enough with Tardis's naming conventions, to thus laboriously, eventually deduce that "Time Lord (The Eleven)" is about the One/Two/…/Eleven/Twelve.
- OncomingStorm12th
Although there aren't any "Renegade Time Lord (story)" pages right now, I'm inclined to agree that this helps a casual reader who stumbles opun that page to recognise the character.
Thinking about it, it even helps the text to flow better. "The Nine was an alias used by the ninth incarnation of a Renegade Time Lord who suffered from regenerative dissonance." does seem better to me than "The Nine was the alias used by the ninth incarnation of a Time Lord who suffered from regenerative dissonance."
- SOTO
All that said, we merged the Master because we couldn't possibly provide a DWU name for each of their incarnations. With the Eleven, we certainly do have in-universe names for each incarnation. Then again, so too for I.M. Foreman, even if we hardly meet most of their incarnations.
- OncomingStorm12th
As highlighted on both Amorkuz's original post and this post of mine (to see the full argument, please scroll up to that reply), there are consequences on merging all incarnations of the eleven into one: mainly, categorisation and infoboxes.
OncomingStorm12th wrote: And, in the same vein of Tardis:Even good categories can be removed, (though obviously less problematic here) I'll bring one argument used by User:TheChampionOfTime on the Eleven's talk page: the Eleven was not a Member of the High Council. The One was.
Also, as I previously said:
OncomingStorm12th wrote: So it makes absolutely no sense to me having information which happened to the Eight on a page called the Eleven, because they are separate incarnations. We would never describe events from An Unearthly Child on the War Doctor page, because those events happened during another incarnation.
Now, I'm not familiar with the source material of I.M. Foreman, but if it is the same case of the Eleven, (only one incarnation goes by this name, but we don't have a name for the Time Lord in general) I'd argue that we should split that page as well, and then put information in a page like Time Lord (Interference). But this would be topic for another thread, anyway.
- OncomingStorm12th
... and with the release of Ravenous 3 I come back here to further back my support of spliting the pages of this Time Lord.
Now we can officially say we have three recurring incarnations of the Time Lord, each with their clear in-universe names, with more and more information of their "old" incarnations popping each time they appear.
We're getting more aliases for them, more stories in which incarnations other than the Eleven appear in, but the titular incarnation doesn't (which starts to make the list of appearances harder to follow unless you're already familiar with the stories, and now one of their incarnations officially became (for three stories at least) a companion.
With "Renegade" being used in-universe at least once to refer to the discussed Time Lord, I see ever less reasons to not split it.
As always, with each update I make on the main page, I'm also updating User:OncomingStorm12th/Sandbox 2, to facilitate the process of splitting pages - which categories apply to which incarnation, et al.
Not trying by any means to "call for a thread closure", but rather trying to spark it alive again: are there still any arguments in favour of not giving each incarnation their own page?
- Amorkuz
The list of appearances is a very strong argument in favour of splitting the page into individual incarnations. It should be possible to find out all the stories with the Nine as performed by John Heffernan without jumping through the hoops. It should equally be possible to separate all the stories with the Twelve.
While I used to be doubtful about Renegade Time Lord (The Eleven), let's face it: this page is almost never going to be used. And the name is correct enough. In fact, quite by happenstance, the dab term, which has to be the first story of appearance, here gives a hint as to who is meant.
I support splitting and dabbed renegade for the main page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:199441
I really don't know if this is the best place to post this, but I'll go ahead and do it here. So for those of you who aren't familiar with Discord, it's a new messaging service mostly used by gamers, though it's easy functionality and general versatility has made it popular across multiple Fandoms. One reason for its popularity is just how easy it is to make a chat group public: Simply post the chat group's assigned URL link and it will automatically connect you the chat on the Discord app, or on the Discord website, if you do not have the app. Now I've kind of been wanting to better connect with some of the editors on this Wiki better, chat in real time with them, but unfortunately, I've noticed that the IRC chat is almost always empty. Honestly, I can kind of understand why, as IRC groups are outdated and no one really wants to keep them open all the time. A Discord group, however, would be well populated with users as long as the app is kept open. Would anyone be interested in this? Or perhaps one has already been made and I'm just not aware of it. If that's the case, I would recommend posting a link on the front page.
- 68.185.117.103
There are a couple I am a part of, one being at https://discord.gg/pq7BaQ4 and one that hasn't quite gotten started at https://discord.gg/GdFDkVr
- TheChampionOfTime
Yeah, the first Discord community mentioned above really is quite nice. I've been a part for a while and have had some nice discussions. It'd be nice to be able to just chat with some of you people about something other than the editing of articles.
Funnily enough, a couple of the editors exiled from here earlier this year have also been banned from this group.
- OttselSpy25
A Discord might be the proper replacement for the wiki chat box, which used to be used a lot but has simply fallen out of use.
P.S. also in the first one, good group.
- Thefartydoctor
Last night, I had a lot of fun on the Tardis Wiki Chat feature. Normally, it's kind of dead but last night, it just so happened that a few of us were on simultaneously and we had a great conversation about comics and audios. I think a Discord is a great idea but we should also try to promote the chat room as much as possible too, as a Tardis Wiki specific means of communication. What do you reckon? :)
- Nyuszika7H
(I haven't really been active here, but I'm also a Whovian, hi!)
Sounds good. I still actively use IRC, but I understand if some people don't. Another alternative could be Telegram, which actually lets you have non-random group links for public groups, and I like it better in general, but if people here prefer Discord, that's fine too. (Telegram doesn't have voice channels if you'd want to make one, though you can send voice notes and there are one-to-one calls now. I wouldn't participate in those anyway.)
- NateBumber
The Tardis Wiki chat feature has the potential to be great, but whenever I go on, there's no one there. Very different experience from the perpetually-active Doctor Who Discord, which now has a exclusive #wiki channel for verified editors only. I'm gonna stick there. (Anyone who joins, give me a shout-out and I'll give you access.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:199593
Would I be able to create a category for 'Non DWU actors' and/or 'Non DWU Audio actors' for the Unbounds that aren't Valid.
Reason being it'll determine which actors have been involved in that medium and which aren't.
I'll be happy to create it if so. It seems a good idea and fits in with policy.
So guys, what do you think?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:199945
As I genuinely believe, please do correct me if I'm wrong, that one of my last posts was misunderstood, so this discussion has never happened as such.
I think we need to create a prefix for anything that can be viewed like televised Who, webcast and home video.
This would simplify the term in a great way and help the wiki determine a proper prefix.
For example the term audio is for both audios first broadcast on the radio and audios first released on CD, so shouldn't this apply for television as well?
As in anything that can be visually perceived through a television screen or possibly in some cases a computer screen. Though the first would be better as it's the first both literally of time wise and order of broadcast wise (in most cases).
With the forthcoming spin off which shall not be named for policy purposes, the first broadcast will be online and then on television. Surely this needs to be avoided as television in some cases holds higher status than a webcast.
I have no ideas as of yet for a whole term except onscreen or television, however I do believe that latter is more safisticated and understandable.
I thank you sincerely for taking time out to read my views and I wish everyone all the best and hope this can be considered and incorporated in some way.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Surely this needs to be avoided as television in some cases holds higher status than a webcast.
Not on this wiki. I suggest you read Tardis:Neutral point of view.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I understand not on this wiki but to the casual reader, TV suggests that. Where as it should not as all stories have the right to be counted.
But honestly is the general idea of my post a good one? 😊😊 - AeD
To be clear: What you're looking for is a prefix, like how "AUDIO" covers radio broadcast, CD release, or download release of audio stories, to cover all releases of live-action or animated visual media, including via TV broadcast, home media release, cinema release, webcast, or via projection on the side of a horse in a field?
I think that's a good idea -- you're right, "TV" does needlessly imply to the casual reader a status for, say, any TV episode, above visual media released originally or primarily online -- but I'm not coming up with any good short prefix for it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Spot on. Glad you like my idea pal. Perhaps just television as a term would be good which can be anything that can be viewed on television as it's the name of the box and the programmes featured or maybe, just maybe screen could be a good one too.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I think this issue needs to be addressed before the new spin off airs.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I do think just television would work some how.
- Amorkuz
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. Suppose, hypothetically, that a TV episode is first published online and then broadcast by BBC. According to the current nomenclature, HOMEVID is not applicable because the episode was broadcast. Similarly, WC is not applicable because it is for "Internet-exclusive material on licenced websites such as BBC.co.uk", which is not the case of a TV episode scheduled for broadcast but released earlier online (not Internet-exclusive). Since such an episode is not a webcast, it is not "webcast-original material which was later re-released" either.
Moreover, TV is expressly described as being used for every and all spin-offs: "TV is used in this wiki as a prefix to denote any adventure that is broadcast on television, whether it be Doctor Who, The Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood or any other televised spinoff" (I boldfaced the relevant portions).
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Yeah, but some big fin audio stories are Home Cd or Radio, doesn't meant we separate them. I just think on screen stuff should be by format, not place of broadcast.
- AdricLovesNyssa
I've found the perfect example to counter your argument, The Night of the Doctor was initial published as a webcast on youtube/iplayer but it is classified as a TV because it was meant to be released on the TV. What I should think should be the case is the intention of the story, i.e. if the story is made so that it would be shown on a TV/iplayer then it should be classified as a TV story and have TV in front when referencing the story in continuity etc. (examples such as The Night of the Doctor, Dreamland and so on) but if the story was made to be a special feature on a DVD then it should be classified as HOMEVID, this then should get rid of any confusion with the upcoming spinoff. The only problem here is with the webcast versions of Shada and Real Time which were meant to b viewed online.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I see your point and I mostly agree, I just think it'd avoid confusion to have it as one and follow the same guidelines as the prefix 'audio'.
- Shambala108
Since my opinion has been requested, here it is. There are a kajillion things that need to be fixed on this wiki. In my opinion, the prefix system, which we revamped a few years ago, is not one of the things that needs fixing.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Well I guess you're right Shambala108, well I'm happy to leave the thread at that. As long as everyone else agrees.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I did think of Optical Media though.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: I did think of Optical Media though.
Sorry, what?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Optical media, it's a term often used for screen programmes that are broadcast in various places such as TV, Online, in cinemas or straight to DVD.
Not documentaries though.
It seems the suggestion is that everything that can be viewed should be under one prefix. I don't think it would be a good idea to, say, classify tv stories and DVD documentaries under the same prefix just because they are both visual media.
Closing this thread, as the prefix system doesn't need major cleaning and the OP has agreed upthread to leave it as it is. No new versions of this thread should be opened, under Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200400
I was wondering what if the only on screen appearance of a valid character is a non dwu one? Can we then use a not valid story image to represent them. For example:
Zog, the only available on screen image is of his appearance in Dimensions in Time, so can this image be used in in universe articles? He later appeared in The Ultimate Adventure and Beyond the Ultimate Adventure canonically but no image is available.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200552
According to the official BBC web release, the ep is called Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars, so shouldn't the episode be called this instead?
For proof search the proposed new title and it'll come up straight away.
- Shambala108
In cases like this, you should add a rename tag to the page instead of creating a forum post. See Template:rename for instructions.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thanks pal, will do. 😊
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Would you be able to change it for me Shambala108 pal, all links have been removed. 😊😊 Thanks again.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200661
The Rhodian and Quill pages say that they are different species – can we be sure of that? Given that they're from the same planet, they can just as well be different nations. Also, I removed the "real" appearance from both pages, as the flashbacks are only shown from the point of view of April's imagination (what with the Rhodians wearing school uniforms etc.), and not what as if that's what it actually looked like.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I think it was how it happened all but the form.
- Amorkuz
Actually, Charlie says at some point: "We were so busy fighting among ourselves". To me it suggests that they are of the same species, coming from different nations. To further support this, Quill is described geographically, as taking up a southern (?) continent. That's not the first thing that would come to mind in describing a different species. Another quote: "Rodia and Quill is like a planet of 3 billion". Again, no distinction between species, where it is expected.
- JagoAndLitefoot
At the very least, I would leave it vague in the articles, e.g. "a people" rather than either "species" or "nation" until confirmed.
- JagoAndLitefoot
I edited the articles to make it more vague instead of stating outright that they were separate species.
- Amorkuz
- Rhoadian is Charlie's species, so that's how it's called.
- Rhodians and Quill are two different species.
- Rhodia is the name of the planet
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200738
Someone should create pages for Choose the Future: Terror Moon, The American Adventures and Annual 2017. I would do it myself but I don't have any of them.
- Shambala108
For a page to be created, two things are necessary:
- Someone has to have the information (in this case, the books)
- That person has to want to create the page
If one of those is missing, the page can't be created. It's not really necessary to open a forum post every time something is published; if the item is popular enough, a page for it will be created.
- 85.135.240.163
I opened a post because these books, especially Terror Moon, has been out for a long time. Many people probably don't know about them, so now somebody might decide to create a page. As far as I know, there is a page for almost every single DW book/story released except for these three.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200759
Don't know if this has ever come up before but I think I have some valid points.
I believe we should have separate pages to the real world and in DWU pages such as Dawn French and Stephen Fry.
My reasons are that in the DWU, they might not even be the same on our universe, for example in the DWU, the Doctor caused the great fire of London and the destruction of Pompeii, however in the real world we know it not to be true.
I think that these individuals only exists in the DWU as far as their name, despite meaning the individual, they might not even look the same in the DWU.
I just think they should be separated, one to be easier to read and two to keep order and contingency in the wiki.
So for example in the DWU Stephen Fry is an individual who "supposedly" married River Song, however in the real world he is an actor who appeared as the Minister of Chance in Death Comes to Time.
This has already been applied for Tom Baker and John Lucarotti, so why shouldn't it work for the others. It'd definitely be easier and separate the real world from the DWU.
As for events objects, etc., such as the destruction of Pompeii, we are not interested in the real world event, only how it happens in the DWU. We do include the {{wikipediainfo}} template on such pages so users can visit wikipedia to view the real events/characters/etc.
I suggest reading T:NO RW for detailed information on this subject.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:200928
Currently, the "Crew" section of the Torchwood Three article states that "There is no reason for this to be laid out like this. Make it paragraphs with citations". However, I wonder if creating a page for each of these teams would be better (like we have pages for K9 Unit, Bannerman Road gang and Coal Hill defenders).
Then, we could make a paragraph such as: "Throughout time, several Torchwood teams existed, such as Emily Holroyd's team, Gerald Kneale's team, Tilda Brennan's team, Alex Hopkins's team and Jack Harkness' team (TV: To the Last Man, Fragments, Exit Wounds). Possibly, we could even create a page for Yvonne Hartman's team as well.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201174
I've noticed that every single time the year 2016 is mentioned in regards to objects and characters from Class, this message is slapped underneath:
- "In The Coach with the Dragon Tattoo, we see a plaque that tells us the Barbara Wright Building was completed in spring 2016."
Is this needed? What's the difference between saying a dragon came to Coal Hill in 2016 and saying a dragon killed a cleaner? Surely if someone wants to know why Class takes place in 2016 they can just go to the story page being sourced for the information, which should and probably will have this footnote.
With all these pages being created for just two episodes, one can just imagine that if it continues at this rate this message will be on hundreds of pages.
- SOTO
Lol. Probably not. I was thinking of removing all but the story pages and the five main characters, now we know the dating won't come under objection.
- SOTO
And I have now done this. Would you make the case that they should not be on those five pages, either?
- JagoAndLitefoot
I'd keep it only on the story pages.
- Amorkuz
All this time, it bothered me that the building date only gives a lower bound: the stories could, in principle, happen in 2017 or even later. Now this gap has been closed. It is stated that Jasper Adeola died exactly two years prior to the events of Nightvisiting, and one can see 2014 as the year of death on his gravestone. Thus, the events of the first three TV episodes cannot happen before 2016 due to the building and cannot happen after 2016 due to Jasper's death anniversary.
- SOTO
Yes, I noticed that too. I was wondering if I should add that to the ref note.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201442
In the new Big Finish audios and Titan comics, Torchwood Cardiff was once again formally set up and received a new Torchwood facility from the Torchwood City Council, though this time without the support of the crown or the national government. The current Torchwood Cardiff redirects to Torchwood 3, but should we perhaps create a separate page for the new one? And if so, what should be its name? I'd say this new incarnation, headed by Gwen and Rhys, is different enough from both the old Torchwood 3 and the Miracle Day team to warrant a new page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201625
- TheChampionOfTime
Sorry to butt in, but surely it should just be when the company that makes the show first releases it. Why should British editors wait till past midnight to edit an episode that was released in their country hours ago? I understand your pain in having this wiki turn into a massive spoiler-filled area of the internet to avoid, but just think how the Americans must feel. Should we wait until 2017 for them?
- Please understand that I do not say this from a privileged "getting to watch Class at 10AM on Saturday" viewpoint, I live in Canada.
Why not begin editing for the new episode one hour after its released on the iplayer? It's TV premier is not only on a different channel, but in a different country to its original network. In the country where Class is made it is not a TV show. It is an internet show.
- Amorkuz
I'm all for it. My point is that this case does not seem to be covered in the policies because this is the first show to be produced by a streaming service. I'd like the policy to be clear on this, one way or the other. Ambiguous policies cause unnecessary debates.
- SOTO
One must wait until <removing error concerning spoiler policy. Correct answer is in SOTO's post below this one.> The broadcast is BBC Three, which in effect means BBC iPlayer. The episodes are thus "broadcast" at 10AM, and pages for the episodes may be created on or after <removing error concerning spoiler policy> British time. No, we do not have to wait until it's been broadcast on BBC One.
This is not at all the first show to start on BBC Three. Torchwood series 1 was broadcast on BBC Three only (in the UK).
- Danniesen
That was exactly my concern as noted on Talk:Quill (For Tonight We Might Die). I argued that once released on iPlayer, editing of articles with information on subjects from within the episodes may begin.
- TheChampionOfTime
So everyone agrees? Why not update Tardis:Spoiler policy?
- SOTO
Within a half hour of its release on iPlayer, yes.
- SOTO
No hang on, hang on, I've made an error. Silly me. You can edit at the top or bottom of the hour after it completes. Meaning, it premieres at 10:00, then assuming you start watching at the earliest possible time, it ends at 10:45. At 11:00, the page can be created, and you can edit around the episode.
(If it's an hour episode, then it'd end at 11:00, and the page could be created at 11:30.)
We still have to give enough time for people to have seen the whole thing in the UK.
- Danniesen
Of course. :)
- Amorkuz
Yes, I agree too and, as TheChampionofTime, would really love to see this added to the T:OFF REL, perhaps, as another example.
Small comment. When Torchwood was premiered on BBC Three, it was still a TV channel. It was reorganised into a streaming service quite recently, on 16 February 2016. That's why I believe this to be a real first in DWU: the first spin-off primarily released via online streaming rather than a TV broadcast.
- SOTO
Ah. This is news to me; thanks for the clarification. I added an example about Class to T:OFF REL. Please note, everybody, that the clocks go back in the UK tonight, so, if you're outside of the UK, the time difference will likely be different next week to whatever time zone you're in.
- Danniesen
I'm pretty sure Denmark turns back the clocks too. :)
- Amorkuz
SOTO wrote: No, we do not have to wait until it's been broadcast on BBC One.
I suspect the situation is even more clear cut. I saw Ness saying in some interview that Class is going to be broadcast on BBC One. But is it really happening? Can any UK-based editor confirm it? Because I just went through the (London) schedule of BBC One for all days Saturday, October 29 - Saturday, November 5. There is no Class in their schedule. Perhaps, there are plans to broadcast it after several weeks or months, but it doesn't seem like there is any TV broadcast of Class at the moment.
And thanks for updating the policy. Always makes me happy to see rules clearly stated.
- Danniesen
^^^I've gone through the schedule several times the past days and I saw nothing. I even got a Tweet from Ness himself that said "Soon" in reply to when Class would be on BBCOne.
- Allonsy potter
Is it on BBC America? I would really like to watch it.
- Danniesen
BBC America won't have it until April 2017, sorry.
I'm not gonna encourage this, as I'm sure it's not allowed, but the episodes CAN be found online for watching (by everyone).
- SOTO
Class does not air on BBC America until 2017.
- Allonsy potter
Ok, I'll wait then, at least I have the Christmas Special to look forward to.
- Danniesen
The only trouble of having a show air this late is that it would possibly lead some Americans to think that Class is set after the next Christmas special.
- Amorkuz
Define "after" :)
- Allonsy potter
Danniesen wrote: The only trouble of having a show air this late is that it would possibly lead some Americans to think that Class is set after the next Christmas special.
Also, you may be able to watch it illegally. That is why Doctor Who airs at the same time all over the world.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Weirdly, the latest episode was published at 9:45 on iplayer
- 90.197.254.207
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Weirdly, the latest episode was published at 9:45 on iplayer
No, it wasn't.
- 148.252.128.111
I agree with DENCH, I watched it at 9:50 in the UK.
- Danniesen
90.197.254.207 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Weirdly, the latest episode was published at 9:45 on iplayer
No, it wasn't.
You can't just say it wasn't. If someone said they watched it at that time, you can't contradict it if you don't have proof that he'S lying.
- Shambala108
OK, I'm putting an end to the "it was - it wasn't" debate. The episode has now aired where/when it's supposed to, so there's no need to argue about this.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Thanks Danniesen pal. 😊
As it happens 90.197.254.207, I posted here the time I saw it. I started watching it by 09:50. I only pointed it out so the admins can decide when to edit it.
In particular, not only can we stop arguing now, but there is no need to argue in the future.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201663
Seeing as the TARDIS can travel through space and time, why not have categories for both locations and years/decades/centuries visited by the Doctor?
- Shambala108
Because we have way too many categories already and need to start thinking of deleting some of them.
- CzechOut
The problem for me is not that there's any particular concern with the number of categories. We're not running out of space or anything. :)
No the issue with "years visited by..." categories is the inherent inexactitude of it. During most of the classic run, exact years were studiously avoided by writers. Terrance Dicks was particularly opposed. And so some users would likely turn to a "reading the tea leaves" approach. They might well try to argue that because they saw a certain newscaster on TV in a shot, or a certain historical figure was said to be a certain number of years old, that there was "evidence" for a certain year. But such a conclusion would be real world creep. And we'd quickly go down a slippery slope. We know that DW writers don't get their history right, and may in fact deliberately choose to fudge the history.
So I think categories of the kind suggested in this thread would probably be ill-advised, because they would invite poor readings of the primary sources.
Another point: our year pages more or less serve the same function of these categories. Because you can't create a year page without an incident happening in the DWU, they provide an increasingly good picture of what occurred in each year, the more we complete them.
- TheChampionOfTime
From what I understand, the purpose of categories is to sort pages. At the moment there are at least 950 DWU years covered by this wiki. Categories sorting these years by the Doctors' visits would help with improving the picture of what happened in each year.
It's also a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of the classic run was foggy about years. Most Earth stories of the Hartnell, late Tom Baker, Davison, and Mccoy eras were given exact years (In fact, every single one of Mcgann's TV stories was given an exact year). The modern series has given a year for almost all of its Earth stories. The majority of Earth stories in other media also usually have an exact year or even give years to TV stories.
Besides, if someone wants to date a story using real world knowledge, there's nothing stopping them from just altering the story page. Do "stories set in xxxx" categories encourage real world creep? If a category is added to page, there must be evidence on the page that there is a reason the page has that category. One could argue that the mere presence of year pages encourages real world creep. These proposed categories would invite no more poor readings of sources than we already have, instead they would sort year pages in a different and useful way to what is available now.
TheChampionOfTime wrote: If a category is added to page, there must be evidence on the page that there is a reason the page has that category.
Sigh, that's the ideal. The sad reality is that some users love to add categories to pages (I blame the Game of Rassilon for that), and rarely do they check for redundancy, existence of the category, or whether the information is on the page. In addition, few users even read the descriptions located on category pages. The descriptions are usually only read by those who already know how to use our category system.
From an admin point of view, it's better to not allow something that would require extra cleanup. We have so few people (admin or otherwise) who are able and willing to clean up after other editors. We have to minimize as much as possible the extra work.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201830
Is the use of "www." allowed in article titles, for example in website-titles (e.g. "www.doityourself.com")?
- SOTO
Of all the pages for websites we've created so far, they've all had the naming scheme of "website.com". Best to stick to that format.
- Danniesen
Thanks. Just wanted to make sure, before I create it. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:201867
Shouldn't we put a link to "Class" on the main page and in the main menu, as the only ongoing TV spin-off? Maybe in the place of K9?
- SarahJaneFan
That would probably be best. Either that or add it on as well as K9.
- PicassoAndPringles
Class is now in the wiki navigation.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202006
I think it'd be some what helpful to have a 'foreword by' section in the infobox. For say Target rereleases and Behind the Sofa: Celebrity Memories of Doctor Who which has Terry Pratchett . I know there are others, I do think this'd be good.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202061
Say there is a missing Doctor Who serial, and the only image of the character is an officially released animated reconstruction one. Like the ones on the DVDs with The Reign of Terror and The Invasion. Can we then use this in the Infobox?
- OttselSpy25
The general consensus has been that while Telesnaps are better as a first choice for content illustration, official BBC animations and reconstructions are still fine. Not sure if this has ever been drawn out in an actual discussion, but I don't think it's been a problem before.
The only official reason I've ever seen for not including frames from Loose Canon is that it's not official, so I suppose official reconstructions are fine.
For simple questions like this, it's better to ask an admin first, instead of starting an unnecessary forum thread.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202201
I know full well this idea will be like putting a thal in a Dalek City but...
I propose we rethink the list of television stories.
A: It's a real world article, there for it should record all television stories, remember the latter, it's important. Whether they are valid or not, if they are still stories and were broadcast on television, then they you be included on the list, as the list shouldn't be about validity as it's a real world article about television stories.
B: I think we should include all television stories that we consider invalid, as long as they're TV, they should be included in a seperate part on the bottom of the page.
C: No advertisements, idents or sketches in other shows unless they're telethons like CIN or NTA. They're very different from television stories and don't deserve a place on the list.
But some do.
The list would or should include.
Merry Christmas Doctor Who, A Fix with Sontarans, Search Out Space, UNIT Recruitment Film, Dimensions in Time, The Curse of Fatal Death, National Television Awards, Children in Need 2011, The BAFTAS, Bodyswap to the Proms and Looking for Pudsey.
Seperate Note
Maybe a seperate list of webcast wouldn't go a miss.
So maybe.
Real Time, Shada, The Tardisodes, The prequels, TARDIS Cam
Followed by
Death Comes to Time, Scream of the Shalka, P.S., Sontaran Carols
The main point should be taken into account and discussed, the latter on the webcasts should also.
Remember invalidity is as far as in Universe articles and what determines an appearance. However they are still TV stories in our world, therefore they should be noted.
- 90.197.250.37
I think this is a good idea, but the invalid stories would definitely have to be clearly noted. Asking an admin's opinion I think would be a good move forward.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
90.197.250.37 wrote: I think this is a good idea, but the invalid stories would definitely have to be clearly noted. Asking an admin's opinion I think would be a good move forward.
Thank you 😊. There is also the invalid minisodes, Children in Need 2011, The BAFTAs and Bodyswap to the Proms that should be catered for within the list.
- 90.197.250.37
Yes. I think they are less important, but should be put somewhere on the list as well, maybe added to the section at the end of each Doctor is. Where the likes of Time Crash and Music of the Spheres are?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202314
Well the title about sums it up.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
And it has been made into a video game but originally and thus the crew were not working on a video game but a Pinball machine.
- SOTO
I'm gonna go ahead and say yes on this one. It wouldn't go under category:Video game production staff, though. It's gonna have to go directly in category:Real world people. If there's more than three that could get a subcategory, ie. category:Doctor Who Pinball model makers, it would clear up an otherwise massive(ish) category, and help organise it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I've estimated that there are about 40 crew members, shall I create the category? If so shall I call it what you stated as the name, and for all? As it's not just model making but more if the production side of the recordings and what have you?
- SOTO
I was giving an example of a subcategory. Category:Doctor Who Pinball production crew would do just fine.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Ok, thanks pal. 😀
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202351
At the minute we've got Robot Doctor and the Silver Doctor, amongst others on the Lookalikes of the Doctor category, these are not Lookalikes but Beings who were created to look like the Doctor.
I think this needs to be sorted out.
- TheChampionOfTime
Personally, I think "Beings modelled after the Doctor" would be a better name because it would also include non-lookalike things like DOCTOR and First Doctor (mind copy).
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Couldn't agree with you more CoT, we just need the admins go ahead and then the category may be created.
- Amorkuz
I thought, Dench-and-Palmer, that you have agreed with my reasoning that Silver Doctor sounds like the Eighth Doctor, but it is not clear how he looks. This is exactly why it is not, in fact, in any look-alike category. Do you by any chance mean Eighth Doctor (puppet)?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Yeah that's what I meant, the puppet Doctor, sorry about that.
I'm talking like Robot Doctor which were made to look like the Doctor.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: At the minute we've got Robot Doctor and the Silver Doctor, amongst others on the Lookalikes of the Doctor category, these are not Lookalikes but Beings who were created to look like the Doctor.
I think this needs to be sorted out.
I can't see how "Beings who were created to look like the Doctor" can be considered not "lookalikes of the Doctor". If they were created to look like him, then aren't they lookalikes?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Take John Frobisher and Maxil, they look like the Doctor but that's a biological thing, they weren't created for that purpose.
Where as Robot Doctor amongst others were created to serve the purpose of being them and made to look like them. It'd seperate a tricky category and make it easier to understand, rather than having to work it out for one's self.
- Shambala108
I know the difference between biological and created lookalikes.
You specifically said that beings created to look like the Doctor are not lookalikes of the Doctor. I even quoted your comment in my post. How are "created to look like" not "lookalikes"?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I meant not just Lookalikes, I mean you could argue that Maxil is a lookalike of the Sixth Doctor rather then vice-versa but that's another matter.
I think beings created to look like the Doctor should be separated because they are so... well... different, Clones of the Doctor are Lookalikes but we separate them.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
As born Lookalikes and born to be Lookalikes are very different. IMO
- DENCH-and-PALMER
"Beings modelled to look like the Doctor" as CoT said is a brilliant idea.
Because three is a big difference between Maxil and say... the Robot Doctor.
- Bwburke94
Maxil and John Frobisher, from an in-universe standpoint, are not lookalikes. They just happened to have been portrayed in the real world by actors who went on to play the Doctor.
And speaking of characters named Frobisher, we have a sub-category for shapeshifters, namely Individuals who altered their appearance to look like the Doctor.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I just believe that any individual who was born to look like the Doctor should be separated. Is a vote in order?
- TheChampionOfTime
Actually, on the subject of Maxil, he is acknowledged as a lookalike of the Doctor in Prime Winner.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Who agrees with the separation of "Individuals who were born or created to look like the Doctor"? Then the latter should be added as a sub category in lookalikes?
- Shambala108
I don't agree. There is no need for these super-specific categories when the individual articles can specify the differences.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Categories are to make things easier not have people scan the core.
- Amorkuz
Actually, we already have Category:Clones of the Doctor, which contains, at the moment, 3 clones and 2 Dalek duplicates. Since there are already two types of duplicates there, perhaps, it could make sense to rename that category to something more inclusive and dump all duplicates created with the explicit intent to be doctor's copies there. This would be the minimally invasive solution, methinks.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Amorkuz wrote: Actually, we already have Category:Clones of the Doctor, which contains, at the moment, 3 clones and 2 Dalek duplicates. Since there are already two types of duplicates there, perhaps, it could make sense to rename that category to something more inclusive and dump all duplicates created with the explicit intent to be doctor's copies there. This would be the minimally invasive solution, methinks.
Brilliant idea. Infact I love the idea. I hope the admins see it this way.
- 85.255.236.80
I think we should separate them.
It'd be ridiculous not to.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
85.255.236.80 wrote: I think we should separate them.
It'd be ridiculous not to.
Agreed
- Bwburke94
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Actually, on the subject of Maxil, he is acknowledged as a lookalike of the Doctor in Prime Winner.
Ah. I was unaware of that.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Individuals created to look like the Doctor
That sounds good IMO.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202486
As it states at the top of the An Adventure in Space and Time, "docudramas are fiction" thus no information on the characters within AAISAT has crept onto the real world pages.
I believe we should have seperate pages for the characters within the docudrama as they are merely based on them, I mean look how many inaccuracies there are in the docudrama. Especially within the introduction of new fictional characters, for example the character played by William Russell and so on.
I just think they should be separated as individual characters from the docudrama, so you have the docudrama character and the real world characters seperate with out mixing fact with fiction.
I also believe the same should happened with The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot as they are fictitious comedy versions of reality. I believe they should be noted individually as characters to actually easily read between the real world version and the fictitious versions. Especially how Five(ish) actually introduces new fictional characters and says that Tom Baker is stool in the time vortex. When I say create seperate pages, I'm really only talking about the main characters to start with.
They'd be easier to read and understand and the information would be much clearer.
I'd be happy to create the pages, and with the Five(ish) characters, I'd remember to slap an {invalid} tag in them.
- Bwburke94
No one's responded in months.
AAiSaT and Five(ish) would most certainly be invalid, so the question now becomes whether their characters should be covered under the scope of this wiki.
- OttselSpy25
Honestly this is where I draw the line. I think it's fun to discuss these docudramas or spoofs on the story pages themselves, but I just don't see the point in creating pages for every person featured in AAiS&T. We should encourage people to work to make the story makes robust without splintering the information off onto other pages.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202704
I just edited the Character Building page (labelling a link as dead) and earned a badge. But the notification showed a broken title.
10
YOU JUST EARNED THE "5-INCH GRANDMA CONNOLLY" BADGE AWARDED FOR MAKING YOUR FIRST EDIT ON A ACTION FIGURES ARTICLE!
Also, minor nitpick, that should be "an action figures article".
- SOTO
I have been meaning to nudge user:CzechOut about that issue for a while now, as admin can't edit most MediaWiki pages anymore. You'd be best served by getting his attention.
(The a/an issue can't possibly be fixed, as that text is automated, and there's no real way of differentiating what letter starts the category name.)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:202981
We have Non-DWU webcasts, we have Non-DWU video games.
Can we have Non-DWU television stories and Non-DWU comic stories, this'd help to distinguish between each genre.
Well also Non-DWU should be Invalid now but that's another story for another day.
- Shambala108
As of right now, we only have one non-DWU tv story and two non-DWU comic stories. By our rules, categories should generally only be made when we have at least three of something, which we do not have for those two genres.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I believe there are more than that.
For TV - The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot, The Curse of Fatal Death, Dimensions in Time, The Kidnappers, The Web of Caves, The Pitch of Fear, Search Out Space, UNIT Recruitment Film, Merry Christmas Doctor Who, National Television Awards special and a Fix with Sontarans
For Film The two Dalek movies and the cinema intro
For Comic Dr Who and the Turgids, Planet of the Rain Gods and Dr Who and the Daleks comic adaption
There are also enough for short stories.
- Shambala108
None of those have the correct story dab term, so I'm not willing to dump them into a category without it.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I've proposed renames for a lot of them but nothing has come of it, I think you'll agree with me when I say a TV story, needs the dab term.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Short stories have the correct dab, they're four of them.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:203863
Due to some recent some what unstoppable homophobic vandalism. I believe that only registered users should be able to edit on this wiki for three reasons.
1) Say a registered user vandalises pages, it'll be on a users account, you can block them but they'd have to create a new account to do it again. Such as they can't logo onto the computer at work or school to edit (even proper honest edits) when they should be banned.
2) Policies. If an unregistered user goes against a policy, you can't exactly message them on their talk pages to set them straight. They'd probably keep going against it until they are unfortunately banned for simply not being able to see their talk page in the proper way. If they are registered they can see the message and they can set themselves right.
3) Protection - this is all for general protection of the wiki. Remember there is only so many times a revision can be undone before total reorganisation is in order. And to be honest, undoing vanadalism - I mean that's a total waste of good admin's time, good admins like Shambala108 and SOTO.
Of course this is not up to me but if it were I'd certainly agree with myself - genuinely never thought I'd ever say that. Anyway moving on... I just want the wiki to be safe, I mean like the Doctor, the admins aren't always there, and when they're not. That's when the wiki is most vulnerable.
Plus not many people would go to the trouble of setting up an account with their own email to vandalise a Doctor Who wiki. Whereas people can just click edit an they're away destroying the place.
Thanks for reading my somewhat long winded post but I hope this'll be considered.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:204223
I know it's consense that we ditch Doctor Who prefixes on stories/products that have it as a prefix. (Doctor Who: The Adventure Games, et al.)
Apparently, we're also doing it for Torchwood as a prefix. (Torchwood: Outbreak)
However, what I don't understand is: why are we not removing UNIT from article pages? Why aren't we naming Extinction simply Extinction (audio anthology)?
- Bwburke94
I think the major difference here is that UNIT is not the name of an established franchise, in the same way as Doctor Who or Torchwood. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we had this discussion before?
- OncomingStorm12th
As a matter of fact, it is the name of a (short-lived) audio series which came before UNIT: The New Series. Despite that, both audio series are unrelated (aside from both focusing on UNIT members)
As for this discussion being held before, I could not find it, so, if it has, sorry.
- SOTO
I believe what Bwburke meant is that Torchwood is in it of itself a franchise: comic stories, audio stories, novels, and of course the television series, all under that banner. "UNIT" is, for the most part, an element in Doctor Who, and stories under the Doctor Who banner. These three "anthologies" as we somewhat incorrectly call them are the only things with that prefix.
- OncomingStorm12th
Well, but the weird thing is: we do ditch the "UNIT" from The Coup (audio story) and further stories. I mean, I'm not entirely against the use of "UNIT" as a prefix, but, in this case, I believe it should be removed.
- SOTO
Ha, good find. I am not entirely against it, either. Let's let this discussion play out.
- Bwburke94
I'm in favour of removal.
- SOTO
Well that's everyone who's replied so far in favour.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I'm in favour of removal.
- OncomingStorm12th
So, considering almost a month has passed by, and no one else opposed to the removal (no one replied, even), could an admin please draw a decision on this?
- SOTO
Discussions have gone on for far longer in the past, with longer gaps, as well. This only really went on for one day. Now we've brought it back into public attention, let's see if anyone else joins, and let it come to its natural conclusion.
- WJDTwGL
It's pretty standard for Big Finish to refer to their releases as "Series: Title." See Gallifrey: Intervention Earth.
- Amorkuz
Yep, and I somehow missed this discussion when it first appeared. So thanks for waiting. And, yes, there was a discussion before, Thread:193754. I'm glad that other editors return to this topic.
In that old thread, I had a more elaborate proposal for determining titles of individual stories and planned to extend it to boxsets after stories are done. Please feel free to comment.
But the short version of my proposal as far as this discussion is concerned was that the name of the BF range should not be part of the page name. The only story with the "UNIT" prefix is Dominion, so I proposed to remove "UNIT" from its name. I certainly intended to extend this proposal to UNIT boxsets.
However, I would like to point out a subtle difference that has appeared after both my and OncomingStorm12th's proposals: in Silenced "UNIT" plays a different role. UNIT is the thing being silenced.
- WJDTwGL
Amorkuz wrote: in Silenced "UNIT" plays as different role. It seems part of the title, as the object being silenced.
Are you sure about that? It wasn't how I interpreted it. It could just be the easiest way to convey the literal meaning of the word "silence" instead of only referring to the monster.
- Amorkuz
But no one was "silenced" in the boxset in the literal meaning of the word. Killed, yes. Memory erased, yes. Brain washed, yes. But silenced? No.
It is clearly a pun with double meaning. It is especially significant that this title uses a participle where all other titles had nouns.
Having said that, I'm not saying we must keep the prefix here. Just that it is worth special consideration.
UPD: Well, if you're willing to stretch it, one could say that Sam and Osgood were kinda silenced in the last story. They're members of UNIT, so, as I said: UNIT Silenced.
- SOTO
Without spoiling its title, the next UNIT anthology to come is also UNIT: [adjective].
- WJDTwGL
SOTO wrote: Without spoiling its title, the next UNIT anthology to come is also UNIT: [adjective].
You mean past tense verb? It's UNIT: thing-ed, like Silenced.
- Amorkuz
Yes, it's called Past Participle and used as an adjective.
"Participle: a word having the characteristics of both verb and adjective; especially : an English verbal form that has the function of an adjective and at the same time shows such verbal features as tense and voice and capacity to take an object"
- OncomingStorm12th
I don't think we should consider the nature of the word that comes after UNIT in this decision. Regardless of it being a noun, an adjective, a verb, a pronoun, or whatever else, the simple truth is: "UNIT" remains a prefix. It should not affect our decision, as it definitely would not affect the naming of the story in a Torchwood or Doctor Who audio.
If an anthology was refered by Big Finish as "Doctor Who: Silenced" or "Torchwood: Silenced", what would we name it (keeping in mind what we've done for all audios and anthologies so far)? We would name it's page "Silenced (audio anthology)". So why would UNIT be any different.
Look at Broken (audio story). No one here would think of naming this page "Torchwood: Broken", even though the "Torchwood" prefix is stated both on it's oficial page and on it's cover.
UNIT plays the exact same "role" on names as Torchwood: to give buyers a general idea to which range the story/anthology belongs. Nothing else.
- Amorkuz
Before these weird recent titles, I was in complete agreement with you. (On a side note, what we've done for other anthologies is not necessarily consistent.) Also, I agree with you 100% regarding Torchwood. There are many other prefixes used over the years.
I also want to agree with you on the new UNIT anthologies, the only ones that might stand out. But does it play the same role? Compare: "UNIT: The Coup" with "UNIT - Shutdown". The latter can be read as a noun phrase: "UNIT shutdown" (like school shutdown). The former cannot possibly be read this way. All of the new titles can form a meaningful phrase if the dash is omitted (it is a dash on the website but just a linebreak on the CD box): UNIT extinction, UNIT shutdown, UNIT silenced, etc. I think it would be wrong to pretend that nothing is changed.
On the other hand, this change is so subtle and, seemingly, far from being decisive in the title. It's an additional flavour to the title, an aftertaste, not the main attraction at all. So perhaps, we can still omit the prefix without losing much.
- OncomingStorm12th
But that's the thing: there are many examples of stories on all media which makes absolutely no sense until you actually watch/read/listen to the story.
Look at ...ish (audio story). Does it make any sense, with or without a prefix? No.
The same goes on to Broken (audio story) itself. Until you actually listen to this: what is broken? An arm? A leg? A chair? A relationship? A metaforical way to say "broken heart"? In this case, with or without the "Torchwood" prefix, the title is simply ambiguous
Now, looking at prose: Oh No It Isn't! (novel). Without a prefix: what isn't? With a prefix: (Bernice Summerfield: Oh No It Isn't) so, is it Bernice Summerfield or not?
A final example, on TV: Detained (TV story). Without a prefix: who's detained ? With a prefix: (Class: Detained) so, is a class being detained?
My point is: the titles of stories/anthologies don't need to necessarily form a meaningfull sentence without a prefix. Some titles don't form it even with a prefix. The point of a title is being something eye/ear-catching, so we can remember it, or be interested in it. That's what Extinction, Shutdown and Silenced are: something a bit ear-catching, which gets the buyers interested in listening to these anthologies, so they can understand what is going on.
- Amorkuz
I think, in the end, we actually agree. You are saying that the titles do not always make sense on their own. I am saying that whatever sense they make, the additional meanings brought by the prefix are not worth fighting for.
So, yes, I agree that all UNIT stories and boxsets (old and new) should be named without the prefix "UNIT". Then the rules described in that old thread would finally explain the names of all Big Finish audio stories on this wiki.
- Amorkuz
Incidentally, regarding spoilers, I always thought that they refer to stories, so discussing the name of a boxset, which is demonstrably not a story (for instance, it does not necessarily require a dab term), should, in principle, be allowed as long as no details of the stories in it are revealed.
- OncomingStorm12th
Amorkuz wrote: I think, in the end, we actually agree. You are saying that the titles do not always make sense on their own. I am saying that whatever sense they make, the additional meanings brought by the prefix are not worth fighting for.
So, yes, I agree that all UNIT stories and boxsets (old and new) should be named without the prefix "UNIT". Then the rules described in that old thread would finally explain the names of all Big Finish audio stories on this wiki.
Being very honest, I misread your previous post, and though that you were "in favour" of keeping the prefixes. Now, with this clarification, I must say: yes, we indeed agree.
- SOTO
Perhaps; I won't give a yes or no, because I haven't thought it through or looked into it. But the name of a box set can easily give away plot details. If I had spoiled the name of UNIT: Silenced, it's quite likely one might make the association between the wordplay in the title and the Silence.
- OncomingStorm12th
Yeah, with that I must agree: boxset names can give away plot details as much as story names (some might give plot details, while ohters don't), so we should probabbly let them off the thread anyway.
"UNIT: Extinction" won't lead anyone to think about Autons, but SOTO's example is a good one where the title can lead to details.
- Amorkuz
Didn't think of that. Indeed, minor spoilers are possible. Good point.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Also the Bernice Summerfield novels in order from The Doomsday Manuscript to The Glass Prison are actually Bernice Summerfield and ... story title.
So these are titles that need to be added to the titles as they are and in the same vain as Doctor Who and...
- Bwburke94
OncomingStorm12th wrote: Yeah, with that I must agree: boxset names can give away plot details as much as story names (some might give plot details, while ohters don't), so we should probabbly let them off the thread anyway.
"UNIT: Extinction" won't lead anyone to think about Autons, but SOTO's example is a good one where the title can lead to details.
Spoilers don't matter, because we can't discuss it until it's released. It simply makes no sense to use "spoilers" as an attempt to regulate article titles.
- Bwburke94
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Also the Bernice Summerfield novels in order from The Doomsday Manuscript to The Glass Prison are actually Bernice Summerfield and ... story title.
So these are titles that need to be added to the titles as they are and in the same vain as Doctor Who and...
I won't give an official opinion on this because it's irrelevant to the discussion, but there's a possibility that the pages will be moved. Let's focus on the UNIT prefix for now.
- Amorkuz
Yes, indeed. So, off with the prefixes?
- Bwburke94
Amorkuz wrote: Yes, indeed. So, off with the prefixes?
I'm in favour of removing the prefixes.
- SOTO
It would seem to be a natural extension of the "Doctor Who" decision.
- SeaniesBeanies
I'm in favour of removing them from all but UNIT: Dominion, as that's more of a Doctor Who story set around UNIT than a UNIT story involving the Doctor, as I recall was decided in the previous debate about this.
- Amorkuz
Could you, by any chance, post a link to the previous debate? I was not aware there was one.
- SeaniesBeanies
I will try and find it, although if Bwburke94 couldn't find it then it might be a bit tricky
- SeaniesBeanies
As t turns out, I couldn't find the discussion either in the backlogs of the panopticon or the matrix archives, sorry about that, although the debate definitely ended with the UNIT prefix being kept for Dominion for its ambiguous position within both franchises, so the general "Doctor Who" prefix was used instead.
- Amorkuz
Well, at least someone remembers what was happening in that discussion. That's already something. I was always wondering how it happened.
One thing to note is that BF changed the description of the Dominion story. It used to be UNIT: Dominion, and now it's Doctor Who - UNIT: Dominion (for instance here all the links have been changed but the lead still has no DW prefix; actually here it is even clearer).
Another relevant thing, to my mind, is that at that time Dominion was the pinnacle of the UNIT audio series, so to say. The regular series ended. The box set was a special of a different format. No new stories were forthcoming.
What I don't know (was before my time) is which range Dominion was originally marketed in. It is still in the "Special Releases" range, mind you. Was it in the "UNIT" range from the very beginning is what I don't know. If it wasn't, then "UNIT" was needed to connect the special release to the UNIT range. In such a setting, its description as a special DW release that also concerns UNIT made sense.
But now it is in the UNIT range, so this special note is not needed anymore. We acknowledge this by wedging this story between the last old UNIT story and the first new UNIT story in the infobox. (Note that, unlike the BF website, we do not provide any other navigation in the infobox for this story.) The lead clearly paints it as a UNIT story. It feels like things have changed significantly.
And Gallifrey range mentioned above is a very good example in more ways than one. It also started as single-story CDs named "Gallifrey: <name of story>" by BF. Then, from Season 4, it switched to multi-story boxsets. Finally, from Season 7, we have single-story boxsets exactly identical to Dominion in composition. And these are also called "Gallifrey: <name of story>" by BF. We, on the other hand, call all three types of stories in the Gallifrey range "<name of story> (audio story)", consistently dropping the prefix "Gallifrey".
So why is "Gallifrey" dropped for single-story Gallifrey range boxsets but "UNIT" is not dropped for single story UNIT range boxset? However it was marketed originally, it is now firmly in the UNIT range for both BF and Wikia.
- SOTO
Are you all thinking of Thread:193754? That discussion is still open, so no conclusion was ever reached. The only other discussion I can think of, Forum:Doctor Who prefix in titles and its continuation Thread:117218, make no mention of UNIT.
- SeaniesBeanies
Yes I think that was the thread actually. It being open is then most likely the reason the UNIT prefixes haven't been changed.
As these conversations have reached mostly identical points, would it be okay for an admin to archive the other, older thread? It really serves no purpose anymore due to all BF ranges except UNIT having their prefixes dropped anyway.
- Amorkuz
I respectfully disagree that the other thread serves no purpose. In fact, these two threads are related but have different though overlapping scopes. This discussion only discusses several specific prefixes (I counted four) and suggests to drop them for both stories and other pages. Thus, such a discussion would have to be repeated for any new range BF will come up with.
Thread:193754 proposes to codify a policy consistent with how we currently codify all existing BF ranges (modulo the only exception of Dominion). Such a policy would then be applicable to all future BF ranges too. However, that thread only concerns stories because the situation with audio anthologies is slightly different when one considers all existing prefixes rather than just the most popular ones.
To give a concrete example that is discussed in that thread but is not covered in this thread, there is a difference in how the pages 1963: Fanfare for the Common Men and The Destroyer of Delights are named: the former features the prefix "1963", whereas the latter does not feature the prefix "Key 2 Time". The policy proposed in that thread explains this and, hence, provides a guide how to name pages for stories from similar mini-arcs in the future.
- Amorkuz
So since all the references were to Thread:193754, which was very much after the UNIT: Dominion page was created, does anyone remember why it was named UNIT: Dominion instead of just Dominion?
- SeaniesBeanies
Amorkuz wrote: I respectfully disagree that the other thread serves no purpose. In fact, these two threads are related but have different though overlapping scopes. This discussion only discusses several specific prefixes (I counted four) and suggests to drop them for both stories and other pages. Thus, such a discussion would have to be repeated for any new range BF will come up with.
Thread:193754 proposes to codify a policy consistent with how we currently codify all existing BF ranges (modulo the only exception of Dominion). Such a policy would then be applicable to all future BF ranges too. However, that thread only concerns stories because the situation with audio anthologies is slightly different when one considers all existing prefixes rather than just the most popular ones.
To give a concrete example that is discussed in that thread but is not covered in this thread, there is a difference in how the pages 1963: Fanfare for the Common Men and The Destroyer of Delights are named: the former features the prefix "1963", whereas the latter does not feature the prefix "Key 2 Time". The policy proposed in that thread explains this and, hence, provides a guide how to name pages for stories from similar mini-arcs in the future.
I concede defeat on this particular reply.
- Revanvolatrelundar
Yeah, remove them for me.
Most of the posters here have reached a consensus. In addition, arguments from similar posts in the past, particularly at Forum:Doctor Who prefix in titles, give two good reasons for making the suggested change: ease of alphabetization using {{Titlesort}} and ease of using auto-suggest.
Therefore, this thread is closed, and whatever changes are needed can be implemented.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:204885
I don't know if this has been discussed before or if I should post it here but anyway, here we go. I think we should have a page called Hydroflax's body. As in The Husbands of River Song his body is clearly a different consciousness to the to the 'Greg Davies' Hydroflax. Also maybe Hydroflax should be moved to Hydroflax (The Husbands of River Song) as the body says "King Hydroflax will rise again" when talking about taking a new head, so should the page Hydroflax be about the combination of the body and the head together rather than 'Greg Davies' Hydroflax.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Same person, that's why the TARDIS wouldn't take off.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:205132
There are two articles on the tardis from hell bent that Clara took position http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/TARDIS_(Hell_Bent) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Clara%27s_TARDIS I don't have the access to fix this issue
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:205264
Recently I came across the Doctor Who: 50 years trailer as a page on this wiki, but I am yet to see pages like the campfire trailer for Series 4 or the Kudlak/Graske/Androvax trailer of SJA Series 4. So I am wondering how does this wiki consider trailers with original (new) content in them?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Invalid, yet they may be covered in that capacity.
- 90.197.244.186
Yes. Should pages be created for them?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
If treated purely on that page and added into the "marketing campaigns" category only, then yes.
P.S. If the page was to be created by (say you) I'd give you a hand with detail because me (and OttselSpy25) are the invalid stories' most dedicated editors.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: If treated purely on that page and added into the "marketing campaigns" category only, then yes.
P.S. If the page was to be created by (say you) I'd give you a hand with detail because me (and OttselSpy25) are the invalid stories' most dedicated editors.
Please note that an admin needs to rule on this before any action is taken. I need to know a bit more information before making a decision.
- 90.197.244.186
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: If treated purely on that page and added into the "marketing campaigns" category only, then yes.
P.S. If the page was to be created by (say you) I'd give you a hand with detail because me (and OttselSpy25) are the invalid stories' most dedicated editors.
Please note that an admin needs to rule on this before any action is taken. I need to know a bit more information before making a decision.
Well, the trailers feature new, original material that is especially filmed. Also, the footage in the trailers is not shown in anything else (for example TV stories or the stories they are promoting).
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:205430
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/User:DENCH-and-PALMER/Sandbox:_Invalid_stories
Above is the sand box for an invalid Navbox I created. As requested by my good friend SOTO, I brought it here to see what you think.
I want to know if we could add this to all the on screen invalid stories to have some sort of navigation that clearly throws invalid at the reader.
So... what do you all think? 😊
- DENCH-and-PALMER
I think it's very beautiful.
Nah. I'm joking. Though seriously what do the admins think?
And not just the admins, if you're reading this now - feel free to comment... I won't bite.
- Shambala108
I'm not sure why we need this?
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: I'm not sure why we need this?
I like the idea - let people access all the articles on invalid sources easily.
- Shambala108
Pluto2 wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: I'm not sure why we need this?
I like the idea - let people access all the articles on invalid sources easily.
Or they could just visit Category:Non-DWU stories.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
Pluto2 wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: I'm not sure why we need this?
I like the idea - let people access all the articles on invalid sources easily.
Or they could just visit Category:Non-DWU stories.
They could... but you could say that about any navbox.
- SOTO
Most navboxes present the information (links) in a more useful, organised manner than categories can. Otherwise, the navbox is redundant.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: Most navboxes present the information (links) in a more useful, organised manner than categories can. Otherwise, the navbox is redundant.
That's what I thought. Navboxes are more beautiful to look at unlike the categories.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Any thoughts?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Would you be able to make a final decision of this SOTO?
- Shambala108
I still don't understand why we need this.
- SOTO
I share Shambala's opinion here.
- Dmitriy Volfson
I think this navbox is very helpful. Are there any plans on adding audio/comic/prose stories?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Дмитрий Куклин wrote: I think this navbox is very helpful. Are there any plans on adding audio/comic/prose stories?
I'm glad you like it pal and I would certainly add them if the navbox ever went ahead.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote: I still don't understand why we need this.
Also, unlike the category. It can keep them in a nice presentable, sub-sectioned order.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: I still don't understand why we need this.
Also, unlike the category. It can keep them in a nice presentable, sub-sectioned order.
There's an easy fix for that.
I've stressed multiple times that we don't cover NOTVALID stories the same way as we do valid stories. The NOTVALIDs were declared not valid for a reason. They just don't get the same degree of coverage — no continuity sections, their info not allowed on in-universe pages, a far smaller category system. That's why I don't see a need for this template when we already have the category.
- 185.69.145.89
I reckon we should put the navbox on the page. Then people won't have to spend hours searching for an order when one is right infront of them.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
185.69.145.89 wrote: I reckon we should put the navbox on the page. Then people won't have to spend hours searching for an order when one is right infront of them.
True.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Shambala108 wrote: I still don't understand why we need this.
Also, unlike the category. It can keep them in a nice presentable, sub-sectioned order.
There's an easy fix for that.
I've stressed multiple times that we don't cover NOTVALID stories the same way as we do valid stories. The NOTVALIDs were declared not valid for a reason. They just don't get the same degree of coverage — no continuity sections, their info not allowed on in-universe pages, a far smaller category system. That's why I don't see a need for this template when we already have the category.
Yes but we can not debate they have a some what importance on the wiki. They do count as stories and it should be made easier for them to be found. I mean surely it's better to have the navbox than not to have it, pal?
For those on desktop who do see navboxes, I'm inclined to support Shambala108 who reasoned, correctly I feel, that NOTVALID sources aren't entitled to the same level of prominence as valid ones, and with SOTO who found the navbox presentation in this particular case to be wanting. Like Shambala said, and SOTO agreed with, "I still don't understand why we need this."
Also, the original poster is no longer a member of this community, so the proposal fails for not just the above reasons, but also as a matter of practicality.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206101
I've recently looked at category:Incarnations of the Doctor and noticed that there are loads of "The Doctor (story name)" and I want to bring to discussion whether they are necessary. Most of them are from stories where the incarnation is never directly stated. Surely, as an alternative these adventures can be placed on the main The Doctor page under the Undated Events section?
- Shambala108
I promise that I did not write the above post, but I have been intending to bring this up for some time now. I will address my take on this issue later when I have a chance.
- Pluto2
Can we add the future incarnations to the Doctors template for navigation purposes?
- TheChampionOfTime
I'd like to point Pluto2 to Thread:193167 and say that The Doctor (Party Animals), The Doctor (Battlefield), The Doctor (The Blue Angel), and The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) are all clearly defined as separate incarnations.
- Amorkuz
Further, The Doctor (Doctormania) is a fictional character within the DWU, intended to represent the Ninth Doctor. (He's not in the mentioned category, but just to avoid any misunderstandings.)
- Shambala108
OK, first of all, the template really has nothing to do with this discussion, at least until we come to a conclusion.
Also, we are not going to argue for/against each article. Instead, I think we need to address the four (by my count, correct me if I missed any) different types of The Doctor (story title) articles.
- Not valid Doctors
- Doctors from alternate timelines
- Doctors who are confirmed to be specific separate incarnations - The Doctor (Good Companions), for example
- Doctors whose incarnation we can't figure out from the story
We are really only concerned with #4. I agree with the OP that we don't need to create a new article every time we don't know the specific incarnation; instead this info can go on the article The Doctor. This is mostly an issue with short stories, as almost every other media is either visual or audio so that we can tell which incarnation it is; and in the case of novels we usually know which incarnation. Having read many of the short stories where we don't know the incarnation, I can say that in most cases you could speculate a current incarnation; since we don't allow speculation, it's best to put the info on "The Doctor" page instead of creating new pages.
I think that creating new pages for these incarnations gives new users (who may not be familiar with the extended universe of DW) the impression that there are many more incarnations of the Doctor than there really are.
- SOTO
We also have one page by that nomenclature The Doctor (TV Action!), who is a fictional character in the TV Action! universe, played by Tom Baker (TV Action!).
The Doctor (Doctormania) is a fictional character within the Doctor's universe, based on the real Ninth Doctor himself, in the holovid programme Doctor Who?.
Oh, there's also The Doctor (In the Forest of the Night), but I feel that page and Clara's are verging on speculation. Doctor Who (In the Forest of the Night) is fine, but the people on it are not named or identified.
So:
- 5. Fictional Doctors
Onto the main issue, at hand, I actually agree that it is confusing to have separate pages for unspecified incarnations, when those would normally be reserved for separate incarnations. Obviously, if an incarnation is specifically intended to be a "future Doctor" or one that is not any of the number of Doctors already established, they should get their own page.
Doctors in alternate timelines should still get their own pages per T:DAB OTHER.
So how would we cover indeterminate incarnations? It's been suggested to put them in an "undated events" section. But what if we found a solution wherein we'd have subheadings we could redirect to directly?
So instead of just linking to The Doctor when speaking of the Doctor in that story, or in the story's infobox, it would be an ultimate link to The Doctor#The monster in the barn, The Doctor#Losing his memory, etc. Much like we do with the Master. And since we couldn't, of course, list them chronologically without speculating, we could simply list the subheadings by release order of their stories, and state at the beginning of the main section that they are not given in any particular chronological order.
- Shambala108
OK, with SOTO's qualification in mind, here's what we need to decide for each point:
#1 Doctors from NOTVALID stories We currently have a mix: some NOTVALID stories get new pages for their Doctors; some merely link to existing Doctor pages. I suggest that the only time we create new pages for Doctors from NOTVALID stories is when they are played/voiced by different actors. Otherwise, they should merely link to the existing Doctor, and there can be a note in the BTS section on the Doctor's page.
#2 Doctors from alternate timelines We have a mix of these, too. I'm open for suggestions here.
#3 Confirmed separate incarnations These should get a separate page, but only if it's clear they aren't existing Doctors. If it's unclear (in prose, for example), it would not apply here.
#4 Doctors whose incarnations we can't figure out from the story SOTO's idea here works for me. We should not create a page just because a (usually short story) author didn't feel like getting specific. I've read enough of this kind of story to know that there are often hints of which Doctor is meant, but by this wiki's rules (no speculation), we can't assume. Putting this info on the main page for the Doctor is the best solution.
#5 Fictional Doctors I believe this has only recently come up, as previously there was no confirmation of the show Doctor Who existing in the DWU. As long as these fictional Doctors appear in valid stories, they should get their own pages, unless someone has a good reason why they shouldn't.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Sounds good but alternate Doctors should have seperate pages, as they're not the same incarnation as they are alternate.
- Amorkuz
Why not use the approach from #1 for #2 also?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Amorkuz wrote: Why not use the approach from #1 for #2 also?
No need pal, all invalid doctors are indisputably different, usually why they are invalid.
And alternate are different as well, that's why they're alternate.
- Shambala108
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: Why not use the approach from #1 for #2 also?
No need pal, all invalid doctors are indisputably different, usually why they are invalid.
And alternate are different as well, that's why they're alternate.
That's what we're trying to determine here. Stating they all need different pages is just your opinion.
There are a wide range of reasons why a story is invalid, not just because the Doctors are "indisputably different".
And there are tons of alternate universe Doctors that only last for a short time within a story. I don't think we need a separate page for each of them.
That's the whole point of this discussion — that we have too many Doctor pages. We're trying to clean up this mess with some kind of agreed-upon policy.
- Amorkuz
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: Why not use the approach from #1 for #2 also?
No need pal
Just to be sure I understand what you mean: "No need to apply Shambala108's approach for #1 to #2"? Or "No need to use her approach at all?"
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Amorkuz wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Amorkuz wrote: Why not use the approach from #1 for #2 also?
No need pal
Just to be sure I understand what you mean: "No need to apply Shambala108's approach for #1 to #2"? Or "No need to use her approach at all?"
For 1 and 2, invalid doctors are usually invalid because, well they're discontinuous doctors.
- Amorkuz
Wait, but Doctors in 2 are not invalid. They're just alternate versions from alternate timelines
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Amorkuz wrote: Wait, but Doctors in 2 are not invalid. They're just alternate versions from alternate timelines
Yeah, thus different from the original pal.
- Amorkuz
Not necessarily, in Zagreus, the Eighth Doctor is given a glimpse of his alternate versions. So it is clear that they do not live in the same continuity, but he calls them I.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Amorkuz wrote: Not necessarily, in Zagreus, the Eighth Doctor is given a glimpse of his alternate versions. So it is clear that they do not live in the same continuity, but he calls them I.
As Second Doctor has done to the Third Doctor.
- SOTO
I wouldn't say that the problem is we have "too many" Doctor pages. We're not exactly running out of space here. We don't need to cut down.
What I find to be the central issue in this thread is how we've been giving pages to Doctors that aren't actually distinct from the ones already defined, just not specified. Frankly, T:DAB OTHER already covers what we do with alternate reality versions of anyone: they get a separate page, and a dab term after a name given to the universe from whence they came.
I don't think we have any of these sorts of pages, but according to current convention with other characters, the only "alternate characters" that don't typically get their own page are those that were the main character, simply involved in an alternate timeline, which is usually reversed by the end.
(I'm sure there was a forum discussion that led to this, but it does seem a bit odd that we haven't got Donna Noble (Donna's World) anymore, seeing as it's made clear that wasn't just an alternative timeline but a "great big parallel universe", on the same level as Pete's World — except that it diverged more recently than Pete's World did. And it's made quite clear that Donna's World Donna is a distinct individual who would die when her whole world blinks out of existence, and does die to save her reality.)
So, for example, we don't need Eleventh Doctor (River Song's World), and we don't need Charles Dickens (River Song's World), either. This sort of information just goes in an alternate timeline section. We certainly don't need a separate page, for, say, the Eleventh Doctor in Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, even though the events of that story were reversed.
But, as far as I'm aware, all the incarnations in category:Alternate versions of the Doctor do not fill that bill. If they were all played by an actor, they would be played by a different actor to any of the ones onscreen. Mostly, anyway—I did notice Lord of the Manor, and having listened to The Eternal Summer, I know he's an alternative future Fifth Doctor, still played by Peter Davison. But I do stand by that he deserves his own page, as he's pretty much that story's Valeyard, in the sense that he's the main villain of the piece, with Nyssa as the Lady of the Manor.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: I wouldn't say that the problem is we have "too many" Doctor pages. We're not exactly running out of space here. We don't need to cut down.
What I find to be the central issue in this thread is how we've been giving pages to Doctors that aren't actually distinct from the ones already defined, just not specified. Frankly, T:DAB OTHER already covers what we do with alternate reality versions of anyone: they get a separate page, and a dab term after a name given to the universe from whence they came.
I don't think we have any of these sorts of pages, but according to current convention with other characters, the only "alternate characters" that don't typically get their own page are those that were the main character, simply involved in an alternate timeline, which is usually reversed by the end.
(I'm sure there was a forum discussion that led to this, but it does seem a bit odd that we haven't got Donna Noble (Donna's World) anymore, seeing as it's made clear that wasn't just an alternative timeline but a "great big parallel universe", on the same level as Pete's World — except that it diverged more recently than Pete's World did. And it's made quite clear that Donna's World Donna is a distinct individual who would die when her whole world blinks out of existence, and does die to save her reality.)
So, for example, we don't need Eleventh Doctor (River Song's World), and we don't need Charles Dickens (River Song's World), either. This sort of information just goes in an alternate timeline section. We certainly don't need a separate page, for, say, the Eleventh Doctor in Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, even though the events of that story were reversed.
But, as far as I'm aware, all the incarnations in category:Alternate versions of the Doctor do not fill that bill. If they were all played by an actor, they would be played by a different actor to any of the ones onscreen. Mostly, anyway—I did notice Lord of the Manor, and having listened to The Eternal Summer, I know he's an alternative future Fifth Doctor, still played by Peter Davison. But I do stand by that he deserves his own page, as he's pretty much that story's Valeyard, in the sense that he's the main villain of the piece, with Nyssa as the Lady of the Manor.
100% agree.
- Amorkuz
With the alternative timelines that have been reversed, it's not as bad as all that. Though the events have been reversed, typically the Doctor lived through them and remembers them. In other words, it's typically the same body inhabited by the same consciousness that lived through an alternative timeline. And that's why we don't create a separate page. (I'm sure there are also counter examples, as always.)
Secondly, if an alternative version primarily uses an alternative name, then that's a clear reason for a separate page.
I would propose to restrict this discussion to the the scope of the OP: pages named "The Doctor (story name)". A separate version with a separate name is served well by a separate page. It is when the separation is in question that a merge may be warranted. IMHO.
- 213.205.252.104
In response to the original post som of the pages like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(TARDIS_Cam) do seem a bit excessive and that when an aorther has not commented on identifying the incarnation then it is better served as undated on the main doctor page
- DENCH-and-PALMER
213.205.252.104 wrote: In response to the original post som of the pages like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(TARDIS_Cam) do seem a bit excessive and that when an aorther has not commented on identifying the incarnation then it is better served as undated on the main doctor page
The difference with this one is BBCi said it's not supposed to be a known Doctor.
- SOTO
The Lord of the Manner is still Five, but his body is burned and decayed, and lived for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years past the Fifth Doctor's actual experience in that story. So it's definitely fair to count him separately.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
SOTO wrote: The Lord of the Manner is still Five, but his body is burned and decayed, and lived for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years past the Fifth Doctor's actual experience in that story. So it's definitely fair to count him separately.
Agreed
- SOTO
..That was quick.
- TheChampionOfTime
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The difference with this one is BBCi said it's not supposed to be a known Doctor.
Can we get an exact quote on that?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
TheChampionOfTime wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: The difference with this one is BBCi said it's not supposed to be a known Doctor.
Can we get an exact quote on that?
I'll have a look pal.
- TheChampionOfTime
Look pal, if you can't provide an evidence that "TARDIS cam" has a unique Doctor best just admit it. I'd imagine that you misinterpreted the fact that in each webcast the Doctor is unknown (ie we don't know which doctor is inside the TARDIS during each episode). We don't even see a Doctor in any of the webcasts; the point of the webcasts was that they didn't have the Doctor! For all we know Thomas Brewster could be in there!
- "An ever-elusive and unknown incarnation of the Doctor travelled in his TARDIS to many locations and planets. He often never left his TARDIS. He travelled alone."
I really hate to be this harsh to you Dench, but nothing in the above paragraph is even implied in the TARDIS cam series. I'd even say that The Doctor (TARDIS Cam) is a perfect example of why there shouldn't be pages for Doctors that are never stated to actually be separate incarnations: it can be very misleading.
- Of course, if you're aware of some interview of the creators or something else along those lines that states the series had a unique Doctor please share.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Look pal, if you can't provide an evidence that "TARDIS cam" has a unique Doctor best just admit it. I'd imagine that you misinterpreted the fact that in each webcast the Doctor is unknown (ie we don't know which doctor is inside the TARDIS during each episode). We don't even see a Doctor in any of the webcasts; the point of the webcasts was that they didn't have the Doctor! For all we know Thomas Brewster could be in there!
- "An ever-elusive and unknown incarnation of the Doctor travelled in his TARDIS to many locations and planets. He often never left his TARDIS. He travelled alone."
I really hate to be this harsh to you Dench, but nothing in the above paragraph is even implied in the TARDIS cam series. I'd even say that The Doctor (TARDIS Cam) is a perfect example of why there shouldn't be pages for Doctors that are never stated to actually be separate incarnations: it can be very misleading.
- Of course, if you're aware of some interview of the creators or something else along those lines that states the series had a unique Doctor please share.
Whoops. Forgot about this. This is on the original DW BBC website about the Cams. Discussing where the cams fit in the Doctor's continuity.
Being a time travel show, Doctor Who's chronology shifts and changes as he tinkers around with time, so precise timings are often difficult.
- TheChampionOfTime
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Whoops. Forgot about this. This is on the original DW BBC website about the Cams. Discussing where the cams fit in the Doctor's continuity.
Being a time travel show, Doctor Who's chronology shifts and changes as he tinkers around with time, so precise timings are often difficult.
So do you agree that The Doctor (TARDIS Cam) should be deleted and that the series should just be covered in "undated events" on the Doctor?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
TheChampionOfTime wrote:
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Whoops. Forgot about this. This is on the original DW BBC website about the Cams. Discussing where the cams fit in the Doctor's continuity.
Being a time travel show, Doctor Who's chronology shifts and changes as he tinkers around with time, so precise timings are often difficult.
So do you agree that The Doctor (TARDIS Cam) should be deleted and that the series should just be covered in "undated events" on the Doctor?
Yeah, I have no obligation.
- Shambala108
SOTO wrote: I wouldn't say that the problem is we have "too many" Doctor pages. We're not exactly running out of space here. We don't need to cut down.
Great way to completely misinterpret my point. I didn't think I had to spell out my position every single time I post. When I said "too many Doctor pages", I was answering a specific question, and didn't bother to specify "too many unnecessary Doctor pages" . To re-iterate here, my point is that many of these Doctor pages are misleading and should be removed. And we need to decide when/how to allow separate pages for Doctor incarnations in the (currently) five types of situations. Is that clear enough?
- Shambala108
Incidentally, while we are still discussing this question, no new pages for "The Doctor" or specific incarnations should be created.
- SOTO
Yes, quite clear. Sorry for the confusion.
- 86.166.43.178
213.205.252.104 wrote: In response to the original post som of the pages like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(TARDIS_Cam) do seem a bit excessive and that when an aorther has not commented on identifying the incarnation then it is better served as undated on the main doctor page
Yes. Stories in which the incarnation of the Doctor is unknown should be placed on The Doctor page instead on getting their own pages. For example pages such as The Doctor (Reunion) and The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) should definitely be merged. Pages for invalid Doctors can be discussed seperatley as there obviously isn't a The Doctor (Invalid stories) to place pages like this.
- Borisashton
86.166.43.178 wrote:
213.205.252.104 wrote: In response to the original post som of the pages like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(TARDIS_Cam) do seem a bit excessive and that when an aorther has not commented on identifying the incarnation then it is better served as undated on the main doctor page
Yes. Stories in which the incarnation of the Doctor is unknown should be placed on The Doctor page instead on getting their own pages. For example pages such as The Doctor (Reunion) and The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) should definitely be merged. Pages for invalid Doctors can be discussed seperatley as there obviously isn't a The Doctor (Invalid stories) to place pages like this.
A brief summary of each unknown incarnation of the Doctor has been added to The Doctor page by an IP.
- Borisashton
In my opinion it looks good.
- 213.205.253.221
That's how it should be
- Revanvolatrelundar
The inclusion of unknown incarnations of the Doctor on the main article does look good. I do believe, however, that unknown incarnations such as The Doctor (Battlefield) and The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) should keep their own seperate articles. The length of their appearances justifies more than a simple mention, as any other established Doctor would have. Just because we don't know the specific incarnation number for that Doctor shouldn't mean that the incarnation gets shelved to the main article. We need to remember with regard to this topic that we treat all media as equal on the wiki, so these unknown Doctors could easily by the Twentieth Doctor, or the Ninety Third for all we know. In this instance the main Doctor article should remain as it is, where these unknown Doctors are mentioned but are linked off to their own articles for more information.
The example of The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) is another case, though, I think. This incarnation could be any Doctor at all, and hasn't been established as apart from any other established Doctor, like The Doctor (Battlefield) is. My opinion on this case is that these "muddy water" incarnation should be left on the main article with no link to another page, perhaps under an "unclear incarnation" heading. - 213.205.253.221
From what I've read on this wiki those doctors have enough in universe evidence to say they're not one of the main 13 so they should have there own page but the ones where they just aren't a new incarnation should be on the main article
- Bwburke94
Borisashton wrote:
86.166.43.178 wrote:
213.205.252.104 wrote: In response to the original post som of the pages like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor_(TARDIS_Cam) do seem a bit excessive and that when an aorther has not commented on identifying the incarnation then it is better served as undated on the main doctor page
Yes. Stories in which the incarnation of the Doctor is unknown should be placed on The Doctor page instead on getting their own pages. For example pages such as The Doctor (Reunion) and The Doctor (The Giant's Heart) should definitely be merged. Pages for invalid Doctors can be discussed seperatley as there obviously isn't a The Doctor (Invalid stories) to place pages like this.
A brief summary of each unknown incarnation of the Doctor has been added to The Doctor page by an IP.
Doesn't this violate T:BOUND?
- SOTO
It does. Any further thoughts, everyone?
- Borisashton
Reviving this thread, over two years on can a judgement finally be made on this?
Just to outline the events that have happened since the last reply:
- The Doctor (TARDIS Cam) was deleted because of its speculative nature.
- The Doctor (In the Forest of the Night) and Doctor Who (In the Forest of the Night were deleted and integrated into Doctor Who (Remembrance of the Daleks) and Doctor Who (Salvation).
- Related to the discussion of whether alternate Doctors should be allowed seperate pages, Amy Pond (The Girl Who Waited) was created.
- Category:Fictional depictions of the Doctor was created and contains the previously unmentioned Dr. Who (Land of Fiction) and The Time Surgeon as well as Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) because of the later released The Day of the Doctor novelisation among others.
- And finally, the T:BOUND violating section of The Doctor article remained, with bullet points being added similar to User:Revanvolatrelundar's suggestion that list unknown Doctors without being linked to an article of their own.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206539
I think I have a theory about why the twelfth doctor has a Scottish accent the last thing the eleventh doctor was thinking before he regenerated was Amy. Maybe the Tardis changed the way the doctor's voice sounded by its translation circuits so to ease and reassure the doctor into a new generation cycle I'd like to Add this theory to the wiki .
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206597
This is a relatively minor proposal -
When it comes to sources, reference works are acceptable for character names.
For instance, Adam's mum would be renamed to Sandra Mitchell, as Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia gives her the first name Sandra. But if a reference work describes an event outside a narrative, we don't include that.
Basically, the only change is that reference works would be acceptable for the names of places, people, locations, etc.
Any thoughts?
- Shambala108
Sorry, we can't have a policy where we say, we can use this source only for certain things and not for other things. There is way too much potential for abuse and error. Stories are the only valid sources for in-universe pages.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: Sorry, we can't have a policy where we say, we can use this source only for certain things and not for other things. There is way too much potential for abuse and error. Stories are the only valid sources for in-universe pages.
Where is the link to that decision, anyway?
- Shambala108
Tardis:Valid sources rule #1.
- Pluto2
Shambala108 wrote: Tardis:Valid sources rule #1.
How was this decided, though? Where was the discussion?
- Shambala108
I could be wrong, as I've only been on this wiki for a little over five years, but I believe it was one of the founding principles of the wiki, and I also think the wiki was meant to be similar to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki.
- Sometimes, [...] reference works [...] will present "biographical" or "historical" information about characters and situations in the DWU in a non-narrative style. Maybe this will be [...] an article that's a kind of "pseudo-history". None of this is allowed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206797
As we all know, the finished version of Campaign wasn't licensed and thus is not covered on this wiki.
However, can we cover the version as submitted to the BBC, as if it was an unmade story (similar to The Laird of McCrimmon (TV story))?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
What's Campaign?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: What's Campaign?
I found out he he.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: What's Campaign?
A novel by Jim Mortimore. The BBC licensed it, but then rejected the finished product, so Mortimore went ahead and self-published it, with the proceeds going to charity.
- Pluto2
Is anyone opposed to making an article about the original, rejected version of Campaign, and slapping an unproduced tag on it?
- Shambala108
I would need to know a lot more information about it before making a decision.
- AeD
I think most of what's been said about the original version is **in** the self-published version, in the annotations in the back, which you can find here: http://doctorwho.org.nz/archive/campaign/
- Bwburke94
Just to clarify, will Campaign remain NOTVALID even if the page is created?
- SOTO
Given what we know, it was never officially released with all the rights in place. There is no way this can be considered a valid source.
If you consider the version permitted by the BBC, it was unproduced, and if you consider the final version, it was a charity publication which lacked all the rights it needed. Since we don't cover charity works, this can really only be covered as an unproduced story, with a note on how he published it himself afterwards anyway.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Given what we know, it was never officially released with all the rights in place. There is no way this can be considered a valid source.
If you consider the version permitted by the BBC, it was unproduced, and if you consider the final version, it was a charity publication which lacked all the rights it needed. Since we don't cover charity works, this can really only be covered as an unproduced story, with a note on how he published it himself afterwards anyway.
That's what I'm proposing - an article on the unproduced version.
- Pluto2
So...can I make an article on the unproduced version?
- Pluto2
Pluto2 wrote: So...can I make an article on the unproduced version?
...Anyone?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206840
Terra Incognita was the name of a Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series book by Ben Aaronovitch, part of Big Finish's "Young Benny" sequence. There was an extract from the book in Missing Adventures, in 2007. The most recent update was in April 2009, when Aaronovitch said "I'm hoping to have the book finished by the end of October 2009 or April 2011 at the very latest." Nothing's been heard of it since, and Big Finish no longer publishes Bernice Summerfield books.
What status should it be given? Should it technically be considered a future story, and therefore a spoiler? Should it be treated as an unproduced story, like The Laird of McCrimmon? Is the chapter published in Missing Adventures a valid short story, or "one long deleted scene"?
- Shambala108
I'm going to try to come up with an answer here, but I need some information, because I don't have access to my copy of Missing Adventures right now. Is Terra Incognita a novel or a short story? And if it's a short story, do you know if the complete short story is posted in Missing Adventures or not?
Basically, if it's not complete (either as a novel or short story) it could only be covered as an unproduced story. If it is complete as a short story, we will have to discuss it. (As a first guess, I would think we could include it as we do for the one valid DWU story in Decalog 5: Wonders, but that's just my first impulse.)
- WJDTwGL
It was going to be a novel. The extract isn't complete.
This is strictly between us, but I'm probably going to kidnap Ben Aaronovitch and force him to finish the book. I need closure. ;)
- Shambala108
Go for it, I won't turn you in.
Unfortunately, therefore, we can't cover it as a story. I may be contradicted by a higher-up, but I can suggest we cover it as an unproduced story (it's been over six years) if you wish, and if it ever gets released, we can turn it into a covered story.
- WJDTwGL
I'll go ahead and make the page then.
- WJDTwGL
Here's the page: Terra Incognita (novel). If you don't mind, could you check over it and make sure I did it right?
- Shambala108
I made a couple of minor edits, but otherwise it looks good. However, I wish I didn't read the publisher's summary, because it sounds like it would be a good story.
- WJDTwGL
Haha, hence my wanting closure. Should this thread be closed now? Is that something I can do?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:206842
At the moment there are several navigation templates (navtemps) that are applied inconsistently. Some of them duplicate each other and keeping two copies will inevitably lead to bad maintenance. I propose to decide which of them to keep and to apply this decision uniformly to Big Finish's multiple ranges. Here is the current situation:
- There is one consolidated navtemp Template:NS that collects six of the New Series ranges and series together (plus one stand-alone story), but notably does not cover Torchwood audios (the reason is because Torchwood audios are not included into "The New Series" range by BF). This template is currently applied on all ranges it covers except for the new UNIT series.
- The new UNIT series employs instead the navtemp Template:BFU, which covers both old and new UNIT audio series.
- Torchwood audios are covered by Template:TorchwoodNovelsandAudio, which also covers novels, direct-to-CD releases and radio dramas.
- In addition, one of the ranges has its own navtemp, which is currently unused: Template:BFWD for the War Doctor range.
Now, although I sincerely appreciate the effort put into the creation of the consolidated template, my feeling is that it should be broken down for future proofing.
Currently, BF treats "The New Series" as a range, but this is not likely to last. For once, this "range" includes separate things that are officially ranges in their own right: "The Diary of River Song" and "UNIT - The New Series". On the other hand, BF has recently added "The Destiny of the Doctor" into the New Series range, which is not in the template, done pre-license extension and includes many of the classical doctors as well as new doctors.
In short, I believe this New Series "range" to be a mess that is not going to be sorted by BF anytime soon. On the other hand, the number of stories in this heap of stuff is going to grow (I hope), and the template will become less and less useful for navigation. At the moment, it includes seven closed-by-default subtemplates, some of which are further broken into subdivisions. On top of that, many of the stories have nothing to do with each other thematically: compare the new UNIT series and Tenth Doctor Adventures, which can never intersect for continuity reasons.
Here is what I propose.
- Remove standalone ranges (New UNIT and Diary of River Song) from the consolidated template and use individual templates for them (one is already used, the other needs to be created).
- Also remove from the consolidated template things collected in "Collected Tenth Doctor" and "Collected War Doctor" ranges and use individual templates for them (one already exists, the other needs to be created). This is especially clear for the War Doctor, which is one big arc of a story and would include an Eighth Doctor boxset in the end.
- Use the consolidated template for stories included in the New Series but not covered by other templates, namely, for Classic Doctors, New Monsters and The Churchill Years, as well as for Destiny of the Doctor. This requires adding Destiny of the Doctor to the consolidated template.
This allows to separate things that BF itself separates. And it keeps in the consolidated template only clearly anthological things, involving multiple doctors and with somewhat cursory common threads.
Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. The main goal is to avoid the necessity to enter one multibox series into multiple templates, sometimes in different forms (compare names of boxes for New Series in the UNIT template and consolidated template).
- SOTO
(They're generally called navboxes) :)
So if we separate from the main New Series navigation what you suggest:
- Is it going to be done in a uniform fashion?
- Are there going to be any links, perhaps in a note at the bottom, to the other ranges that BF also considers part of the range?
BF is always really unclear about ranges, and changes categorisations all the time. It's all very confusing. We really need to pick something that's consistent and that will work for us in the years to come. Would it make sense to make a template for every new series Doctor featured?
I will consider the specifics here again in the very near future.
It might also be a possibility to include a transclusion (ha- trans/inclusion, I somehow only just got that) of the other relevant templates in the main {{NS}} (or, really as it should be named, {{BFNS}} or {{BF NS}}). That way, there's minimal maintenance, as you only ever need update one template.
- SOTO
Okay, I'm looking at the template now, and that is quite messy. We could always separate all of these. Only The Haunting would suffer as a result. Not necessarily advocating for it, but it is a possibility. Perhaps not, though, if we do want to link together all the New Series ranges.
- Shambala108
SOTO wrote: BF is always really unclear about ranges, and changes categorisations all the time. It's all very confusing.
That is certainly true, as I've discovered when working with the BF credits project.
We really need to pick something that's consistent and that will work for us in the years to come. Would it make sense to make a template for every new series Doctor featured?
What we always have to keep in mind is that we wiki editors are probably more familiar with the DWU and its publications than the average wiki reader, and I think separating all the ranges into their own navboxes would leave unfamiliar users unable to find what they want. So I'd prefer a different solution than complete separation, though I don't (yet?) have anything to suggest.
- OncomingStorm12th
Given all the "sub-navboxes" (UNIT: The New Series, The War Doctor, The Diary of River Song, The Churchill Years, The Tenth Doctor Adventures, Classic Doctors, New Monsters) are very separate from each other, I would say we separatem them.
I mean, would it make any sense to have a navbox for all ranges related to the classic series? Not only it would be enourmous, but hard to navigate through. I believe the best solution is to give each of the above it's own navbox.
That's what will eventualy happen to the "Big Finish's Doctor Who: The New Series" navbox: too long, and not very usefull
- SOTO
I have to agree on that front. (in reply to Shambala)
Oh, and I did think of one flaw with the option I brought up to transclude the other templates within the consolidated one: UNIT. The main {{BFU}} template has been the old series and new series UNIT ranges on it, so it could not be transcluded in full. Meaning that just that one would need to be updated manually, unless we add a third layer {{BFU NS}}, which would just include the list itself. In that case, you'd edit the list there, and it would update on both.
- SOTO
If Strax's Jago & Litefoot story gets added, it seems a bit strange that River Song's appearances in Dark Eyes aren't. But then maybe that demonstrates that the boundaries will be blurred from now on. Not everything with new series characters and species will be part of this "New Series" range.
- SOTO
It also seems a bit odd to split off The Tenth Doctor Collected, or frankly even to call it that, when The First Doctor Collected, etc, are simply listed as "First Doctor", and split between {{BF EA}}, {{BFA monthly}} and... Wait, there's no nav for The Third Doctor Adventures.
- Amorkuz
Yes, exactly, it's all because we're trying to responsibly follow the BF's definitions of ranges, while BF irresponsibly plays fast and loose with them. The Third Doctor Adventures have not been separated as a range by BF (yet!), but clearly deserve their navbox as a 3D flagship akin to 4DA (it should also be mentioned that the second boxset has only recently been released).
The way I see it, The Collected 10th Doctor and The Collected War Doctor are different from all the other collected ranges. The other collected ranges were created for ease of navigation postfactum, after the standard ranges such as The Companion Chronicles have been well established. With the 10th and War Doctor releases, the collected ranges have been used from the very beginning and their presence prevents BF from seriously thinking about the new ranges: the collected 10th Doctor already includes more or less the 10th Doctor Adventures, and the collected War Doctor includes exactly the War Doctor boxsets, so why think of a separate name for a range? I think the navboxes for them should be modeled on the 4th Doctor and 8th Doctor Adventures (although the War Doctor one will eventually include an Eighth Doctor boxset).
I have no idea why BF treats The Churchill Years and Classic Doctors, New Monsters differently from The Diary of River Song, given that they have identical release patterns so far (one box released, one announced) and that all three are sold as one bundle. So I would be happy to abandon the current transitional mess completely and make navboxes based on common topics rather than range designations. We already have a precedent: though Dark Eyes has eventually become a range separate from the Eighth Doctor Adventures and Doom Coalition has always been its own range (if memory serves), both are added to the Template:EDA because there is a clear linear time progression for the Eighth Doctor.
And the OncomingStorm12th's comparison with the classic series ranges is exactly the reason I think the consolidated navbox will need to be split eventually. We have at least two new-series ranges with 4 or 5 announced boxsets each. Having them as a subnavbox is really bad for navigation.
- SOTO
Perhaps it would be most useful to, in a way, do both.
So the ranges themselves will be split off into their own navboxes, but the {{NS}} (or whatever we might rename it to) template will be divided by element/character.
So the new version would look something like this:
Big Finish's Doctor Who: The New SeriesUNITExtinction Shutdown Silenced Classic Doctors, New MonstersVolume One Tenth DoctorVolume One War DoctorOnly the Monstrous Infernal Devices Agents of Chaos River SongThe
Diary of River SongSeries One Doom Coalition Series Two Series Three Winston ChurchillVolume One StraxJago & Litefoot - DENCH-and-PALMER
On the subject of templates, can we create an advertising campaign infobox as it'd help the adverts display more info?
- Amorkuz
SOTO wrote: Only The Haunting would suffer as a result.
Not arguing one way or the other, just noting that The Haunting is present on the Jago and Litefoot template Template:BFJL and, hence, covered by at least one relevant template.
- Amorkuz
Another purely informational note. In the complete NS template, it seems strange to me to exclude Torchwood, especially given that a Jack-Harkness-centered spin-off boxset is heading towards a New Series range release. After all, what is the difference between UNIT-centred releases and Torchwood-centred ones?
- SOTO
That is a very good point. Torchwood audios are arguably (no, not even arguably) more "new series" than: UNIT with Kate Stewart, who technically wasn't even introduced in the new series.
- Amorkuz
Let me see if I understand SOTO's suggestion correctly: a story typically receives two navboxes, one below the other. The top one is for the smaller immediate range and can be opened with one click, while the bottom one is comprehensive for all NS releases but requires two clicks to get to another story. Technically, they are created modular, like Russian dolls, so that any new release only requires to update one navbox.
If that's what is being proposed, then I'm all for it as it solves both problems that prompted this post: duplication of maintenance and difficulty to navigate a multi-layer navbox.
PS About Kate introduced before the New Series, in Downtime, very funny: funny because it's true. I never thought of her as a Wilderness Years' child.
- SOTO
That was the first of my suggestions, I suppose, because the second suggestion would require separate tit...Wait a minute. I can just use {{#replace}}.
{{#replace:{{Template name}}|''[[Range]]''|[[Character]]}} should actually leave us with exactly what we want, except for that one case of UNIT.
So yes, that is my suggestion. We can still choose between the one I sampled above, separated by character or element rather than range, and one where it just divides by range, like before. I personally think my second suggestion makes more sense in that regard.
One other choice to make is whether is stays at {{NS}}. Don't forget that {{NSA}} is New Series Adventures, definitely not New Series audio, and there could be some confusion to be had there. {{BFA NS}} would be more in line with previous audio navboxes, but, as you can see at category:audio navigation templates, we're not actually that consistent right now.
- SOTO
(Ha, imagine if Reeltime Pictures sued for the use of their character. Did the BBC have to get a license to use her name?)
- Amorkuz
I would prefer the one separated by the character/set up. Because this way they provide slightly different information and having both makes even more sense.
Regarding UNIT, I thought you had a solution for this, making a separate navbox for the new series that is never used directly on the page but only as a subnavbox.
- SOTO
Yes, I did bring that up. So I suppose that's what we'll do, then.
- SOTO
Would we do the same thing for Torchwood, or should that one be split up, anyway? Right now {{TorchwoodNovelsandAudio}} covers everything from novels to BBC Audio to radio dramas to BFTW. Probably best to split all of those up, I would think. And while we're discussing all of the audio templates, one should be created for the Third Doctor.
- SOTO
At the very least, the Big Finish series should not share a template with the BBC Books/BBC Audio/BBC Radio releases.
- SOTO
That could perhaps become "BBC Torchwood books and audios" if we don't want to touch it.
- Amorkuz
I would dispute that the current Torchwood template covers "everything": the newly minted Titan comics are missing there. What's more, as it says on the tin, "the new comics series is in continuity with the amazing new Torchwood audio dramas from Big Finish". So it might actually make sense to have one template for these two, apart from including the Torchwood audios into the New Series template, which I am advocating independently.
- SOTO
Nor does it cover the Torchwood Magazine comics of old. The SJA equivalent covers comics, as well. So when you say "one template for these two", what's these two? BF and Titan? All the Torchwood stuff?
- Amorkuz
I meant BF and Titan. By the way, speaking about precedents, it seems that for Sarah Jane, the BF content is separated from the template you mentioned into Template:BFSJS. Perhaps, it was grouped by the producer?
- SOTO
Well, the Sarah Jane Smith audio series predates The Sarah Jane Adventures, so they are not SJA audio stories. And we wouldn't want to create an all-inclusive Sarah Jane navbox, 'cause that would be immense.
Let's be honest. These are not very organised. The SJA template was not created with comics in mind. The Torchwood template was created long before it was given two new series.
- PicassoAndPringles
Torchwood comics are currently included in {{TW comics & video games}}, which, organizationally, makes zero sense as a navbox. Why group video games with comics? Also, there's only one video game, so it doesn't really need a nav at all.
- SOTO
Ha, I didn't see that. No, that makes no sense.
- Amorkuz
Looking at the various templates that have popped up in the discussion, I am getting the feeling that one should not try combining different media (comics and audio, TV and novels), at least not for series that are ongoing. There may have been a good reason to do Sarah Jane the way it was done. But I can see no reason to repeat it with BF audios. So I change my opinion that Torchwood comics should be added to the Torchwood audios template.
I understand why UNIT is combined with new UNIT (same topic, same name, same medium, same production company). I understand why River Song's (extended) cameos in Doom Coalition are worth adding to the template (same character, same medium, same production company). Combining audios with something else, let's not.
- OncomingStorm12th
Ok, it's been a while since we discussed anything on here. While it's clear we haven't reached a consensus on what to do with the navigation templates, I believe the one thing we got was: Big Finish uses "ranges" in a different way we do.
For them, it makes sense to put The Jago & Litefoot Revival and The Tenth Doctor Adventures: Volume One under the same "range", because a buyer is much more likely to find a Tenth Doctor story in "The Tenth Doctor Collected" than in "Short Trips".
However, putting Destiny of the Doctor: The Complete Adventure, Assembled and The Ninth Doctor Chronicles in the same range is just a bit messy (for our perspective).
Therefore, I believe {{NS}} really needs to be split, because each audio series in there is completly different from each other. It would be like trying to put Graceless (audio series), Charlotte Pollard (audio series), Fourth Doctor Adventures (audio series) and Doom Coalition (audio series) all in the same navbox: uninformative, and just crowded.
As of now, only The Ninth Doctor Chronicles (though, IMO, it is part of a "New Who Companion Chronicles", even though we don't have an official name yet.)
By my logic, we'd need nav for: The War Doctor (audio series), The Diary of River Song (audio series), The Churchill Years (audio series), Classic Doctors, New Monsters: Volume One and The Tenth Doctor Adventures (audio series), because these are established audio series, much like UNIT: The New Series, which does have an navbox of it's own.
"New Series" is antiquated because -- as DWM and even fan outlets like Radio Free Skaro have pointed out on diverse occasions -- "new series" is an unusual term to apply to something that is now well over a decade old. There are people alive today, indeed a substantial portion of the fanbase, who have known nothing but BBC Wales Doctor Who.
So the term "new series" creates an artificial barrier between 20th and 21st century Doctor Who that's hard to justify.
Moreover, the term wasn't strongly pushed by the BBC and has never been -- in even a loose way -- the official name of the programme as produced by BBC Wales.
It's all just Doctor Who.
So a navbox which tries to perpetuate some kind of brand identity around the term "new series" is disallowed.
This decision does not preclude the possibility of users creating navboxes for the individual ranges comprised under Big Finish's awkward "New Series" heading. But those ranges should not be combined in an act of effectively false navigation.
Nor does this ruling stop someone from creating an article about Big Finish's attempt to lump stuff together -- so long as it does not treat "New Series" as a genuine range, but rather an umbrella term which includes selections from several other ranges.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:207533
The "flashback in a dream" scenes from Divided Loyalties, in my opinion, are no reliable sources of information about the Deca OR the early lives of the Doctor, the War Chief, the Monk, the Rani, the Master, etc.
There's a rather massive continuity error:
In The Time Meddler, the First Doctor does not recognize the Monk at all. He gives absolutely no indication that the two have EVER met before. So already, Mortimus/the Monk and the Doctor being school buddies makes zero sense because if they were, the Monk would recognize him (and the Doctor probably would too). But they don't.
It's also noteworthy that the Master is referred to as "Koschei", as if that's his actual name. Which doesn't make a lick of sense whatsoever, given that he only started using the name in The Dark Path. In that, the name is an alias.
Essentially, the dream that has a "flashback" to the Doctor's school days with the Deca shouldn't be taken at face value. All information originating in that part of Divided Loyalties should be noted as potentially distorted accounts of the truth, because it's explicitly stated to be a dream. Some elements could be completely wrong. Parts of the events depicted undoubtedly happened, but we cannot be completely certain what was the original series of events as the Doctor initially experienced them. Thus, I'm suggesting that information presented there be prefaced by a statement that the info comes from a dream and thus may not be 100% accurate.
- NateBumber
I think this wiki would fall apart if we started discriminating based on perceived contradictions, and I don't know of any precedent for deeming sources unreliable in such a manner, so I'm not gonna support the requirement of such a prefacing clause. However, just because it's not required doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to include one anyway, and it'd definitely be okay for someone to add such a clause to articles that cite the dream portions of the novel. :)
- Pluto2
NateBumber wrote: I think this wiki would fall apart if we started discriminating based on perceived contradictions, and I don't know of any precedent for deeming sources unreliable in such a manner, so I'm not gonna support the requirement of such a prefacing clause. However, just because it's not required doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to include one anyway, and it'd definitely be okay for someone to add such a clause to articles that cite the dream portions of the novel. :)
All I'm asking is for us to mark stuff that occurred in the dream as having occurred in a dream.
- NateBumber
Pluto2 wrote: All I'm asking is for us to mark stuff that occurred in the dream as having occurred in a dream.
And I think you should go for it!
- SOTO
Just because something contradicts with television does not mean it's any less of a valid or reputable source. Doctor Who has been around for 53 years: everything contradicts everything else, especially as far as early Hartnell episodes are concerned. The Doctor has one heart, the Daleks move with static electricity on only certain floors rather than with wheels like Davros created them, etc. The Monk's history in general does not seem to follow any one straight line, with various sources contradicting each other.
What we do is what we always do: "According to one account..." "According to another..."
- Revanvolatrelundar
The sequence shouldn't be deemed invalid. Like a great many other novels, it contains material that doesn't fit with other sources. I read the novel earlier this year and I don't even think the whole "dream" argument stands up anyway; Adric has these same sequences and seems to relate to them like he was revisiting old memories.
I think the main problem with the Divided Loyalties stuff is that people simply don't like the novel, and what is contained within it; which sadly is not enough reason to shun it from what we cover on the wiki. The back of the novel even contains a chapter on what has happened to all of the Deca since the flashback sequence, relating to the reader the events of some of the New Adventures and PDAs that they subsequently appeared in. That says to me that Gary Russell also sees the sequence as actually have happened.
- Pluto2
Revanvolatrelundar wrote: The sequence shouldn't be deemed invalid. Like a great many other novels, it contains material that doesn't fit with other sources. I read the novel earlier this year and I don't even think the whole "dream" argument stands up anyway; Adric has these same sequences and seems to relate to them like he was revisiting old memories. I think the main problem with the Divided Loyalties stuff is that people simply don't like the novel, and what is contained within it; which sadly is not enough reason to shun it from what we cover on the wiki. The back of the novel even contains a chapter on what has happened to all of the Deca since the flashback sequence, relating to the reader the events of some of the New Adventures and PDAs that they subsequently appeared in. That says to me that Gary Russell also sees the sequence as actually have happened.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying the dream version should not be considered completely identical to what actually happened. The events in it happened in some way, just perhaps not the way we read them.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with qualifying where the information came from. Anyone who feels strongly that this information is suspect can point out (in an accurate manner) that it is derived from a dream. A clever choice of qualifying words can convey a possibility of doubts without directly contradicting the narrative.
Again, as pointed out upthread, this is far from being a unique situation that we doubt things that are said in-universe. One of the more obvious recent examples is the Twelfth Doctor calling himself "Basil". The current description of this is "The Doctor claimed his first name was Basil when questioning Osgood about what her given name was." The doubt here is seeded into the word "claimed", which bears the connotation of stating without basis.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:207867
Apparently a good deal of info on this story is incorrect: Source
Can someone fix all the incorrect info, including the title, from this story across the wiki? So much of what's written in our articles is erroneous in regards to this story.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208233
Hey all :)
Some people have been angered or confused by my recent closure of the Faction Paradox thread. I'm sorry to have upset anyone during the holiday season, and I apologise for it. I'm hoping, though, that the dismay comes from misunderstanding rather than implacable disagreement, so I wanted to talk through a few points that have been raised over the past day or so.
How discussions are closed here[[edit] | [edit source]]
One thing some seem to dislike is that I closed the thread with a single comment, and then didn't allow response after that. Those who don't regularly use our forums may see that as a "shocking" disregard of the community, but it's completely commonplace. Once a discussion has attracted a broad range of views, it has to be closed somehow. The method we've adopted around here is modelled after one in use at Wikipedia. We try to find an admin who has not yet participated in the discussion to write up the conclusion that closes the thread. This is as near as we can reasonably come to objectivity.
Unfortunately, we can't do it all the time. At any given moment, some admin may be on hiatus, and we may not have the luxury of choice. That's just a consequence of having a volunteer admin team and the need to make a call and move on.
But the choice was available here. SOTO, Shambala108 and PandP had handled some recent closures, and — having missed the early conversation — I was simply next up on the docket. The thread had already amassed 127 responses, was beginning to load slowly on mobile devices, and had participants who were seemingly begging for closure, anyway.
Let me hover on that 127 for a second. For those who don't regularly use our forums, but who are just interested in this one particular discussion, 127 responses is an astronomical number. Anyone experienced with Fandom would know that there are only a handful of genuine discussion threads across the entire Fandom network of wikis that ever get to triple digits. Beyond that, the word count on many of the most substantive posts was extraordinary. These were well-reasoned, dense arguments — not just a series of one-word responses. So it's completely fair and safe to say that we had a "good conversation", and that it was in no way premature to close it.
Finally, it's standard procedure that the closing admin also ends further comments on the thread. The Matrix Archives has lots of threads where that's demonstrably the case. Nothing exceptional, untoward, or "sneaky" has been done here. If you don't close the discussion at the same time as you issue the final findings, then that just means you've joined the conversation and have made it more difficult to achieve an objective closure at a later date. So many admin had already participated that this was a genuine concern.
(Indeed, it is why, for instance, I can't close the debate about Scream of the Shalka and wasn't the one who closed the Vienna conversation. I'm fully a part of both of them.)
The decision itself[[edit] | [edit source]]
I think the reason some are treating the routine closing of this thread so negatively is because my closing statement has been misconstrued as rejecting Faction Paradox in the face of an overwhelmingly good set of arguments. And if that were the case, I could understand the negativity. But I didn't reject FP as a valid source.
When you boil down the 127 responses, they come to this. NateBumber put forward two pathways for FP inclusion: re-merge to Tardis or build the content at FP Wiki. I accepted the latter, because I felt the technical realities of Fandom/MediaWiki software made that the more reasonable, practical, and copyright-protective option. Moreover, the integrated nature of wikis here on the Fandom platform presented an opportunity to curate the FP material well, but still make it easily-accessible to any Tardis reader.
In my read of things, Nate never proposed something like "keep the status quo", so maintaining the invalidity of FP material wasn't even on the table. The question he ultimately advanced was, "Now that I've proven that FP is valid, do we re-merge the material from FP Wiki, or do we build it at FP Wiki?" Since his proposal inherently included the notion of FP validity, and everyone was agreed to that, it didn't occur to me that I needed to adjudicate it. The question was merely one of where it would happen, and what might be the technical, realistic considerations involved.
Why the FP wiki is good for FP fandom[[edit] | [edit source]]
Although I mentioned interwiki linking in my closing argument, maybe I assumed everyone knew what I was talking about and didn't explain it quite as fully as I could have. So I'm gonna take a Christmas do-over here.
Consider Barry Allen at the DC Database and Barry Allen at the Arrowverse Wiki. Ask yourself what's the point of Yoda at the Muppet Wiki, Yoda at The Clone Wars Wiki and Yoda at Wookieepedia.
The same subjects, at different wikis, allow for articles to be curated from different perspectives.
Some readers don't care at all what The Flash is like in comic books; their Flash fandom is really just about Grant Gustin's Barry Allen. So they avoid DC in favour of Arrowverse. That gives them deeper information about the part of DC they love. And, yes, The Clone Wars is a valid part of the Star Wars continuity, so there's obviously a page at starwars:Yoda. But if what you're really interested in is the way he was depicted during the events of the Clone Wars, you may find that the better article — for you — is clonewars:Yoda. It can delve deeper into that time period, and it won't have Wookieepedia editors excising material because they're making a good faith effort to balance the article across all of Yoda's life.
Going forward[[edit] | [edit source]]
And that's the promise of the main curation being done at FP Wiki. Yes, obviously, Nate has proven the point that FP material is valid here, and T:VS will be re-written to reflect that.
But having deep, rich content about FP at FP is not only technically easier, but better for the content. Take, for instance, an article on London. At FP Wiki, you'll be able to explore fully the London described in FP works. Give readers the entire deal. Meanwhile, back here at Tardis, you can give a short summary of FP events involving London — but put up a little note that tells readers to go to the FP Wiki for more information if they want. It's easy. That way, Tardis articles don't end up unbalanced towards FP content, but rich FP content — well-linked to Tardis — has a place to grow to its natural limits.
I think understanding this has encouraged Nate to apply to be an admin at the FP Wiki. He seems enthusiastic about this, saying last night: ". . . this wiki has lots of potential. I'm willing to work very hard in every way to help it grow into something great! Please consider me in the eager running for admin here."
His application was accepted promptly, and he is now an admin there. And Tardis admin will be working with him in the days ahead to give greater detail to the ties between the two wikis.
Of course, you don't need to be an admin to do great work there. No article, policy page, or part of the front page has ever been locked down there. As far as I can recall, all of the copy there has been freely editable since the day it was put up, almost five years ago. That's because all of it was just starter copy — a placeholder for people who would come later. None of it was ever meant to last this long or to be any sort of immutable "truth". Absolutely none of it was any sort of deep, personal statement on my part. Especially not P:CAN, the page that seems to flummox several people. That thing is so old and wrong that I've already suggested to Nate it should be one of the first things he fixes.
Help Nate grow FP Wiki and then link the material back here in all sorts of creative and intelligent ways.
- Pluto2
So can we treat FP works equally here? Can we make entire, original, articles on books, etc.?
- 90.216.134.197
What a crock. You high handedly closed down a discussion which had come to a consensus which you disagreed with - you clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works (or are deliberately lying). The model for lcosing inclusion/exclusion debates you claim to have 'adopted around here' is NOT modelled after one in use at Wikipedia - there an amdin not involved comes along, checks what the community as expressed in the discussion have decided and closes on that basis. Clearly in this case the community had decided to allow FP on the Wiki, but you decided you knew better - the polar opposite to how Wikipedia works. It's obvious that there is no point in working on any Wiki you are connected with, including this one.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
90.216.134.197 wrote: What a crock. You high handedly closed down a discussion which had come to a consensus which you disagreed with - you clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works (or are deliberately lying). The model for lcosing inclusion/exclusion debates you claim to have 'adopted around here' is NOT modelled after one in use at Wikipedia - there an amdin not involved comes along, checks what the community as expressed in the discussion have decided and closes on that basis. Clearly in this case the community had decided to allow FP on the Wiki, but you decided you knew better - the polar opposite to how Wikipedia works. It's obvious that there is no point in working on any Wiki you are connected with, including this one.
Please stop this, ISP.
You're better than this, it's a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks.
- Pluto2
90.216.134.197 wrote: What a crock. You high handedly closed down a discussion which had come to a consensus which you disagreed with - you clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works (or are deliberately lying). The model for lcosing inclusion/exclusion debates you claim to have 'adopted around here' is NOT modelled after one in use at Wikipedia - there an amdin not involved comes along, checks what the community as expressed in the discussion have decided and closes on that basis. Clearly in this case the community had decided to allow FP on the Wiki, but you decided you knew better - the polar opposite to how Wikipedia works. It's obvious that there is no point in working on any Wiki you are connected with, including this one.
But it IS allowed here now.
- 86.4.239.22
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:
Please stop this, Phillip Purser-Hallard.Philip Purser-Hallard here. That wasn't me, and I'd appreciate an immediate apology and retraction, please. - 86.4.239.22
Philip Purser-Hallard here. That wasn't me, and I'd appreciate an immediate apology and retraction, please.
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Please stop this, Phillip Purser-Hallard.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
86.4.239.22 wrote:
Philip Purser-Hallard here. That wasn't me, and I'd appreciate an immediate apology and retraction, please.DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Please stop this, Phillip Purser-Hallard.
Very sorry. It's just that the only pages that ISP had edited were, well... Philip Purser-Hallard and the works of Philip Purser-Hallard.
I made a daft assumption and I'm very sorry.
Though my belief that it as a user whom participated in the FP thread still stands.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
CzechOut wrote:
Take, for instance, an article on London. At FP Wiki, you'll be able to explore fully the London described in FP works. Give readers the entire deal. Meanwhile, back here at Tardis, you can give a short summary of FP events involving London — but put up a little note that tells readers to go to the FP Wiki for more information if they want.
Anyway anonymous IPs, Czech My good pal has said that FP is now included in this wiki but at a normal degree.
But it's also included at the FP wiki in a bigger degree.
So feel free to create pages on your works as there's probably no one better to do it.
Best wishes.
- AndrewHickey
Yes, obviously, Nate has proven the point that FP material is valid here, and T:VS will be re-written to reflect that.
That was all that needed to be said. You didn't say that in the original post, and said a *lot* of things that implied otherwise.
- TheChampionOfTime
This is all quite exciting, is there any chance that the logo of the Faction Paradox wiki could be added to Template:Fpx like how they have the tardis logo in their template to link back here?
- SeaniesBeanies
So how intertwined are we supposed to make the wikis? Are we going to do something similar to the Wookieepedia/Clone Wars wikis by covering FP content here (such as with Cwejens) to a moderate extent and then linking to the appropriate page on the FP wiki for more detailed information? I'm sorry if I'm making this more complex than it needs to be, but I think that without guidlines for implementing the recent change re Faction Paradox, the work building up the separate wiki could go unread for Tardis users who want to see it, as well as for those who expect Faction Paradox to be on this wiki in the first place.
- Josiah Rowe
An aside: per CzechOut's comment above, I've taken the liberty of editing Tardis:Valid sources to remove the references to Faction Paradox. I considered attempting a summary of the recent debate, but in the end I decided that removing the "analogous elements" language and the line saying that FP was excluded would be clearest. If others disagree with this edit, please let me know. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:23, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
- NateBumber
Just for posterity's sake, I'd like to remind everyone about the standards we set in Thread:206566 for adding Faction Paradox material to pages. First, a page should use the terminology of the series it belongs to. If a story calls Gallifrey "Gallifrey", call it that in the article; if it calls Gallifrey "the Homeworld", call it the Homeworld. If it's a concept from both (like Cwejen or Celestis), say "the Great Houses of the Time Lords" instead of Time Lords the first time, and then just use the appropriate terminology from the story you're citing for each statement.
Secondly and most importantly, if and only if it's explicitly stated in-text that a Faction Paradox character or concept is a Doctor Who character or concept, then and only then can we put FP information on that article here. Otherwise, a separate page must be made, like War King vs the Master or the Mistress vs Romana. Information about the Imperator does not belong on the page for Morbius.
This is tricky, since the majority of instances are indeed stated in-text! A significant example is that the Great Houses are stated to be Time Lords in The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel, so it's fine to send links to the Great Houses' timeships to TARDIS, their homeworld to Gallifrey, or their prison planet to Shada. However, this does not let us say that the Master is the War King, or that Morbius is the Imperator, or that Lolita is the Master's TARDIS (she's just the War King's)! Any subtext or insinuation belongs in the "Behind the scenes" section and that section only. I plan on continually updating this list to reflect which references are admissible for our standards; the number of admissible references vastly outnumber the inadmissible, but these exceptions must be noted. Thank you.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: Secondly and most importantly, if and only if it's explicitly stated in-text that a Faction Paradox character or concept is a Doctor Who character or concept, then and only then can we put FP information on that article here. Otherwise, a separate page must be made, like War King vs the Master or the Mistress vs Romana. Information about the Imperator does not belong on the page for Morbius.
Any subtext or insinuation belongs in the "Behind the scenes" section and that section only. I plan on continually updating this list to reflect which references are admissible for our standards; the number of admissible references vastly outnumber the inadmissible, but these exceptions must be noted. Thank you.
I found a violation of this rule on the page Toy Story (short story). There the Pilot is linked to the Eighth Doctor, the Male Companion to Fitz Kreiner, and the Ship to The Doctor's TARDIS. Unfortunately, no supporting evidence is provided (perhaps, because it is a very recent page). I have asked the creator of the page for the underlying evidence, in case NateBumber previously missed it. In the list kindly compiled by him, it is clearly stated that the link to the Doctor's TARDIS and to Fitz Kreiner is not admissible for this wiki.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208336
Excuse me if this is the wrong place to write about this, but I've noticed a strange error where the category Robots won't appear, however it says it's there. I'm curious as to whether this is just on my part - or if this happens to everyone, and if there is a way to fix this?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Robots is a hidden category, as it's part of the game of rassilon.
You'll see it in source editor.
- StevieGLiverpool
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Robots is a hidden category, as it's part of the game of rassilon.
You'll see it in source editor.
What's a hidden category and why do 'hidden categories' exist?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
As they're in the point system.
Also pal, you're a constant editor, so be sure to give source editor a try.
- StevieGLiverpool
I'm aware of source editor, I use it all the time, and so I know the category is there. I'm just unsure as to why it isn't visible when looking at the article.
- TheChampionOfTime
You can change your setting so that you see hidden categories by clicking your icon in the top right and going into "my preferences".
- StevieGLiverpool
Thanks. I still don't understand why hidden categories are a thing?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208391
For each kind of story, we are lucky if the publisher provides even one official summary/synopsis. And Titan provides two of those for each issue. This post suggests to look if we cannot use them more efficiently.
Here is what Titan provides for each issue:
- Summary, which is available before the purchase and, thus, is designed to entice you to buy the issue without disclosing any plot twists.
- Section entitled "Previously..." at the beginning of each issue. It is only available after the purchase and summarises the contents of the previous issue (or sets the stage for the whole series in case of the first issue). Since this section is designed to bring the reader up-to-speed on where things are, it usually provides an accurate if short synopsis of the previous issue.
Note also that most Titan stories are multi-issue stories, meaning that each story is supplied with several summaries and several synopses.
Of all this multitude of information, we are currently using only the summary of the first issue of each story. I propose to see if it is viable to harvest more information, especially for multi-issue stories. I use the first story in the Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor comic book series as a guinea pig. The story in question is Revolutions of Terror and it comprises 3 issues.
In the following posts I present
- Exhibit A: what we currently harvest;
- Exhibit B: how the summary of all 3 issues glued together looks;
- Exhibit C: how the combined synopses of the first 4 issues look (the 4th one containing the recap of issue 3).
My suggestions follow the exhibits.
- Amorkuz
Exhibit A (what is already used)
Summary of Issue 1[[edit] | [edit source]]
Gabriella Gonzalez is stuck in a dead-end job in her family's New York Laundromat, dreaming of college and bigger, better and brighter things.
So when a strange man with an even stranger big blue box barges into her life on the eve of the Day of the Dead celebrations - talking about an infestation of psychic aliens - she seizes her chance for adventure with both hands.
After Donna's tragic exit, the Doctor thought he was done with new companions. But Gabby Gonzalez is going to prove him wrong... if she survives the night!
Comment[[edit] | [edit source]]
Certain real-world information is removed from this summary compared to the publisher website (e.g., artists, "Tenth Doctor is back for a new series of adventures", etc.)
- Amorkuz
Exhibit B
Summary of Issues 1-3[[edit] | [edit source]]
Summary of Issue 1[[edit] | [edit source]]
Gabriella Gonzalez is stuck in a dead-end job in her family's New York Laundromat, dreaming of college and bigger, better and brighter things.
So when a strange man with an even stranger big blue box barges into her life on the eve of the Day of the Dead celebrations - talking about an infestation of psychic aliens - she seizes her chance for adventure with both hands.
After Donna's tragic exit, the Doctor thought he was done with new companions. But Gabby Gonzalez is going to prove him wrong... if she survives the night!
Summary of Issue 2[[edit] | [edit source]]
All Gabriella Gonzalez wanted was to skip her shift at the Laundromat and hang out with her friends. It's Halloween, and Sunset Park is hosting its first-ever Day of the Dead festival!
But her father wouldn't listen - again - and now Gabby is stuck with a store full of empty washing machines while the rest of the neighborhood goes wild.
But this graveyard shift is living up to its name! Vortexes explode out of the machines, shadowy creatures stalk on the edge of sight, and Gabby finds herself pursued by unearthly forces.
Finally, on the longest night of her life, Gabby is trapped in a powerless subway car - and the only thing standing between her and horrific death-by-monster is some skinny white guy in a suit - who's waving a blue flashlight around!
If Gabby survives this - she's going to kill him!
Summary of Issue 3[[edit] | [edit source]]
Torn between the homeworld of vicious psychic parasites, and the worsening chaos in Sunset Park, the Doctor must battle through his worst nightmares in order to save the lives of everyone in New York - and the world!
His sole ally, if she's strong enough to withstand the aliens' psychic predations? Gabriella Gonzalez!
With the help of a trusty Sonic Screwdriver and a frustrated Mexican-American artist, trapped in her father's Laundromat... can the Doctor defeat the ultimate bad spirits?
And what will be left of Gabby's corner of the world if she and the Doctor succeed?
Comment[[edit] | [edit source]]
Certain real-world information is removed from these summaries as in Exhibit A.
- Amorkuz
Exhibit C
"Previously..." sections of issues 1-4[[edit] | [edit source]]
Recap in Issue 1[[edit] | [edit source]]
It can be wonderful to explore all of time and space at the Doctor’s side, but the universe can also be a dark and dangerous place - as the Doctor’s most recent companion, Donna Noble, found to her cost. Forced to leave her behind, the Doctor has since been wandering alone. But no matter how far he travels, or how long, something always brings him back to Earth…
Recap in Issue 2[[edit] | [edit source]]
Gabriela Gonzalez was working late at her father’s laundromat - when a vortex exploded out of every machine! Now terror has gripped her corner of Sunset Park: Gabby’s future brother-in-law, Hector, claims he saw the Devil; her grandmother saw a demonic vision of her dead husband. Evil sights abound, strange things are everywhere - and Gabby is right smack in the middle of them! Never more so than right now: trapped in a Subway car by a monster wearing her face. Her only help - some skinny guy in a suit who won’t stop waving a little blue flashlight around!
Recap in Issue 3[[edit] | [edit source]]
Terror has gripped Sunset Park, Brooklyn on the Day of the Dead, in the form of Cerebravores, manifesting as people’s worst fears! The Doctor’s investigation set him on a collision course with the irrepressibly curious Gabriela Gonzalez, and, after saving her from a Cerebravore on the Subway, the pair tracked the incursion back to Gabby’s father’s laundromat, where strange vibrations had opened a wormhole! The Doctor left Gabby to keep the bizarre wormhole open, while he traveled to the other end of the dimensional bridge. Both now find themselves under attack!
Recap in Issue 4[[edit] | [edit source]]
After helping to defeat the monstrous Cerebravores - weaponized, mood-altering parasites that feed on fear - Gabby Gonzalez has convinced the Doctor to take her with him… for just one trip
So begins Gabby’s first trip in the TARDIS…
- Amorkuz
My thoughts about summaries.
Summaries are repetitive. They reintroduce the same character and reuse the same tricks to capture your attention. They even contradict each other: Issue 1 says Gabby wants to get out of the Laundromat to go to college; Issue 2 says she wants to get out of the Laundromat to hang out with her friends. Also these summaries are designed to give incomplete information.
So it seems that having only the first of the summaries, as we do now, is the most reasonable thing.
- Amorkuz
My thoughts about recaps.
Recaps, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish altogether. Try reading recaps 2-4 as one text. Don't you feel like you know, roughly, what the story is about? There are minor characters mentioned. The main enemy is named. When one thing is mentioned twice, there seems to be a development. I think this really is a ready-made synopsis.
Is it better than the full-scale plot? Of course not. A carefully written plot is a thing to cherish and I salute all those who write them. It's also a hard thing to do, even for a comic story. To my eye, plots is the least developed part of this wiki across all types of stories. That includes the comic stories: many lack plots. In the Tenth Doctor Titan comics, more than half of the stories lack plots completely.
Wouldn't it then make sense to use these publisher's synopses as a stop-gap measure, as better than nothing?
This would require a lot of work for sure. And there are certain subtle moments:
- For one thing, the "Previously..." sections cannot be cut-and-pasted. They need to be typed by hand from the comic.
- Secondly, the first issue of the next story may contain some intro to it that should not be part of the synopsis (in the Exhibit C, this is the last sentence of the recap of Issue 4).
- Thirdly, some one-off stories would not have such recaps because they have not following story.
- Fourthly, some special mini-series may not have such a recap for the last issue, or at least it may not be obvious where to search for it.
Nevertheless, this may be worth a try. What do you think?
- OttselSpy25
My first thought is that if we do include recaps, we can't simply only include stories from TITAN comics. Stories as far back as the first comic of all time, The Klepton Parasites, have also had "last time" text. Otherwise, I think it would be a healthy addition.
- Amorkuz
Yes, agreed.
The only proviso is that it should not be applied blindly. For instance, some publishers may have chosen to include real-world information into their recaps. In fact, even in the snapshot provided (I'm really envious to see the rarities we as a hive mind have access to), even there the use of "Dr. Who" might need to be debated since it is not a correct in-universe reference.
- OttselSpy25
Well, back then "Dr. Who" was his name in many mediums, so it is correct in that aspect. Changing Dr. Who to "The Doctor" would be like changing Doctor Who and the Silurians into The Doctor and the Homoraptilia.
I think we only change Dr. Who to Doctor in-universe because we've basically decided just to see it as an over-glorified typo.
Anyways, while I think for summaries cutting out o.o.u. stuff makes sense, for recaps I think it would be fine to leave it in. If a recap says "In the last issue..." that's how we should write it.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208475
In cases such as Lolita, who is a sentient TARDIS, but has only appeared in FP works and thus has only been referred to as a timeship...
Should we:
A) Just call her a TARDIS,
Or B) Do timeship, where it says timeship in the text but clicking takes you to TARDIS.
Which do we use here?
- DENCH-and-PALMER
It'd be speculation to say she was a "TARDIS", so in these instances, a separate page would be adequate.
- Pluto2
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: It'd be speculation to say she was a "TARDIS", so in these instances, a separate page would be adequate.
But it's stated she's the War King's timeship, if I'm not mistaken...and the War King is a Time Lord. Timeship is used in two ways:
1. To refer to TARDISes
2. To refer to any craft capable of travelling in time.
In this case, we know she's a TARDIS. Compassion is also called a timeship in FP, but again, we know she's a TARDIS. In her case, it's because the EDAs call her a TARDIS.
- Thefartydoctor
Do any novels ever refer to "Lolita" as a "TARDIS"? If not, it is unfortunately speculation. I don't doubt it's hinted she's a TARDIS and I'm certain that the writer, the characters and the readers ALL know she's a TARDIS. But if at no point she's literally referred to as a "TARDIS", then we can't call her a TARDIS.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: Do any novels ever refer to "Lolita" as a "TARDIS"? If not, it is unfortunately speculation. I don't doubt it's hinted she's a TARDIS and I'm certain that the writer, the characters and the readers ALL know she's a TARDIS. But if at no point she's literally referred to as a "TARDIS", then we can't call her a TARDIS.
Toy Story calls her the War King's timeship - with timeship here meaning the vehicles used by the Great Houses.
- Thefartydoctor
It's a difficult one, I grant you that. The problem being that if "timeship" refers to a ship that has the capability to travel in time... then we can't rule out that the Great Houses used any other ships to travel in time. It sounds stupid but we can't just jump to conclusions. "Timeship" is a generic term; "TARDIS" isn't. This Wiki is strict and you need it to be completely spelt out by the text that in this situation timeship = TARDIS, even if you and I both know that it is.
These rules are here for a reason. It stops two people coming along and writing two completely different facts about the same thing. :/
- TheChampionOfTime
Well, in In the Year of the Cat, Lolita is stated to be a descendant of Compassion, who is explicitly said to be a TARDIS in the BBC Books.
But anyway, it was my understanding that Faction Paradox would be treated like The Choice. Anything that Obverse Books and Mad Norwegian Press cannot directly state is something from Doctor Who should get its own separate page. Why not just create Humanoid timeship?
- Pluto2
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Well, in In the Year of the Cat, Lolita is stated to be a descendant of Compassion, who is explicitly said to be a TARDIS in the BBC Books.
But anyway, it was my understanding that Faction Paradox would be treated like The Choice. Anything that Obverse Books and Mad Norwegian Press cannot directly state is something from Doctor Who should get its own separate page. Why not just create Humanoid timeship?
In that case, given Lolita is Compassion's descendant, isn't that enough?
- Thefartydoctor
The problem is evidently that you FP readers evidently know she's a TARDIS. Non-FP readers like me evidently understand she's a TARDIS from your Wiki articles and explanations... but the novels don't specifically state the word "TARDIS", therefore this Wiki is a bit dodgy on the area. We need to wait for an admin's opinion. :)
I join TheChampionOfTime in believing that the best solution is to create parallel pages for everything that is not explicitly stated to belong to the rest of the DWU and provide copious notes in BHS sections of both the main page and the parallel page, explaining what is known and what is speculation.
Otherwise, we will get bogged down in conflicts such as an attempt to write Lolita in as a sister of The Doctor's TARDIS before it is even decided whether Lolita herself is a TARDIS at all.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208539
is there a category or a place that tells you all the classic monsters or characters that have appeared in modern who
- SeaniesBeanies
I don't believe so, no
- 86.166.43.150
It is a category that is too vague due to other media during "The Wilderness Years".
- Alexj98
damn okay this is not linked but I my other question is in revelation of the daleks why does the doctor say one race of robots against another w
- SeaniesBeanies
Are you talking about the two different Dalek factions? The Imperials and the Renegades? If so then that is what it is alluding to.
P.S. I myself am not going to penalise you for it in a short thread such as this, but you really should open a new thread if you have separate query, as it could derail discussion in larger threads.
Happy to answer your query :)
- Alexj98
yeah ok just help me with this and the thread can be closed I meant the movellans from ressurection
- SeaniesBeanies
Oh in which case he's talking about Daleks vs Movellans, which are humanoid androids with unconvincing hair that have tried to kill the Daleks in a war, shown in Destiny of the Daleks.
Hope that helps
- Alexj98
yeah I knew that what I meant was why does the doctor say the daleks are robots
- SeaniesBeanies
Probably a generalisation or scripting error. The Daleks are very much not robots lol. You've got to remember, the average viewer probably couldn't care less about what the Daleks actually were and probably assumed they were robots anyway
- Alexj98
ok
- SOTO
I struggle to find the line you speak of.
- Alexj98
okay Ive found it he speaks the line at exactly 4.23 in episode 4 of destiny of the daleks
- Alexj98
and here is a transcript from the episode
DOCTOR: Robots! Of course! SHARREL: Welcome back, Doctor. DOCTOR: One race of robots fighting another. Is she going to be all right?
- SOTO
Ah, it's in Destiny. I was looking at the two other serials mentioned. Daleks are cyborg, so sort of half-robot. You'd think Terry Nation of all people should know they're not really robots, but I guess he wanted to make a point.
- Alexj98
that's what I would say have you seen the trailer for the new series Ive found something cool about it if u wanna know
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208590
This should be quite open and shut as I can imagine what the answer will be, but is there protection against us copying and pasting plot synopses for stories from other sites, even if we credit the site we got them from? Or would we be required to ask permission first?
If we can do this then I would imagine that the wiki would be much improved and be much more helpful to the end user who would want to understand the contents of certain stories but can't due to empty plot sections.
I would also like to apologise to all of you for my overuse of the term "end user"- it's a bit annoying.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208629
This is a proposal that might be controversial.
I know we simplified prefixes a few years ago. I'm not asking to undo that, at all.
What I'm suggesting is that short stories be given their own prefix. SHORT or something. PROSE would be restricted to novels, novelizations, and novellas. There's just so many short stories, and it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between a short story and a book. With the other prefixes, it's quite clear what they mean - TV is television. WC is webcast. AUDIO is an audio story. COMIC is a comic story. HOMEVID is home video. GAME is a video game. But PROSE is a catch-all for everything text-based. It doesn't tell you much, and you have to mouse over the title to see whether it's a novel or a short story. So I'm proposing we move short stories to a separate prefix - SHORT, maybe.
- SOTO
There has been talk in the past among some of the admin about merging TV/WC/HOMEVID into just TV or VID, as nowaday's there isn't much of a useful distinction (Night of the Doctor and Class being perfect examples of why). We have just AUDIO for anything in audio format; not AUDIO and RADIO. I see no reason to give short stories any sort of special treatment.
When we consolidated the prefixes back in 2012, we had in mind to have the fewest possible number of prefixes, so just one for every medium.
- 82.3.146.201
SOTO wrote: There has been talk in the past among some of the admin about merging TV/WC/HOMEVID into just TV or VID, as nowaday's there isn't much of a useful distinction (Night of the Doctor and Class being perfect examples of why). We have just AUDIO for anything in audio format; not AUDIO and RADIO. I see no reason to give short stories any sort of special treatment.
When we consolidated the prefixes back in 2012, we had in mind to have the fewest possible number of prefixes, so just one for every medium.
I agree, PROSE covers all quite nicely.
Also, SOTO's idea of merging TV/HOMEVID/WC would be cool. It'd be a lot easier than now, and it'd follow other disambiguation terminology for stories.
- NateBumber
- AeD
Not that it's a vote, but I'd vote against merging TV/HOMEVID/WC into "VID" or into anything, and would rather just see a clear guideline established for what goes where -- the distinction may not be super useful for new material in 2017, but there's still loads of material it was useful enough for that the distinction was made in the first place.
re: SHORT: Would the new style of Big Finish Short Trips be included in "SHORT"? Because either way, that's probably gonna get messy.
- 5.150.101.80
Yeah I agree that either the TV, WC and HOMEVID should be merged or they should have updated definitions. Or maybe instead of merging them, we just start using TV for all iPlayer-based stories and stories on DVD extras. Either way, it'd be simpler to distinguish dab terms once an option has been taken.
- SeaniesBeanies
5.150.101.80 wrote: Yeah I agree that either the TV, WC and HOMEVID should be merged or they should have updated definitions. Or maybe instead of merging them, we just start using TV for all iPlayer-based stories and stories on DVD extras. Either way, it'd be simpler to distinguish dab terms once an option has been taken.
I apologise, the above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in :)
As SOTO has already pointed out, there's no reason to do so.
Pluto2 said: I know we simplified prefixes a few years ago. I'm not asking to undo that, at all.
But you are. You're asking for a technically complicated, multi-hour (maybe even multi-day) bot run which would discover which stories are now classed SHORT and to replace PROSE with SHORT in those cases, and only those cases.
You're also asking for us to untangle what has been merged for years. There are many instances where people may have mixed together short stories, novelas and novels into a single citation. So you might have([[PROSE]]: Short story, Novela, Novel)A fairly sophisticated bot run would have to be created in order to create
([[SHORT]]: Short story; [[PROSE]]: Novela, Novel)
The bot run made back in the day never contemplated the idea of somehow returning to a separation of prose styles. It was meant to be permanent. There was a reasonable discussion period then and a very long time was taken to create the bots necessary to accomplish it. No markers were put in place that a bot could now look for and use. The act of separating them now is legitimately difficult.
Besides which, all media are equal here, so this distinction being proposed is really quite against the spirit of the wiki. Whether a thing came from a short story or a novel is completely immaterial to its validity as a source -- and PROSE and SHORT are solely about sourcing.
So we won't be doing this.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208635
Back in the the 1960s, they released Give-a-Show Projector slides.
Each one had a little story.
What prefixes and dabs should we use? COMIC? Should we create a new prefix called SLIDE?
Just curious here.
- SeaniesBeanies
Can you explain what specifically are on the slides? Is it a picture with a caption or a genuine comic slide? If it is a captioned picture, then it would be PROSE, as it's technically a short story; if a comic, then it would be COMIC. I would look to PROSE: Doctor Who and the Daleks as a sort of example for this kind of thing.
Also, are these stories officially licensed? And if so, are they original stories or clippings from TV broadcasts? I feel as if more information is needed if we are going to mark it as a valid source.
- SOTO
You can find them online with a simple Google search. I can't speak for licensing, but they do appear to be fully original comic stories, with speech bubbles and everything. I agree that more information is needed.
- Pluto2
SeaniesBeanies wrote: Can you explain what specifically are on the slides? Is it a picture with a caption or a genuine comic slide? If it is a captioned picture, then it would be PROSE, as it's technically a short story; if a comic, then it would be COMIC. I would look to PROSE: Doctor Who and the Daleks as a sort of example for this kind of thing.
Also, are these stories officially licensed? And if so, are they original stories or clippings from TV broadcasts? I feel as if more information is needed if we are going to mark it as a valid source.
They're original stories. A few retell existing episodes. The rest are original stories.
- Pluto2
What SOTO said. They're comic stories.
- SeaniesBeanies
It's from Chad Valley so I would imagine the licensing was all there, but I can't be entirely sure if I'm honest.
- 82.3.146.201
- The Secrets of the Tardis (a re-telling of An Unearthly Child)
- Doctor Who in Lilliput (a re-telling of Planet of Giants)
- On the Planet Vortis
- The Zarbi Are Destroyed (re-tellings of The Web Planet)
- Dr. Who in the Spider's Web
- Dr. Who on the Aqua Planet
- The Ice-Age Monster
- Dr. Who Meets the Watermen
- The Daleks Destroy the Zomites
- Escape from the Aquafien
- Where Diamonds Are Worthless
- The Prehistoric Monster
- Dr. Who and the Nerve Machine
- The Daleks Are Foiled
- Rescued from the Daleks
- The Defeat of the Daleks
These are the stories. - AeD
Weren't these a DVD extra somewhere? I can't imagine they're unlicensed.
- AeD
Given only pre-existing prefixes to choose from, I'd go for COMIC.
- SOTO
Even if they were, unlicensed stories have been released as DVD extras before: Devious, for example.
- SOTO
You were correct. They were released with The Chase in 2010.
- SeaniesBeanies
I guess they're a valid source then? Apart from the retellings of course, that would be like the Target novelisation situation, I'd imagine. I think you've got the OK to make the pages here, Pluto2, whether the stories are valid or not :)
- SOTO
I think we should wait until we reach some sort of conclusion here, so there's no clean-up involved once a decision is reached. Can we find some proof of licensing?
- SOTO
[12] claims they were "Chad Valley/BBC", but I don't know what their sources are on that. I struggle to find anything else on the matter, really. I would imagine they had a license deal.
- SOTO
Our page says they were produced by Kenner. Is the article referring to an American version? The British version, I gather, was produced by Chad Valley.
- SeaniesBeanies
If that website is what it appears to be, a collection of this person's memorabilia, then there's most likely a photo of it on there somewhere, and it should say on the box. We could go through all of the pictures to find out, or we could ask the website's owner for confirmation maybe?
- SOTO
I don't know why I didn't think of checking pictures.
Here: "112 colour slides, showing 16 complete stories of the BBC tv exciting Dr Who adventures". And indeed, they were produced and distributed by Chad Valley.
- SOTO
Licensed? Yes. Stories? Yes. Intended to be part of the "Dr Who" universe? Yes. Officially released? Yup. These do seem to pass them all.
The stories retelling television serials should be treated in the same vein as novelisations: valid only to the point where they don't actively contradict the original. Only when they give any new information not in the other versions are they truly usable sources. Otherwise, it all seems to check out.
- SeaniesBeanies
Lovely. Thanks for your help, SOTO.
To answer the OP's question, though, there's no cause for a separate prefix. The dab term which applies is (comic story), so they're COMIC-prefixed. There's no minimum length on what "counts" as a comic story. Nor does medium of delivery matter, as we wouldn't have WEBCOMIC were there a web-only comic. The question is whether it's sequential art. It is, so there ya go.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208658
Hello there, I'm proposing a change to T:VS. This isn't a change to the "four little rules" as such, but a change to the implications of Rule 4, specifically where the article states:
"Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded."
The problem with this, most specifically the emboldened text, is that many users have been using authorial intent to overrule this piece of poilicy within recent weeks in order to claim that certain, previously invalid stories, should be regarded as valid. As such, I am proposing a minor change within this sentence:
"Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded, no matter the authorial intent at time of production."
This minor change would regard stories such as Death Comes To Time, The Curse Of Fatal Death, Scream of the Shalka and the Unbound plays that are currently invalid as permanently invalid, unless clarified as taking place within the DWU by other valid stories.
What do other on this wiki think about this change? I certainly think it would clear up some inclusion debates much quicker with this change, as it still doesn't change any policy regarding narrative inconsistencies as far as i can see.
- Bwburke94
This would not place Shalka as permanently invalid. Your proposed rule excludes works which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, but Shalka was meant as a continuation at one point in its development.
And of course, the definition of "established DWU" could be used to exclude Rose onward.
- SeaniesBeanies
Hmm. Maybe it needs a bit more tweaking, but the idea I think works.
- 82.3.146.201
It's fine the way it is, we can't just exclude stories because they don't fit into someone's cosy idea of "canon".
C'mon guys, anyway authorial intent is supremely important.
- Pluto2
82.3.146.201 wrote: It's fine the way it is, we can't just exclude stories because they don't fit into someone's cosy idea of "canon".
C'mon guys, anyway authorial intent is supremely important.
Exactly. Authorial intent is superior to whether it contradicts other stories.
- SeaniesBeanies
I'm not saying authorial intent isn't important, it's when that authorial intent goes against major continuity that it should be discounted. This has nothing to do with "canon" or "headcanon" or "personal canon" or anything of that ilk. I, personally, dont have a personal canon. This has to do with valid sources which are used to write other articles. I don't think that you could say in good faith that a separate coninuity in which the Ninth Doctor (no, not the Ninth Doctor) travels with an android Master that is completely ignored by all other media and described as "unnoficial" by the DVD contents itself is of a standard to refer to entirely plainly on pages of stories such as Utopia, Domain of the Voord or even Horror of Glam Rock.
Likewise, a story in which The Doctor dies unambiguously with no hint of resolution from the either the BBC or production team that is also, quite unashamedly, a middle finger to all successive stories in the franchise should not be referred to in articles such as Journey's End.
Stories like these muddle the wiki for our standard user, who might just be coming here to look at Nardole or something, and so they should not be used to write articles for stories in which continuity is entirely different.
- Pluto2
But the Doctor doesn't outright die in DCTT.
They make it very clear no body is found. It's entirely possible he just lays low afterwards, and is alive and well. It's up to the viewer to make their own decision on whether he lives or dies there.
- SeaniesBeanies
Please read Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time for why DCTT isn't considered a valid source.
It's entirely due to the authorial intent of Dan Freedman and Nev Fountain. Arguing that it is valid despite what the production team have said about it's status as "it's own thing" seems pointless. Likewise with Shalka and COFD. I'm not sure why changing wiki policy to reflect this is going to be such a problem. There is no way for these stories to integrate themselves within the mainstream continuity.
The only way for these stories to even touch "valid" status should be through explicit referral to their events in a non-metafictional manner within other valid stories.
- SeaniesBeanies
To be honest, all it prevents is wild speculation of "parallel universes" and "alternate timelines" in inclusion debates on these topics, as while it's a nice idea, it cannot be confirmed unless by other stories.
- Pluto2
Shalka was intended to be a continuation, not its own thing.
- SeaniesBeanies
I know that, and that's one place where our policy on authorial intent is not clear enough. Shalka neither fits in with any continuity, and was rendered pretty much out and out "not proper" two months before release anyway.
- NateBumber
SeaniesBeanies wrote: I know that, and that's one place where our policy on authorial intent is not clear enough. Shalka neither fits in with any continuity, and was rendered pretty much out and out "not proper" two months before release anyway.
I think you could say the same of Ground Zero, SeaniesBeanies.
- AeD
The obvious difference is that Ground Zero isn't a separate entity like Shalka is, but the then-latest story in DWM's ongoing series of comics serials.
In the "forking timelines" metaphor, Ground Zero is part of a full prong on the fork, that eventually connects back into the main timeline, whereas Shalka is a little nubbin on the side that derives from the main timeline but doesn't connect back to it.
...Makes a lousy fork, this.
- NateBumber
AeD wrote: In the "forking timelines" metaphor, Ground Zero is part of a full prong on the fork, that eventually connects back into the main timeline, whereas Shalka is a little nubbin on the side that derives from the main timeline but doesn't connect back to it.
But what's really wrong with that? I doubt that the Erimem or Lethbridge-Stewart series are somehow going to catch back up with Doctor Who "continuity", and the Iris Wildthyme in the Obverse short story line is in many ways distinct from the Iris Wildthyme in the Big Finish audio line. As SeaniesBeanies pointed out, this has nothing to do with "canon" and everything to do with valid sources. And T:VS clearly states:
Our methods have long stressed the need to include as many different tales as possible, even if they are in explicit narrative contradiction.
In other words, this entire line of discussion about "fitting in with continuity" is completely antithetical to the current rules of the Wiki, and I think it should be run away from at all costs.
Also, with all due respect, I've no clue what kind of forks you use AED, because a fork prong that connects to the main body at both ends is completely useless :'D
- SOTO
Might be great for pasta, though. This one story is not just another account of events, like Ace's fate or (the timing of) the Brigadier's fate for that matter; rather, it is a narrative dead end, a quirk of Doctor Who history where the programme very nearly went in a different direction.
As for this discussion in particular, I'm unsure what's really being proposed here. Also, can we please try to stick to one topic on this thread? Discussion on Shalka is already taking place elsewhere.
- Amorkuz
Hmm... I think I found a loophole, a loophole that is being exploited again and again in many inclusion debates as we speak. The requirement that the author explicitly states that the story was intended to be outside DWU is way too stringent. Take The Sign of Four for instance. I think it passes the four little rules with flying colours. It is a story. It was commercially licensed at the time of its release. It was officially released. And I'm pretty sure Arthur Conan-Doyle never explicitly stated that he intended it to be outside the DWU.
Ridiculous, you would say. Clear case, you would say. Just use your common sense, you would say. I know, I know. But do please reread T:VALID. The only mention of DWU is in Rule 4 and Rule 4 is rarely invoked because there are very few stories which are deliberately set outside the normal DWU continuity. Well, that's just simply not the case anymore if you look at all outstanding inclusion debates. Because now people want to include everything that has a slightest tangential connection to DWU. You say Zygon, they say DWU. You say Tom Baker, they say DWU. You say "The Diary of a Dr. Who Fan", they say DWU.
I think inclusion should require intent to be inside the DWU expressed by the author, production team, or copyright holder. Because if you're not writing for DWU, you're not gonna expressly state that the story is not for DWU. So all those authors who just take a character they created for some DWU story and take it on a complete tangent, not caring in the slightest about DWU or continuity---of course, they would be crazy to spit in the face of all DWU fans and say: this is a completely different thing, get off. So they smartly keep mum or hazy on the subject (in absolute majority of cases). Thus, their defenders can come and say: he never said this series is outside DWU, so let's include it. Well, of course, he didn't, duh.
The Four little rules should require the intent to be part of DWU as a prerequisite instead of considering all stories to be part of it unless stated otherwise.
- NateBumber
This is a really confusing post to me. I honestly don't think that this weird reading of Rule 4 has ever been actually used, unless you're taking every "hey, this author crosses characters over between Doctor Who and this other series pretty very insanely loosely" as not a "this is evidence for the author believing the universes of these stories are the same", as everyone intends it to be read. Can you list to me some stories that have been "considered part of the Doctor Who universe unless specified otherwise"?So all those authors who just take a character they created for some DWU story and take it on a complete tangent, not caring in the slightest about DWU or continuityThis sounds dangerously close to saying that stories should be excluded if they disagree with continuity, which is entirely missing a point.
So to clarify, you think that an author indicating "It's not not set in the Doctor Who universe" isn't enough; they have to say the actual words, "It's set in the Doctor Who universe"?
- SeaniesBeanies
I don't think they should have to outright state that it is in the DWU but other than that I agree with Amorkuz's post, because if recent inclusion debates have showed us anything, it's than rule 4 is being used pretty loosely in a large number of cases. Although the whole problem with continuity is a big one, because it can be quite hard to define when a story is going against continuity instead of being set in an entirely separate one.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: I honestly don't think that this weird reading of Rule 4 has ever been actually used.
I feel like you're using it right now on Vince Cosmos audios by saying that we should include all of Paul Magrs works because they are all interconnected (though separated in different series with different continuities I presume).
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
NateBumber wrote: I honestly don't think that this weird reading of Rule 4 has ever been actually used.
I feel like you're using it right now on Vince Cosmos audios by saying that we should include all of Paul Magrs works because they are all interconnected (though separated in different series with different continuities I presume).
You presume without having read any of them.
- OncomingStorm12th
You presume without having read any of them.
Look, while it would be better to discuss about a story having read/heard them, it is not against the rules to do so. Assume good faith. If Amorkuz is debating without reading those books, it's because he believes he can contribute to the thread. (I myself have also not read them). After all:
"Forum participation is actively encouraged."
- Thefartydoctor
I'd like to know the true percentage of people from the Vienna audio series thread who actually had decided (without being forced) to buy the series. I bet you my left leg that a good chunk of those contributors hadn't listened to it and had no intention of listening to it.
At the end of the day, anyone is allowed to come along, look at the evidence before them, and give their opinion. It's the backbone of the forums and without this capability, it would be very exclusive... especially for people who can't afford the novels/audios.
- Amorkuz
Well, I did try to get some feeling of Magrs, actually, believe it or not. What reviewers say is that he likes to deconstruct Doctor Who, copying elements and subverting expectations. This sounds to me as the very antithesis of writing within DWU. Plus, based on NateBumber's explanations, he likes to play with intertextual/metatextual levels, which is a lot of fun to discuss in an "Introduction into Writing about Literature" I'm sure, but hard to fit into universe building and documenting. As evidenced in the title of a book I found and mentioned on one of the inclusion threads, "The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict", DWU is a literary fiction in Magrs's continuity, again not really indicative of intending to write within DWU.
- Amorkuz
It is my feeling that the four rules were written with the overriding idea that the story should be first and foremost intended to be in DWU, and only such stories are to be considered. It is somehow the unwritten rule 0. Like a writer not having a DW license but doing some FP'y trickery, with the common mythos, common game rules, common backstory. Think of, I don't know, Jamie arriving in Middle Earth and joining the forces of Gondor. Or River joining the ranks of Hogwarts defenders. Clearly out of place, right? But not excluded by the four rules explicitly.
Just having common characters zipping in and out of various series is not yet evidence of wanting to play by the same rules. As the fork analogy above suggests, you can branch and return, having small inconsistencies or big inconsistencies, but not completely different rules. If Vince Cosmos lives in a world of Wellsian Martian invasion, with no mention of the Doctor, and with Tom Baker the actor who never played the Doctor, what is there in common, in intent with DWU other than the character that is fun to write for.
What the four rules should demand, I think is some evidence of the intent to keep the storyline within the very widely understood multiverse of DWU. It is wide, but it does not include everything. And I'm pretty sure it does not include all Magrs' works.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: Well, I did try to get some feeling of Magrs, actually, believe it or not. What reviewers say is that he likes to deconstruct Doctor Who, copying elements and subverting expectations. This sounds to me as the very antithesis of writing within DWU. Plus, based on NateBumber's explanations, he likes to play with intertextual/metatextual levels, which is a lot of fun to discuss in an "Introduction into Writing about Literature" I'm sure, but hard to fit into universe building and documenting. As evidenced in the title of a book I found and mentioned on one of the inclusion threads, "The Diary of a Dr. Who Addict", DWU is a literary fiction in Magrs's continuity, again not really indicative of intending to write within DWU.
Except in Iris's home universe, the Obverse, Doctor Who is a TV series. Plus, all of Magrs's works are metafictional.
- Amorkuz
Exactly, and metafictional for me equates non-DWU.
Iris is a very complicated time-space event. I don't think she can be used as any kind of precedent. But I do know that she met the Eighth Doctor and Jo Grant in my universe, so she is close to the epicentre.
In mathematics there is a concept of en Erdos number, the length of a chain of coauthorships that connects one to Erdos (with him having number 0). So for me DWU consists of concentric circles based on the degree of separation from the Doctor. And Iris is distance 1: she met the Doctor. I would define a Doctor Who spin-off as a series based on a character, 1-removed from the Doctor. I think all official spin-offs satisfy this definition. So I don't mind Iris that much (plus it's a done deal). But Vince Cosmos is distance 2 from the Doctor. For me it's too far. He's a spin-off of Obverse, not of Doctor Who Universe. This doesn't mean such distant connections should be always excluded. But the DWU intent needs proof. It is not automatic. It cannot be implied.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: Exactly, and metafictional for me equates non-DWU.
Iris is a very complicated time-space event. I don't think she can be used as any kind of precedent. But I do know that she met the Eighth Doctor and Jo Grant in my universe, so she is close to the epicentre.
In mathematics there is a concept of en Erdos number, the length of a chain of coauthorships that connects one to Erdos (with him having number 0). So for me DWU consists of concentric circles based on the degree of separation from the Doctor. And Iris is distance 1: she met the Doctor. I would define a Doctor Who spin-off as a series based on a character, 1-removed from the Doctor. I think all official spin-offs satisfy this definition. So I don't mind Iris that much (plus it's a done deal). But Vince Cosmos is distance 2 from the Doctor. For me it's too far. He's a spin-off of Obverse, not of Doctor Who Universe. This doesn't mean such distant connections should be always excluded. But the DWU intent needs proof. It is not automatic. It cannot be implied.
Vince Cosmos is an Iris Wildthyme spinoff. It's perfectly acceptable to cover spinoffs of spinoffs. Or even spinoffs of those spinoffs. As long as it's in the multiverse of Doctor Who (which is what DWU means - we mean multiverse), it's valid.
- NateBumber
This is all good and fine, but please realize there is a big difference between your "personal canon" and what this Wiki should cover. Whether something belongs in "your" DWU or not is completely irrelevant, and nothing should have to satisfy a different or stricter version of the four little rules just because you want it to.
Amorkuz wrote:
Exactly, and metafictional for me equates non-DWU. ... For me DWU consists of concentric circles based on the degree of separation from the Doctor. And Iris is distance 1: she met the Doctor. I would define a Doctor Who spin-off as a series based on a character, 1-removed from the Doctor. I think all official spin-offs satisfy this definition. So I don't mind Iris that much (plus it's a done deal). But Vince Cosmos is distance 2 from the Doctor. For me it's too far. - Amorkuz
That's where we differ. I think that spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs should only be covered if they are demonstrably, by design set in DWU. So when Iris watches Dr. Who on TV, I grudgingly accept it as timey-wimeyness. When the main character never interacted with the Doctor and lives in Wellsian continuity, and his only connection to DWU is Iris, whose life, you have to admit, is not really fully within DWU, well... At this point I want the author to explain to me how it all fits in.
It is exactly because I realised current rules allow for spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs... to still count as full-blooded DWU that I started participating in this thread.
- OncomingStorm12th
Yes. Covering spinoffs of spinoffs is fine. But we need to be carefull before covering everything that shares a simple character or a concept with DWU. For instance, a Weeping Angel can be seen on Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham (a video game). That, by no means, is enough to make any of us cover all characters present on the video game, or even everything related to LEGO.
My point is: Paul Magrs, and any other writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote: That's where we differ. I think that spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs should only be covered if they are demonstrably, by design set in DWU. So when Iris watches Dr. Who on TV, I grudgingly accept it as timey-wimeyness. When the main character never interacted with the Doctor and lives in Wellsian continuity, and his only connection to DWU is Iris, whose life, you have to admit, is not really fully within DWU, well... At this point I want the author to explain to me how it all fits in.
It is exactly because I realised current rules allow for spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs... to still count as full-blooded DWU that I started participating in this thread.
Because that's the beauty of Doctor Who. It spans multiple universes. Doctor Who even exists in some form in the Doctor's universe (Remembrance of the Daleks, anyone?).
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: This is all good and fine, but please realize there is a big difference between your "personal canon" and what this Wiki should cover. Whether something belongs in "your" DWU or not is completely irrelevant, and nothing should have to satisfy a different or stricter version of the four little rules just because you want it to.
Wait, I thought this particular thread is intended to change the four little rules, and I was trying to explain my position on how they should be changed.
There I was happy that we're having a civilised conversation with Pluto2 again.
But never mind, let's just get back to shouting at each other: Dear NateBumber, could you please allow other users to participate in developing policies of this Wiki even when their views are opposite to your own. Sincerely, Amorkuz
- Amorkuz
OncomingStorm12th wrote: My point is: Paul Magrs, and any other writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."
Exactly, and the more steps away from their original DW licensed story they make, the less likely they are to think about creating a DWU story. Keeping track of continuities is hard work actually. Didn't we all marvel how Rowlings managed to tie things together? There is zero incentive for Magrs to keep track of DWU continuities while writing Vince Cosmos stories. It's work enough to deal with Obverse ones. He may elect to do so, in which case it would show. Because no one would want to do extra work without anyone ever knowing. And that evidence that DWU was respected should be required in Rule 4, IMHO.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
OncomingStorm12th wrote: My point is: Paul Magrs, and any other writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."
Exactly, and the more steps away from their original DW licensed story they make, the less likely they are to think about creating a DWU story. Keeping track of continuities is hard work actually. Didn't we all marvel how Rowlings managed to tie things together? There is zero incentive for Magrs to keep track of DWU continuities while writing Vince Cosmos stories. It's work enough to deal with Obverse ones. He may elect to do so, in which case it would show. Because no one would want to do extra work without anyone ever knowing. And that evidence that DWU was respected should be required in Rule 4, IMHO.
It's not the author's job to do that.
- NateBumber
Shouting? My friend, I cannot shout; I have no mouth! I simply asked you several posts ago to give me a reason why to change the rule by citing a series that has been fallaciously allowed onto this wiki per the misinterpretation of rule 4. You've replied only with a currently open debate (that is to say, not yet allowed at all)! Meanwhile, on other threads, you have slandered me and other editors with accusations of trying to "shove [series you don't like] down your throat" and maliciously manipulating the rules. You cite T:BOUND one minute, and you discard authorial intent as "obviously biased" the next. Forgive me for being puzzled and concerned by this behavior; oftentimes, it leaves me at quite a loss at how to proceed, and when I finally figure it out,
Amorkuz wrote:
But never mind, let's just get back to shouting at each other: Dear NateBumber, could you please allow other users to participate in developing policies of this Wiki even when their views are opposite to your own. Sincerely, AmorkuzThere's a specific reason for that, actually: "Fictional information presented non-narratively" is banned by T:VS. The same policy says that, when Doctor Who characters owned by others are used in spinoff stories, we generally allow those kinds of stories.OncomingStorm12th wrote:
Yes. Covering spinoffs of spinoffs is fine. But we need to be carefull before covering everything that shares a simple character or a concept with DWU. For instance, a Weeping Angel can be seen on Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham (a video game). That, by no means, is enough to make any of us cover all characters present on the video game, or even everything related to LEGO.T:VALID says, "A story cannot be ruled invalid simply because it is narratively discontinuous with other stories." Do you intend to overturn this precedent by pursuing this train of reaasoning? Because that path could quickly lead to a huge purge of materials from this wiki.Amorkuz wrote:
The more steps away from their original DW licensed story they make, the less likely they are to think about creating a DWU story. Keeping track of continuities is hard work actually. Didn't we all marvel how Rowlings managed to tie things together? There is zero incentive for Magrs to keep track of DWU continuities while writing Vince Cosmos stories. - Bwburke94
I think we strayed too far from the original discussion, especially considering the multiple definitions of "authorial intent" that have been going around the Shalka thread.
When can authorial intent be given, and by whom?
With that being said, our current rules are vague when it comes to crossovers. The Blake's 7 thread was (is?) a mess of interpretations because of that - I'm considering making a separate thread about crossover validity at some point, though probably not until after the other inclusion debates are settled.
- Amorkuz
I actually have formulated another even more specific suggestion relating to the recent discussions and my view of co-centric circles. It's a very simple proposal to remove just one letter. In the T:VS#Trickier stuff, there is a part titled "DWU characters owned by others" that says that a character created for DWU and then used elsewhere normally makes the story valid. However, the text mostly refers to Doctor Who rather than Doctor Who Universe, which may include more and more things as more and more inclusion debates are successful. I strongly believe that the original intent, as evidenced by examples from the text, was to only suggest automatic inclusion of those stories that feature characters who appeared in "Doctor who"-licensed stories, not any story we might eventually think of covering on this Wiki. Hence, my proposal: To replace everywhere in this subsection, DWU with DW.
Here is how it would affect stuff.
- If Trisha Tomorrow was created by Paul Magrs for Horror of Glam Rock, an audio story published by BF under DW license, and then she appeared in Enter Wildthyme, this is grounds for including Enter Wildthyme as a valid story (among other reasons).
- If Vince Cosmos was created by Magrs for Enter Wildthyme, not published under DW license, then the appearance of Vince Cosmos in Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective alone is not grounds for including this story as valid. In this case, one needs to argue that the story shares enough elements and commonalities with DWU to be included and a serious debate is required.
This change would prevent fast-tracking of stories only connected to DWU by remote characters.
- Amorkuz
In fact, upon thinking more about it, I think this change from DWU to DW supplants my earlier proposal. Because this directly concerns authorial intent. When a character is taken from something that has Doctor Who in large letters on its wrapper, it is hard to doubt that this was intended to be connected to Doctor Who (although there are still exceptions of course, like Chronotis from Dirk Gently). It is reasonable to presume connection to DWU unless there is evidence otherwise. And this, to me, is the essence of Rule 4.
On the other hand, if a character is taken from something that is not directly related to Doctor Who proper, we do not a priori know how the author wanted to play with this character. As OncomingStorm12th very succinctly put: "any ... writer can pick characters of their DW related works, and use them outside of DWU. It may be confusing at first, but, if their intention is simply to use a character again, I'm pretty sure they won't be thinking "oh, let's make a new DWU novel/audio". They may just be thinking "oh, I liked that character. Let's use him/her/it again."" I completely agree with this reasoning and think that in such cases we should not automatically presume that the author intended it to be part of DWU without any evidence. This is especially true in the cases where the debut story of the character was itself only decided to be inducted into DWU on this Wiki after a debate, meaning that at the time of writing the author might not even have been aware of the future connection to DWU that the inclusion is supposed to hinge on.
The change in the wording of the rule would simply insist on providing evidence for the connection to DWU rather than presuming an automatic connection based purely on a common character in cases when the said common character is not exclusively a DW character.
- TheChampionOfTime
In an effort to resurrect this debate, I strongly support Amorkuz' idea. In order to prevent (at least some of) the incredibly long inclusion debates, we need concrete rules.
Would you agree that - unless their is evidence to indicate a story is not meant to be set in the DWU - all stories with licensed use of characters/species/objects that originate from a Doctor Who story should be covered on this wiki, but if a thread decides that a "spin-off of a spin-off" story is meant to be in the same continuity as Doctor Who it can be considered valid.
Vince Cosmos: Glam Detective features its titular character in the same situation that he is seen in when he encounters Trisha Tomorrow, Iris Wildthyme, and MIAOW. It has more of chance than the second episode of Baker's End, which features Cosmos as a ghost in the early 21st century. I'm sure it can be mentioned in the BHS, but it doesn't deserve its own page as it doesn't expand on a situation seen in the DWU.
The only connection between Blake's 7 and Doctor Who is a story where a one-off 'Blake's 7 character goes to a planet previously seen in Dr Who. Covering the Blake's 7 TV show would barely improve this wiki's information on the DWU, instead adding a bunch of information on a corner of time and space not even seen in Doctor Who. Basically the same with Star Trek.
Quite frankly, during these inclusion debates, I worry about which admin decides to close it down. If we decide on a more concrete set of rules users won't have to worry about bias in the admin. The sentence " Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within the Tardis Data Core." is a bit of a lie when a regular user can give their opinion and expect a response while an admin can give their opinion and close down the thread.
Shutting down a thought-out debate before it even begins.
The good old "no new evidence was brought up in this discussion" when there was new evidence brought up. Seriously, just say it wasn't substantial! That is so much less...
Infuriating.
Thank God for people like Amorkuz, Thefartydoctor, and OttselSpy25 for leading to rich discussions! Thank Ergon for our current regular admins Shambala108, Doug86, SOTO for doing all the adminny stuff they can when there is such a lack of admin!
- Sorry, wanted to get that off my back. No offence meant. Have a nice day. Promise I won't rant ever again.
- Bwburke94
Would the proposed "spinoff of a spinoff" rule affect any Iris Wildthyme stories?
- TheChampionOfTime
My definition of spin-off would be "a story/series published without the Doctor Who logo with characters from a story published with the Doctor Who logo". The Iris Wildthyme series is a spinoff; BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures, BBC Past Doctor Adventures, and Big Finish are not.
Senor 105 appeared in a few Iris Wildthyme stories, but no Doctor Who stories. His series is a "spinoff of a spinoff". (well, aside from that one on Venus)
- Amorkuz
Yes, this was my view of the spin-off too.
However, maybe Bwburke94 meant something different: would any Iris stories become invalid because of the proposed rule? I would say no because Iris herself did appear in stories with the Doctor Who logo (including stories with the Doctor). She is in DWU proper. It is her ability to automatically tag other characters to be DWU that is disputed, not her own DWUness.
- 132.170.36.25
Would this affect the City of the Saved (series)?
- TheChampionOfTime
Nope, the entire series is set inside Compassion.
- OttselSpy25
Amorkuz wrote: Here is how it would affect stuff.
- If Trisha Tomorrow was created by Paul Magrs for Horror of Glam Rock, an audio story published by BF under DW license, and then she appeared in Enter Wildthyme, this is grounds for including Enter Wildthyme as a valid story (among other reasons).
- If Vince Cosmos was created by Magrs for Enter Wildthyme, not published under DW license, then the appearance of Vince Cosmos in Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective alone is not grounds for including this story as valid. In this case, one needs to argue that the story shares enough elements and commonalities with DWU to be included and a serious debate is required.
If anything, I think this is easily set-up within precedent. See Zygon and its unlicensed prequel, Cyberon. Or don't see, rather, because we don't cover it.
Was that really what that debate was about? Man I really missed out on bringing that up then. I never realized that Iris was one of those "sorta licensed spin-offs." If this is the case, I strongly do not support Pet Rock being valid.
- OttselSpy25
TheChampionOfTime wrote:Quite frankly, during these inclusion debates, I worry about which admin decides to close it down. If we decide on a more concrete set of rules users won't have to worry about bias in the admin. The sentence " Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within the Tardis Data Core." is a bit of a lie when a regular user can give their opinion and expect a response while an admin can give their opinion and close down the thread.
I completely agree. There have been far too many debates on this wiki where a full discussion is had and it's shut down very quickly by one admin who basically makes up a new precedent not backed up by the discussion simply because they don't agree with what everyone has said. I strongly believe that if an admin has a strong opinion which-way in a debate then they should not be allowed to close it down when there hasn't been a calm consensus.
No personal attacks on anyone specifically tho.
- Thefartydoctor
I remember being a part of a debate about DiT once and the whole debate was myself and some users (who I won't name) who simply wanted invalid stories to be valid because "hey, why not?". If an admin doesn't use common sense and doesn't use the head on his/her shoulders, then sometimes a general consensus like that one would be "Oh look, DiT suddenly became valid". My reasoned opinion would have gone unheard.
It needs an admin with an excellent knowledge of this Wiki to step forward and say "this is never going to happen because it's a ridiculous suggestion" (but in more polite terms haha). And before you quote the 4 rules with DiT, these users were bringing up all sorts of things to try to bypass the rules and then seconding/thirding each other. "I totally agree", "Good point", "You've swayed me".
I fully place my trust in the admins. They've been especially chosen because they can be trusted. Yes, they're humans with they have their own opinions... but I haven't yet seen a discussion where an admin has put his/her own opinion before a well thought out consensus. The only occasions where admins have gone against the grain is when the consensus is wrong. I hate to say it like that... but it's true. Just because a majority agree, it doesn't mean it's right.
- OttselSpy25
I don't mind when Admins step in to bring a discussion to a close, and I think usually it's done with a reasoned head. I think Czech is an example of an admin who usually does it with a very level head, and doesn't over-step his authority very often (although I'm sure you could find many emotional quotes from me claiming the opposite).
But I can think of a couple instances where an admin shut down a discussion very quickly while saying something that just isn't supported by policy. I won't list them off because I don't take it personally, but there are debates that I would very much like to re-do just because the entire point was over-looked and some new "rule" was invented by one person in one comment when it really has no backing at all.
Back to the discussion tho, I agree that we shouldn't allow extreme tangents to be valid just because there is some loose connection there. The BBV policy is a good standard for that. But I disagree that we should expect all authors of barely licensed contents to directly say if a story is DWU or not. Some authors just don't care what we think, but that doesn't suddenly make all of their work invalid.
- Thefartydoctor
OttselSpy25 wrote: But I can think of a couple instances where an admin shut down a discussion very quickly while saying something that just isn't supported by policy. I won't list them off because I don't take it personally, but there are debates that I would very much like to re-do just because the entire point was over-looked and some new "rule" was invented by one person in one comment when it really has no backing at all.
I don't wish to get you into trouble, as I know there are lots of rules regarding libellous comments... but I'd love to see an example of this.
- OttselSpy25
I refuse. I really don't want to call people out, and I would just rather we set up rules to not make this happen in the future.
I did not mean to take this thread onto a tangent -- although I am by far not the first person to do that here. We need to focus in on the specific yet unclear point that we're trying to make here. Make a case for that -- don't attack people for their actions in other threads, don't call out other threads for being bad choices, don't attack other people in the thread for having bad ideas in the past.
If we don't make a clear point and we just go on random tangents with no backing logic or evidence, this will be no different from the Random invalid stories thread that Czech shut-down.
Can someone post a description of the main, non-tangent arguments that have been made about the actual topic of the forum? I feel like no one knows where anyone here stands, or even what the topic really is.
Are we trying to make Pet Rock invalid again? Are we just going down a list of mini-rants and patting ourselves on the back for having dissenting opinions? What change are we actually suggesting?
- Thefartydoctor
Okay, I understand your stance. Let's get this back on track. The proposed Rule 4 was:
"Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded, no matter the authorial intent at time of production."
Let me get this straight. The emboldened text basically states that if something comes along tomorrow that is valid, and states that Dimensions in Time is totally valid, then nobody can come along and state "but the authorial intent at the time was that it was invalid"? Do I have that right? If so, I'm not for it. It means some big shot writer can walk on the scene and turn a laughably invalid story, that was never meant to be taken seriously, and squeeze it into our multiverse.
The above quote needs amending even more, if my opinion. I honestly don't know what I'd personally write. But let me just ask of you: take the most invalid story you can. Take the story that you'd hate to be valid and assign that rule to it. And then imagine someone waltzing in and writing it valid by means of "oh, it was a parallel universe" or "it was a dream world created by the Dream Lord"...
- OttselSpy25
Thefartydoctor wrote: Okay, I understand your stance. Let's get this back on track. The proposed Rule 4 was: "Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded, no matter the authorial intent at time of production."
Surely then there are many characters in the Bernice audios that were once meant to be sly references of unlicensed things that were then fully validated when BF actually got the rights. It's all or nothing -- if Big Finish can do it, anyone can.
Thefartydoctor wrote: Let me get this straight. The emboldened text basically states that if something comes along tomorrow that is valid, and states that Dimensions in Time is totally valid, then nobody can come along and state "but the authorial intent at the time was that it was invalid"? Do I have that right? If so, I'm not for it. It means some big shot writer can walk on the scene and turn a laughably invalid story, that was never meant to be taken seriously, and squeeze it into our multiverse.
That's a silly stance with no real backing. Nothing personal -- I just don't get this point.
Each of the four rules stand for different issues and stances. DiT isn't invalid just because it has some discontinuity. It's invalid because the licensing is weird. No story is going to take that away.
A Fix With Sontarans was considered invalid because it broke the fourth wall at the end. The segment doesn't end before it turns back into a Jim'll Fix it segment, it just bleeds into the real-world ending. So even a Short Trips story that says "Oh it's an alternate universe" can't change the fact that it ends with a scene set in the real-world. At the same time (disagreeing with myself from the past here I know) I don't think we can call that Short Trips story invalid just because it's a sequel to a story that ends with a fourth-wall bend.
There are stories out there tho which are only invalid because we haven't been told that they are valid as of yet. The Unbound series, up to recently, were an example of this. All Unbound stories were always stories, they were always licensed, they were always released. It was just never clear if they were an alternate universe or just "something that wasn't meant to 'count.'" And then a story said that they did count, and it was an alternate universe. So now all Unbound stories are valid as alternate universes.
If a Titan comic came out tomorrow and showed a rag-team of alternative-universe Doctors -- teamed up with Rose Tyler, the clone Tenth Doctor and Rose-the-Cat -- and if that team showed off any invalid incarnations that we had deemed invalid simply off of a lack of information on the fourth rule, then all of those stories would be valid.
Just to be clear, I would say this would include stories like the 1960s Dalek Films, the Lenny Henry skit Seventh Doctor, the Curse of Fatal Death, and many others. They're all a simple explanation away from being valid as an alternative-universe.
This rule, would disqualify this. Thus I'm against this.
Thefartydoctor wrote: ...take the most invalid story you can. Take the story that you'd hate to be valid and assign that rule to it. And then imagine someone waltzing in and writing it valid by means of "oh, it was a parallel universe" or "it was a dream world created by the Dream Lord"...
If they did it with proper narrative backing, then I'd be fine with it. If someone printed a prequel to Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time where the Fourth Doctor lands in our universe and then gives tips to that stories character on how to make one of his adventures fun, then I'd say "call it valid." I think it's silly to try to amend rules simply because we'd rather stories stay invalid even after there's been a valid call to move it to the other side.
I don't like the idea of making up rules just to fight off change.
- Amorkuz
I have a strong suspicion that it would make us a world of good if we drop any attempt at absolute statements. Completely ruling something out or completely ruling something in is completely unrealistic, IMHO. "All universal statements are false" as they say. Including this one, that is.
My ambition is much smaller. It never follows from the current formulation of the rules that the onus should be on proving the connection to DWU to make a story valid. We use our common sense, and admins use their knowledge of precedents, but these situations do not follow from the rules. They only cover the situation when one needs to prove the connection does not exist to make a story invalid.
What I would like to see is a rule-based acknowledgment of the existence of "at first sight valid" vs. "at first sight invalid" stories. And I propose to draw the line separating them before spinoffs of spinoffs, making the latter "at first sight invalid" unless evidence is provided of robust connections to DWU.
In this vain, Iris Wildthyme and The City of the Saved stories remain "at first sight valid" and extraordinary evidence against them would be required to kick them out. But Vince Cosmos stories would be "at first sight invalid" making it necessary to make a case for them being connected to the DWU.
For instance, Keep Space Without Time, the adventures of Daqar Keep would be considered "at first sight valid" despite the absence of time in the underlying Divergent Universe because Keep was created for Big Finish audio story with Doctor Who on the cover. On the other hand, Safe Travels in Time, detailing how Safe, the son of Daqar Keep and Perfection born in Keep Space Without Time series, found a way into a universe with time, time-traveled there and maybe even crossed paths with some less licensed characters of DWU---such a story would be "at first sight invalid" and something like the presence of Rassilon would be needed to justify its validity.
- SOTO
Consensus often has little to do with a majority vote. It's in fact greatly encouraged within our group of admins for someone who has not participated in a forum thread to do the closing of it, for an unbiased conclusion based on all evidence presented.
And we know well the failures of a simple majority vote, recently in the US and in the UK.We have rules and policies, carefully worded as best as we could manage, but that doesn't mean we will simply allow users to disrupt the wiki by poking holes in our chosen wording, finding loopholes, and trying to change the landscape of our coverage entirely. For the most part, as a wiki, we want to move forward, not constantly look back and have the same discussions over and over, over validity. For the most part, without exceptional new evidence being brought to the forefront, all that is currently deemed invalid will likely stay that way. There was a thought process behind all those decisions we've already made.
Now recently, towards the end of 2016, that most joyous of years (note the sarcasm), people have been trying to push our rules, and our justifications, to their limits, and so we might, in the end, have to go back on a few recent decisions, for instance with Vince Cosmos, to keep the peace and maintain some sort of order here.
I don't think many of us are prepared to open the floodgate and let in the spin-off of a spin-off in which one story references some element introduced in a story featuring a character who once met someone from a Doctor Who spin-off, who themselves maybe met the Doctor himself once in a DWU story proper. Maybe we do need to consider some sort of degree-of-separation guideline, wherein it's not covered here once you get too many steps away from the Doctor himself, or, as has also been suggested by Amorkuz, from actual stories bearing the Doctor Who logo, and licensed as such.
And yeah, I think there's a good point to be had about whether a story starts out as "this is set in the Doctor Who/Iris Wildthyme/K9/ universe", or if it simply uses a character/location which exists in a story we deem valid. Vince Cosmos isn't necessarily a "DWU character", anymore than the Fantastic Four are, for meeting Death's Head. I don't know that Paul Magrs set out to write a "DWU story" when he chose to re-use a character that he himself had created. So it gets to the point where we have to ask: do we cover these stories that are tangentially related, or do we simply mention in the BTS that Vince got a spin-off, give a little bit of info, and then link off to some off-site source (perhaps a different wiki) for more? I mean, where do the bounds of the DWU end, and when do we start to get into Tommy Westphall hypothesis territory?
- TheChampionOfTime
Moving forward is all well and good, but some of us don't want to leave anything behind.
George Mann considers Paradox Lost to be set in the same universe as his "Newburry & Hobbes" series. [13] It reuses the character of Archibald Angelchrist and (from what I gather) features references to the story.
I'm pretty sure nobody has tried to get the Newburry & Hobbes series on tardis. That's because it completely contradicts everything we see in Dr Who! Paul Magrs is decidedly different.
"The Iron Legion and Beep the Meep and even the Second Doctor's exile to Earth with scarecrows and game shows are just as much a part of Doctor Who as anything to me.
Compared to most of the major Dr Who writers, Magrs' DWU is a very large and whimsical place. When he reuses his characters/species from his Doctor Who, he intends for them to be the same thing and doesn't do anything with them that doesn't fit in with the rest of the DWU. In paragraphs which don't advance his stories in any way, he has characters mention bits of their past, bits that align with his Doctor Who work.
I agree wholeheartedly that these spinoff stories should not automatically grant coverage, but Vince Cosmos is a special case. His universe is connected to Iris Wildthyme, MIAOW, Barbra, and the Tomorrow Twins. Well, Vince Cosmos: Glam Rock Detective is connected to all of that. It's set in the same period.
Magrs' Brenda and Effie series once crossed over with characters from The Boy That Time Forgot (audio story).[14] I would suggest that the one story be considered, but it's ridiculous to suggest the entire series should be.
The thing that makes the DWU so special is that it doesn't have any definite bounds.
- Bonus - least tangential things I could find:
- Characters from a short story in Decalog 5: Wonders are reused in a Faction Paradox short story.
- Guy Adams' Sherlock Holmes novel uses the same Thomas Carnacki as Iris Rides Out.
- OttselSpy25
I think there is a clear-cut difference between an author saying "Haha! I have the rights to a character/villain that was used in Doctor Who! I can make a Doctor Who Universe story with only half the rights I need!" and an author saying "You know what, that character I used once in a DWU story was pretty cool. I wanna use him/her/them again somewhere."
It's the difference between Adventures in a Pocket Universe and the Sleeze Brothers spin-off comics. Something like the AiaPU or the K9 tv series try really hard to be set in the DWU, and to connect to as many things as possible. The Sleeze comics, meanwhile, just happen to be based on characters who happened to appear in a DWU comic before anything else. No one would call them DWU characters, and yet they did start here. But most people tend to view their first story as a "crossover" that was their first published work in an unfortunate set of circumstances.
Now I had previously been all-for Sleeze being valid, but since we're questioning the rough edges of our policy like this, I'm now turning ship. I think it's the perfect example of a set of stories which would be easy to cover, but we have no reason to. There is no attempt to be set in the DWU. If we were going to cover them, we would need proof that they were set in the DWU before we needed proof that they weren't.
My only quandary is how we define which stories need to be "proven" instead of "un-proven." I would need more specific reasoning than "the stupid ones need to be proven."
- NateBumber
As one of the people who (I suppose) contributed to this winter's excessive inclusion debating, I begrudgingly agree with the consensus of this thread that something Must Be Done. In response to OttelSpy25: the definition of "proven by default" vs "unproven by default" should be, as Amorkuz and ChampionOfTime have proposed, degrees of in-universe separation from a story with the Doctor Who logo (or, better-defined, with the license for the character of the Doctor). If a story's connected through a character (like Iris Wildthyme) or setting (like Kaldor City), it's (as Amorkuz ingeniously put it) "valid at first sight"; if its only connection is that it references a character from a Faction Paradox short story, it's going to require a discussion as to whether it was meant to be in the Doctor Who universe. (Therefore, this would be a modification to rule 4, not 2.)
The really interesting point to me isn't where a story crosses from invalid to and valid, but where a series with multiple tangential crossovers in individual stories can be determined to be valid. I'm still gonna mostly stick to my self-imposed exile, but I look forward to seeing the outcome of this discussion.
- 95.147.32.223
I'm not convinced a rule change is deeded as it won't stop people starting threads that ether try to overthrow a previous discussion or push the mending of the wording to it's limit
- AeD
I don't think the rule change proposed above would stop people starting that particular type of thread, but I think it would make it easier to come to fair conclusions quickly, and to shut down the obvious bad faith ones.
- Amorkuz
Yes, I agree with AeD.
There is a very important group of editors we should all cherish: new editors just learning the ropes. They are more likely to start their inclusion debates based on the literal reading of the rules and examples given on T:VS than on studying the existing precedents and all the past inclusion debates.
The less admins would have to shut down good-faith attempts using unwritten common sense, the less frustrated these editors will be.
As for the bad-faith ones, we should simply ignore them in the rule-making because they will disregard whatever rules are on the books.
- OttselSpy25
Since we're discussing changing the text of rule 4, can I suggest a single word be swapped out? Or, more likely, clarified in some way.
I think that instead of constantly referring to the DWU (Doctor Who Universe), we should call it the "Doctor Who Multi-Verse." Or, again, we should explain what the "DWU" less badly.
Too many editors seem to strongly believe that if the story isn't set in the Doctor's main universe (5556?) then it isn't valid. Thus, anything like the Unbound series would be totally invalid.
The actual point of the DWU rule is discovering if the story was meant to "not count." If the story was meant to be set in another canon ("canon" as in a collection of texts) and that canon has never been called an alternative timeline or universe, then we call it invalid. But in a similar situation where we have evidence that it was meant to be an alternate universe, it becomes valid. If it's set in the DWU or not.
This aspect isn't even mentioned on T:VS. The only mention of this seems to be on the section describing The Infinity Doctors.
- 95.147.32.223
Just wondering are there any storys that will move from valid to invalid or from invalid to valid
- OttselSpy25
My understanding of this thread is that people no longer want to consider the Vince Cosmos audios invalid, for the same reason that we don't cover Cyberon.
I think the next logical step for this forum is for people to create Sandboxes with their own revised versions of T:VS. Then we can agree and disagree over the nitty gritties of how the word the rules instead of just widely talking about every little thing that we want done.
- Amorkuz
To be completely honest, whatever changes I proposed, I did not consider them as applying retroactively.
There have been debates on validity. Decisions have been made. To have all that uprooted based on a clarification of the rule (because I don't think we are changing its intent) would be barbaric, undemocratic, disrespectful, <enter a bombastic bad word>. It's like revoking French citizenship from somebody born in Saarbrücken, because after the referendum the area transfered from France to Germany. (I'm glad I found a non-inflammatory and non-current example.)
If somebody feels very strongly against some story, I guess a change in the rule (aka "new information") would give a formal excuse to reopen a validity debate. And let me just say that I am not planning on doing that myself. I presume, for any valid story, there are editors who put a lot of effort into conjoining it to DWU. To tear it all apart, there must be a good reason.
But surely even if some invalidations happen, they should be done on a case-by-case basis, never wholesale.
For me, the purpose of the rule is to clarify the intent that has always been there, to make future debates easier to bring to a close and to prevent some debates that don't need to happen.
- 95.147.32.223
Thanks for the clarification given the points raised I have to support this plan
- OttselSpy25
AMORKUZ, could you or someone else whip up a sandbox preview of the change that is being suggested in this thread? That would be a very good way to easily have everyone discuss what changes we want and which changes do or do not make sense.
- TheChampionOfTime
This isn't a sandbox, but most people only look at the big "four rules" anyway. I'm thinking of making things clearer by adding almost twice as much rules. Something like this:
1 Only stories may be valid sources. 2 A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count. 3 A story must be officially released to be valid. 4 If a story was intended to be set outside the DWU, then it's probably not allowed. But a community discussion will likely be needed to make a final determination. 5 A story with the legal use of a concept from a Doctor Who story has the same chance at being valid as a Doctor Who story. 6 Most stories which use concepts from stories which use concepts from Doctor Who are not valid. If a story is heavily connected to concepts from Doctor Who, a community discussion can make it valid. 7 If concepts from a story or series unrelated to Doctor Who appear in a Doctor Who story, the story or series they originate from does not become valid. - Bwburke94
The "additional" rules don't need to be numbered, in my opinion, but this seems reasonable.
- OttselSpy25
Rules 4-7 just seem to be an extension of Rule 4. I support them, I just don't know I support the idea of our "seven little rules."
Couldn't we just do a detailed part explaining the details of Rule 4? How DWU actually means "Doctor Who Multi-verse," how the DWU doesn't HAVE to mean that there are secretely time lords lingering in the background.
I just thing Rule 4 isn't explained very well. We could easily avoid many future discussion with the addition of some simple explanations.
- Amorkuz
I really like the content of the additional rules. I would only clarify one thing in Rule 7. Here is my rendition (with the main change in boldface and rewording in italics):
If concepts from a story or series originally unrelated to Doctor Who appear in a Doctor Who story, it does not imply the validity of the whole story or series the concepts originate from.
Secondly, rules 5-7 are not directly related to Rule 4. Rule 4 is about stories intended to be out. Rules 5-6 are about stories whose creators don't care/say whether it is in or out. Rule 7 is about merging of big franchises, in which case the crossover is usually intended to be in.
So I'm all for this refinement of the rules.
- OttselSpy25
I really think the best bet is just to add a sub section below the little rules entitle "explaining the DWU."
- OttselSpy25
This thread has gone off-the-rails, to the point that I'm not even sure what we're going for here anymore. It seems the original poster wanted to change the wording of T:VS to make currently invalid stories more invalid, and now we've gotten to the point where we're talking about adding to the 4 rules almost all based around that Glam Rock fellow. i don't disagree with the suggestions -- in fact I totally 100% do agree with them.
However, I feel like we should all either embrace or reject OP's original suggestion before moving any other discussions to another thread just for the sake of simplicity. Currently, this thread has devolved into an area where we all just listed something we didn't like about rule 4, and this really wasn't extremely helpful towards finding any sort of goal to reach.
So here's my opinion.
Personally I see no point in adding a clause that removes authorial intent, the most important factor to deciding if a story is valid or not, to any stories.
As far as I can tell, this thread was created because some users argued around this time that since some of these "parallel canon" stories were written to be legit continuations at the tine, they should be valid. This user suggested that we should add a line to suggest that this opinion isn't important.
This rule would only cause a change in one story -- that is, The Infinity Doctors, which we only call an alternate dimension because of out-of-universe information on the intent of the book. If we eliminated authorial intent when it came to just non-continuous stories, then this book would then be invalid.
I think that if you wanted to talk about the foamy top layer of stories that we consider invalid and why, it would be needed to be in its own separate and organised thread. But I do not believe that the specific case to be made here, that we should remove authorial intent only for these four or five stories, have much potency.
- Bwburke94
I would prefer rejecting OP's proposal as unnecessary, and clarifying the edge-case stories in a different way.
The proposal is written to permanently invalidate Shalka despite the story being written with the intent of validity. Despite my views on Shalka itself as clearly outside the bounds of validity, we cannot assume that it will permanently remain as such, so we should not make policy permanently invalidating it.
The important thing to remember about T:VS is that it is not just a collection of rules. It also contains a section on why stories are valid/invalid, which can be used to clarify the status of Shalka et al.
- OttselSpy25
brb
- OttselSpy25
Usually BWBURKE94, I would agree with you. If we were four posts down, I would say "Let's talk about other solutions," and we'd all pitch our own ideas and widdle down changes to the text. But I feel like this thread has been going on for so long and is so unorganized that any real solution someone would want to pitch here would be shot down extremely quickly. I can't expect an admin to read through 74 posts of randomness before reaching the part that "is important."
If there's anything that I've learned about these forums, it's that they're not good places for pitch-a-thons, where every user pitches their own solution and no one, in the end, actually decides on the best option. If someone wants to start a forum about those special little stories that are set in a Doctor Who Universe but not the Doctor Who Universe, then I would love to take part and I think we could work something out. It is a contensious topic worth debating. But I feel like this ship has sank to be honest.
I actually have a few potential ideas on the best place to take our page on our policies on valid sources, but I don't feel actively comfortable posting them here because of how unlikely it is that this forum will ever go someplace.
I just can't justify trying to change the entire point of the thread 74 posts down.
I would very much appreciate it if an admin could close this thread without passing any judgement on anything but the first poster's pitch.
- Bwburke94
Alright then. Let's wait for an admin.
(I didn't actually propose anything in my last post, because I'm well aware of what happened in the AGMGTW/multi-parter threads! I'm fully in favour of a new thread here.)
- Shambala108
OK, I've reopened this thread after User:Josiah Rowe, citing that there is a consensus for not changing the current wording, closed it. I'm sorry, but I don't see consensus here, I see two basic opinions with users giving their reasons for both sides. This discussion is far from resolved.
And I don't think it's appropriate for a non-active admin, who previously hadn't posted anything since January and has removed his name from the active list, should be making decisions about closing contested forum threads. That is the other reason I reopened the thread.
- NateBumber
Ttttto be fair, the last comments (from early June) literally said, "This thread is off-topic enough; we've all passed judgment on OP's proposal, so an admin should shut down this thread, and we'll make a different one if we have different proposals." Frankly, I think that's something a moderator should have done, since eg someone would have surely said something if commentators had gotten similarly off-topic in the FP inclusion debate: someone would've said something pretty fast if the conversation turned to, say, Death Comes to Time. Pretty much all the interesting discussion in this thread was about potential Rule 4 changes besides the one OP listed; if there's going to be any more conversation here, it's practically guaranteed to be off-topic. Whether there's consensus or not, I don't see a point in leaving this thread open.
- Josiah Rowe
Fair enough about me being non-active. I honestly didn't think this would be controversial, though. I see lots of discussion here about possible changes to the wording of Rule 4 and/or the surrounding text on T:VALID, but there was very little or no support for the original proposal by User:SeaniesBeanies, and, as OttelSpy and NateBumber say, a great deal of off-topic discussion. There may not be a consensus to keep Rule 4 as it is, but there does seem to be a consensus not to implement the change suggested by SeaniesBeanies.
- Amorkuz
I'd like to thank Shambala108 for reopening the discussion. I did not think the consensus was reached either. But, being a participant in the discussion, I should not make determinations on it.
As for the discussion being off-topic (incidentally, I cannot find the phrase "This thread is off-topic enough; we've all passed judgment on OP's proposal, so an admin should shut down this thread, and we'll make a different one if we have different proposals." that NateBumber cites). When I entered this discussion (well before becoming an admin), I treated it as a discussion of T:VS, more specifically of Rule 4.
I had my concerns about Rule 4, and sincerely believed it to be against T:POINT to start another discussion of Rule 4 while this was ongoing. But even leaving aside the question of potential T:POINT violations, it is clear that having two competing discussions of the same rule of the same policy is a bad idea. What happens when these discussions conclude with opposing decisions?
I propose to treat this discussion not in the narrow sense of the OP, which only helps close it but serves no other purpose. My concerns have not been addressed. Editors should not be forced to repeat parts of this discussion that do not directly follow from the OP. It would make much more sense to try and arrive at a new formulation of Rule 4 that is based on a new consensus than to keep the old formulation that has been discussed here at some length as not satisfactory.
- Josiah Rowe
Amorkuz is correct that the exact words NateBumber used do not appear elsewhere in the discussion, so "literally" was not the right word to use. However, what he wrote does seem to be a fair paraphrase of the June discussion between Ottelspy25 and BwBurke94.
Amorkuz, I don't quite understand your remark about having two competing discussions. I closed this thread in part so that, if someone wanted to open a larger discussion of Rule 4, they could do so. But if others feel that it's more productive to continue that discussion here instead, that's fine by me.
- Amorkuz
Let me explain. I joined this discussion at the end of January. It was open and, ceteris paribus, would stay open for the next 6 months. I do not think it makes sense to force editors to wait for so long until one discussion closes if they want to suggest a slightly different angle on the exact same topic. This would, in effect, be bordering on stifling free speech. But, were I to open another discussion on Rule 4 of T:VS then, at the end of January, we would have had two competing discussions regarding a phrase only two-sentence-long. I hope we can all agree that such parallel discussions are to be avoided at all costs.
My point is that an overly narrow treatment of the topic of a thread leads to situations when editors are not capable to express their concerns or can only do so to the detriment of the wiki. The titular topic was announced as "Authorial intent within T:VS (four little rules page)". And that is what I was discussing in this thread. If this thread is closed and a new one is opened, must we repeat all our arguments again? And would it help bring our positions closer together? My suspicion is that it could only help if some of us do not participate in the discussion. For instance, OS25 is currently not able to participate for objective reasons. Perhaps, opening a new discussion could succeed in reaching a consensus due to lack of his input. But it would really amount to ignoring the opinions he rightfully expressed here. IMHO, that would be bordering on foul play. While editors who do not participate in a discussion have no right to complain about its result, editors who do participate equally have the right to have their opinion heard and evaluated rather than zapped into oblivion for procedural reasons.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that this was in any way intended by the closure. In fact, I myself only now realised this implication. But I think it should be a reasonable rule of thread closure that nominal closures for the purpose of starting the discussion from a clean slate should not be performed if one of active participants of the original discussion is under a temporary block.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208762
Just a quick question on why She Said, He Said: A Prequel (aka the prequel to The Name of the Doctor) is listed as invalid on its own page. I'm assuming it's because the story isn't classed as a story due to it being more of a few character monologue from the Doctor and Clara, therefore failing rule 1. Would this be a correct assumption?
- 86.166.43.154
There was a thread on this a couple of years back. Both this and the Strax Field Reports were declared invalid.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208941
I'd like to politely ask an admin to temporarily restore all the articles related to charity publications. I intend to transfer them over to another wiki so that the info isn't lost forever.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:208966
should there be character pagers for characters that are from invalid storys as these are whiten from an in universe prospective but are not valid in universe sources like http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Ninth_Doctor_(Scream_of_the_Shalka) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Alison_Cheney http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Emma_(The_Curse_of_Fatal_Death) http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Minister_of_Chance_(Death_Comes_to_Time) All of wich are witen as if they are valid
- 82.3.146.201
Yes there should be.
- 82.3.146.201
They are written in universe on their own pages but can not be placed on valid places.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209364
First off, if this isn't a rule anymore I apologies, as I have been gone for a while.
So on this site we have a long-standing rule that we don't allow images from colour reprintings of previously-black-and-white stories. The reason for this was that, for various reasons, only the first version was truly valid.
But then arises the problem of Thread:149385, where it was pretty strongly agreed amoung users that special editions of stories are all equally-valid, including in this case both versions of The Five Doctors. The Five Doctors has large narrative differences between its two main versions, let alone visual differences, and we all agreed to simply count them as two equal but opposite sources.
Furthermore, we also allow images from official BBC reconstructions of lost serials. Then there's comics that were originally Second or Third Doctor stories which were then reprinted as Fourth Doctor stories -- we consider both takes to be valid.
This seems to me to be a big contradiction. While it's one thing to prefer black-and-white first-edition images to colour comic, to out-right ban them is going against further precedent. I think we need to either agree that Special Editions and official reconstructions aren't valid, or we need to loosen the rules on comic reprints which were in effect last time I was here.
- Revanvolatrelundar
I'm in favour of including comic reprints, and always have been. Most reprints, especially those that colourise a strip are much clearer and better depict the subject in question.
It's a yes vote from me!
- OttselSpy25
Does anyone have any opposing points of view?
I'm not calling for the discussion to be closed by any means (in fact I would heavily protest such an action) but I literally am having a hard time thinking of any reason why we wouldn't allow this.
My only problem is that we shouldn't say "coloured images are best or B&W is best," as it really is a case-by-case thing depending on what looks the best per image. A lot of the Tom Baker DWM coloured printings look fairly odd.
- Thefartydoctor
Most reprints are either done to recolour the original or to simply resell and make more money. Very rarely, to my knowledge, do reprints include brand new scenes that change the stories... I'm fully behind the inclusion of comic reprints. Without them, most of us would find it hard to get our hands on them. :)
- OttselSpy25
As a quick note, the only instance I can think of where a reprinting altered the narrative is a DWM comic where different printings have different bad guys (either Daleks or Death Robots). This is not a majour set-back, as we can just call them different sources.
- 23skidoo
While I don't agree with banning, I do see where the argument is coming from. Let's say you have An Unearthly Child episode 1, B&W original, and then down the line somebody puts out a colourized version. Which should be seen as original and definitive? Same goes for colourized reprints of colour comics. Unless the original artist is involved (as is I think the case with the recent graphic novel reprint of Evening's Empire) then whoever is colouring is making assumptions and guesses. So I would oppose a colourized image being used as the main image for a story, but all that said I have no objection to one being used in the body of the article, though it should be indicated that it's the colourized or remastered version of the story.
- 82.3.146.201
23skidoo wrote: While I don't agree with banning, I do see where the argument is coming from. Let's say you have An Unearthly Child episode 1, B&W original, and then down the line somebody puts out a colourized version. Which should be seen as original and definitive? Same goes for colourized reprints of colour comics. Unless the original artist is involved (as is I think the case with the recent graphic novel reprint of Evening's Empire) then whoever is colouring is making assumptions and guesses. So I would oppose a colourized image being used as the main image for a story, but all that said I have no objection to one being used in the body of the article, though it should be indicated that it's the colourized or remastered version of the story.
Then one could say the same about novelizations, that are by different authors.
- OttselSpy25
If anything, a colourised reprinting changes much less than a special edition.
This thread is thus arguing against a prohibition that doesn't actually exist.
Please see T:GTI and T:ICC, which do not paint the -- pardon the pun -- black-and-white picture that the OP alleges.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209620
These seem to be used improperly used as a matter of course. On the other hand, I like the way they are used. So I would change the tree of categories. Here is a problem: look at the following branch of categories from smaller to larger:
Category:Dogs -> Category:Canids -> Category:Earth predators and Category:Earth mammals
So dogs can, therefore, contain only animals of the Earth species dog. But there are many dog-like animals from other planets, completely unrelated to dogs. And it's completely natural to use Category:Dogs for them, and many editors do. For instance, in this category, we can find Parzival of the species Vegracandis, Barcelonian dog from planet Barcelona, Howzi from Trenzalore, etc.
And if we go to a less specific category name, like Category:Canids, we get a whole subcategory Category:Sentient canines, mostly inhabited by residents of Dog World.
My proposition is to acknowledge status quo by moving categories "Dogs", "Canids", and many others to Category:Predators instead of Category:Earth predators. If enough members exist, subcategories such as Category:Earth dogs may be created.
- SOTO
I like this proposition. You find with "alien" creatures that you can't add Bovids (or you do anyway), because that's in Ruminants, which seems right, but then which is in Earth mammals. Dogs, especially, are a good example.
Category names should have clear meaning, and a category called "Dogs", rather than "Earth dogs", would naturally be used for the Barcelonian variety...except that the category tree does not reflect this.
Even in the visual arts, Foxkin from the Twelfth Doctor comics have evolved from Earth foxes. But they're sentient species, not anymore the same as foxes. Again, no category could be found for their species.
There are categories like Category:Aquatic species or Category:Avian species, but somehow no comparable category for mammal species. Perhaps, because we cannot be sure the alien species are mammal. But not having such a category creates a problem every time we see something like a Mammoth on Traxis. I'm sure there are a gazillion of similar examples all across the spectrum.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209660
I've noticed that "FP" has been used in the categories a lot: "Category:FP short stories", "Category:FP novelists", "Category:FP audio stories", etc. However, this breaks the precedent set by literally every other named category, eg "Category:Bernice Summerfield anthologies", "Category:Iris Wildthyme audio stories", "Category:Doctor Who audio directors", and "Category:Faction Paradox stories".
I've tried changing "FP" back to the more appropriate "Faction Paradox" a few times (eg "Category:Faction Paradox novels"), but my efforts have been consistently undone by other editors. I just wanted to open this here to (a) make sure everyone knows to stop reverting to "FP" and (b) appeal to CzechBot or any other bot for help in recategorizing and fixing this error!
- SOTO
I'm the more active bot user here. And as the creator of those categories, I can tell you there was a strict reasoning behind it. If all the "FP" names were changed to "Faction Paradox", there would cease to be any Faction Paradox series in the category system: it would simply all be "stories featuring Faction Paradox". And then what in the world would "Faction Paradox novelists" mean when some EDA writers should be there now?
For Torchwood, it was easier. General stories featuring the Torchwood institute get to be category:Torchwood Institute stories, while category:Torchwood stories is for the series Torchwood.
You bring up Iris Wildthyme, but that's a complete mess right there. category:Iris Wildthyme audio stories is rightfully any audio story with Iris, but then there's category:Iris Wildthyme audio series? Which contains audio stories? It makes no sense. That's not our naming convention at all.
- NateBumber
Ahh. I suppose "Faction Paradox series novels" etc would be more appropriate, though a mouthful. "FP" will suffice for now; thank you for explaining.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209738
It's fairly obvious who some of the characters are in A Star's View of Caroline, from Burning with Optimism's Flames.
Caroline is clearly Susan Foreman. The events of An Unearthly Child, The Daleks, and Marco Polo are referenced by "Caroline" . She even gives a flipped version of the First Doctor's speech in The Dalek Invasion of Earth.
Meanwhile, Homogeny and Hegemony are Ian and Barbara. Their descriptions morph between different versions of The Daleks, initially taking the appearance in the original serial. Then it changes to those their counterparts in Dr. Who and the Daleks wore, and cinema reels are mentioned. Lastly, they're described in the outfits they wore in Dr. Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks.
Essentially, it's made very clear who these characters are, though they're never referred to as Susan, Ian, and Barbara. However, is all of this enough for us to treat them as the same characters? Or should we put A Star's View of Caroline info on separate articles?
- 132.170.33.168
It's very open and shut with Homogeny and Hegemony, since they flicker between different images of Ian and Barbara and are clearly something very different from the dancing and happy schoolteachers at the end. Caroline directly quotes The Dalek Invasion of Earth, however, and is described in ways very consistent with Susan, so I think it's a little more open to interpretation for her. I think to play it safe, though, the identities should only be mentioned in the "Behind the scenes" section of her article, though things like the quote from Dr. Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks could be linked in the body of the article.
- NateBumber
132.170.33.168 wrote: It's very open and shut with Homogeny and Hegemony, since they flicker between different images of Ian and Barbara and are clearly something very different from the dancing and happy schoolteachers at the end. Caroline directly quotes The Dalek Invasion of Earth, however, and is described in ways very consistent with Susan, so I think it's a little more open to interpretation for her. I think to play it safe, though, the identities should only be mentioned in the "Behind the scenes" section of her article, though things like the quote from Dr. Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks could be linked in the body of the article.
Whoops! That's me :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209869
Two users think that it is an individual and should be treated as such. Such a drastic change requires discussion, which I am starting now. Until the discussion is closed by an admin, no edits are allowed by T:BOUND.
- Amorkuz
I have started this discussion to prevent an ad hoc change that could have far-reaching effects. Pluto2 and NateBumber believe that TARDISes are not objects, that they are living beings. I will let them argue their point for themselves.
In practical terms, they propose to change the infobox for The Doctor's TARDIS from Template:Infobox Object to Template:Infobox Individual. The immediate consequence is that the type of the TARDIS has no place in the infobox. NateBumber's suggestion to use the "species" field for the type of TARDIS is questionable at best.
Before arguing the heart of the matter, I would like to point out that this cannot be an isolated change to The Doctor's TARDIS as was initially done. There are 36 members of Category:Individual TARDISes. They all (or at least most of them, given the timey-wimey nature of DWU) should have the same infobox type. Thus, such a significant change should first be carefully discussed by the community.
Secondly, at first sight, it appears that this change was precipitated by the desire to announce Lolita to be the sister of the Doctor's TARDIS. In other words, this change is prompted by the inclusion of the Faction Paradox into valid sources. This strengthens by belief that this matter requires discussion. The inclusion of the Faction Paradox should not lead to tensions with other valid sources. More precisely, information from Faction Paradox should not rewrite information that has been used on the Wiki before its inclusion.
- NateBumber
I'd like to say that I did attempt to open a discussion concerning the change at Talk:The Doctor's TARDIS. Furthermore, I don't believe that this is a matter of policy, so T:BOUND does not and should not apply, though I'm perfectly willing to retract that statement should Amorkuz or anyone link me to a Tardis Wiki policy page stating that The Doctor's TARDIS must use the "Object" infobox.
My reasons for the change, as specified on the talk page:
- The modern TV show has repeatedly reinforced the perspective that the TARDIS is as much a character as the Doctor and his companions.
- The Doctor's Wife directly confirms that the TARDIS has a consciousness and a free will. The very title echoes this interpretation.
- In series 7, there was an entire arc about how the TARDIS disliked and mistrusted Clara.
- This perspective didn't even originate in NuWho: there's plenty of precedent elsewhere.
- Conscious TARDISes appear in Alien Bodies.
- Compassion's whole arc in the EDAs is about not gaining TARDIS powers but becoming a TARDIS, yet she keeps her individuality and consciousness.
- Toy Story foreshadows The Doctor's Wife by showing a spoken conversation between TARDISes manifesting as humans.
- Also, see all the sources cited in the page's massive section dedicated to the TARDIS's personality.
- This would be a very tiny change to the page.
- The change is effectively invisible: because of the existing similarities between the "object" and "individual" infoboxes, the only difference would be that the word "type" would be replaced with "species".
- Nothing would need to be changed about the article. In fact, "Individual" already better represents how the page is written. Amorkuz is acting as if the idea that the Doctor's TARDIS is a living being, not an object, is some sort of radical belief, but it's directly stated in the third paragraph of the article in question. And as far as I can see, that paragraph has been that way for a very, very long time!
Amorkuz has stated that this would be a "drastic" change, but as I have already mentioned, the only visible difference would be the usage of "species" instead of "type [of object]", and even this isn't without precedent! Within Category:Individual TARDISes, there are already many pages that use the "Individual" infobox (and the "species" label) in this way: Marie, Lolita, Johannes Rausch, Glinda, Klyst, and Compassion are just a few examples. If Amorkuz would like to convert all those pages to the "Object" infobox, that would be another discussion entirely, I think.
In response to the Faction Paradox bit: frankly, I don't see how this creates any "tensions" whatsoever! There are tons of non-FP sources that treat the TARDIS as an individual, not an object. And I don't believe that any source has come out and said, "The Doctor's TARDIS doesn't have a sister," so how on earth is this "rewriting" any information? I'm frankly puzzled by how an addition of one line to a page has sparked this much frustration.
(Also, Amorkuz, are you proposing that the inclusion of the Faction Paradox series as a valid source should be reconsidered? I'd welcome a reopening of that debate, if you think you have new evidence that it breaks the four little rules.)
But I think I've shoved the burden of proof off my shoulders. If anyone has any information that contradicts anything I've said here, I'd love to hear it.
- The modern TV show has repeatedly reinforced the perspective that the TARDIS is as much a character as the Doctor and his companions.
- Amorkuz
As this change would affect more than one page, it should rightfully be discussed at Panopticon so that editors of other affected pages would be given a chance to participate.
And no, I respect the decision about the inclusion of Faction Paradox and would ask you to equally respect the collective wisdom of more than 2000 edits to the Doctor's TARDIS page over the past 10 years that did not make it an individual despite all the sources you cite.
This is truly not a trivial matter.
As for the tension, let me explain how your edit looked to a non-initiated reader. There was a mention of Lolita in the infobox, with no reference made anywhere in the text. TARDIS was called a species, Type 40 was another species, and Mark 3 was a third species, not yet having a page. But going to the page TARDIS, one would not see a mention of it being a species. There it is a time-space vessel, no different from Dalek time machines or any other member of Category:Space-time vessels for that matter. So there's your tension: a large number of pages with information directly contradicting new information from one of the most important pages on the Wiki. Yes, we have plenty of contradictions, I know. But that's no reason to intentionally create additional ones.
As I said, if you want to change the point of view of this Wiki that TARDISes are individuals, there are tons of pages you need to change. Potentially, every page in Category:TARDIS is affected. In addition, the category tree will have to undergo changes itself, changes that, at the very least, require careful consideration. Thus, I insist that such a change not be taken lightly.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: I'd like to say that I did attempt to open a discussion concerning the change at Talk:The Doctor's TARDIS. Furthermore, I don't believe that this is a matter of policy, so T:BOUND does not and should not apply, though I'm perfectly willing to retract that statement should Amorkuz or anyone link me to a Tardis Wiki policy page stating that The Doctor's TARDIS must use the "Object" infobox.
So you seriously think that the central plot device of the 50+-year-old DWU has not been prominently featured in the policies of the Wiki? Okay, challenge accepted. How about the conveniently named T:TARDIS? To quote the opening line: "TARDIS is the thing the Doctor flies around in." If it's the thing, clearly, it is not an individual.
- Xx-connor-xX
The TARDIS is sentient and therefore I believe it should be thought of as an individual with it's own thoughts and feelings (this has been displayed many times over the years). The TARDIS has also had her own opinions, an example of this would be her dislike for Clara in Series 7 part B.
- NateBumber
Amorkuz wrote: As this change would affect more than one page, it should rightfully be discussed at Panopticon so that editors of other affected pages would be given a chance to participate.Granted. I just don't want anyone to think I was trying to just slip this change under the radar, as your post made it seem (to me).TARDIS was called a species, Type 40 was another species, and Mark 3 was a third species, not yet having a page.More accurately, the species was listed as "Type 40, Mark 3, TARDIS", with links to each of the relevant pages. Right now, it's "Type 40, Mark 3 TARDIS". I agree that the templates are flawed - the way they autolink some things really drives me batty, especially when it's just a matter of brackets - but I really don't think that's so big a difference.But going to the page TARDIS, one would not see a mention of it being a species. There it is a time-space vessel, no different from Dalek time machines or any other member of Category:Space-time vessels for that matter. ... As I said, if you want to change the point of view of this Wiki that TARDISes are individuals, there are tons of pages you need to change. Potentially, every page in Category:TARDIS is affected. In addition, the category tree will have to undergo changes itself, changes that, at the very least, require careful consideration. Thus, I insist that such a change not be taken lightly.Please don't conflate my words: I'm not trying to say that all TARDISes are individuals. I'm trying to say that the Doctor's TARDIS is an individual. There are already many TARDISes that are individuals that exist in the category tree just fine, per the many many examples in my last comment. Do you intend to change those to "Objects"?Lol! That's a bit of a stretch. Do you seriously believe that the TARDIS is not a living thing? Not only does that quote have nothing to do with infoboxes, there are plenty of "things" in the Doctor Who universe that are also "individuals": for instance, K9 is a "thing" in every sense that the TARDIS is, but he's listed under the Individual Infobox!
Amorkuz wrote: So you seriously think that the central plot device of the 50+-year-old DWU has not been prominently featured in the policies of the Wiki? Okay, challenge accepted. How about the conveniently named T:TARDIS? To quote the opening line: "TARDIS is the thing the Doctor flies around in." If it's the thing, clearly, it is not an individual.
- Pluto2
I think it's quite clear the TARDIS is an individual, not an object.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: Within Category:Individual TARDISes, there are already many pages that use the "Individual" infobox (and the "species" label) in this way: Marie, Lolita, Johannes Rausch, Glinda, Klyst, and Compassion are just a few examples. If Amorkuz would like to convert all those pages to the "Object" infobox, that would be another discussion entirely, I think.
I try not to edit pages on topics I know nothing about. But it is good that we're discussing them now. So let's look at them: Compassion is registered as Human, so clearly an individual. She became a TARDIS later on? Good for her. Congrats. She's an individual as any other human or former human. Klyst is a Time Lord, so it's the same. Glinda's page provide's no information other that she was an elderly tourist. Can't say much. Johannes Rausch seems to be missing a species Human in the infobox. If he's a human host, he must have been human at some point. So same as Compassion and Klyst. Lolita originates from FP. Marie originates from FP.
In summary, TARDISes are presented as individual if either they were individuals before being TARDISes or come from FP (with Glinda's case pending investigation).
- NateBumber
Woah woah woah, Marie "originates from FP"?
- Amorkuz
Well, Alien Bodies is currently listed as a Faction Paradox story, is it not?
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: Out of curiosity, do you seriously believe that the TARDIS is not a living thing? Because clinging onto the word "thing" makes it seem that way.
The answer is: I don't know. I never thought about it. I'm glad that you and several other editors have such a strong opinion on this. But I am interested in what exactly your opinion is, which is very much unclear from the original edits.
So now you say that not all TARDISes are individuals, just some. That is a view that is easier for me to accept actually. But in that case, I would like to know (and it should be a matter of policy for all the future TARDISes we encounter), how do we determine which TARDIS is an individual and which is an object.
- Xx-connor-xX
The Doctor's TARDIS is presented as an individual aswell.
- Xx-connor-xX
Can I just say that this decision doesn't just affect TARDISes. If we decide to make the change other sentient objects will be thrown into speculation (for example; the moments).
- Bwburke94
The way I see this, TARDISes are often treated as both individuals and objects, normally not at the same time, but should probably use the "individual" template (or have a separate template created) because they are living beings.
- Amorkuz
Xx-connor-xX wrote: Can I just say that this decision doesn't just affect TARDISes. If we decide to make the change other sentient objects will be thrown into speculation (for example; the moments).
Thank you. This is one of the points of this discussion: to see the exact extent of changes necessary if it is decided to perform the change.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote:
Lol! That's a bit of a stretch. Do you seriously believe that the TARDIS is not a living thing? Not only does that quote have nothing to do with infoboxes, there are plenty of "things" in the Doctor Who universe that are also "individuals": for instance, K9 is a "thing" in every sense that the TARDIS is, but he's listed under the Individual Infobox!Amorkuz wrote: So you seriously think that the central plot device of the 50+-year-old DWU has not been prominently featured in the policies of the Wiki? Okay, challenge accepted. How about the conveniently named T:TARDIS? To quote the opening line: "TARDIS is the thing the Doctor flies around in." If it's the thing, clearly, it is not an individual.
- K9 is a robot, which are typically considered individuals on this wiki. TARDIS is a vessel, which are typically considered objects on this Wiki. This is just common sense.
- K9 always demonstrates its individuality (unless it's turned off or runs out of battery I guess). The TARDIS is shown to have individual traits in exactly one episode and is hinted to have individual traits in a handful of episodes. In all other episodes we can only speculate whether it was a malfunction or free will.
Note that Inboxes are exclusively for information that is undisputed and non-controversial.
By the way, as a matter of self-education: in which manner is Lolita a sister of the Doctor's TARDIS? Do they give birth? This point is not stated on her page at all, other than in the infobox.
- Amorkuz
As for the "stretch", let me ask you: do you believe you should start making changes before this discussion is over? Do you not believe that it is a policy of this Wiki to wait until the thread is closed even when it is not a matter of policy but another more local debate concerning multiple pages? Do you need me to persuade you of that?
I pointed you to the relevant policy. Are you trying to wiggle your way out of it? Or is this an intellectual exercise? In the latter case, I would prefer not to spend time humouring you on that.
- Xx-connor-xX
Has said person tried to change the pages again since you created this discussion? If so, they are in the wrong. If not, they may not have realized how important the change would be until you pointed it out to them and so they may not have thought it would need a discussion.
- Amorkuz
No, they did not change it after the start of the discussion, which makes me suspect the challenging of T:BOUND to be an intellectual exercise.
- Bwburke94
- Xx-connor-xX
There's no need to be stuck up and rude. Not everyone has had the same experience here as others.
- Amorkuz
Bwburke94 wrote: The way I see this, TARDISes are often treated as both individuals and objects, normally not at the same time, but should probably use the "individual" template (or have a separate template created) because they are living beings.
I like the idea of an individual template. And I also think that the TARDISes status is ambiguous at best. After thinking back, I could remember one TV episode, one audio story and one Eleventh Doctor story where TARDIS was acting on its own and (in the former two) spoke. Some writers use it, some don't.
In addition, TARDIS is a unique and central object in DWU. It seems from the above discussion that neither Object nor Individual template fits it completely. So making a template tailored to TARDISes would allow to provide better information and simultaneously sidestep this philosophical discussion of free will and its boundaries.
- Amorkuz
Amorkuz wrote: By the way, as a matter of self-education: in which manner is Lolita a sister of the Doctor's TARDIS? Do they give birth? This point is not stated on her page at all, other than in the infobox.
Investigating a little further, Toy Story claims that Lolita and "the Ship" are sisters. "The Ship" is curiously linked to the Doctor's TARDIS. But I'm guessing it's called "the Ship" in the story. I also saw somewhere a mention that Mad Norwegian Press was in a habit of removing all references to DW. So can anyone explain why the Ship is the same as the Doctor's TARDIS? Is there an in-universe quote on that?
- TheChampionOfTime
Amorkuz wrote: So can anyone explain why the Ship is the same as the Doctor's TARDIS?
Not to side with anyone, but Toy Story features Compassion, who Lawrence Miles has the right to use, travelling with two other people in a timeship shaped like a blue box. It is very clearly intended to be the Doctor's TARDIS.
- Bwburke94
Was the hypothetical use of the Doctor's TARDIS licensed? I don't believe so, and that's the problem we have.
- Thefartydoctor
Investigating a little further, Toy Story claims that Lolita and "the Ship" are sisters. "The Ship" is curiously linked to the Doctor's TARDIS. But I'm guessing it's called "the Ship" in the story. I also saw somewhere a mention that Mad Norwegian Press was in a habit of removing all references to DW. So can anyone explain why the Ship is the same as the Doctor's TARDIS? Is there an in-universe quote on that?
Can I say, as a sidenote, there was a discussion handling whether or not we can link "Timeship" to "TARDIS". It was never concluded yes or no, yet there was a conflict of interests with me stating that saying yes would be jumping to conclusions, and FP readers/listeners saying yes because "it was obvious". We agreed that the use of "Ship" and "Timeship" most likely referred to TARDISes but whether or not we should jump to these conclusions was where we differed.
Where did this discussion end? It didn't. FP readers went ahead and linked up "Timeship" to "TARDIS" and "Ship" to "The Doctor's TARDIS" without waiting for a conclusion.
- NateBumber
I don't have time right now to address this discussion as thoroughly as I'd like, but I wanted to jump in to address this allegation at the end real quick.I'm not really clear what thread you're talking about here. Can you link me? I know that this was quite thoroughly discussed in the FP inclusion debate thread. The conclusion was that, since (per The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel) the Great Houses are explicitly confirmed to be the Time Lords, some things can be crosslinked without being speculation: namely, the Great Houses' Homeworld is Gallifrey, and the Great Houses' timeships are TARDISes. This follows the long-standing precedent already used for series like Bernice Summerfield, where Brax's "timeship" is linked to TARDIS and "his people" are linked to the Time Lords. However, articles should use the terminology used in their source material: eg War King is a "member of the Great Houses", whereas the Doctor is a "Time Lord". Furthermore, when the word "timeship" is used in Faction Paradox outside the explicit context of the Great Houses, it goes to the regular timeship page.
Thefartydoctor wrote: Can I say, as a sidenote, there was a discussion handling whether or not we can link "Timeship" to "TARDIS". It was never concluded yes or no, yet there was a conflict of interests with me stating that saying yes would be jumping to conclusions, and FP readers/listeners saying yes because "it was obvious". We agreed that the use of "Ship" and "Timeship" most likely referred to TARDISes but whether or not we should jump to these conclusions was where we differed.
Where did this discussion end? It didn't. FP readers went ahead and linked up "Timeship" to "TARDIS" and "Ship" to "The Doctor's TARDIS" without waiting for a conclusion.I freely admit that some overenthusiastic editors have gone beyond the bounds of this policy. (And by that I mean "one or two", since there are only about 3 people contributing to Faction Paradox articles right now.) However, I've taken great lengths to double-check their work and try to evenly correct any errors so as to enforce this policy across the wiki. If anyone thinks it's flawed, I eagerly invite criticism!
- NateBumber
Jeez, dude, please calm down. This seems unnecessarily hostile. I'm sorry for any offense I've caused to you; it was completely accidental.
Amorkuz wrote: As for the "stretch", let me ask you: do you believe you should start making changes before this discussion is over? Do you not believe that it is a policy of this Wiki to wait until the thread is closed even when it is not a matter of policy but another more local debate concerning multiple pages? Do you need me to persuade you of that?
I pointed you to the relevant policy. Are you trying to wiggle your way out of it? Or is this an intellectual exercise? In the latter case, I would prefer not to spend time humouring you on that.I freely admit that this is by no means an intellectual exercise; I had no clue whatsoever that "a local debate involving multiple pages" is remotely covered by T:BOUND, especially since said policy is explicitly written solely and only in reference to the rules (that is to say, those encoded in the very well-written forum policies), not mere precedent. Furthermore, it seemed to me like there was already plenty of long-standing precedent for some TARDISes being individuals while others were objects, as I demonstrated in a cursory examination of Category:Individual TARDISes.
(And just to settle something - "Faction Paradox stories" is currently referring to stories in which Faction Paradox appear, whereas "FP stories" is stories in the Faction Paradox spinoff range. Alien Bodies was an Eighth Doctor novel published by the BBC.)
As I said (or intended to say) earlier, I think a lot of the current templates need heavy revision. The weird and vague differences between "Individual" and "Object", and "Group" and "Species" in general, could be a lot more coherently addressed. But I 1000% back the proposal to create a unique infobox for TARDISes! I think that would be a wonderful compromise, and I'm glad to see some agreement on it. Hopefully this debate can come to a speedy and amenable resolution for all parties.
- SOTO
T:BOUND aside, now this discussion has begun you are bound by T:POINT not to act on your opinions while this is ongoing.
To be clear about the use of {{Infobox Object}}, that is the correct infobox for a vehicle. It is not saying that the TARDIS is an object, but she is unequivocally a vehicle.
Now, this isn't a philosophical discussion about what is and isn't a living thing within the Doctor Who universe. In fact, this is almost purely a technical issue. {{Infobox Object}} is used because of the parameters it provides. It's "type" is a Type 40 TARDIS. It used to say it was "used by" the Doctor, and I don't know when or why that was removed.
An actor variable could feasibly be added to this infobox, if necessary, as there are a number of objects who are/become sentient, and are performed by someone in their story.
Now within the category tree, this are both individuals and vehicles. "I'm not trying to say that all TARDISes are individuals. I'm trying to say that the Doctor's TARDIS is an individual." No, there is a clear flaw in this logic. Regardless, it's not a question or one or the other, at least in regards to definition of the topic. It's about which infobox it makes the most sense to use.
And one last note: I haven't read that short story, but I do know that in The Doctor's Wife, the "Ship" in question calls all the TARDISes in the TARDIS graveyard her "sisters".
- Amorkuz
Now that the issue of the infobox is settled, let's return to TARDIS sisters that started all this. On Thread:208233, NateBumber himself explains that frivolous linking, such as of the War King to Master is not allowed. Here is a quote:
"if and only if it's explicitly stated in-text that a Faction Paradox character or concept is a Doctor Who character or concept, then and only then can we put FP information on that article here. Otherwise, a separate page must be made, like War King vs the Master or the Mistress vs Romana. Information about the Imperator does not belong on the page for Morbius."
So I ask again for a quote that explicitly states that Lolita's sister "the Ship" is the Doctor's TARDIS. If it exists, I would ask to add it to the BHS section of the page of Lolita. If no such evidence exists, I would kindly ask NateBumber, in complying with his own standards, to remove the link and also state in BHS that this link is implied but is not (yet) considered valid on this Wiki.
- Amorkuz
In a separate post I would like to publicly apologise to NateBumber if my words seemed hostile. I was a bit surprised by what I (mis)construed as his repeated refusal to abide by the forum rules (since confirmed by several other users including an admin). I'm happy that I was wrong.
- Amorkuz
UPD: NateBumber himself discounted the link between the Ship and the Doctor's TARDIS as invalid for this wiki here: (it lacks an asterisk).
- Thefartydoctor
As requested, I link you all to the thread regarding "Time ships vs TARDIS". It seems that through haste, the FP editors didn't allow that thread to even be concluded before editing any and all "Time ship" related articles.
(http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:208475)
As you'll see me say, I agree that it's highly likely that whenever the term "Time ship" is used, what the author wishes to say is "TARDIS". Evidently due to legal reasons, this was not possible at the time. What I go on to say is that if the text at hand does not refer to a "TARDIS", then you can't really link to "TARDIS". That was my opinion on the matter.
I doubt that the members of that discussion simply ignored the thread. I simply think they got excited with the inclusion of FP into this Wiki and went ahead. It must be pointed out that making such a decision without a thread being closed and the go ahead from an admin is breaking rules.
Again, I do agree that "Time ships" refers to "TARDISes" but the name "time ship" is too ambiguous for us to simply leap to conclusions. The Daleks have time ships, but they're not TARDISes. In The Empty Child, I think it's safe to assume that Jack's stolen ship could travel in time, but that time ship isn't a TARDIS.
I apologise for this tangent, but I think that we should be closing threads before opening new ones.
- Amorkuz
Not a tangent at all. A valid contribution regarding the current state of FPEntry and how timeships from FP are being integrated with TARDISes.
It appears that we're seeing a clash of cultures: editors from FP successfully used authorial intent to make FP a valid source. But now they are using it in in-universe articles outside of BHS, which is against the policy of this Wiki.
On this Wiki, after a year of discussions we still can't call Osgood "Petronella". And we certainly cannot claim her to be the daughter of Tom Osgood, despite a clear statement of Moffat that he meant it and various hints here and there. So it is certainly not okay to use mass speculation to equate all elements of FP "intended" to represent DW to those elements.
I am, frankly, a bit dismayed at the situation. Perhaps, it requires more admin management than initially anticipated (or, perhaps, CzechOut actually anticipated it all too well). On the one hand, we have eager editors rightfully wishing to capitalise on their win of validity, but not necessarily well acquainted with all the policies here (as evidenced by NateBumber not knowing that editing is not allowed until the discussion is closed by an admin). On the other hand, there are editors like me who suddenly learn that TARDIS has a sister and are unable to receive a shred of in-universe evidence of that. The former probably feel that the still open discussions impede their progress. And the the latter seem to be getting distrustful of these new changes. I certainly am.
Thus, my request to the admins. Would it be possible, as a courtesy to FPers, to close those relevant threads that actually have been agreed upon? I was not part of that discussion, but if some induction agreement was brokered with NateBumber and other FPers, could it be written into our policies? I keep looking at his list, which itself is on a still open thread, and am becoming wary of this list being controlled by just one person and hosted outside of this wiki, with no possibility of viewing the history of changes. Could this list (or uncontroversial parts thereof) be codified into the policies of this wiki? That would prevent many discussions such as this and Thread:208475.
At this point, as an ordinary user, not involved in FP, it is hard for me to figure out what has been established already. My repeated requests for in-universe evidence have so far been ignored. And this discussion does not fill me with confidence that the FP editors are successfully avoiding overreaching.
- Pluto2
The body "the Ship" occupies in Toy Story is Compassion. She's described with "pale skin" and "red hair". She also has an earpiece. It's not stated she's Compassion, and this isn't a licensing issue. Miles owns Compassion. The reason she's unnamed is thematic. It's not necessary to call her Compassion when a description of her is given, anyway.
- NateBumber
Thanks to Amorkuz for their apology and SOTO for their clarification on T:BOUND and current infobox policy. Frankly, I don't see a point to this thread now that those points have been concluded, but I'd like to clarify some things said about Faction Paradox in this thread.As it happens, I stopped updating that link when I created this easier-to-find page, which does (correctly) have an asterisk next to the Ship; I've removed the outdated link from the other thread. Thank you for this reminder!
Amorkuz wrote:
UPD: NateBumber himself discounted the link between the Ship and the Doctor's TARDIS as invalid for this wiki here: (it lacks an asterisk).Toy Story was originally published in a fan anthology, so it was allowed to use the names "Doctor", "TARDIS", "Fitz", and "Compassion". However, it didn't. This has nothing to do with licensing: Lawrence Miles owns the character of Compassion, and he still only describes her as "the redhead female passenger with the ear implant" in the official release of Toy Story. Why? Because the story is told from the point of view of Lolita and the Ship. Of course they wouldn't use the Time Lords' names for themselves! Renaming and unnaming through perspective shifts is a fundamental part of the Faction Paradox series. No, the Ship isn't referred to using the words "the Doctor's TARDIS". But it's a blue police box that's bigger on the inside and can travel through space and time, carrying a redhead with an ear implant and a male who's been replicated by the cuckoo pilot.
(I'll note that I was accused of using "using authorial intent in in-universe articles outside of 'Behind the scenes'", which is patently untrue. None of the evidence that I've cited has anything to do with authorial intent, and depends fully on the actual text of the stories at hand. In contrast, identifications that do depend on authorial intent, or are only ambiguously confirmed in-text, like War King and the Master, have been kept completely separate, except in the "Behind the scenes" section as specified. The last few posters have been collectively addressing "FP editors" as if we're some sort of coordinated clan. Please don't trivialize my individuality; there's no conspiracy going on here.)
If we're to deny this and decide that unambiguous physical descriptions and identifiers aren't enough to establish identity (and this is what we would be deciding, since one of these cannot come without the other), a lot of this wiki needs to be drastically changed. To begin with, in Short Trips (series), the Doctor is never identified by number, just physical description; therefore, we must create individual pages for each character, since "the Doctor with the technicolor dreamcoat" is only implied to be the Sixth. Similarly, every single uncopyrighted reference to the Daleks in the Virgin New Adventures must be removed, as must the appearance of K9 in Kept Safe and Sound (which is a perfect analogy for Toy Story, since it was both published officially and in a fan anthology without BBC licenses).
It's ironic to me that, considering the relevance of T:BOUND in this debate, Amorkuz has gone ahead and edited Lolita to link her species to "timeship" instead of "TARDIS". I had no idea that the other thread existed, since it lived and died during my vacation, but it was completely redundant to the decisions already proposed in the OP of Thread:206566 and affirmed in Thread:208233. The dissenting arguments all seem to boil down toBut as I have clarified multiple times, even in this thread, the word "timeship" is only being linked to TARDIS in the context of the Great Houses, which have been repeatedly and explicitly confirmed to be the Time Lords. Similarly, TARDISes have been referred to as timeships before (as pointed out in the original thread), for instance, in the case of Brax in the Bernice Summerfield novels. If the Faction Paradox has a timeship, it's not linked to TARDIS; if the Remote has a timeship, it's not linked to TARDIS. It's only the timeships of the Time Lords that are linked to TARDIS.Thefartydoctor wrote:
The name "time ship" is too ambiguous for us to simply leap to conclusions. The Daleks have time ships, but they're not TARDISes. In The Empty Child, I think it's safe to assume that Jack's stolen ship could travel in time, but that time ship isn't a TARDIS.If anyone has any arguments against this policy besides just saying "It's speculation", I would love to discuss them. Until then, I think the matter should stay settled (as it was by CzechOut in the original thread).
- Amorkuz
It's ironic to me that, considering the relevance of T:BOUND in this debate, Amorkuz has gone ahead and edited Lolita to link her species to "timeship" instead of "TARDIS".
First of all, I did not edit the body of Lolita. I simply removed disputed elements from the infobox and provided two references to the relevant policy by two different admins. What is indeed ironic is that then Pluto2, who herself created the page Toy Story (short story) in complete disregard of T:POINT, immediately accused me of violating the same policy.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
It's ironic to me that, considering the relevance of T:BOUND in this debate, Amorkuz has gone ahead and edited Lolita to link her species to "timeship" instead of "TARDIS".
First of all, I did not edit the body of Lolita. I simply removed disputed elements from the infobox and provided two references to the relevant policy by two different admins. What is indeed ironic is that then Pluto2, who herself created the page Toy Story (short story) in complete disregard of T:POINT, immediately accused me of violating the same policy.
Erm, how did I violate T:POINT?
- NateBumber
What evidence do you have to dispute that Lolita is a TARDIS? What evidence does anyone have to dispute that Lolita is a TARDIS? In The Book of the War and the Faction Paradox audios, Lolita is definitively identified as a timeship of the Great Houses, that is to say, a TARDIS, per everything I cited in my last post. The actions of Pluto2 have nothing to do with me (and I don't understand why they were brought up), though considering that Toy Story (short story) was created a week ago, while this discussion was created yesterday, I don't see how she could have possibly violated T:POINT.
Amorkuz wrote:
First of all, I did not edit the body of Lolita. I simply removed disputed elements from the infobox and provided two references to the relevant policy by two different admins. What is indeed ironic is that then Pluto2, who herself created the page Toy Story (short story) in complete disregard of T:POINT, immediately accused me of violating the same policy. - Amorkuz
There was an open discussion over whether specifically Lolita can be considered a TARDIS. This is still open (I'm not gonna provide the link for the umpteenth time, it's above). The discussion was, in fact, initiated by you, on January 1, so you couldn't be unaware of it. The discussion was ongoing. Three editors were against considering Lolita a TARDIS. I added my voice to them before you removed the thread today at 21:25 as "redundant". Just for the record, I strongly disagree that this discussion was redundant. I will let admins decide who is right.
However, your edit to The Doctor's TARDIS on January 21 added Lolita as the sister of the Doctor's TARDIS in infobox. This both claims that Lolita is also a TARDIS while the discussion of it is ongoing, violating T:POINT and puts disputed information in the infobox, which is generally disallowed.
- Amorkuz
The fact that Lolita and the Doctor's TARDIS are sisters has also been stated on Toy Story (short story), which was created by you on January 14.
In addition, Thread:208233, where the rules of editing FP characters on this Wiki are laid out by NateBumber (with an outdated link), is still open. Thus, the rules over which characters can be linked and which cannot are not decided yet. What's worse, it seems impossible to find the current version of these undecided rules for other editors. Hence, all the linking made on this page is a violation of T:POINT.
- Amorkuz
@NateBumber. It is not an issue of whether evidence exists or not. In fact, you have to prove that Lolita is a TARDIS, not the other way around. What matters is that there was an open discussion, initiated by Pluto2 herself. She did not wait till the discussion is closed by an admin, proceeded to edit various pages the way she wanted, and now closed the discussion as "redundant".
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote:
As it happens, I stopped updating that link when I created this easier-to-find page, which does (correctly) have an asterisk next to the Ship; I've removed the outdated link from the other thread. Thank you for this reminder!Amorkuz wrote:
UPD: NateBumber himself discounted the link between the Ship and the Doctor's TARDIS as invalid for this wiki here: (it lacks an asterisk).Thank you for the clarification. I'm afraid I'll have to wait till allowable links are set as policy by admins of this Wiki. This forgetfulness is a perfect illustration of why policy-related matters should not be hosted outside of this Wiki.
- NateBumber
Amorkuz, I'm not going to reply to each of your posts, but that discussion was redundant because (as I've already explained) Lolita is indisputably a timeship of the Great Houses, and the Great Houses' timeships were already decided to be an acceptable reference to TARDISes, per the admin-closed-and-approved inclusion debate. Have you read that thread? While I freely admit that the Ship might be a different matter, the fact that Lolita (a timeship) is a TARDIS has already been decided.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: (I'll note that I was accused of using "using authorial intent in in-universe articles outside of 'Behind the scenes'", which is patently untrue. None of the evidence that I've cited has anything to do with authorial intent, and depends fully on the actual text of the stories at hand. In contrast, identifications that do depend on authorial intent, or are only ambiguously confirmed in-text, like War King and the Master, have been kept completely separate, except in the "Behind the scenes" section as specified. The last few posters have been collectively addressing "FP editors" as if we're some sort of coordinated clan. Please don't trivialize my individuality; there's no conspiracy going on here.)
This wasn't about you. I actually meant Pluto2. However, this generally comes from the fact that FP editors do not like to explain the reasoning behind the edits. There are many things you know about FP. But without knowing your reasoning, I have no idea whether it is sufficient by the standards of this Wiki on evidence, which are pretty high. And the edits that brought my attention to FP, which I have no interest whatsoever, were completely devoid of explanations. My quest for information led me to an outdated link, still providing very little in the way of reasoning.
Now I am very thankful that I am finally getting some information. You treat it as a done deal. Great Houses used TARDISes. Great Houses made Lolita. Thus, Lolita is a TARDIS. Has this been decided? Could I have a link please? 'Cos I see a flaw with this reasoning. Could Great Houses make time ships other than TARDISes? They certainly liked time trinkets. What has been the lore at FP is all very new to me. And I would appreciate if you would explain first and shoot second.
As I said earlier: persuade the admins to put this into rules. List these rules for all to see (for us, not knowing anything about FP and for others who know more about FP than is allowed here). And we will not have to argue. Because we both understand that this is not the last time, right? A month from now, somebody would claim, say, that Sutekh is a TARDIS or a TARDIS host because he was controlled by Lolita, and it will all start again.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: Of course they wouldn't use the Time Lords' names for themselves! Renaming and unnaming through perspective shifts is a fundamental part of the Faction Paradox series. No, the Ship isn't referred to using the words "the Doctor's TARDIS". But it's a blue police box that's bigger on the inside and can travel through space and time, carrying a redhead with an ear implant and a male who's been replicated by the cuckoo pilot.
[...]
If we're to deny this and decide that unambiguous physical descriptions and identifiers aren't enough to establish identity (and this is what we would be deciding, since one of these cannot come without the other), a lot of this wiki needs to be drastically changed. To begin with, in Short Trips (series), the Doctor is never identified by number, just physical description; therefore, we must create individual pages for each character, since "the Doctor with the technicolor dreamcoat" is only implied to be the Sixth. Similarly, every single uncopyrighted reference to the Daleks in the Virgin New Adventures must be removed, as must the appearance of K9 in Kept Safe and Sound (which is a perfect analogy for Toy Story, since it was both published officially and in a fan anthology without BBC licenses).
Note how the first sentence quoted is a speculation. Plus, why wouldn't they use the actual names of their passengers pilots? We know that the Doctor's TARDIS knows the Doctor's name. And has used it. Indeed, why would anyone use lengthy descriptions instead of actual names? Maybe TARDISes are like that, maybe not. We can only speculate.
Regarding "unambiguous physical descriptions" in a world with Zygons, parallel universes, mirror images, clones, etc., thanks but no thanks.
It is true that sometimes the identity is deduced based on the sum of stated features. Someone who is called the Doctor and is wearing a technicolour coat looks like someone we know. If everyone agrees, it is used, if someone disagrees, it is discussed. That's what I'm used to on this wiki. I am used, however, to having at least one name as a point of reference.
So let me ask again. Has it been decided by a discussion on this wiki that the female companion is Compassion, that the male companion is Fitz Kreiner, that the Pilot is the (not just any but Eighth) Doctor. If I missed that discussion, just point to a link to a closed forum thread or an adopted policy. I'll be happy and stop worrying about speculations and authorial intent creeping up.
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: the fact that Lolita (a timeship) is a TARDIS has already been decided.
Could I hope for a courtesy of a link? Specifically about Lolita? And specifically about the Eighth Doctor? And specifically about Fitz Kreiner? And specifically about Compassion? They were/are all linked on Toy Story (short story).
- Amorkuz
NateBumber wrote: While I freely admit that the Ship might be a different matter, the fact that Lolita (a timeship) is a TARDIS has already been decided.
I am happy that you agree that your edit to the infobox of The Doctor's TARDIS (DT) that claimed that Lolita is the sister of DT because it is stated in some story that she is the sister of "the Ship" was not based on a valid approved in-universe evidence (and maybe, just maybe was a bit of a speculation).
- NateBumber
You keep adding comments! Please give me a chance to reply!
- Amorkuz
Pluto2 wrote: The body "the Ship" occupies in Toy Story is Compassion.
Woah, wait a mo. I missed something important. So this "the Ship" in Toy Story is actually Compassion? And this Ship is the sister of Lolita. Should it not then be Compassion who is Lolita's sister?
Wait, wait, there's more. The female companion in the story is Compassion and the Ship is Compassion, and the main setting is the Ship, i.e., Compassion. So Compassion is within itself. This certainly beats Time/Space in weirdness.
This is, again, a perfect example of certain FP lore reaching conclusions, not providing any details on this Wiki (nothing about this on pages Compassion, newly minted Toy Story (short story), or The Doctor's TARDIS), and then the final conclusion being edited without any explanation directly into the infobox of the Doctor's TARDIS.
Just put yourself in the shoes of someone who first heard of FP from the inclusion debates and wasn't really that interested. I'm sure you'd understand why I am getting alarmed.
- Pluto2
Amorkuz wrote:
Pluto2 wrote: The body "the Ship" occupies in Toy Story is Compassion.
Woah, wait a mo. I missed something important. So this "the Ship" in Toy Story is actually Compassion? And this Ship is the sister of Lolita. Should it not then be Compassion who is Lolita's sister?
Wait, wait, there's more. The female companion in the story is Compassion and the Ship is Compassion, and the main setting is the Ship, i.e., Compassion. So Compassion is within itself. This certainly beats Time/Space in weirdness.
This is, again, a perfect example of certain FP lore reaching conclusions, not providing any details on this Wiki (nothing about this on pages Compassion, newly minted Toy Story (short story), or The Doctor's TARDIS), and then the final conclusion being edited without any explanation directly into the infobox of the Doctor's TARDIS.
Just put yourself in the shoes of someone who first heard of FP from the inclusion debates and wasn't really that interested. I'm sure you'd understand why I am getting alarmed.
Compassion, the Doctor, and Fitz are travelling in the TARDIS. Lolita visits while they're asleep. The TARDIS/Ship temporarily takes control of Compassion.
At this point, Compassion is still human. The Ship has borrowed her body to talk with Lolita.
- Bwburke94
But whom exactly is "the Ship" at this point?
- Pluto2
Bwburke94 wrote: But whom exactly is "the Ship" at this point?
The Doctor's TARDIS is the Ship. She's borrowed Compassion's body.
- Amorkuz
Thank you for explaining. And good luck editing that (honestly). I've edited body-changing/body-duplicating stories and remember the agony of coming up with sufficiently many pages for all bodies and all minds and with names for all these pages complying with all policies.
- Pluto2
Do you now agree that it's clear the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS?
- NateBumber
I will gladly explain this. The OP in Thread:206566 (affirmed in Thread:208233) already addressed that the FP series calls TARDISes "timeships", and Faction Paradox stories make it extremely clear that Lolita is a timeship of the same make as any used by the Great Houses. So the treatment of Lolita as a TARDIS is a straightforward application of that judgment.
Amorkuz wrote:
Great Houses used TARDISes. Great Houses made Lolita. Thus, Lolita is a TARDIS. Has this been decided? Could I have a link please? 'Cos I see a flaw with this reasoning. Could Great Houses make time ships other than TARDISes? They certainly liked time trinkets. What has been the lore at FP is all very new to me. And I would appreciate if you would explain first and shoot second.Lolita first appears in Toy Story, where she materializes in a way consistent with a Type 103 TARDIS, talks to another timeship (consistent with a Type 40 TARDIS) as her "sister", and makes it otherwise clear that she shares immediate ancestry with the Ship. The following is an excerpt from Of the City of the Saved... (novel):
More legends are told concerning the 101-form timeship than any other ship of the Great Houses, with the obvious exception of Compassion herself. Although the tales are fragmentary, confused and contradictory, they always agree on two particulars: the 101-form was the first fully humanoid timeship; and it was completely barking – that is to say radically unstable, mentally and perhaps also physically. There are two distinct variants of the legend. One holds that the 101-form was originally a normal non-humanoid time capsule, which was subjected (or possibly chose to subject itself) to radical and violent biodata-altering agents. In these versions the resultant 101-form prototype was, like those who followed, female in appearance, and wore her designation proudly (though perhaps covertly). She seems somehow to have infiltrated the Houses themselves, and was perhaps used by them as an agent against other civilisations: in secret, however, she never ceased working against them, and for her own ends. Some fringe accounts suggest she gave birth to a race of monsters, a whole species of humanoid timeships separate from the 103-forms and without human ancestry.The second rumor is of no relevance here, though it is affirmed to accurately describe Antipathy, who plays a large role in Of the City of the Saved.... (Note that the passage refers to TARDISes of a certain generation as "#-form" instead of "type #".) In any case, the first "rumor" (quoted above) accurately describes (to a tee) Lolita's actions and behavior in The Shadow Play (audio story), where she acts as an agent of the Great Houses and carries a baby 103-form. I hope this lays to rest the discussion about whether Lolita is a TARDIS.Note how the first sentence quoted is a speculation. Plus, why wouldn't they use the actual names of their passengers pilots? We know that the Doctor's TARDIS knows the Doctor's name. And has used it. Indeed, why would anyone use lengthy descriptions instead of actual names? Maybe TARDISes are like that, maybe not. We can only speculate.They wouldn't use the names of their passengers and pilots because it's told from the perspective of Lolita, not the Doctor's TARDIS.Thank you for explaining. And good luck editing that (honestly). I've edited body-changing/body-duplicating stories and remember the agony of coming up with sufficiently many pages for all bodies and all minds and with names for all these pages complying with all policies.I mean, as far as I see it, Lolita stays in the same body, and Fitz stays in the same body; the Doctor's TARDIS just briefly possesses Compassion's body and speaks through her mouth.So let me ask again. Has it been decided by a discussion on this wiki that the female companion is Compassion, that the male companion is Fitz Kreiner, that the Pilot is the (not just any but Eighth) Doctor. If I missed that discussion, just point to a link to a closed forum thread or an adopted policy.Could I hope for a courtesy of a link? Specifically about Lolita? And specifically about the Eighth Doctor? And specifically about Fitz Kreiner? And specifically about Compassion?I am happy that you agree that your edit to the infobox of The Doctor's TARDIS (DT) that claimed that Lolita is the sister of DT because it is stated in some story that she is the sister of "the Ship" was not based on a valid approved in-universe evidence (and maybe, just maybe was a bit of a speculation).It seems as if you're deliberately misinterpreting me. To clarify, I was trying to say, "". I'm not saying that there's no evidence that the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS; I'm not saying that there's been a closed debate about whether the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS. Never did I even once suggest any of those things. Why would there be a thread about the Ship being the Doctor's TARDIS? This is that debate. I'm just trying to lay to rest this distraction about whether Lolita is a TARDIS: as I've said earlier, the fact that timeships are TARDISes was already addressed; I've just demonstrated that Lolita is a TARDIS "timeship" and not some other kind. Hopefully this can lay that non sequitur to rest. - Amorkuz
original snarky replyLook. You believe the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS, clearly. You've probably believed it for a long time, so it seems like the only possibility given the facts. But it's not.
For me there is more than one level of novelty here to get used to. Because I also have a complete picture of the part of the DWU I'm familiar with. Most writers I consume respect the main tenets, so I have this comfortable view over TV, books, comics, and audios that has painted a particular picture of what a TARDIS is. And what it is not. I've seen the difficulties the TARDIS has communicating with its passengers. I've seen it behaving like a dumb machine doing the Doctor's enemies' bidding. What I haven't seen is a humanoid TARDIS. And I'm asking myself: why is it a TARDIS? Can you enter it? Where is the door? Yes, you've mentioned already it was from EDA. But in AUDIO: Zagreus it is heavily implied that EDA happens in an alternative universe. There is a scene where the Doctor sees various versions of himself, including, I am told, the one from the EDA. So in my mind, these humanoid TARDISes are not necessarily on the same plain of reality that I'm interested in. I may be wrong here: never investigated it properly.
But now it turns out the TARDIS can just take over a human at will? Fine, let it be a sleeping human, they all still sleep from time to time. I can even grant that, in the timey-wimeyness of DWU, such things exist, or that such TARDISes exist. But that the Doctor's TARDIS can do that? And only did it once through all the scraps they've been in? Why would I believe that? Why would I want to believe that without explicit evidence?
I do not recognise this TARDIS's behaviour. I do not recognise its abilities. It is not called the TARDIS. Its pilot is not called the Doctor. Yes, he's called cuckoo. Hardly a unique characteristic. Yes, his female companion has an earpiece and pale skin. Yes, the pilot did something to the male companion. For every action, I'm pretty sure there dozens of stories in the DWU where this action is performed.
Of course, they are intended to be the Eight Doctor, his TARDIS, and his companions. But there were oh, so many very on the nose (sometimes literally) hints that were not allowed to be taken seriously until an independent verification.
- The Curator was clearly an incarnation of the Doctor, right? I mean we could see that! The Doctor could see that. The Curator said: "perhaps, you would be me". He pointed to his nose and said: "Who nose". But no, that wasn't enough. Until the Curator appeared in a timeline attack on the Eleventh Doctor in Titan comics, it was not sufficiently clear for this Wiki.
- Osgood said her name was Petronella. The Doctor called her Petronella. Big Finish put Petronella in the cast. Doctor Who Legacy (invalid though they are) calls the character Petronella Osgood. It is still not sufficient for this Wiki.
Those cases are much more clear-cut that the anonymous Ship with anonymous passengers meeting with Lolita who is not the Master's TARDIS and is the Ship's sister.
So no, I am not convinced yet. Yes, there is a space for a productive discussion. And as CoT said on another thread, the standard solution is to merge things that are explicitly called by the same name in universe and create duplicate pages for things with hints but nothing definite. This is done for many Doctors from short stories, where hints are there but are insufficient to determine the incarnation. For me, there is nothing wrong with The Ship (Toy Story) with a BHS link to the Doctor's TARDIS and a BHS link in the opposite direction.
One final thought. There is, I imagine, tons of things to create and edit for the invalid-made-valid FP. Fleshing out all those pages is, perhaps, the best way of persuading me and other sceptics of your position. As the case of Petronella shows, this debate can last a long time. It would be a pity if some of FP material will hinge on the results of this debate. Wouldn't it be better to create pages first under non-controversial names, populate them and then come with a suggestion to merge or rename.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the visibility of this new material would be much higher if it is on separate pages. People very rarely link to a specific section of a long page like The Doctor's TARDIS or Eighth Doctor. I'm not sure anyone actually reads the whole page of this size. So adding material about this short story there means, in a sense, burying it deep inside.
- Amorkuz
Procedures are very important.
The "affirming" Thread:208233 has not been closed by an admin. Which means that no affirmation has been reached and no edits are allowed based on to-be-achieved conclusions at the time of their closing. Thread:206566 is properly closed, yes. The word "Lolita" is mentioned there twice, both times in the context of "House Lolita". Was it decided on that thread that specifically Lolita is a TARDIS? No.
Just for the record, what you say in this thread about Lolita is extremely interesting (and I am thankful for the explanation). It may even have persuaded me, but the thread is also open, meaning that editing Lolita to be a TARDIS based on this thread is also premature.
What is a non sequitur for you is somehow important for me to orient myself in the brave new world of FPentry. I know it's a happier occasion than Brexit but it still requires getting used to. Moreover, this question is directly relevant to the original topic.
What can lay this "non sequitur" to rest is a consensus reached on this thread, reopening of the improperly closed thread started by Pluto2, reaching consensus there, followed by a closure of both threads by an admin (not necessarily the same one).
PS Are proper names ever used in FP, or is it written so as to torment poor editors here with all those Ships, Pilots, 101-forms, baby-timeship-monster-non-TARDISes, etc.?
- Pluto2
Why are you arguing about this when you haven't even read Toy Story? At least read it before you start doing this stuff.
- Thefartydoctor
I've read a couple of times here that the reason the words "TARDIS" and "Time Lords" are not used is not down to legal reasons. Can I ask for a simplified explanation as to the reason why FP couldn't use these terms? I've visited the official website and it doesn't explain it. I've even emailed the BBC and the official Doctor Who team a while back to confirm a license and no-one returned my emails. I'm at a loss.
In my opinion, even if there is a license... even if it's a BBV-style agreement where you're allowed to use DWU elements but not name them, I'm still of the opinion that things have to be named in order for them to be accepted as a valid source. If something's not called "TARDIS", then it's not a "TARDIS". I'm not really bothered about this "Great House" stuff. I'm a reasonable man and I can happily accept that "Great House" relate to the "Time Lords". But for me, 'the timeships of the Great Houses' means nothing. It just means the Great Houses has ships that can travel in time. Stating they are therefore TARDISes, regardless of what the authors have previously stated and intended, means nothing.
To quote a previous, similar, example: "the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat" is obviously the Sixth Doctor. Obviously, it was discussed in case others didn't agree but it seemed anyone with half a brain recognised his mannerisms and his description and was happy with the conclusion.
You have to note that myself and Amorkuz are not here to make your life more difficult. We care too much about the DWU and about this Wiki to let unsupported evidence make it here. We may not know much about FP and we may not want to know much about it, but we accept its existence and we accept the Wiki's new approach to it. To me, at the moment, if all truth be told, it seems like FP users are using backstreet methods to reach conclusions. Such as: this random Benny novel used the term "timeship" and this relates to this novel, which in turn bears a resemblance to this audio...
Apologies if you find anything I've said offensive but I'd rather be honest about my opinions than be a backseat component in this debate. Give me something I can't dispute. If you guys won't discuss at the official TARDIS vs Timeships thread, then discuss it here. :)
- Thefartydoctor
I also agree with Amorkuz that it is not our onus to disprove your findings. If the matter at hand is on rocky grounds, it's down to the person or people making claims to prove themselves. :) Amorkuz doesn't need to disprove anything at the moment.
- NateBumber
Wait, what? It really seems as if you're admitting that you consider the EDAs to be a less reliable source than other Doctor Who stories, based solely on your personal "canon". This goes against the heart of this wiki's rules: policy states that we cannot classify the EDAs as an alternate or lesser universe, regardless of whatever speculatory (and inaccurate) statements are made in Zagreus. If you're genuinely curious about how one gets into a humanoid TARDIS, why don't you read Marie's introduction in Alien Bodies? If you want to know whether the Doctor's TARDIS is the Ship, why don't you read about its description in Toy Story? You're straight-up admitting to be making snap decisions in the absence of any knowledge about the source material, and I don't see why your seniority should make you any better an authority on this than anyone else.
Amorkuz wrote:
For me there is more than one level of novelty here to get used to. Because I also have a complete picture of the part of the DWU I'm familiar with. Most writers I consume respect the main tenets, so I have this comfortable view over TV, books, comics, and audios that has painted a particular picture of what a TARDIS is. And what it is not. I've seen the difficulties the TARDIS has communicating with its passengers. I've seen it behaving like a dumb machine doing the Doctor's enemies' bidding. What I haven't seen is a humanoid TARDIS. And I'm asking myself: why is it a TARDIS? Can you enter it? Where is the door? Yes, you've mentioned already it was from EDA. But in AUDIO: Zagreus it is heavily implied that EDA happens in an alternative universe. There is a scene where the Doctor sees various versions of himself, including, I am told, the one from the EDA. So in my mind, these humanoid TARDISes are not necessarily on the same plain of reality that I'm interested in. I may be wrong here: never investigated it properly.I do not recognise this TARDIS's behaviour. I do not recognise its abilities. It is not called the TARDIS. Its pilot is not called the Doctor. Yes, he's called cuckoo. Hardly a unique characteristic. Yes, his female companion has an earpiece and pale skin. Yes, the pilot did something to the male companion. For every action, I'm pretty sure there dozens of stories in the DWU where this action is performed.You're right! It's not called the TARDIS. Instead, it's named with a word that has been elsewhere demonstrated to be a functional replacement for the "TARDIS", and described to be a blue police box that's bigger on the inside, with crewmembers whose appearances and mannerisms match specific descriptions. I freely welcome you to hit me with the "dozens of stories in the DWU" where this exact combination has been met, outside of the Doctor's TARDIS; then I'll be very willing to bow down.The "affirming" Thread:208233 has not been closed by an admin. Which means that no affirmation has been reached and no edits are allowed based on to-be-achieved conclusions at the time of their closing. Thread:206566 is properly closed, yes. The word "Lolita" is mentioned there twice, both times in the context of "House Lolita". Was it decided on that thread that specifically Lolita is a TARDIS? No.As I think I've specified several times now, what was decided in that thread wasn't that Lolita is a TARDIS! I was trying to say that in Thread:206566, we established that the Great Houses' "timeships" are TARDISes, which was affirmed in CzechOut's comment there and his OP in Thread:208233; since Lolita is a timeship, it logically follows that Lolita is a TARDIS. There was no explicit discussion about Lolita, just as there hasn't been one for any of the Great Houses' other timeships; the debate about whether Lolita is a TARDIS, is a subset of the debate about whether the Great Houses' timeships are TARDISes, which was already settled (and closed by an admin) in the original thread. Yes, the debate has been reopened in this thread and the previous one; no, no new information has been presented. Per T:POINT, this simply isn't enough to reconsider the decision.What is a non sequitur for you is somehow important for me to orient myself in the brave new world of FPentry. I know it's a happier occasion than Brexit but it still requires getting used to. Moreover, this question is directly relevant to the original topic.Hey, cheers to that! But if you're looking for an orientation to Faction Paradox, I think you should start a different thread, or maybe read the original debate.PS Are proper names ever used in FP, or is it written so as to torment poor editors here with all those Ships, Pilots, 101-forms, baby-timeship-monster-non-TARDISes, etc.?Oh, the novels are very good at giving names. (Lots of names, sometimes. Far, far too many names. So many red links.) The short stories like Toy Story can usually afford to be much much more ambiguous with their casts, though most don't choose to. There is a lot of funniness with naming, though, and everyone and their mom seems to have an interchangeable yet rarely spelled out sobriquet.As an aside, I don't know of any baby timeship monster non-TARDISes, though Lolita has many 103-form children :)
- NateBumber
A question to you: have the Time Lords ever exclusively used dimensionally transcendent space-and-time ships, distinguished by the existence of multiple generations, the 102nd of which was Compassion, and the 103rd of which (first created during the War) were humanoid ... Have the Time Lords ever created and exclusively used timeships like those that aren't TARDISes? If you have a source for that, I'd be very interested! But according to Time Lord#Transport, there isn't: "Time Lord timeship" and "TARDIS" should be synonymous. A TARDIS is a type of timeship, used exclusively by the Time Lords. If you do accept that the Great Houses are the Time Lords, surely you must accept this as well?
Thefartydoctor wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that things have to be named in order for them to be accepted as a valid source. If something's not called "TARDIS", then it's not a "TARDIS". I'm not really bothered about this "Great House" stuff. I'm a reasonable man and I can happily accept that "Great House" relate to the "Time Lords". But for me, 'the timeships of the Great Houses' means nothing. It just means the Great Houses has ships that can travel in time. Stating they are therefore TARDISes, regardless of what the authors have previously stated and intended, means nothing.To quote a previous, similar, example: "the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat" is obviously the Sixth Doctor. Obviously, it was discussed in case others didn't agree but it seemed anyone with half a brain recognised his mannerisms and his description and was happy with the conclusion.Can you link to the place where it was concluded that the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat was decided to be the Sixth Doctor, and the similar debates for all the Short Trips stories? I'd be interested in reopening those debates, especially if we decide that there's not enough evidence to conclude that the male and female crewmembers from Toy Story are Fitz and Compassion based on their unique physical descriptions and mannerisms.To me, at the moment, if all truth be told, it seems like FP users are using backstreet methods to reach conclusions. Such as: this random Benny novel used the term "timeship" and this relates to this novel, which in turn bears a resemblance to this audio...Huh? The only time I've cited a random Benny novel is to point out that if we decide that the Great Houses' timeships aren't TARDISes, Brax's timeship and many many more will need to be reclassified as something other than TARDISes. Should this decision be pushed through, will you be willing to overturn this precedent by going through all the stories, mapping the exact terminologies used, and making those changes to the relevant articles?I also agree with Amorkuz that it is not our onus to disprove your findings. If the matter at hand is on rocky grounds, it's down to the person or people making claims to prove themselves. :) Amorkuz doesn't need to disprove anything at the moment.I really don't think the matter at hand is on rocky grounds, frankly! It was affirmed in the admin-closed-and-approved Thread:208233, and per T:POINT:You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.What is your new evidence that the Great Houses' timeships aren't the Time Lords' TARDISes? - Thefartydoctor
NateBumber wrote:
A question to you: [...] Have the Time Lords ever created and exclusively used timeships like those that aren't TARDISes?You haven't answered my question. If these are TARDISes, why aren't they called TARDISes? Legal reasons? I asked a simple question that seems to have been ignored. I'm asking for enlightenment on the subject.
Huh? The only time I've cited a random Benny novel is to point out that if we decide that the Great Houses' timeships aren't TARDISes, Brax's timeship and many many more will need to be reclassified as something other than TARDISes.You misinterpreted the use of my mentioning her. I was describing to you how an outsider to these FP debates feel when an editor edits things into articles and then provides explanations which take a hundred and one routes. She was a hypothetical. I wasn't talking about you personally.
It was affirmed in the admin-closed-and-approved Thread:208233You're quoting an affirmation from a Thread that hasn't been closed yet. Similarly the Timeships vs TARDIS Thread hasn't been closed yet. See why I'm concerned?
What is your new evidence that the Great Houses' timeships aren't the Time Lords' TARDISes?I repeat- the onus is not on me to disprove. The onus is on FP readers/listeners to prove. The best way to do that is to head on over to the Timeships vs TARDIS discussions and get it closed rather than ignoring it. Forgive me if I'm reading your response wrong, but you're taking this way too personally. We're not attacking you. We want this information to be placed into the Wiki correctly. We can't do that if people are using unclosed threads to affirm/confirm facts.
- Thefartydoctor
@NateBumber, I've noted that in the thread discussing FP after CzechOut closed the original thread, you mention the adventure The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel. This may be what hinges it for me. Whereabouts in this audio are the Great Houses and the Time Lords linked? And whereabouts in this audio are the Great Houses timeships and TARDISes compared? What is the context? I don't mind spoilers about the story.
It also seems that Mycroft Holmes is in this story... which seems worrying. As I've not heard the story, it seems worrying that a character from Sherlock Holmes is in a DWU story. I'm fully aware of All-Consuming Fire. Could you explain to me how Mycroft comes to be in this story and how this story isn't immediately invalidated by him?
If you can help me to understand this adventure, I may change my mind.
- Pluto2
Mycroft Holmes is as real as the other characters. He's in Erasing Sherlock too.
- Thefartydoctor
Could you possibly give me a brief explanation of how Mycroft and Sherlock are DWU characters? In The Snowmen, the Doctor's aware that Sherlock is a fictional character? So their appearances as real characters... are they from the fictional universe, or are they characters called Mycroft and Sherlock in this universe?
- Thefartydoctor
Wait, is it like Robin Hood? He was real but became fictional through myths and legends?
- NateBumber
Oh, there are a few reasons, really. Of course, legality is an issue: the Faction Paradox series authors just didn't have the rights to "Time Lords", just like the Bernice Summerfield series or the Iris Wildthyme series. However, Faction Paradox authors often use different names for characters and concepts even when they have the rights - for instance, see how Compassion is still referred to as "the female crewmember" in Toy Story. A major focus of the series is how it manipulates perspectives to subvert the "official" story of the Time Lords being the most important people in the universe. It adds a really fun and progressive dynamic to the series, but it's rather inhospitable to wiki editors!
Thefartydoctor wrote:
You haven't answered my question. If these are TARDISes, why aren't they called TARDISes? Legal reasons? I asked a simple question that seems to have been ignored. I'm asking for enlightenment on the subject.(This is all explained in the original inclusion debate.)
You're quoting an affirmation from a Thread that hasn't been closed yet. Similarly the Timeships vs TARDIS Thread hasn't been closed yet. See why I'm concerned?Ha, rightfully so! I meant to link to Thread:206566, which the admin-authored OP of Thread:208233 concerns.As for me taking this too personally, and me taking the Bernice Summerfield thing as far too literal an example: you're completely correct. I'm sorry if I've seemed sharp; I've been a bit stressed lately. (I could list off all kinds of excuses involving relatives dying and exams and the fact that it's 2am, but instead I'll just finish writing this and head to bed.) Thank you for the clarifications, and thank you for your patience through my accidental irritability and rampant mistakes. :)
I repeat- the onus is not on me to disprove. The onus is on FP readers/listeners to prove. The best way to do that is to head on over to the Timeships vs TARDIS discussions and get it closed rather than ignoring it.I think you'll find it's physically impossible to post in the Timeships vs TARDIS discussion right now, which is why I'm trying to address the issue right here. To restate the first (non-quoted) paragraph of my last comment, the fact that we agree that the Great Houses are the Time Lords should already be enough to qualify their timeships as TARDISes, per Time Lord#Transport. But even then, this isn't anything like the Mistress (The Choice), who is intended to be Romana but depends solely on the reader's background knowledge to make the identification, without any in-text bits of similarity or evidence to suggest the identification. In contrast, going off what is said about the timeships in The Book of the War alone, the Time Lords use these timeships practically exclusively for space and time travel; they are dimensionally transcendent and can shapeshift; they are distinguished by multiple generations, each one supposedly improving on the last; an early model is known to travel in the shape of a blue police box; the 102nd generation consisted solely of Compassion; the 103rd generation was first created during the War, and they were humanoid in appearance. Characters like Lord Ruthven, who appear with TARDISes in BBC novels, appear in Faction Paradox novels with "timeships" instead. This is my evidence.@NateBumber, I've noted that in the thread discussing FP after CzechOut closed the original thread, you mention the adventure The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel. This may be what hinges it for me. Whereabouts in this audio are the Great Houses and the Time Lords linked? And whereabouts in this audio are the Great Houses timeships and TARDISes compared? What is the context? I don't mind spoilers about the story.In The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel, the concept of the Cwejen (which first originated in Faction Paradox novel The Book of the War) appear in a non-FP story for the first time. In The Book of the War, they are listed as created and used by the Great Houses. However, Straxus, a Doctor Who Time Lord, also appears, and he specifically states that his people created and use the Cwejen. Furthermore, Bernice Summerfield states that the Cwejen are truly related to the Chris Cwej she knows, so they're not "different" Cwejen from the ones in Book of the War. The only interpretation is that Straxus' people (the Time Lords) are the Cwejen's creators (the Great Houses).This is just one of multiple pieces of evidence: Ruthventracolixabaxil is a Time Lord in one book but a member of the Great Houses in another; the Celestis and Faction Paradox are renegades from the Time Lords in one book and the Great Houses in another; and, most conclusively in my opinion, Lungbarrow explicitly establishes the phrase "Great Houses" as another name for the collection of all Time Lords (eg "House Lungbarrow" is a collection of individuals, whereas "a member of House Lungbarrow" is a Time Lord). I freely admit that it doesn't say that the timeships of the Great Houses are TARDISes, nor does it state that the homeworld of the Great Houses is Gallifrey; however, per the identification of the Great Houses as Time Lords, I presumed that explicit statements of ownership transferred, per the transitive property of logic.
- NateBumber
As for Mycroft, Moriarty, Sherlock, and the like, I direct you to 7 and 8 in Timewyrm: Revelation and The Gallifrey Chronicles:"I remember Sherlock Holmes expressing similar sentiments."
"Yeah?" Ace was interested. "Did you meet him? Oh, right, he wasn't real, was he?"
"Just because somebody isn't real, it doesn't mean you can't meet them," murmured the Doctor with a sly smile."Sherlock Holmes solved the case before I could, as I recall.""Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character," Trix pointed out.
The Doctor grinned. "My dear, one of the things you'll learn is that it's all real. Every word of every novel is real, every frame of every movie, every panel of every comic strip."
"But that's just not possible. I mean some books contradict other ones and -"
The Doctor was ignoring her. - Thefartydoctor
Re: personal life, you don't have to explain anything to me. I just didn't want anyone getting worked up over this. It isn't worth it haha. Now that I understand that Benny audio, I agree that the fact that "Straxus", who apparently also appears in the Lucie Miller series (which I haven't finished yet, so no spoilers), uses the Great Houses and the Time Lords interchangeably cannot be argued with. A lesson about me- I'm nitpicky about everything Doctor Who. There's no bias towards FP. That's why friends come to me to know if something's "valid" or not because I'm so anal about this stuff.
I must admit, I like and appreciate that that audio adventure handles a storyline featured heavily in the FP range, namely the "Cwejen". It really serves as a bridge between them. I think you've checkmated me, but in the end, I've only ever wanted the actual solid connection. I've only ever wanted a yes or no plus conclusive proof.
As for Time Ships = TARDISes, if you read that thread, you'll know I explicitly agreed with them that it was the case but simply asked for evidence. I have one final question- if, in your words, the FP writers had access to Time Lords and TARDISes, why not just use the phraseology rather than calling them Time Ships? It just seems unbefitting when a Time Lord would just call it a TARDIS...
Also, I'd recommend someone going over to The Adventures of the Diogenes Damsel and making that connection somewhere on the article. Then people could be sent there and made to understand the connection. It's taken me over a month to actually understand when I could have achieved it if that article had the sufficient data.
- Thefartydoctor
I've placed an error in my above text. Ignore the legality question.
- Amorkuz
Great, finally we're getting somewhere. Concerns of people get addressed.
And before proceeding, let me clear a misconception. I have no seniority. You, and I, and TheFartyDoctor, and Pluto2 have exactly the same rights. If I go out of line, I get shut down by an admin, like everyone else.
Now let me explain clearly my concerns. I did not mind the identification of timeships of Great Houses with TARDISes of Time Lords. What I mind is the automatic indiscriminate application of that identification to any and all timeships used by the Great Houses. I believe each case needs to be argued, much the same way as you persuasively (for me) argued for Lolita above. However, what I mind even more is the automatic application of unidentified individual timeships like the Ship to individual TARDISes. That needs to be argued even more carefully.
This thread began when the Ship was identified with the Doctor's TARDIS, which you have some evidence for but agree that this evidence has not yet been approved on this Wiki. This is what I opposed and will continue to oppose. Not the identification, but an automatic identification without any discussion.
Finally, I'd like to agree 10000% with TheFartyDoctor. If the arguments you use here and used before to get FP admitted are added in the BHS sections of relevant pages before edits to core pages are done, many editors would be able to find them on their own and wouldn't have objections we are now having. Even better would be to have a centralised and approved by admins list of things that have been agreed upon and need not be argued anymore.
As TheFartyDoctor said, we are not against the FP, we are for maintaining standards of editing. If we get answers readily available, we are happy. If not, we ask questions.
- Amorkuz
Some points I'd still want to make before considering the matter of the original post decided for me personally (it is not my place to close the thread).
- If TARDISes are used exclusively by Time Lords (which is not strictly speaking true: I've seen Veraxils using a TARDIS; it would be better to say that TARDISes are built exclusively by Time Lords), it does not imply that Time Lords exclusively use TARDISes. That's a logical fallacy.
- The appeal to Time Lord#Transport as containing complete information about all timeships used by Time Lords is completely unfounded. It is very dangerous to conclude that something does not exist just because it has not yet been added to this Wiki. In this particular case, I can actually point out a whole lot of transportation devices used by Time Lords but not present in that 2-paragraph section: no timeships from FP are present in that article (I am using here NateBumber's definition of FP, which excludes Alien Bodies). Bowships are not there. During the war, various ships have been used as decoys, including the Tempest, which is clearly not a TARDIS. And these are just the ones I can recall without thinking. Here's another transport I did not know of but easily found: Dimensional node.
- When we switch from timeships used by the race of Time Lords to timeships used by specific Time Lord renegades, such as the Master, the situation becomes even murkier. The Master's TARDIS was kept on Shada, broken out by the Eleventh Doctor and River Song, and then seemingly perished during the Time War. So how was he/she travelling through space and time after that? We see him in Utopia at the end of time, apparently without the TARDIS. How did he get there? During Saxon's times he doesn't have own means to do so. Then suddenly she does (and then at some point she starts using a Vortex manipulator). The The War Chief famously used SIDRATs as timeships. Thus, the line of reasoning that a Time Lord traveling in a timeship must necessarily be travelling in a TARDIS is again a logical fallacy, even if we know who this Time Lord is and that he/she had a TARDIS at some point.
- NateBumber wrote: Can you link to the place where it was concluded that the Doctor with the technicolour dreamcoat was decided to be the Sixth Doctor, and the similar debates for all the Short Trips stories? I'd be interested in reopening those debates, especially if we decide that there's not enough evidence to conclude that the male and female crewmembers from Toy Story are Fitz and Compassion based on their unique physical descriptions and mannerisms. Just for the record, this would be an almost textbook violation of T:POINT. Since I don't write this maliciously and don't believe you did, I would trust you to reread the policy. What I want to say is that in some cases no discussion is needed if everyone agrees from the get-go. I'm sorry you're not in that situation with FP. Call it quality control. Plus, at a certain point, people learn to deal with particular type of stories in a particular way. I often struggle with this myself because much of this lore is unwritten and much is distributed over multiple talk pages and forum discussions. There is usually an expert who can explain why things are done this way if you ask. With FP, this baseline has not yet been established (or rather some baseline was established but it has been completely uprooted by the ruling of FP to be valid). In effect, what we will be doing in the near future, I expect, is establishing this very baseline. And, being an admin on the other end, you will probably be the expert responsible for this baseline. Unfortunately, this process is likely to take time as more and more editors will be faced with FP-type material and will search guidance as to the established baseline and these editors need to trust you and to respect your authority on the matter. This is why I appreciated not only your detailed explanation of why Lolita is a TARDIS and how TARDISes have been established as timeships of the Great Houses, but also you being upfront about potential problems with the Ship being the Doctor's TARDIS. To trust your expertise, personally I would need to know just two things: that you know the FP part of DWU and the policies of this Wiki, but also, very importantly, that you do not withdraw information about FP to make the transition smoother.
- NateBumber
I freely admit to my mistake there; it wasn't my intention to say anything otherwise. There are plenty of instances in Faction Paradox where a character or group of characters steals a timeship built by the Great Houses; in fact, every instance in Faction Paradox where someone uses a craft called a timeship, they're either a member of the Great Houses themselves, or they stole/borrowed it from one!
Amorkuz wrote:
If TARDISes are used exclusively by Time Lords (which is not strictly speaking true: I've seen Veraxils using a TARDIS; it would be better to say that TARDISes are built exclusively by Time Lords), it does not imply that Time Lords exclusively use TARDISes.The appeal to Time Lord#Transport as containing complete information about all timeships used by Time Lords is completely unfounded. It is very dangerous to conclude that something does not exist just because it has not yet been added to this Wiki. In this particular case, I can actually point out a whole lot of transportation devices used by Time Lords but not present in that 2-paragraph section.Fair enough. However, I don't believe that any of these ever hit the ubiquitousness of TARDISes. The Book of the War defines the Faction Paradox series' use of the word "timeship" very specifically as the Great Houses' traveling device that I described above (bigger on the inside; alive; multiple generations, of which 102 is Compassion and 103 is humanoid, while older generations are known to travel as, eg, a blue police box). The whole discussion about "non-Great-Houses" timeships in the Faction Paradox series is wholly hypothetical; within the FP books and audios, at least, "timeship" is always synonymous with "TARDIS", and when other races use what we would call "timeships", they're either named differently (eg the Osirians' "barges") or stolen/borrowed from the Great Houses (eg Justine McManus' use of Thoth's timeship).To address why I exclude Alien Bodies from my "definition of FP", it simply isn't part of Faction Paradox (series). It's marketed and branded solely as a BBC Eighth Doctor Adventure; I exclude it for the same reason School Reunion (TV story) isn't part of a the Sarah Jane Adventures.
When we switch from timeships used by the race of Time Lords to timeships used by specific Time Lord renegades, such as the Master, the situation becomes even murkier. ... Thus, the line of reasoning that a Time Lord traveling in a timeship must necessarily be travelling in a TARDIS is again a logical fallacy, even if we know who this Time Lord is and that he/she had a TARDIS at some point.To clarify, the specific things I'm referring to are situations where Alien Bodies says, "Lord Ruthventracolixabaxil died in his TARDIS", and The Book of the War says, "Lord Ruthventracolixabaxil died in his timeship." When Thoth uses an Osirian barge, it isn't called his "timeship"; it stays a barge, to differentiate it from the Great Houses' TARDISes.In effect, what we will be doing in the near future, I expect, is establishing this very baseline. And, being an admin on the other end, you will probably be the expert responsible for this baseline. Unfortunately, this process is likely to take time as more and more editors will be faced with FP-type material and will search guidance as to the established baseline and these editors need to trust you and to respect your authority on the matter. ... To trust your expertise, personally I would need to know just two things: that you know the FP part of DWU and the policies of this Wiki, but also, very importantly, that you do not withdraw information about FP to make the transition smoother.I've read all the policies of this wiki before, and I'm now reading them again (in light of my misinterpretation of the word "policy" in T:BOUND). I fully intend to never remove or withdraw any FP information from this wiki (excepting errors of absence, where I'm just not around to see the discussion, eg the last thread). I recognize what you're saying about baselines, and I fully respect it. I look forward to helping establish a manageable baseline with all of you. - NateBumber
Amorkuz: I've seen your request for CzechOut to close this thread, but I don't think we've satisfactorily settled the matter of whether the Ship is the Doctor's TARDIS. The fact that it had been posted without approval, per the precedent mentioned by Thefartydoctor with recognizable characters and concepts in (eg) Short Trips, was freely admitted in the very first post, and the offending changes have been undone in the light of this skepticism. Furthermore, the matters of whether FP timeships are TARDISes, and whether Lolita is therefore a TARDIS, were already settled in Thread:206566, so this thread isn't currently impeding any editing. Instead of closing this thread and having to copy/paste all the evidence into a new one, let's just arrive to a conclusion here!
- Amorkuz
Ah, sorry, I somehow considered the Ship/Fitz/Compassion linkage to be tangential to this thread, though certainly requiring some kind of solution eventually. However, I do not regret trying to involve CzechOut. As for me the matter was closed, we might have lost time with you waiting for my response and me completely oblivious of this. In addition, if CzechOut has time and remembers ancient history from 2012, his input would anyway be very valuable because, as I've discovered, back in 2012 he created a redirect from The Ship to The Doctor's TARDIS. If he remembers what the redirect was for and why it was instituted, whether there was a discussion on this already, that would be good to know. It is even possible that this matter has already been decided without any participants of this thread knowing it.
- TheChampionOfTime
I don't think CzechOut's redirect has anything to do with FP. Didn't they sometimes call it "the Ship" in the early Hartnell era?
- Amorkuz
Wicked! Two identical redirects from two objects whose identity is to be decided to the same object. I would jokingly propose to replace it with a disambiguation page that lists the same destination twice but with different explanations.
Wait, I started typing a more serious plan for a disambig page, but I missed the main point. If "the Ship" has been established to mean the Doctor's TARDIS back in Hartnell era, then the FP writer(s) could have relied on this identification. I mean I know that "the Ship" is listed as an alternative name in the intro to The Doctor's TARDIS, but I somehow thought that to be FP related.
Of course, it's a difficult thing to figure out as the TARDIS would have been called the ship as that's what she is. So I guess the question is whether TARDIS was called "the ship" or "the Ship" in Hartnell's times.
- Thefartydoctor
They refer to it a lot as "The Ship" in the Hartnell era, one notable example being in The Edge of Destruction, however that's not really what's being discussed here. We're talking about the use of "The Ship" in the FP works. Of course, we can all sit here as adults and say that it's 99% likely that connection is what's meant by the author... but what we need is evidence for each time "The Ship" is a setting.
And we shouldn't use "It's time consuming" as an excuse to generalise and just sweep all mentions of "The Ship" to "The Doctor's TARDIS". By that logic, we'd link every mention of "The Doctor" to "The Doctor", rather than discuss it. Every time there's no evidence or every time it's uncertain, we discuss it in a thread dedicated to that specific book or audio.
Also don't forget the title of this thread concerns whether or not The Doctor's TARDIS is to be treated as a living being or a thing.
- Amorkuz
I thought SOTO's post settled the living thing long time ago. It's a vehicle, so one should use Infobox Object.
But yes, apparently, there's still life in this thread.
I agree that the use of "the Ship" cannot be universally across DWU limited to the Doctor's TARDIS. I insisted on a case-based approach regarding timeships earlier and I think NateBumber agreed noting that there are usually secondary characteristics mentioned in FP stories.
However, if we consider this one specific the Ship, if I remember correctly NateBumber's detailed explanations, the Ship from Toy Story was described as a blue police box. And when we have one of the standard names for the Doctor's TARDIS plus the iconic description of the Doctor's TARDIS, it looks more and more like the proverbial duck.
- Amorkuz
I have an idea how to figure this out. Does anyone have novelisations of Hartnell's stories handy? (I know their status is lower than that of TV stories, but on the matter of capitalisation, I'm afraid TV stories have nothing on them.)
- Thefartydoctor
You'd have to find a novelisation written by the same person who wrote the actual story. That's the only way it'd be taken seriously.
- Amorkuz
No, here I disagree. It is sufficient to find a novelisation published before Toy Story.
I would agree with you if we didn't know whether it was intended as the Doctor's TARDIS. But on that we all seem to agree. Out-of-universe, this seems clear. The problem is that the author's intent is not acceptable evidence. What we search for, therefore, is in-universe evidence. But for the in-universe evidence, it should immaterial whether the author was aware of it, right? In fact, maybe it does not even matter when the novelisation was published.
Think of it this way: the Ship is a proper name, just like the Doctor. If I read about the Doctor in two different stories I assume them to be the same person unless stated otherwise or unless there are two "the Doctor"s already present.
- TheChampionOfTime
A quick search through the novelisations of early Hartnel stories I own found no capital "S", but both The Witch Hunters and The Time Travellers use "the Ship".
- Thefartydoctor
You just disagreed with me even though I agreed with you. I know fully well what "authorial intent" means. I'll make my point easier for you:
I write an episode for Doctor Who. In my episode, I use the phrase "the Ship" to mean "the Doctor's TARDIS". The BBC are happy with it. They produce it. They broadcast it. A few years later, another bloke comes along and writes the novelisation despite me being willing to write it. In that novelisation, he writes "the ship", rather than what I wrote in my script "the Ship".
The authorial intent here is the BBC, not myself. The BBC totally allowed "the Ship" (with capitalisation) to mean "the TARDIS". The novelisation, despite having a copy of the script, has made use of "the ship" to refer to the TARDIS as a generic ship. You see my point now?
The unfortunate problem there is that the novelisation is also valid... if it were published under license. They're just not trustworthy unless written by the original writer.
- NateBumber
Oh! TheFartyDoctor, it really seemed as if you were saying the novelization or other story had to be written by Lawrence Miles; I think that's how Amorkuz read it.
Since both The Witch Hunters nor The Time Travellers are original novels (ie, not novelizations), and both were published by the BBC (one before and one after Toy Story), I think we've dodged the whole problem. (Thanks TheChampionOfTime!)
- Thefartydoctor
I think I'll need a holiday after this comment thread. I need to unwind haha.
- Amorkuz
The current rule-of-thumb is that a novelisation is valid unless it contradicts the original TV story, whereas a script is not valid at all. I tried once to use audio scripts to correct spelling of names, and CzechOut basically laughed me out of the room. In short, his position is that scripts are not the finished product. The director can arbitrarily change things in the script. Hence, TV episode counts, while scripts should be taken with a grain of daily.
- Amorkuz
No, I honestly thought you meant Lawrence Miles. Sorry for misunderstanding.
- Thefartydoctor
That's essentially why I'd rather stay away from novelisations. They're our last resort. Especially when you're looking for the capitalisation of "ship/Ship". I think CoT has saved us here though, with his novel findings. :)
- Amorkuz
Yes, novels certainly beat novelisations. I feel like Sherlock barely catching up with my brain and the thread.
- Thefartydoctor
So what's left unanswered or have we completed our marathon?
- Amorkuz
I guess we have to pay lip service to Compassion being the female companion, Fitz Kreiner being the male companion, and the Pilot being the Eighth Doctor.
It seems that a precedent has been established at the induction of FP that linkage by association is allowed in presence of additional common characteristics (again, not indiscriminately). For instance, timeships are TARDISes because Great Houses are Time Lords and timeships are their time ships.
Thus, if we agree now on the Ship being the Doctor's TARDIS, then its Pilot must be the Doctor and the male and female companions must be companions of the Doctor. At this point, we face a multiple choice question. Since I only know Fitz from one audio and you've all seen I'm not familiar with Compassion, I cannot judge how telling their descriptions in Toy Story are. I defer to experts.
- Thefartydoctor
I can let the whole timeships thing slide. I can therefore let the Pilot = Doctor thing go unquestioned. For me, allowing the male and female companions to be named just on a brief description alone is taking it too far. It's like having certain privileges and then overusing them. Compassion and Fitz cannot be identified by appearance or personality alone... nor can the incarnation of the Doctor... we need a much more solid connection.
That's my honest opinion. I don't think we can call ourselves a good encyclopaedia of the Whoniverse if we're going around making random connections just because an unnamed character is described extremely similarly to a named one in another work. :)
- Thefartydoctor
It's the reason why Wikipedia doesn't say "there's this fruit that's not stated to be an orange but it is orange in colour... soooo... it's an orange". There other fruits that are orange. That's a metaphor for how I'm feeling on the issue.
- Pluto2
But Compassion is the only pale-skinned redhead with an earpiece who travelled with the Eighth Doctor.
- Thefartydoctor
That we know of. Why does it have to be the Eighth Doctor? As a person who genuinely wants to know, why have you ruled every other Doctor and all future Doctors? Is this based upon garments? Is it based upon mannerisms? The descriptions of his "timeship"?
- TheChampionOfTime
A pale-skinned red-haired woman who wears an earpiece constantly (even in her sleep), is extremely suggestible to the TARDIS' signals, and travels with a male companion who has been replicated and an incarnation of the Doc with a cluttered console room during a time when the War in Heaven is fast-approaching... in a story by Lawrence Miles. To anyone with any knowledge of Compassion, this is obviously her.
And, the only time Compassion travelled in the tardis was when Fitz and 8 were also in it!
- Thefartydoctor
Let me ask a genuine question- is the War in Heaven described as fast-approaching in the context of the Faction Paradox or of the Doctor? There are two timelines here, don't forget. You'll have the timeline of the FP and the timeline of the Doctor. So when the novel mentions this fast-approaching War in Heaven (which I'm aware of personally), what's the extended context? :)
- TheChampionOfTime
In the context of Lolita and the Ship.
- Thefartydoctor
If anyone has the book to hand, I'd really appreciate a few quotes because I can't make a true opinion at this moment.
- Amorkuz
Still deferring to the experts, but one aspect was not mentioned, I believe.
The Eighth Doctor, Fitz Kreiner and Compassion are the current TARDIS crew (at the very least a current TARDIS crew) at the time of Toy Story's release. The Eighth Doctor is most definitely the current Doctor in 1999. The first appearance of Compassion (based on info on the Wiki) is almost contemporaneous with Toy Story and written by the same writer. Fitz's first appearance is also almost contemporaneous.
So this is similar to Strax Field Reports. Strax would never call the Doctor the Eleventh Doctor and would rarely give a description of him, if memory serves. But the default reasoning dictates that he's talking about the current Doctor, unless stated otherwise and/or has no resemblance to the current TARDIS situation.
Here we have a writer more or less simultaneously writing two stories about the same TARDIS crew, which is also the current one, giving names in one story and matching descriptions from Lolita's perspective in the other.
I think it's important to remember that we only need to prove things beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. Otherwise, we would never be able to interpret United States as United States of America rather than United States of Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela or a number of other countries: United States (disambiguation)
- Thefartydoctor
I don't think there's anything wrong with doubting the TARDIS crew. I don't doubt for a second that they're the Eighth Doctor, Fitz and Compassion. I know these companions. I've read their stories. I know their characters. And this sounds like them. But this is nothing like Strax's Field Reports. That's told through the medium of visual images. They can see the Doctor and the monsters, so Strax doesn't need to provide further details. It's the same reason as for why audio stories needs more detail in speech... because we can't see what's going on.
I think we're pretty much there. If someone can provide a quote or two that just concretes this, I'm happy. The War in Heaven is the key, in my opinion. If there's a quote that puts the Doctor's timeline in the context of "an upcoming War in Heaven" then I'll happily step aside. I agree that these characters are most probably who they say they are, but I like doing things properly. That means being provided with physical evidence. :)
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with doubting the TARDIS crew. I don't doubt for a second that they're the Eighth Doctor, Fitz and Compassion. I know these companions. I've read their stories. I know their characters. And this sounds like them. But this is nothing like Strax's Field Reports. That's told through the medium of visual images. They can see the Doctor and the monsters, so Strax doesn't need to provide further details. It's the same reason as for why audio stories needs more detail in speech... because we can't see what's going on.
I think we're pretty much there. If someone can provide a quote or two that just concretes this, I'm happy. The War in Heaven is the key, in my opinion. If there's a quote that puts the Doctor's timeline in the context of "an upcoming War in Heaven" then I'll happily step aside. I agree that these characters are most probably who they say they are, but I like doing things properly. That means being provided with physical evidence. :)
The Pilot went forward and time and discovered who the enemy were. Then he erased his memory of it. The war hasn't happened yet.
- Thefartydoctor
I think you've nailed it. Are "Enemy" and "War" capitalised?
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: I think you've nailed it. Are "Enemy" and "War" capitalised?
"enemy" isn't supposed to be capitalized. The War might be, I'd have to check.
The war hasn't started for anyone, at this point. Lolita is preparing for the war.
- Thefartydoctor
The Enemy is supposed to be capitalised. There's even a page dedicated to it here on the Wiki.
- Pluto2
Thefartydoctor wrote: The Enemy is supposed to be capitalised. There's even a page dedicated to it here on the Wiki.
That's not supposed to be capitalized. It's not the official name of them. It's a generic term because to actually give them a name downplays their importance.
- Thefartydoctor
Okay, so I took a trip to the FP Wiki and noticed that on the TARDIS Wiki, it's capitalised, but on the FP Wiki, it isn't. I don't really understand this inconsistency. If you guys don't capitalise it, then fair enough. I'm having a little bit of an internal struggle, if truth be told haha. Part of me is being incredibly stubborn over "The Pilot", because "The Pilot" isn't his name haha. If it'd said "The pilot", I'd be fine with it. The other part of me notes how this is good evidence, and can see how it successfully places this story in a period of the Doctor's life.
So, I dunno. That's my honest answer. But that quote is really good.
- Amorkuz
The Pilot maybe either the Doctor piloting his own TARDIS or somebody else piloting the Doctor's TARDIS after gaining control over it. However, the latter would have been so narratively significant that it would have to be explicitly explained.
If it helps the stubborn part, the Pilot is not his name but a nickname given to him by Lolita. If Time Lords personalize their TARDISes by calling them the Ship, or Old Girl, so can a TARDIS personalize a Time Lord.
- Thefartydoctor
So this quote, kindly given to us by Pluto, is being made by Lolita?
- Pluto2
Lolita narrowed her eyes. 'I think you know that, little sister. The war's coming, and nothing's going to stop it...
- Thefartydoctor
That's a good quote.
- Thefartydoctor
Okay, my stubbornness has finished. I can't oppose that. So we're in an epoque where there's the approaching War with the Enemy (or enemy). This approaching War has been successfully described by a TARDIS to another TARDIS. The pilot of the Sister TARDIS (who I doubt is a literal sister, but that's a debate for another day) is evidently the Doctor.
The first Doctor to be aware of an approaching War between the Time Lords and the Enemy was the Eighth Doctor. His companions at the time were, indeed, Fitz and Compassion. The quotes I've seen are sufficient enough for me to put my nitpicking to one side.
- Amorkuz
And here's the exact version of the previous quote (with worse formatting).
'My pilot went to investigate,' the Ship admitted. 'He was... disturbed.' 'Did he find out who the enemy is? Who the enemy will be?' 'Yes. Then he erased the data from his memory.'
So the winner is TheFartyDoctor. It is, in fact, the pilot.
And thank god for Amazon look inside.
- Thefartydoctor
I won't lie to you. The fact it's "the pilot" rather than "the Pilot" is like the icing on the cake. :)
- Pluto2
So, now no one's opposed to treating the characters as...well, the Doctor, his TARDIS, Fitz, and Compassion?
- Thefartydoctor
If I were to remain negative towards it, it would just be me being a nuisance haha. I'm totally fine in placing the novel(s) in question within that time period of the EDAs. So yeah, these characters are Eight, his TARDIS, Fitz and Compassion.
- Pluto2
And now back to the topic at hand - should we use the individual or object Infoboxes, or a special one for TARDISes?
- NateBumber
I'm very glad we all came to a conclusion; I had some more evidence prepared, but it seems like I won't need it! With the fact that the TARDIS is parked on a jungle planet, with the Doctor outside, Fitz and Compassion sleeping inside, and Lolita appearing, I think we could even go so far as to conclude it's set during the I.M. Foreman framing narrative of Interference Pts One and Two ... but that's completely tangential and maybe one deduction too far ;)
- Thefartydoctor
Since I've evidently invaded this thread, I'm thinking that due to this decision being so contradictory anyway (meaning it's difficult to treat something as both living and a thing), making a special TARDIS infobox sounds like a tremendous idea :D
- NateBumber
Admin SOTO laid that one to rest halfway through the thread. It's nice and all to list Lolita as the Doctor's TARDIS' sister, but in The Doctor's Wife the Doctor's TARDIS calls all TARDISes her sisters, so it's probably best to take that one figuratively after all.
Pluto2 wrote: And now back to the topic at hand - should we use the individual or object Infoboxes, or a special one for TARDISes?
- Amorkuz
@Pluto2: SOTO explained the policy dictating it to be object. I prefer not to argue with admins on policy.
@NateBumber: As for exact placement, the timelines are almost completely forbidden in the main name space.
- Thefartydoctor
Then I take it, there's nothing left to talk about? This conversation will be highly useful for you guys next time someone calls FP into doubt, so it should be preserved.
- Borisashton
Just to throw my hat into the ring I think the addition that SOTO suggested early on of the addition of an actor variable to Infobox Object is a great idea considering its similarities Infobox Individual already. Especially in cases like the Doctor's TARDIS where objects achieve sentience. For example after watching The Doctor's Wife I would expect to see Suranne Jones' name in the infobox (a prominent part of the page) but it is instead "hidden" (for lack of a better word) in the behind the scenes section of a very long page.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:209912
There are a few stories in completely poetic format. For instance In the TARDIS: Christmas Day. We should not ever use PROSE for such stories, as prose is defined as writing that isn't in metrical format. Essentially, poetry and prose are different things, and to use PROSE to refer to poems ignores what "prose" means. There aren't that many instances of pure poetry in the DWU, so it wouldn't be a difficult change.
- Bwburke94
It'd be a prefix for the sake of a prefix.
- SOTO
Before really giving my answer, I am going to take a step back and say that, yes, in technical (and literary/academic) usage, "prose" and "poetry" are two different things. But is POETRY (as prefix) necessary and distinct from PROSE (again, as prefix)? We use PROSE not to really mean "prose", as such, as a precise literary medium, but rather to refer to non-comic-based literature in general.
And with regards to this "poetry", it's a stretch to call anything DWU (and valid) pure poetry. 'Cause if it doesn't have a narrative, it's not valid, and if it does, it's simply a short story in some sort of a rhythm or metric style. So this "poetry", while not prose as can be made distinct from poetry, might still be PROSE.
In the TARDIS: Christmas Day, for example, has a narrative, and is thus rightly a short story (not to mention its very inclusion in a Short Trips anthology). With regards to content, it is very much a short story. It's only in form that it's in any way distinct from other stories of its length.
Just because the short story Lonely is all in the form of chat room communication, does not mean we'll make CROOM or CHAT just because it deviates in form from standard prose. And I'd say the same applies here. Poetic or otherwise, anything in literary (that is, written) form which has a narrative is either a novel or a short story, and is therefore PROSE.
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: Before really giving my answer, I am going to take a step back and say that, yes, in technical (and literary/academic) usage, "prose" and "poetry" are two different things. But is POETRY (as prefix) necessary and distinct from PROSE (again, as prefix)? We use PROSE not to really mean "prose", as such, as a precise literary medium, but rather to refer to non-comic-based literature in general.
And with regards to this "poetry", it's a stretch to call anything DWU (and valid) pure poetry. 'Cause if it doesn't have a narrative, it's not valid, and if it does, it's simply a short story in some sort of a rhythm or metric style. So this "poetry", while not prose as can be made distinct from poetry, might still be PROSE.
In the TARDIS: Christmas Day, for example, has a narrative, and is thus rightly a short story (not to mention its very inclusion in a Short Trips anthology). With regards to content, it is very much a short story. It's only in form that it's in any way distinct from other stories of its length.
Just because the short story Lonely is all in the form of chat room communication, does not mean we'll make CROOM or CHAT just because it deviates in form from standard prose. And I'd say the same applies here. Poetic or otherwise, anything in literary (that is, written) form which has a narrative is either a novel or a short story, and is therefore PROSE.
What about The Eight Doctors of Christmas or The Feast of Seven...Eight (and Nine)?
- SOTO
I might give a more thorough reading of the texts in the future, but The Eight Doctors of Christmas, at least, does not seem very narrative to me. Are you sure it passes rule 1?
- Pluto2
SOTO wrote: I might give a more thorough reading of the texts in the future, but The Eight Doctors of Christmas, at least, does not seem very narrative to me. Are you sure it passes rule 1?
It's retellings of certain events of the Doctor's life. It's a story, but it's comparable to Ye Unearthly Childe.
- The-Macra
The 5 O'Clock Shadow is also unambiguously a story and poem.
- OttselSpy25
I'm not really big on splitting up the prefixes anymore on simple technicalities. If anything, I would prefer to see some of our prefixes merged.
PROSE represents any story created via written text, and frankly any story created without in-motion video, comic art directed via speech bubbles, or simple audio is a PROSE story as far as we need to be concerned.
"The bot run made back in the day never contemplated the idea of somehow returning to a separation of prose styles. It was meant to be permanent. There was a reasonable discussion period then and a very long time was taken to create the bots necessary to accomplish it."
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:210605
Hello there. I don't think this has been discussed before so I wanted to ask the question of whether episode 7 of the Daleks' Master Plan (The Feast of Steven) is valid. I bring this up as the episode has little to do with the overall plot of the story. Even more a reason for invalidity though, I think, is that the Doctor breaks the Fourth wall at the end of the episode saying 'Incidentally, a happy Christmas to all of you at home.'
I was wondering if this hasn't being discussed due to a policy which says that part of a story can't be invalid whilst the other part is and maybe if this should be changed if there is. Any thoughts?
- Amorkuz
This is an interesting exercise in legal thinking. Since I am interested in exactly how the four rules from T:VS work, let me sign up for the discussion. It appears that by Rule 1, this episode is definitely not valid because it is not a whole story, it is part of The Daleks' Master Plan. However, the story itself is trivially valid.
- 82.3.146.201
Of course it is valid, it was released during an original BBC television run, plus an Eighth Doctor comic had the Doctor say those words again but to add context, he was saying it to Gallifrey.
This retroactively explained what the First Doctor was doing.
- Thefartydoctor
Actually another source, which I think was a novel, stated that he was saying to the recently departed Barbara and Ian. :) Our sources don't have to agree, as long as at least one source states that the Doctor is not, in fact, breaking the fourth wall.
- 82.3.146.201
Thefartydoctor wrote: Actually another source, which I think was a novel, stated that he was saying to the recently departed Barbara and Ian. :) Our sources don't have to agree, as long as at least one source states that the Doctor is not, in fact, breaking the fourth wall.
This example seems more conclusive, the other one was very indirect.
- Thefartydoctor
Unfortunately, I can't yet remember where I read it. Once I find out, I'll let you all know. But like I say, even if we find more than one explanation, it doesn't matter. It'll be a simple case of "according to one source...", "according to another..."
Leave it with me and I'll try to remember. Part of me is hoping someone else remembers this reference and writes it before I get a headache haha.
- TheChampionOfTime
Amorkuz wrote: It appears that by Rule 1, this episode is definitely not valid because it is not a whole story, it is part of The Daleks' Master Plan.
I'd beg to differ. On it's own, The Feast of Steven is a full story. The Doctor and companions land in a new time and place, have a comical misadventure, and then leave in the Tardis. All over the course of one episode!
Before The Savages, Doctor Who was a series of individual half-hour episodes which formed larger stories. Would you say that The Sontaran Stratagem or Before the Flood are "definitely not valid because [they are] not a whole story". It's only retroactively a part of The Dalek's Masterplan.
Oh also, why would breaking the fourth wall matter to a story's validity. What matters is if this story is intended to be set in the DWU, and that is undeniably yes.
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Oh also, why would breaking the fourth wall matter to a story's validity. What matters is if this story is intended to be set in the DWU, and that is undeniably yes.
I know what you're saying. I would never think of Music of the Spheres as invalid... because the Doctor meant to break the fourth wall. Similarly, in Before the Flood, the Doctor explaining the Bootstrap Paradox could simply be him talking aloud. He's always talking to himself. As long as you can explain it, there's no problem.
- TheChampionOfTime
Thefartydoctor wrote: As long as you can explain it, there's no problem.
Why do you need to explain it? I think the simple fact that The Feast of Steven is an episode of Doctor Who validates it on this wiki. This is the Doctor Who wiki.
- Thefartydoctor
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Why do you need to explain it?
Fair point but it completes the picture. I never meant it compromises validity, just makes the story feel complete. And before you say "there's a beginning, middle and end, it's already complete"- maybe in production terms. Every story has its plot holes and issues. Until The Eight Doctors, there were a handful of stories that had moments that didn't make sense... certain cliffhangers that had nonsensical resolutions. Uncle Terry wrote some very useful paragraphs and they suddenly made sense.
That's all my point was. Nothing to be taken overly seriously. :)
- Amorkuz
I'm not sure anyone really expects this to be rendered invalid. :) What's important for me is that the four rules should handle this situation easily, without the need to use additional arguments.
So legally speaking so far it goes along my expectations. To announce this episode invalid, one needs to first separate it from the rest of the Master Plan, which would require discussion by itself. It is true that pre-Savages story designations were not based on original releases. But they have been established on this Wiki as a matter of policy, which would have to be changed. The main argument for the separation would be, I expect, that the story was sold overseas without the Feast, thus, demonstrating, that even BBC at the time did not consider it part of the Master Plan. Further, given the number of separate audio stories that happen within the Master Plan, it would not be much of a precedent to announce that there was a separate TV story within it too. This would have a number of implications for things like numbering of stories, duration of the longest story, the first non-contiguous TV story (story broadcast with another story in the middle of it), edits for pages of all the crew, lists of appearances of all the characters.
However, I have to agree with CoT on the second point: even within a stand-alone story, breaking walls is nowhere stated as a deal-breaker in the four rules. It would not be sufficient for the BBC to indicate that the Feast is not part of the Plan. They would have to say that the Feast was intended to be set outside of DWU.
- Thefartydoctor
To be honest, I think this discussion's a bit superfluous in any case. The Doctor talks to himself all the time. Let's just say the line in question was said to no-one but himself. That wouldn't mean anything. Especially since the Doctor's been alone so many times that he considers himself to be his best friend haha. Plus, when in the TARDIS, he's never truly alone.
I don't quite understand what the problem is here. It doesn't really matter how the story was sold or broadcast overseas. It's how it was broadcast for the first time in the UK. To my knowledge, there was no irregular pause between episodes. It's gotten to a point when conversations are opened up about anything haha. Next it'll be "the Doctor sniffed loudly, should we still consider it invalid?".
- Borisashton
As the creator of this thread I'm happy that it is valid. An apparent break of the fourth wall shouted to me 'invalid' but that has now proven to have a reasonable explanation. I'm a new user and am not too aware of all the policies this wiki has. If everyone else is, I'm happy with this thread being closed.
- Thefartydoctor
@Boris No worries. Discussions are great but I was just aware that we've probably spoken about this somewhere already. I think, like a lot of fans, you see a fourth wall break and you suddenly question everything haha. It's completely normal. Sorry if I sounded rude, you had a genuine concern. I hope we've all addressed it the way you wanted to. :)
- Amorkuz
@BorisAshton, just in case. I did not mean any offence either. All I meant was that, to my understanding of the policies, there is no chance of this becoming invalid. And I did learn a couple of things from this discussion about the explanations for the breaking of the wall. So it wasn't useless either. And, in my experience, the only way of learning policies is to ask questions.
Episodes are indivisible from serials, insofar as inclusion debates are concerned. "Steven" is, in any case, not a story on its own. Recent Christmas-themed blogs like this one, which may at some (unknown?) level be influencing a revisitation of the episode, do not carefully read the text of the episode when they say, "The Feast of Steven couldn't be more far removed from the larger story it's a part of."
In fact, at this point in the larger story, the TARDIS team are on an uncontrolled race from the Daleks, having procured the taranium in earlier episodes. "Steven" depicts one of the stop-offs in that chase -- and one that's not particularly "sillier" than them showing up in Ancient Egypt in "Golden Death", or, for that matter, the ridiculous places depicted in The Chase, a story that has basically the same plot of the back half of DMP.
Moreover, the first two scenes of the episode directly tie into the last scene of the previous episode, "Coronas of the Sun". The cliffhanger from "Coronas" is somewhat similar to the one from "The Firemaker" -- the last ep. of An Unearthly Child -- in which TARDIS instruments are showing a problem with the atmosphere outside the Ship. The top of that next episode, "The Dead Planet", reveals what the Ship's instruments were indicating, much as the top of "Feast" does.
First the viewer (through the brief opener with the policemen), and then the main characters (through the initial TARDIS INT. scene) discover it's just ordinary, modern, Earth pollution that the TARDIS is reading as a threat.
And while the bulk of the episode is a bit of a narrative cul de sac, there's definitely a mid-ep TARDIS scene where the three principals remind us about the Time Destructor, the Daleks, and the taranium that are key parts of the serial's plot.
Finally, the top of "Volcano", the next episode, has an initial TARDIS INT. scene that reminds us the Doctor and friends are being chased through time and space by the Daleks for the taranium they've got on board the Ship. So when you take episodes 6, 7 ("Steven"), and 8 together, it couldn't be more clear that they really are part of the same story.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:210958
Currently, A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler are listed as a two-part story - namely 218a and 218b. I think this should probably be reconsidered in part because the simple point they're separate stories divided by a mid-series break (albeit both part of the pregnancy/Melody Pond kidnapping story arc) with very differing cast other than the regulars and Alex Kingston as River Song. I bring this up six years later because The Complete History explicitly calls them two single parters (stories 218 and 219). Obviously going through with this would also mean moving every story after Hitler forward one place too. DWM 474's First Fifty Years reader poll in 2014 lists the two as single-parters, too.
- Amorkuz
Just for the record, there are two open discussions on this topic: Thread:164173 and Thread:183627.
- SOTO
Yeah, this is a major point of discussion at Thread:183627. If proposals there pass, this will no longer be an issue.
- Tybort
Yeah, I see my error here. Apologies for missing those discussions.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:211198
Hello all. Recently users of the wiki (myself included) have been creating pages for feature-length, new versions of Classic stories. For example The Curse of Fenric - The Special Edition and Day of the Daleks: Special Edition. I am here to ask which ones deserve pages: the ones that have been created have had new scenes added. However, editions like Enlightenment: Special Edition have only been improved by adding new CGI effects. Does this deserve a page? In my opinion it is no different from a DVD release correcting CSO errors. Does anyone else have any other opinions?
- SOTO
I'm not sure I understand why any of these are getting pages. What's wrong with The Curse of Fenric#Story notes or The Curse of Fenric#Home video and audio releases?
- OttselSpy25
There is a missed market for discussing the special editions as their own separate versions. The Five Doctors and The Five Doctors Special Edition are narratively different and those differences are not properly covered. Seperate pages is going a bit far tho.
- SOTO
I really don't think these necessitate (or indeed deserve) separate pages, either. How would you recommend covering them better otherwise? A special section under Story notes called "Special edition[s]", covering differences from the original?
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote: I really don't think these necessitate (or indeed deserve) separate pages, either. How would you recommend covering them better otherwise? A special section under Story notes called "Special edition[s]", covering differences from the original?
I think that would be ideal, yes.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:211325
Do anyone know why Classic Who has seasons while New Who has series? Doctor Who is British, and in the UK "series" is the same as an American "season". Then why does Classic Who use seasons?
- Xx-connor-xX
Simply to distinguish between the two. It would be very confusing referring to both the Classic and New Who series by the same name!
- AeD
I still usually end up saying "season 9 (2015)" if it's not obvious which one I'm talking about.
- Danniesen
But clearly "season" must have been used before this Wikia was created. Otherwise, Eccleston's era would have been known only as "series 27".
- 82.3.146.201
They were produced as seasons, older programmes often were.
To answer why series 1 is not series 27 is for a couple of reasons.
A) Who watches Season 27 of a show that has been off air for years? People wouldn't watch it on the ground that they'd missed too much.
B) DVD sales, again no-one would by season 27 of a show, especially when the first 26 haven't been released properly.
C) Additionally I recall Russell T Davies saying that it couldn't be called season 27 for may legal reasons, though this hasn't stopped many reference guides putting Season 27 (Series 1) or just Season 27.
But I guess it's up to the viewer, it's probably a lot easier when compiling lists to just put Season 27... to avoid confusion.
- Danniesen
Thanks.
- SOTO
Very true. And there is a reason why we use the words "season" and "series" specifically here at Tardis. I won't venture to tell you exactly why myself, as I might give you wrong information, but I can tell you it's not entirely arbitrary. Most obviously, of course, we simply needed a way to easily distinguish between series 1 and season 1, and so on. The season/series divide, as I understand it, was already one which was in use, if not consistently than at least often enough that it would have been understood.
- Danniesen
Thanks. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:211467
So, in the past few weeks, an IP user brought attention to lists of appearances. However, some aspects of the editings were decided to need a bit of discussion. This discussion started here, but it started to get bigger and bigger, so we decided to bring it to the foruns, so it could get a better atention from all community. Our main discussions were:
Decided matters[[edit] | [edit source]]
- Titan Comics' series: should we name them "Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor" or simply "The Eighth Doctor"?
- Decision: Keep the "Doctor Who" prefix on those cases
- Titan Comics was being removed was one of the headings on the lists.
- Decision: Add back the "Titan Comics" headings
- Extra space between an h2 (
== This ==) and an h3 (=== This ===), etc.- Decision: Unnecessary to do it, but necessary between two h2 or between two h3, etc. Example:
== Television == === ''Doctor Who'' ===
- Not:
== Television == === ''Doctor Who'' ===
- "IDW" vs. "IDW Publishing" and "Titan" vs. "Titan Comics" as the name of headings
- Decision: Always "IDW Publishing" and "Titan Comics". Never "IDW" and "Titan"
- "Novel" vs. "Novels" and "Comic" vs. "Comics" as the name of headings
- Decision: Always "Novels" and "Comics". Never "Novel" and "Comic"
Under discussion[[edit] | [edit source]]
- How to link to lists of appearances?
'''''[[X - list of appearances|see list]]'''''or[[X - list of appearances|'''''see list''''']]? - How many appearances are necessary for a list to be made?
- The
|appearances =variable being listed as "other appearances". On {{Infobox Individual}}, it used to just be appearances, with "first seen in" listed separately as well. Should it be kept, put the same wording on the other infoboxes, or roll it back entirely? To be completely clear, it says "appearances" if no "first" is specified, and if one is listed, gives the next variable as "other appearances".
With this, I think I made a good overview of the major discussion points made so far. User:SOTO and User:Amorkuz: if you think I left something important off this list, please remind us below.
- Xx-connor-xX
I think "see list" is perfectly fine. I also think that only pages with seven or more appearances should have their own list, as has always been.
- Amorkuz
This was not discussed before, but is something I've been wondering about. When list of "other appearances" is given in the infobox, is it necessary to use a list templet "il" and is it necessary to put the same prefix on consecutive appearances.
To my mind, the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first. If every story is on its own line, then prefixes look nice for each. If line breaks are allowed in the middle of a title, then consecutive stories from the same medium can, IMHO, be given under only one prefix.
- OncomingStorm12th
Amorkuz wrote: This was not discussed before, but is something I've been wondering about. When list of "other appearances" is given in the infobox, is it necessary to use a list templet "il" and is it necessary to put the same prefix on consecutive appearances.
So, answering your questions:
- For me, the use of "il" mostly depends of how big the words of the story title are. Sometimes, mostly when stories contain big words, like The Metaphysical Engine, or What Quill Did makes the infobox look weird, such as Dorothea Ames'
- I do think it's good to use prefix before every story. Look at Dalek of human origin: these appeared in TV, Audio and Prose stories. Probably, we'd rearrange the stories if we were to use prefixes only once, but I don't think thats entirely necessary, and would also bring quite a lot of effort to change.
One more thing I'd like to bring to discussion. Anthologies (prose and audio): when adding them to lists, should it be as a new heading, like here (one heading for Extinction, one for Shutdown and one for Silenced) or just using an asterisk, like here?
I'd personally rather have headings for anthologies, as it would mostly create Table of contents, which makes navigation easier for big lists. I mean, it's very harder to find "Infernal Devices" now than it would be if we used headings there.
- SOTO
If a character's only appearances are in a continuous run of episodes or short stories, for example, it's usually best to simply keep that list on one line (or at least, it's okay to do so). In which case, the prefix goes at the beginning only. The moment a character appears in multiple media, it becomes necessary to use {{il}}. I disagree with taking stories out of release order simply to have all prose, audios, etc together under one prefix. But otherwise, it can be an aesthetic choice, as Oncoming says. I think, overall, using that template looks most any infobox look cleaner. When using
{{il}}, it is required that you give a prefix before every story, or on every new line. - OncomingStorm12th
So, trying to bring new light (and, hopefully, more users, to this debate)
"How many appearances are necessary for a list to be made?"
In my opinion, once a character appears in 5 or 6 stories, it already deserves a list; regardless of being in the same media, or being present in consecutive stories, once it reaches 5 feels like a good time to make a list.
- TheChampionOfTime
I disagree, it feels pointless to have a list if there are and only ever will be five or six appearances. Padrac has appeared in six stories and he will probably never appear in one ever again. It would feel pointless to seperate the information. I'd say seven should be the absolute cut-off point, but it should be acceptable to create lists for multi-media or recurring character if they've got six.
- TheChampionOfTime
Ohhhhhhhhh, question! Should the "first mentioned in" variable affect whether or not a character gets a list of appearances pages?
I mean, the point of these lists is to make the infoboxes smaller.
- Amorkuz
For me, it's all about the optics and easy access to information. Thus, I would apply all the proposed numbers, be it 5, 6 or 7, to the stories in the "Appearances" list, thus, discounting the first appearance. If a character appeared in 6 stories, the appearances list has 5 items, qualifying it for a separate page under OS12's proposal. When there are 8 stories, the "Appearances" list is of length 7 and falls under CoT's cut-off.
I also support the expedited creation of a separate page for characters appearing in several media because a separate page actually lists the name of the series, not just the type of the media. I just needed exactly this information for another discussion and lists of appearances provide all information at once, removing the need to click each story to figure out where it comes from.
I also think we do not have to set an exact cut-off point with strict rules on both sides. I would be comfortable with a fuzzy zone in the middle.
Something to the tune of:
- up to 4 appearances overall (up to 3 beyond the first) - definitely no separate page
- 7 or more appearances overall (6 or more beyond the first) - definitely a separate page
- 5 or 6 overall appearances is a toss-up, leaning towards a separate page if more than one medium is involved.
The 4 appearances above is based on a standard length of a BF box set: if a character is made for one box set only, their life is homogenous enough not to make a separate list.
- OncomingStorm12th
Well, we do have a "cut-off point" to making categories, so I fell like a "Rule of X" for lists of appearances wouldn't do us harm.
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Padrac has appeared in six stories and he will probably never appear in one ever again.
Well, if we'd make a rule, such specific cases should not come in mind. That aside, I got the very opposite impression from the end of Stop the Clock. Whatever might come next, I feel like he'll very much return (but will stop it here, as this is not the focus of the thread, and could become spoiler-ish).
For me, as soon as a "X" number of appearances is achieved (whatever "X" number we end up deciding), a list is made. But I agree with Amorkuz: for characters who appear on different media (or different series, like Ollistra, or even non-consecutive appearances on the same series, like Padrac), it is specially important to have the list: listing the name of the series (or, even, anthologies) in which they appear can be very helpfull while searching information.
- Amorkuz
I think I have a perfect illustration of what we have been discussing: Veklin. She appeared in 7 stories overall, that is 6 stories in the list of "other appearances". So it would seem like leaving them in the infobox is a good idea, especially given that they are all audio stories, having currently only one prefix.
But in truth this is very deceiving: it creates an appearance of a continuous narrative. In truth, the first 3 of the 7 appearances are from the War Doctor box sets (and these are two box sets, separated by a quite a lot of story), while the last 4 of the 7 appearances are from the Doom Coalition series (also from two different box sets).
This is a typical example of someone who should have a separate list of appearances page because of disparate stories she appeared in.
- OncomingStorm12th
Very good catch. After doing a bit of research, I managed to come out with two more examples for this: Dalek Time Strategist and Keri.
The DTS appears in 6 stories overall (which means there are "only" 5 stories listed under "other appearances". Still, these stories belong to two different series, and even within one of the series, they are non-consecutive appearances. For Agents of Chaos, he appears on all 3 stories, but then is absent from the first two stories on Casualties of War, returning only for the third story.
Keri is an even better example (as many appearances as the DTS, but these are less connected to each other): her first appearance was on Prelude Legacy (short story), a prelude published on DWM 211. Then, she appeared on two (non-consecutive) Virgin New Adventures books. Later, she appeared on two (once again, non-consecutive) Big Finish Bernice Summerfield audio stories, and, most recently, on a BBC New Series Adventures book.
What I mean is: by not making lists for these characters, we end up giving the wrong impression that these stories are consecutive, or even part of the same "series" of stories. By making a list, we solve this problem. (but, as Amorkuz said above, 4 is too few, given some character are planned for one BF box set, or BBC New Series Adventures "mini-series" of audios, and I agree that's too small. But from up onwards, specially if there are multiple series/anthologies, seems a good path.)
- SOTO
So to amend what we proposed earlier, if the appearances belong to different series/ranges (note: I don't mean season or box-set), rather than only different media, they should probably be moved to a separate page, unless of course there are only 3 or 4 total appearances.
- TheChampionOfTime
I think image availability should also be a factor. Take The Doctor (Battlefield). He'll probably never get an infobox image, much less another image for the rest of the article. He's appeared in seven stories across several series; Target novelisations, BBC Short Trips, Big Finish Short Trips, Bernice Summerfield, and the Eighth Doctor Adventures. Having a slightly longer infobox improves the article by making it a bit less of a wall of text.
To me, moving the information from The Doctor (Battlefield) to a list would make it worse by giving priority to novels instead of listing the appearances in release order. By SOTO's suggestion, Tyrannosaurus rex should get a list of appearances. I just don't want appearance list overkill.
- SOTO
Okay, unless there are only 4 or 5 total appearances. I am definitely not in favour of any further lists of appearances for incarnations of the Doctor, by the way (aside from the Thirteenth, etc). I think, in the end, we're not going to come to any precise rules to follow, but we should maybe have some broad guidelines to point to, dealing with numerous cases, so we can at least have some level of consistency on this issue.
- SOTO
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Having a slightly longer infobox improves the article by making it a bit less of a wall of text.
I have to admit this is true for when there is no image, and there's a longer article.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:211479
Tardis:Images and perspective says this:
- "For in-universe articles, images must come from an in-universe source, such as a screenshot of a televised episode, or a scan of a comic strip. Novel or audio covers may also be potential sources for in-universe imagery, but only when no other source has an image to offer."
It does not mention a fifth source of images which has been used for years on this wiki: illustrations from DWM.
The preview illustrations for Big Finish and BBC Books included within DWM during the 2000s are a perfectly in-universe source for images of characters who otherwise make no appearance in the visual medium. Many editors have recognised this and used them in articles (myself included).
The problem arises when it comes to illustrations used in DWM articles. Recently, one user was told by an admin not to use images from articles due to them not being in-universe. As far as I'm aware, there is only one page that uses an image from a DWM article: The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe). Why are book and audio covers and preview illustrations more in-universe than the image on the left? I can think of a few pages that would benefit from being able to use article images.
We currently have no rules concerning these DWM illustrations and we will benefit from drawing a firm line in the sand as to what we can use.
- Also, DWM have recently began a new monthly feature which has original illustrations for recent Big Finish stories.
- Revanvolatrelundar
From memory that Infinity Doctors picture stands next to an illustration of the Eighth Doctor in The Flood. Both of them to me are in universe depictions to me. They also often stand to improve the quality of our articles.
It's an 100% yes vote from me.
- OncomingStorm12th
For me it'd be also a yes. I'm pretty sure that DWM would have authorization for making these illustration on their articles, so I can't see a good reason to not allow them.
- OttselSpy25
The question also arises on if these illustrations are ads or not. In the past we've decided that ads are not stories, although it was stated even then that this could be challenged in the future.
- OttselSpy25
I think if we're going to use the illustrations we at least need to have a better system for quoting where they come from. (audio: whatever) doesn't really cut it.
- 82.3.146.201
OttselSpy25 wrote: I think if we're going to use the illustrations we at least need to have a better system for quoting where they come from. (audio: whatever) doesn't really cut it.
Perhaps individual pages for these, treat them as a new form of story.
We could call them for example, "The Infinity Doctors prelude (comic story).
- OncomingStorm12th
82.3.146.201 wrote: Perhaps individual pages for these, treat them as a new form of story.
We could call them for example, "The Infinity Doctors prelude (comic story).
I don't think these deserve individual pages. Because they're not new stories, they're just illustration from a part of a novel/audio story.
Also, I don't quite see the problem with linking the way we do now. The image depicts the events of story "X". So we link to (MEDIA: X)
As for being ads: I also think they would not qualify as ads. Not only we have "illustration by" along the image, but also what's in question here is not making these images qualify as stories.
- OttselSpy25
I think we should at least say (DWM XXX illustration of AUDIO: X)
- TheChampionOfTime
Just to be clear, the image of The Doctor (The Infinity Doctors universe) comes from an retrospective on the Eighth Doctor published around the time of the beginning of the new series, not a prelude.
- TheChampionOfTime
- OncomingStorm12th
You're absolutely right. For sure not comics, in any sense. No narrative, no continuous dialogue, nothing.
Also, the illustrations from DWM 508 and 509 seems to change a bit the pattern: instead of illustrating a piece of the story, they just have a illustration featuring some elements of the story (but should still be deemed valid sources for images).
- OttselSpy25
It seems to me that these should be fine for use in articles. I see no real problem with treating DWM article illustrations as equals to covers and promotional art for the audios.
- OttselSpy25
Here's a reasonable question to ask:
Should we allow images from the Big Finish trailers? It's pretty clear those are always going to the best visual representations of the audios themselves.
- Thefartydoctor
I personally don't see a difference between DWM previewing a novel and the Big Finish YouTube channel making a video to preview an audio. Both are scenes taken and given further light. I'm all for the above to be used as sources. :) I think the article regarding The Sontarans (audio story) would highly benefit from screenshots from the video, as my understanding is it's the First Doctor's first meeting with a Sontaran.
- OttselSpy25
I agree that there isn't really a big difference between a DWM comic preview and a BF video preview. Basically they're either both ads or neither of them are ads.
- Thefartydoctor
I always see them as a omnipotent being watching over the event in question, taking out a slice or numerous slices and putting it into another medium. The exact same events put with images. That's how I personally perceive them.
- OncomingStorm12th
Yeah, I think we should allow Big Finish trailers as image sources. However, if we were hierarchyise images, I'd put it like this:
- A) Best options: TV/webcast/home video screenshots, comic interior images (as they are in-universe), and illustrations presented within books/anthologies (like the ones on Twelve Doctors of Christmas (anthology), because these are as in-universe as they could get for short stories)
- B) Good, but if "A" is available, we should use it rather than this: book covers and audio stories covers
- C) Last resources (only to be used if A and B doesn't exist): DWM illustrations and Big finish trailers (as they are still official/licensed, but not directly attached to the products, while the covers are)
- OttselSpy25
I think B and C are a little more complex than just "one over the other."
Some images in DWM previews and Big Finish covers try to depict scenes from the stories straight, and some try to be more of a "collage" sort of thing. We should value images that were meant to depict the situations over images meant as a "publicity" still.
File:7RaineMasterTARDISes.jpg and File:Dwm_Sword_of_Orion.jpg will always be preferable to images like File:Hex Signs and Wonders.jpg and File:EDA2.jpg.
If anything, I would say that DWM illustrations should be regarded higher than Big Finish cover images because DWM usually represents real scenes and not just cool images of the cast.
- TheChampionOfTime
I say that the image used should simply be the one that best complies to our image policy. If someone were to add an infobox pic to Slithergee, I'd hope that it would be from the first of these images.
This image has a far better picture of a MagpieLet's just choose the picture that best illustrates our person/place/thing/event.
Establishing an unneeded hierarchy will lead to cases in which a better image is sacrificed in order to comply with the rules. DWM illustrations are not always better than covers. Covers are not always better than DWM illustrations.
On another note, does anyone disagree with sourcing these images like this: (DWM XXX illustration of MEDIUM STORYNAME)?
- OncomingStorm12th
When I wrote my previous coment, I was having in mind only infobox images, but I forgot to add it to the text; sorry.
However, now you commented it, having a "B" and "C" may indeed lead to cases in which a better image is sacrificed in order to comply with the rules. That said, simply having: "A" (IU) takes precedent over "B" and "C" (official/licensed, but OOU) seem good enough.
I have no stong feelings either way about "(DWM XXX illustration of MEDIUM STORYNAME)", except that it might be a bit hard to keep track of which issue published the illustration in the long-term.
- OttselSpy25
This very junction is exactly why I've always made a big deal of including the DWM number in all of the images I upload.
Citing where we got the images from is important.
- OncomingStorm12th
It does make sense, but, for example, what would we use for File:TheSontaranstrailer.JPG? (Trailer of AUDIO: The Sontarans) or something else?
- OttselSpy25
- TheChampionOfTime
And, for rare case of images that are not from previews or trailers I'm thinking something like this:
- OttselSpy25
I think that we should still refer to the story in that case, especially as that image appears on the page you're linking to!
One thing we've missed out on in this discussion are these sort of review-illustrations which we also have used for a while. They're the ones that look a lot more goofy, and I think they're another example of an article illustration rather than a preview.
- TheChampionOfTime
The difference is that those reviews are connected to a specific story, articles don't have to be.
DWM 272 contains this one illustration of Sam Jones and Fitz Kreiner in the console room which I would love to use on several pages. It doesn't really come from a specific story. I think it would be easier to just use the same format for all pictures which don't come from from previews or reviews, regardless of if some of the illustrations depict things from a specific story.
I'm currently thinking (Illustration from ARTICLE TITLE in DWM XXX).
- OttselSpy25
That sounds fine.
- TheChampionOfTime
Let's see how far we can go.
Can official BBC licensed artwork made for NOTVALID: Legacy be used out of the BHS sections. Of course, I would suggest not using images from the gameplay, but instead from the promo-art (like the image on the left). This artwork is no more in-universe than book/audio covers or DWM illustrations.
Most of the illustrations from Legacy would be useless - we have better more in-universe pics - but a few are very useful! So far, the game has partnered with George Mann to include an ally and a few enemies from Engines of War (novel). Cinder and Skaro Degradations would benefit from these images!
From what I understand, there are plans to do some Big Finish levels in the future. I could see useful images coming from that. Also potentially useful, their Titan Comics levels reuse artwork from the comics except without dialogue.
I would propose we source the images like I did with the Cinder one; make sure it's clear that it's invalid information-wise.
- SOTO
Just to be clear, for something to be valid, it must be a story, a narrative. DWM illustrations for audio stories can certainly argued to be part of that story, and a visual representation of it, but promotional art in general is..wait for it..not a story. And only stories count.
Legacy artwork which is featured in DWM is no more valid than images on merchandise packaging or playing cards. It can go in a BTS section, if that's important to you, but by no stretch, really, can such illustrations pass T:VALID. We're not w:c:starwars.
- TheChampionOfTime
The trouble with putting these things in the BTS section is that 1. there's usually not enough space and 2. the above articles would be improved by having images. We are trying to make the best possible guide to Doctor Who, aren't we? If the BBC say that a certain illustration is what a character looks like, we are creating an information barrier for readers by not putting it in the main section of the article.
You say illustrations for stories can be argued to be a part of stories, I disagree. A book begins with the prologue and ends with the epilogue. An audio starts with the opening them and ends with the closing theme.
Has an image of Flip Jackson ever appeared in a story. No, it appears in the packaging for the story. An image file that is associated with the audio files for the story, a teaser of next month's release, interviews with the cast, and a music suite. The cover of a booklet on the making of the story that goes in front of the CD.
Tardis:Valid sources should only apply to the writing of articles. Perhaps it already is. Would you ever write a sentence outside of the BTS section that uses information from the cover? "Although Evelyn said the Doctor was wearing his colourful coat, he was actually wearing his blue one." "Despite the fact that he called himself a bat, Professor Baffle was actually a bird puppet." "The Eighth Doctor stood calmly while he was roasted alive" "The only people that ever saw this flower were colourblind and thought it was white instead of red"
Covers flesh out things from their stories, but if they contained a picture of a newspaper article with information not seen in the story, would you be fine with pages being created based off of only the cover? What if it was the cover to a DVD?
Book covers, audio covers, and DWM previews should not be valid sources. They are not stories. The trouble is, Walton Winkle is a better page because of it. I don't want us to start listing the Tenth Doctor's intelligence level based off of his DWBIT collectable card. I don't want us to use that one puzzle from the mid-70s to say that an army of K1s once stormed a planet. I want us to be able to improve our articles by having images of characters that don't have much images.
- SOTO
I'm suggesting that the DWM preview illustrations, and only those, are narratively akin to illustrations within a book/short story. But just because "the BBC" say, however that works, that a character looks like an illustration attached to a DWM review of the story, does not mean that's suddenly valid. That illustration did not find its way into a story, so it's only behind the scenes information that the character resembles that picture. No more in-universe than concept art for TV, even if that concept art ended up being directly translated into a prop which featured on-screen.
You're suggesting we use artwork made for Doctor Who: Legacy, which is deemed invalid here, to illustrate an in-universe article on, in this instance, Cinder. I can't really say I support anything more than the current caption: "Cinder as she appears in Doctor Who: Legacy". Not Cinder as we know from any valid story, but as she is illustrated in that game.
And we're talking about including screenshots from BF trailers as well, now? I mean, T:VALID specifically says no to TV trailers as valid sources, but in the case of BF, you can't make the argument that any of the visuals were cut. That section might need to be updated if we allow trailers for audio stories. The main problem is that those aren't stories, either. Do we count them as some sort of accompanying visual? I know at least one of those trailers contains a bunch of newspaper articles; is that being considered as potentially valid in-text?
I think, by the way, we might need to think up a good prefix for this, instead of a long description, especially if we're at all considering making these valid for information. (I don't personally understand how you could make an argument for "valid as illustration, but not actually valid".) Much like we have ICOM and DCOM, and BFX for BF bonus material, BFI might be the prefix meaning "Big Finish image/illustration". I suppose we'd need to separate the prefixes for cover- and inside-illustrations (considered together) and DWM illustrations, which will not be found on any CD release at all. BFI and DWMI?
- OttselSpy25
I simply can't justify the difference between a DWM illustration of a story's events and a Big Finish trailer of a story's events.
- Thefartydoctor
If we're using Big Finish artwork in character and location articles without batting an eyelid, then I honestly think it's hypocritical to say that we can't use any preview from DWM. I feel the same towards BF trailers. It's either all artwork or none of it. It's like a slice taken out of the adventure and presented to the reader. I understand the point regarding "it's not a story"... but, it kind of isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be a slice of time of a story. In fact, by this logic, the BF covers should be deemed invalid due to them being a collage of characters, settings and monsters... see what I'm saying?
- OttselSpy25
A one-panel preview with one quote or no quotes is simply not a story. It's just as much a story as the WELOVETITANS series.
- Thefartydoctor
Thefartydoctor wrote: I understand the point regarding "it's not a story"... but, it kind of isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be a slice of time of a story.
Is my response to that.
- OttselSpy25
But that's also how you could describe a trailer.
- Thefartydoctor
I suppose the difference being that we treat 'trailers' as 'real world' articles, since they're man-made things that exist in our universe, not the DWU. I fully understand what you're saying but, I'm of the opinion that if there's an article called Lucie Miller that uses the image of Lucie Miller from a Big Finish cover, there's no reason not to use these previews. Big Finish covers or Doctor Who novel covers are both previews of what's inside. I, personally, don't see the difference. :)
If the overwhelming majority here thinks that previews don't count because they aren't standalone stories (regardless of the fact that they're clearly not meant to be), then so be it, but it'd be incredibly sad. These previews have never claimed to be anything but. Never has a DWM issue (to my knowledge) claimed them to be standalone... there's always been a mention about from which adventure the picture comes.
- SOTO
It's all about context. You can take one sentence out of a short story, and say that sentence is not a story, and so it is not valid. You could do the same for the illustration printed within the same short story, as part of a published anthology. But really, both that sentence and illustration are part of a story—a "slice of time", as I'm hearing said.
The point is that these BF illustrations are also attached to audio stories, though not, of course, within the same medium. You can't attach images to mp3 files, and have them heard on CD. So accompanying images are on the cover, inside booklets, and printed in DWM as a preview. None of those, individually, are stories, but they're not meant to be, and they don't have to be—on their own, that is. This is to say, they're provided in the context of an audio story, and, except with DWM (and trailers, which have been mentioned), packaged with that story, same as being printed in the book.
Meanwhile, an illustration printed in a DWM article is not a valid photo, as it's not tied to a story, illustrating it, but rather is illustrating an element of that story, within the context of a non-narrative magazine article. Really not the same thing.
- TheChampionOfTime
Actually, you can have one sentence be an entire story. But that's not important.
You're very correct that you can't hear images. Audio and prose are fundamentally different mediums than TV or comic. We shouldn't claim to treat -p[=yjmu^p-ç them the same when we actually don't. I don't think
- TheChampionOfTime
Actually, you can have a one-sentence story. But that's not important.
Audio and prose are fundamentally different mediums than TV and comic. It doesn't do us any good to claim we treat them the same. We would never use an illustration from the cover of a CD case or the cover of a comic in the main section of an in-universe page. What's the difference between Gabby Gonzalez being given an actor and Hargreaves being given an image?
The cover of a comic is not part of the story.
- The CD booklet for The Scorchies contains a little fake reminiscence of James Goss' memories of watching The Scorchies Show as a child. It's told in the context of the main story, does this mean Alvin Stardust gets a page on tardis?
Are audio covers more in-universe than comic covers? I don't think so. We use audio covers because they're the only images we've got of the things inside the story.
None of those, individually, are stories, but they're not meant to be...
I'm glad we can agree on that, but aren't they all just illustrating an element of the story?
Hold the phone![[edit] | [edit source]]
Forget all that stuff above! The answers been hiding under our noses the entire time! Here's some quotes:
Stories. Context with stories. Tardis:Valid sources is specifically about the writing of articles; never once are images mentioned in it! Tardis:Images and perspective never once mentions valid sources!
We're no longer in the archaic days of "canon".
"Valid" =/= "in-universe" Technically, "when actors pose in costume for a picture are specifically disallowed" would stop us from using Big Finish covers... But illustrations that are meant to be characters from Doctor Who and not actors portraying characters from Doctor Who, on the other hand!
Context matters, but I think it's a very different sort of context that matters.
For in-universe articles, images must come from an in-universe source, such as a screenshot of a televised episode, a scan of a comic strip, or an illustration within a novelisation or short story. The covers of novels and audio stories, illustrations within DWM, and screenshots of stories considered invalid for having uncertain plots may also be potential sources for in-universe imagery, but only when no other source has an image to offer.
Waddaya think?
- OttselSpy25
I don't think that you can consistently say "article's illustrate elements of a story and previews illustrate scenes." It seems to me that both tend to do both.
When we discuss trailers, we mean things like the video trailer showing Sontarans encountering the Doctor. I think those are just video equivalents to old-school DWM previews.
A DWM preview shows scenes from an audio as a preview. A Big Finish trailer shows scenes from an audio as a preview. It's the same thing.
- TheChampionOfTime
Don't confuse the actor with the character. As a forum discussion made clear, a picture of Billie Piper dressed as Rose is not the same thing as a picture of Rose.
Example Samjones.jpg is not an image of Sam Jones. It is explicitly an image of Sam's real world twin, Kath from BBC Worldwide. This should not be used
Curiously, while our article on Sam Jones says that Sam's appearance was modelled after Kath, it doesn't actually show any of the ilustrations of Sam that are modelled after Kath!
Anji Kapoor DWM 294.jpg is given in the context of "hey look the Doctor has a new companion". We don't know who this is in real life! This should be used. Unlike the one we use now, it actually shows her face.
Basically[[edit] | [edit source]]
Only when no other source has an image to offer, we should be able to use images of characters/species/objects that have been released within official Dr Who stuff. At the same time, I propose that we should only be able to use images that come from within TV episodes, comics, webcasts, or any other visual thing - i.e. actually come from within the stories - in the writing of articles.
- 1. Only stories count
Just because they're released in the context of a story doesn't mean covers are actually a part of the story.
- OttselSpy25
I think this is a very strong case. A cover of an audio story is by no means a story, nor is a trailer or a DWM preview. But when we're dealing with instances where the story has no illustrations, we should be able to stretch the rules that we would allow for a comic or a movie.
I think that a DWM article saying "check out the new companion!" is just as good of an image of someone on the cover of a Big Finish cover.
I see basically no difference between File:Anji Kapoor DWM 294.jpg and File:Leela The Lady of Obsidian.jpg.
- OncomingStorm12th
File:He’s reaching into the screen 2.jpg” He’s reaching into the screen”
I very much agree with the two posts above. An extremely recent, and good example is in the trailer for Doom Coalition 4.
I haven’t heard the story in which this phrase is said, but it’s on the trailer, and it obviously refers to an Weeping Angel. I am 130% sure that the context given on the trailer is the same we’ll have on the story: an image of an angel was on the TARDIS Scanner, and, as stated before (and on the audio itself, it seems), “the image of an Angel becomes an Angel itself”. Then, the Angels comes out of the screen.
I very much doubt we’ll ever get another image to illustrate this scene, so it would be a shame if we couldn’t use this image to illustrate the article Weeping Angel, once there is text about the story they appear.
And yes, I know the image is dark, but if we have to choose between a dark image, or no image at all, I’d say we go with the dark image.
- Shambala108
OncomingStorm12th wrote: And yes, I know the image is dark, but if we have to choose between a dark image, or no image at all, I’d say we go with the dark image.
Except that Tardis:Guide to images specifically says, "High contrast, please. Thumbnails must have reasonable contrast to be useful at the thumbnail level. Who is this person? Who knows. The lighting conditions here just aren't suitable for a strong thumbnail."
- SOTO
Yeah, you pretty much can't see it in thumbnail, sorry. Where's the Anji photo from? I'm not seeing it anywhere in DWM 297. Page number?
- TheChampionOfTime
Sorry, bit of a mix-up with that image of Gallifrey. DWM 294.
- SOTO
I renamed that file and changed links to avoid confusion. In the end, though, what's the difference between this and Matt Smith's promo pics from when he was first announced? I can appreciate that it's not framed as a picture of..whoever modelled for that photo (?), but it's also very much not tied to a narrative. It's attached to a real world article, with an out-of-universe perspective.
Wait, wait, SOTO. You should always read the text first.
- "Since we announced she'd be coming in, a couple of people have asked if she's based on Milly in This Life [pictured]. I've never watched This Life - well, not more than 10 minutes at a time. I asked Colin and he said, 'I've never seen it. I haven't got a clue!' However you build them, companions have to be an archetype to some degree - so it wouldn't be a surprise if there was some contemporary resonance . . ."
Justin Richards is literally telling us that's not Anji, but Milly from This Life with the TARDIS behind her. (I won't upload a photo, as it's very much outside the scope of the DWU, but looking online, that's definitely her.) He's using that photo to illustrate that some have seen this other character, played by Amita Dhiri, as a potential inspiration, while also making it perfectly clear that neither he nor Colin Brake even really know who she is. This is not a picture of Anji, and it was never meant to be. You have to be super careful when you take photos out of context from an OOU source.
- TheChampionOfTime
Ha, so it is! My mistake (again). I was trying a physical picture comparison which would use the Sam image. But hey, that's a pretty good picture for the BTS!
But I don't think that issue applies to illustrations. The difference between a hypothetical Anji photoshoot and an Eleventh Doctor photoshoot is that the Eleventh Doctor got some better images in actual stories and he isn't primarily a prose character.
The difference between illustrations and TV concept art is more-or-less the same. Also, these illustrations aren't for designing props or costumes.
To repeat myself[[edit] | [edit source]]
Images must be in-universe. I wholeheartedly disagree that something must pass the four little rules to be in-universe. We can't write pages about the events of the trailer to Doom Coalition 4, but we could theoretically take images of the Eighth Doctor, River Song, the Monk, and a Weeping Angel from it if we wanted.
- And before anyone gives a "not enough admin to properly enforce" argument, there's not a huge pile of images this would apply to. I would gladly do all the work.
- SOTO
The illustrations for Legacy can easily be compared to TV concept art. They originally served a function, in terms of the production of that video game, and now they're published in DWM as almost a sort of proof of concept: this is what Cinder might look like, based on what they've done in Legacy. I mean, let's be honest, that one started out as Paul Hanley's fan art on DeviantArt, which admittedly he did collaborate with George Mann on. "This may not be a BBC-approved design, but it IS author-approved, which is the important part for me. [in comments:] I'm currently working on a modified "2.0" version for the Doctor Who: Legacy game: fav.me/d7x3a37".
Now I don't want to disappoint Thunderush, but is even the final, "BBC-approved official art" actually an in-universe illustration?
Well, I'm open. If you want slightly separate rules for image validity, by all means suggest away. (At least we can be generally assured that illustrations are not pictures of the actors, by the way.)
Remember that those rules would have to make sense, given that, for example, screenshots from TV trailers would be strictly forbidden, and the cover to Doctor Who - Series 3 (soundtrack) is not an in-universe picture of the Doctor and Martha. What differentiates some of the images you'd like us to be able to use, and other promotional imagery? Can the same sort of logic apply to images of Bernice Summerfield, who has many in-universe depictions (and never looks the same)?
- OncomingStorm12th
Okay, I didn't actually gather a look on how File:He’s reaching into the screen 2.jpg would look on a thumb file before using it for an argument.
Still, I have now found a (way) better trailer to illustrate my point: File:DOCTOR WHO - THE EARLY ADVENTURES THE SONTARANS. It is made by joining brief moments throughout the audio, and illustrates what's happening on these brief moments
- OttselSpy25
SOTO wrote: Well, I'm open. If you want slightly separate rules for image validity, by all means suggest away. (At least we can be generally assured that illustrations are not pictures of the actors, by the way.)
...screenshots from TV trailers would be strictly forbidden, and the cover to Doctor Who - Series 3 (soundtrack) is not an in-universe picture of the Doctor and Martha. What differentiates some of the images you'd like us to be able to use, and other promotional imagery? Can the same sort of logic apply to images of Bernice Summerfield, who has many in-universe depictions (and never looks the same)?
I think it's all about what images we do and don't have. Let's take this on a story basis just for ease of examples right now. We have plenty of in-universe images for any comic or TV story. So of course we wouldn't use an image from an audio story's cover for their profile image or anything like that. For comics, we would never try to use a cover's art for a character or event.
But for Audio and Prose we often are left without in-text illustrations. Bernice Summerfield is a character who is heavily illustrated in comics and audio covers which often represent events true to the narrative. So allowing illustrative promotional art printed in DWM but only for concepts where there is no other example of in-universe visual depiction is no different than accepting File:Bex (Tecnophobia).jpg when we should never accept an image of Martha that looks anything like that.
sorry if it I'm retreading explored grounds; my point is that the rules for including DWM article illustrations would be no different from the practice of accepting Big Finish Audio images. A last-cast-situation which we only do for the necessity of illustration.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree wholeheartedly with the simple issue of treating DWM illustrations the same as Big Finish images. In my eyes they're not different. It makes no sense to allow one and shun the other. In fact, it's hypocritical. If we're allowed to take Blitzen fish's image from the cover of Relative Dimensions, then we're allowed to do similar from a DWM illustration of a novel or audio.
- TheChampionOfTime
I completely agree with TFD and OS25, but I would suggest going a step further.
Hierarchy of images you can use
Images from TV, COMIC, or WEBCAST
if one cannot get an image of subject from those sources
Images from covers of books or audio stories or illustrations from DWM
if one cannot get an image of subject from those sources
Images from stories that were considered nonvalid only because of their possibility for variationHey, it even sorta forms a pyramid! There are only a few articles that would be affected by adding the bottom possibility, but they would be improved by it. Skaro Degredations, Glider Daleks, Zog (Face Value), Cinder; apparently Griffoth, but I'd swear that an image of the planet appeared in Mr Smith's Data Files. This list is looking like it will expand in the near future.
- OttselSpy25
I think that's a radical but logical plan. It's bothered me for years that we can't use images from TV: Shada to illustrate PROSE: Shada.
However, are trailers and DWM illustrations really considered to be in the final branch?
- Thefartydoctor
I'm tempted to sit here and argue the importance of the trailer for AUDIO: The Sontarans as a means of illustrating certain things for the audio story itself (were the necessity for such images to rear its head). Don't misunderstand, I would never sit here and argue its validity. Trailers are not stories, I understand that. But Big Finish trailers are a goldmine for pictures and animations that would not be available on any artwork. I'm sure you both have many more examples of Big Finish adverts that would be so useful were they to be added to your 'triangle'. For me, if someone's gone out of their way to attach visual clips to pre-existing audio, then I think we're very foolish to ignore it.
- OttselSpy25
I would go as far as to say that the DWM previews of novels and audios are also not stories. Is anyone going to argue that THIS is a story? Because it's all-or-nothing. So including images from DWM previews is against our policies. Either we need to stop using them, or we need updated policies.
Which is why I think that TheChampionOfTime's new hierarchy is the perfect new set of rule to expand how easily we can illustrate articles in general.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree that the hierarchical system seems to work very well. I think the rule that only stories can provide images for articles is utter tosh. The fact this thread has lasted so long proves that there's an update pending. I really don't like the fact that "a slice of time" and "not a story" are treated as the same thing on this Wiki. As I said way earlier, when I see a DWM preview, I treat it as a slice of time from a valid story. It's a few seconds encapsulated in comic form. That's why, for me, saying "it's not a story thus we can't use it" is like a kick in the shins, because no-one's arguing its validity as a story, but we are arguing its validity as "part of a story". But that debate encroaches on whether DWM previews are valid, which may be a debate for a later day.
- Thefartydoctor
I'm glad that rules for stories are strict. It means that not any old stuff can get into the Wiki as "valid". However, I think these trailers are getting choked by that rule. Am I asking for the rule to bypass trailers? Probably not. I think we need to look at trailers differently than everything else. Imagine an all-knowing godly figure looking over the Doctor's first encounter with the Sontarans and picking out some random moments and compiling them into a trailer. It's not a valid story in itself, but it is a compilation of valid events put in some sort of order. That must surely stand for something?
- OttselSpy25
I think it's important to ask as many questions about this as we can.
Would this ruling allow for promotional images to be used for episodes that no longer exist? At least one episode, Mission to the Unknown, has no telesnaps; and thus we have never had any illustrations of this.
Would it even allow for images to illustrate concepts mentioned in crossovers? Could you upload images from the Blake's 7 episode Weapon for the page Carnell?
Would we allow images from The Lost Season to illustrate correlating audio and novel adaptations of unproduced stories? Can File:The_Nightmare_Fair_-_Peri.jpg be used an an image of Peri in The Nightmare Fair (audio story)? The same question can be asked for Season 27. Is File:Thin Ice.jpg a valid illustration of Ace studying to become a Time Lord, as seen in recent Big Finish stories? Does File:Crime of the Century.jpg illustrate Crime of the Century (audio story)?
- TheChampionOfTime
First off, we are a Dr Who wiki. If we start using images from Blake's 7 to illustrate some articles, what's to stop us from borrowing pictures from Wikipedia to illustrate The Algonquin? I say we keep our images only to those directly and intentionally related to Doctor Who or any of the other series we cover.
Keep in mind at we haven't gotten an admin to chime in too recently, but in my opinion those other things you've proposed would fall under "DWM illustrations". Admittedly, I was initially apprehensive, but if these are images which illustrate ideas that have been introduced within a valid source, why not use them?
Keep in mind that the bottom rung of my proposed "triangle" is for stories that were considered nonvalid only because of their possibility for variation. Shady was disqualified because it was "one big deleted scene", not because it could differ between viewers. I was thinking more Attack of the Graske, Choose the Future, stageplays, & Legacy.
- Thefartydoctor
I agree that only Doctor Who-related sources should be allowed. I also agree that we've all put our for and against down, we've all left our opinions and concerns, and that we're now waiting for an admin to give their interpretation on the situation.
I will also say that I have no problem with the bottom rung of your proposed triangle. The in-universe page about the Graske shouldn't be denied a picture from Attack of the Graske just because it's an "open story". You could argue that the reason there are so many avenues you could go down is due to parallel timelines existing at the same time. I'm sure we could formulate some back-up reasoning for the bottom rung.
But yeah, we need an admin's input.
- OttselSpy25
If you're going to include images from a stage-play, you're blatantly talking about promotional images taken of the characters, not the play itself.
Also, AotG is invalid because the main character is the audience, if I remember correctly.
To me that "because of their possibility variation" tid-bit seems random to me. Why include that factor? Isn't this a discussion on DWM illustrations? Any reason not to call those stories valid does not center around the story being with too many variant endings. Promotional images aren't invalid on these principals, and you're equally calling for those to be represented without establishing them within your own clause. Why nit pick? Why limit the rule on random factors without applying it full-circle?
- Thefartydoctor
The problem I have with stage-plays is the on-stage images. Ignoring the whole promotional posters for the moment, if you were to snap a picture of the setting of a stage play... the stage wouldn't really represent a planet or an exterior that we recognise in the DWU. I'm just highly sceptical that anyone visiting the Wiki would appreciate it. Sorry if that didn't make any sense, my head's only half working atm.
- TheChampionOfTime
You're completely right about stageplays.
My reasoning for using images from multiple-ending stories is that
1. We're already talking about changes in Tardis:Images and perspective and it would be faster and more efficient to go over the potential changes all at once.
2. As far as I'm aware these are the only stories which are nonvalid for reasons unrelated to the four rules. I'm sure that there are those who would argue that an image of Tom Baker on a bicycle from the filming of Shada is just an image of Tom Baker on a bicycle from the filming of Shada, but I believe it's much less controversial to say that Omega appears in Search for the Doctor or that Skaro Degredations appear in Legacy. The only reason someone would say that don't appear would stem from the fact that those stories are invalid, but those stories are invalid for reasons unrelated to whether or not they're set in the DWU.
- OttselSpy25
But Shada isn't invalid because it isn't set in the DWU. It is set in the DWU.
I don't see your point.
Furthermore, I don't see how this makes DWM illustrations or BF trailers fine for illustration purposes.
- TheChampionOfTime
I also think that Shada is set in the DWU, my problem is that I don't want to go against decisions made by this wiki in the past. As I write this sentence about respecting a past choice by the community, I come to a réalisation that the choice was completely because of its "deleted scene" status. I was stupid, perhaps a list should be made of stories that would fit the bill of the bottom rung?
- Thefartydoctor
If this ladder/triangle system were implemented, I can see this opening up a whole new type of debates where we would have "SHADA- bottom rung"? "Attack of the Graske- bottom rung"? And so on.
- OttselSpy25
You've limited the bottom "rung" so much that it doesn't even currently support the very thing that we're debating.
- We're talking about DWM illustrations.
- DWM illustrations, previews or not, are clearly not stories.
- Thus, we need to either stop including them, or we need to create a new rule for why they should be included.
- You created a new rule, but the rule basically only supports video games and role-playing books. It doesn't make DWM illustrations fine, by any standards.
I feel like you're backpedaling just because you don't want to deal with the obvious example of Shada because it's a contentious topic. But you've gone too far at this point, and now the thread is getting rather confusing.
- Thefartydoctor
Back to something I said and that OS25 seemed okay with, I think we need to focus on the specific rule(s) that speak about what constitutes a story. DWM and Big Finish previews/trailers should not have follow the "rule one" that we have at the moment, because it has nothing to do with it. Instead, there needs to be either a new rule or an update to "rule one" that takes "parts of stories" under its wing.
This is our main problem, in my point of view, as standalone items, these comic previews and YouTube trailers are evidently not stories. But they're not supposed to be. They are supposed to be part of a story, hence why they're called "previews" and "trailers". If we can find a way to incorporate this idea of "slices of time" into "rule one" or have an alternate "rule one" altogether ("rule 1b" maybe), then we're on the home run.
- TheChampionOfTime
-OttselSpy25- Apologies. Personally, I'd say that this thread has been confusing for quite a while. I'll shut up about all that stuff for now. But we're still talking about trailers as well, right?
-TheFartyDoctor- I'm a bit too preoccupied to find more examples right now, but if you look at a few examples earlier in the thread (such as 100 or The Third Doctor Adventures Vol. 2) or look up some of the later stories to get previews (such as The Doomwood Curse) you'll see that not all previews are stories. I am heavily against treating tie-in illustrations or covers as parts of the story just for the sake of using their images.Colditz (audio story) included a map of Colditz Castle in its booklet. I think this is fundamentally different than a map of Brooklyn appearing in a comic. I think that it would be false to say
The German kitchens were next to the senior officer's quarters. (AUDIO: Colditz)
when the actual audio story Colditz says nothing of the sort!
If memory serves, The Harvest (audio story) does not say that the Doctor parked his TARDIS at space 76 at Totter's carpark. The preview image shows that he does.
In my eyes, using the previews as valid sources for writing is no different than using this promotional image to write stuff on articles like Andrea Quill.
- OttselSpy25
I think we're talking about trailers in the aspect that trailers and DWM previews are basically the same thing.
Here's what I think we can agree on: DWM illustrations are not valid sources for writing articles from an in-universe point of view. They are currently treated as valid sources for illustration in articles. This either suggests that we need to stop using them, or that there is no problem with having separate standards for validation in terms of writing and illustration.
- Thefartydoctor
Nowhere have I stated that previews are stories. Can we all agree that previews are not stories? I don't even know where you got that from haha. I stated that even though we can't treat them as stories, it doesn't mean that we can't have a separate rule that dictates how to use them. And furthermore, nowhere have I stated that we should be using previews for the written content of an article. Especially since a picture in normally a mish-mash of different things.
What I said was: we need an alternate way of treating previews because they are a goldmine where pictures for an article is concerned. I don't know why anyone would put a picture of the TARDIS parked at "space 76 at Totter's car park". The picture would be useless in that context because it's not true. Pictures are used to illustrate what we've read/heard in the story. If it's not in the story, the picture is useless.
But if we're talking about The Sontarans, getting a good facial view of one of the Sontarans in the story from the trailer is gold dust, because it doesn't go against the true content of the story. A better example is seeing Steven tortured in that chair. No-one's debating or suggesting writing an article based upon those previews/trailers. We are discussing whether they are useful in other aspects, and I say "yes, they are".
- TheChampionOfTime
Apologies. (Déjà Vu) I translate "they are supposed to be part of a story" as "let's try to treat previews as parts of stories".
DWM illustrations are tremendously useful. FartyDoctor, you have shown support for preview images, but what about other illustrations? To the right is an illustration of the proposed opening scene for a cancelled Dr Who story. When Big Finish did an audio adaptation of the story for their Lost Stories range, this scene was given life. The question is: can this image be used on Seventh Doctor?
Samantha "Sam" Angeline Jones. (Illustration from article title in DWM 272)An illustration of the Doctor's then current book companion appears in an article on how's he's grown since the TV Movie. The question is: can this image be used on Sam Jones?
I'd say yes to both.
Here's the basics[[edit] | [edit source]]
if I had my way[[edit] | [edit source]]
- If one cannot find an image of a person, place, thing, or event within a television episode, comic, or webcast, then it is acceptable to use images from within the pages of Doctor Who Magazine or from trailers for stories covered on this wiki
- These images are on the same level as the covers of stories. If a subject appears in a cover, an illustration, and/or a trailer, whichever image most complies with Tardis:Guide to images is used.
- DWM illustrations are to be sourced in this format:
(Illustration from ''article title'' in [[DWM XXX]])
- Trailers are to be sourced in this format:
([[TRAILER]]: ''[[insert name here (trailer)|insert name here]]'')
- If one cannot find an image of a person, place, thing, or event within a television episode, comic, or webcast, then it is acceptable to use images from within the pages of Doctor Who Magazine or from trailers for stories covered on this wiki
- OttselSpy25
Would the same apply to non-DWM magazines? The Dalek annuals, for instance, would have non-story images of notable characters.
- TheChampionOfTime
Fine idea, but surely there are images of these notable characters inside Dalek comics or short stories?
Perhaps "from within the pages of DWM or from trailers" should be replaced with something like "from a non-narrative source released under an official Dr Who license".
- Thefartydoctor
In answer to your first example, Mr CoT, since adaptations are treated on this Wiki as basically another person's point of view taking their own notes (which explains where there are differences), then I would have no problem in including that image for its adaptation (unless the story itself contradicts what is shown in the picture).
Where Sam Jones is concerned- it's always nice to have a face for a character. As the picture itself comes from an official Doctor Who magazine, then I'd have no quarrels (inner or otherwise) towards including this haha. The main opinion I was formulating is that these previews/illustrations/trailers can't be dealt fairly under our infamous four rules. They need preferential treatment. They need their own "four rules", if you know what I mean.
And that's why we have been assembled here haha. To create something that could work equally as well. That was the point I was making- the rules that we have for stories, are not fair when it comes to these non-stories because rule one instantly denies their existence.
- OttselSpy25
TheChampionOfTime wrote: Fine idea, but surely there are images of these notable characters inside Dalek comics or short stories?
Perhaps "from within the pages of DWM or from trailers" should be replaced with something like "from a non-narrative source released under an official Dr Who license".
It was just a random example, but I'm sure there's one out there that fits the non-DWM mold.
- Thefartydoctor
I've just been looking at the Erimem article and I must say the article looks a billion times better with the DWM illustrations in there. They really help to visualise a companion that doesn't derive from the television.
- TheChampionOfTime
I have also been looking at the Erimem article and I think my previously proposed sourcing system is a bit too wordy.
I'm thinking we should have a new prefix.
This is what we do[[edit] | [edit source]]
Basically, this is my proposed template for the generic out-of-story illustration. This would be for stuff like the illustration of the Cybermen's first encounter with Cryons in Doctor Who: Cybermen or some hypothetical image from a non-narrative source in a Dalek Annual.
([[ART]]: ''[[Source of artwork]]'')
This is my proposed template for illustrations from DWM.
([[ART]]: [[DWM XXX]]: ''article title'')
Perhaps we should have a separate prefixes for trailers, but perhaps [ART] would work for them as well...
([[TRAILER]]: ''[[trailer title (trailer)|trailer title]]'')
- Thefartydoctor
I like where this is going, I must admit. However, there's nothing stopping us simply not putting in the DWM XXX part. If the reader is really interested in knowing where it came from, they can click onto the article page. For example:
(ART: Preview - The Church and the Crown)
Then, if you so desired, you could click onto the article about the article and it'd say there from which DWM it came. And I suppose, if we were to allow articles to have their own prefix, then we'd have to do the same for trailers... unless there's one word that encapsulates them both nicely?
But you're definitely onto something there.
- TheChampionOfTime
I was thinking of ART as a shortened version of ARTWORK. I was thinking ART is something that could also be used for non-DWM artwork from stuff like the Dalek Annuals; maybe even for the art in the Big Finish booklets or those interior illustrations in Blood Heat, The Sands of Time, Sky Pirates!, etc.
I have three problems with your suggestion, 1) we don't really have articles on articles, 2) there's not much one can say about these articles if on where to try to make a page, & 3) there are hundreds upon hundreds of DWM articles. It just seems like a waste of time to create all those pages. Any information from Preview - The Church and the Crown would be better placed in The Church and the Crown (audio story).
Actually, I also have a fourth problem. The same problem I have with small lists of appearances. It unnecessarily separates useful information from the article.
- OttselSpy25
I agree -- under our current suggestions, it is not feasible that every image that we would ever use from a Doctor Who printing or magazine would have a page.
- Thefartydoctor
The ART = Artwork thing is a great idea. When I said about creating articles about articles, I was assuming it was something we already did. If you were to ask me to do it, I'd tell you where to go haha. I didn't realise it wasn't common practice. I'm glad to hear we don't do it. But I'm all behind this.
- OttselSpy25
The only times that I've ever seen articles have pages have been when they're helpful for covering stories on this wiki. Interweaving with the New Adventures and Stripped for action? are literally the only two pages in Category:DWM articles.
.jpg)
.jpg)
- First off, a little plea from your friendly, neighborhood admin: T:FORUM says that your post can be deleted or moved if it's off topic. So please stay on topic. It's massively difficult to close these discussions when people deliberately take a left turn every twenty or so posts. I'm going to do my best here, but I'll probably miss something.
The policy quoted in the original post, T:IUP, is effectively original to the wiki's earliest attempts at writing a manual of style. I have personally never been comfortable with its language, because I think it's inherently conflicted. Since the 2010 thread, Forum:Character infobox image standards?, I have always thought it imposed two standards:
- television - where we very firmly can't use promotional images for in-universe articles
- non-visual media - where we allow, for some reason, the obviously promotional images of book and audio covers
To my mind this is an entire betrayal of our bedrock principle that all media are to be treated equally. Prose and audio just don't have pics, folks. That's the nature of those beasts. And as I said back in 2010, I don't want someone telling me that Lucie Miller necessarily looks like Sheridan Smith. And I really don't want to be told that Erimem looks like Caroline Morris. C'mon now -- that's just not even plausible.
Moreover, as this this thread now asserts, some of these illustrations are actually at odds with the narratives that they are meant to illustrate. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have time to figure out which ones are narratively true, and which ones aren't.
Sure, in the past, I've uploaded the odd DWM illustration. In particular, I'm the guilty party on the Erimem/Five image seen above. But that's because I was damned tired of seeing the very white Caroline Morris being fobbed off on covers as an Egyptian princess. It's ridiculous.
But at the end of the day, the easiest administrative solution here is to ban DWM illustrations of stories they didn't originate. Which is to say that T:IUP basically stands as is. There was no mention of DWM-illustrating-BF-and-books in T:IUP before this debate started, and there's still no mention of it. So it's not allowed. Removal of these images from in-universe sections will occur in due course. However, the images may be used in behind the scenes sections.
I realise this will disappoint people who really like images. I know some think that images must be present in every article. But that's just not true. We deal in non-visual storytelling on this wiki, and there are thousands of pages that will never, ever get any kind of illustration. It's totally fine.
For clarity:
- DWM illustrations of audio characters? Henceforth disallowed, save in BTS sections.
- DWM illustrations of novel characters? Generally no. As SOTO has pointed out with the alleged Anji picture, it's not Anji, but merely a suggestion of a real life person who might be a model for Anji. That's not nearly good enough. Concept art belongs only in BTS sections, and even then, this isn't concept art. It's just "fun with Photoshop". However, in the mid-90s, DWM did Virgin novel "preludes" which were illustrated. Those illustrations are valid.
- Video trailers for audio stories? Again, no. Trailers are never, ever valid in-universe sources. We start allowing this, and there's no logical defense against those cinema trailers using video specially shot for the trailers. Trailers are simply not a part of the narrative.
- Doctor Who Legacy images -- I don't even know why that's in this thread, but what the heck? No. Absolutely not. Please proceed to the DWL wiki if you wanna use those.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:212297
Right, so a bit of a strange one: around the time Capaldi announced that he was leaving Doctor Who (yes, I'm a bit late to the party) an episode of Newsnight aired on the BBC at least partially discussing this news. What I want to bring to the discussion is the montage of the different Doctors at the end. The presenter Emily Maitlis says this before it starts:
And that's it for tonight, but before we go time for our fact of the day. As Peter Capaldi announces he's standing down as the Twelfth 'Doctor Who' in fact 14 actors have been credited onscreen as 'The Doctor' including the late John Hurt, but we mustn't count Peter Cushing because he played a completely different character calling himself quote 'Dr. Who' or the four Comic Relief actors or the evil Valeyard Doctor or number 15 whoever she may be. Anyway here they are, you decide if it's right. Good night.
Then the montage of all the Doctors begins (presumably with an X signifying that they weren't credited as 'The Doctor') in this order:
1 - First Doctor - William Hartnell
2 - Second Doctor - Patrick Troughton
3 - Third Doctor - Jon Pertwee
4 - Fourth Doctor - Tom Baker
5 - Fifth Doctor - Peter Davison
6 - First Doctor - Richard Hurndall (from The Five Doctors)
X - Ninth Doctor - Rowan Atkinson (from The Curse of Fatal Death)
X - Dr. Who - Peter Cushing
X - Tenth Doctor - Richard E. Grant (from The Curse of Fatal Death)
X - Twelfth Doctor - Hugh Grant (from The Curse of Fatal Death)
X - Thirteenth Doctor - Joanna Lumley (from The Curse of Fatal Death)
7 - Sixth Doctor - Colin Baker
X - The Valeyard - Michael Jayston
8 - Seventh Doctor - Sylvester McCoy
9 - Eighth Doctor - Paul McGann
10 - War Doctor - John Hurt
11 - Ninth Doctor - Christopher Eccleston
12 - Tenth Doctor - David Tennant
13 - Eleventh Doctor - Matt Smith
14 - Twelfth Doctor - Peter Capaldi
15? - The Doctor - Tom Ellis (I'll speak more about him later)
So this raises a lot of questions. Starting with: Are the Dalek Movies and The Curse of Fatal Death valid? They were included in an official list of sorts made by the BBC. If they were invalid why include them on a list specifically for actors credited as 'The Doctor'? Also labelling them as 'X' in a way puts them on the same level (in a way) as The Valeyard who we all know is a valid character.
Next is how they have chosen to number the list. It seems to be in chronological order of incarnation until you get up to Hurndall and the invalid Doctors. What about order of appearance in the show? This would again be contradicted by the invalid Doctors and the War Doctor. The actual list would contradict itself as well (the list being actors who have been credited as 'The Doctor') with Peter Davison being the first actor of the kind.
Lastly is the appearance of '15?' at the end of the montage. If we go by the numbering this would mean that this Doctor would be the one after Capaldi. But he is the only actor/incarnation/Doctor to have a question mark on the end. So it's up for debate whether he actually is the next Doctor or not (but that's not the point). The actor (by the way) is Tom Ellis, and the clip in the montage is a clip from the TV series Lucifer in which Ellis plays the titular character. Interestingly enough, Lucifer is a Fox show - not a BBC one. It would seem a lot of effort to get the necessary rights to include this clip. Also should we create a page for this clip, (that's set in the DWU) like Newsnight special even if Ellis isn't the next Doctor it was released by the BBC and should be invalid if this is the case. Again, this is up for dispute.
I don't know if this is even relevant or not but it seemed quite major so I brought it up for discussion anyway.
NOTE: I would also like to deeply apologize if I accidentally offended the Tardis:Spoiler policy whilst dicussing Capaldi's departure and the next Doctor.
- AeD
I know Newsnight is a BBC show, but I'm almost entirely certain that, like the Radio Times, or Newsround, or that dog puppet Hacker, or any other BBC operation not directly tied to the Doctor Who production offices, it has exactly as much authority on these matters as as small puddle on the side of a German highway does.
I'd have to see the clip, maybe, but if this is covered here, it should at most be one line in a section about the Capaldi announcement or about the casting of his replacement, and certainly it doesn't get its own page.
- Borisashton
You can see the clip on YouTube. Here is the most complete version I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YnW6BBJyjo
- AeD
If you'd not told me that was a clip of Tom Ellis from Lucifer, I would not have been able to tell you -- I can only assume it was video the BBC had the rights to from some other broadcast, that was used as a generic unseen figure.
What an utterly bizarre broadcast. I stand by my previous statements, but would like to amend them: I do not think this should be covered here.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:213849
Right, so I don't really have a strong opinion whichever way is decided but it seems important so I thought I would bring it to the forums. I would like to talk about the title of untitled stories, especially TV ones. The naming conventions seem very inconsistent.
Example:
These are all titles of stories which are untitled and I just wondered which one was 'right'.
- 5.2.105.85
Some actually go by the series name folloed by special.
- Borisashton
Can you give me an example?
I mean Surprise Surprise! is a series.
- OttselSpy25
In my eyes, we need to go off of the same precedent that we do for comic and prose stories.
For instance:
So logically then, the basis for untitled TV stories would be Untitled (PUBLICATION TV story)
I think that Untitled (30YitT TV story) is the best example here, although I'm sure that many people would agree that the there are going to be many examples of stories where it's going to be harder to come up with a similar title.
Untitled (The Lenny Henry Show) would probably become Untitled (TLHS TV story). Spelling out the full title would be simply against precedent.
Thusly, Untitled (Tonight's the Night) would become Untitled (TtN TV story) and Surprise Surprise! special (TV story) would become Untitled (SS! TV story).
- Borisashton
OttselSpy25 wrote: In my eyes, we need to go off of the same precedent that we do for comic and prose stories.
For instance:
So logically then, the basis for untitled TV stories would be Untitled (PUBLICATION TV story)
I think that Untitled (30YitT TV story) is the best example here, although I'm sure that many people would agree that the there are going to be many examples of stories where it's going to be harder to come up with a similar title.
Untitled (The Lenny Henry Show) would probably become Untitled (TLHS TV story). Spelling out the full title would be simply against precedent.
Thusly, Untitled (Tonight's the Night) would become Untitled (TtN TV story) and Surprise Surprise! special (TV story) would become Untitled (SS! TV story).
Yes, I agree that that would be the way to go with most stories. My only concern would be with stories like Nationwide special (TV story) which would become Untitled (N TV story) which looks a bit weird in my opinion.
- OttselSpy25
For cases like that we should just cheat a little So that would become Untitled (Nw TV story) or Untitled (NW TV story)
- Borisashton
OK, fine. Your proposition seems the best way forward if nobody else objects.
- OttselSpy25
I think the next step is thinking of near every example of untitled/barely titled stories and then trying to identify their proper names.
Preludes included.
- Borisashton
Right, so quickly going through the invalid stories I have this (obviously there will be more).
- Blue Peter special (TV story) = Untitled (BP2012 TV story) (if Stuck in the Land of Fiction isn't a suitable title.
- Blue Peter special 2005 (TV story) = Untitled (BP2005 TV story)
- Children in Need 1983 (TV story) and other similar titles = Untitled (CINyear TV story)
- Cinema Introduction (The Day of the Doctor) = Untitled (TDotD cinema introduction)?
- Clown Court special (TV story) = Untitled (CC TV story)
- I see the interactive experience stories already have rename templates on, so we'll leave them.
- Jim'll Fix It special (TV story) = Untitled (JFI TV story), there is actually another untitled Jim'll Fix It special broadcast the following month so I don't know how to dab this one.
- Noel Edmond's Saturday Roadshow special (TV story) = Untitled (NESR TV story)
- RAF Finningley Airshow special (TV story) = Untitled (RAFFA TV story)
- The Skivers (audio skit) = Untitled (TS audio story)
- Summer Scene special (TV story) = Untitled (SS TV story)
- Surprise Surprise! special (TV story) = Untitled (SS! TV story)
- Untitled (30YitT TV story) = leave as it is
- Untitled (Chute!) = Untitled (C! TV story)
- Comic Relief 2007 (TV story) = Untitled (CR2007 TV story)
- Untitled (Tonight's the Night) = Untitled (TtN TV story)
- Extras: The Special (TV story) = Untitled (E:TS TV story)?
- Red Dwarf special (TV story) = Untitled (RD TV story)
- Untitled (The Lenny Henry Show) = Untitled (TLHS TV story)
- Walliams and Friends: Space Bar skit (TV story) = Untitled (WaF TV story)
Maybe for the prequels we go with: Untitled (abbreviated story prequel) so for example Prequel (A Good Man Goes to War) would become Untitled (AGMGtW prequel). I'm not sure.
- OttselSpy25
Borisashton wrote: Maybe for the prequels we go with: Untitled (abbreviated story prequel) so for example Prequel (A Good Man Goes to War) would become Untitled (AGMGtW prequel). I'm not sure.
That's a bad example, because that story's title is blatantly "Brain Trafficking (webcast)."
It seems to me that most of the prequels clearly have the title "Prequel" at least. So maybe they should all become stuff like
- Prequel (A Good Man Goes to War) = Prequel (AGMGtW webcast)
To me, however, it seems the best option is to go with whatever the Youtube title describes it as.
- Prequel (The Wedding of River Song) = PREQUEL: Wedding of River Song (webcast)
- Prequel (Let's Kill Hitler) = PREQUEL to Let's Kill Hitler (webcast)
- Prequel (The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe) = The Prequel to The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe (webcast)
For the few stories where this doesn't work, I guess we'll have to go with the Prequel (ST webcast) thing.
- Borisashton
Yep, this would work. Can you compile a list of these prequels and the names they would change to for clarity?
- 85.255.234.86
How is the AGMGTW prequel called Brain Trafficking?
- OttselSpy25
Because the Youtube video is called "Brain Trafficking Doctor Who Episode 7 Prequel"
- 81.106.187.243
Shudnt the page be renammed then!
- 81.106.187.243
On BBC America, the prequel of "The Wedding of River Song" is called simply "Wedding of River Song" - this should be renamed. All the others are released as "Prequel to <insertstoryhere>" - they should be renamed that.
- OttselSpy25
I agree that going with Prequel to ______ (webcast) makes the most sense.
- Borisashton
81.106.187.243 wrote: On BBC America, the prequel of "The Wedding of River Song" is called simply "Wedding of River Song" - this should be renamed. All the others are released as "Prequel to <insertstoryhere>" - they should be renamed that.
Well, I mean ideally we want to go for the titles on the BBC channel, not BBC America (if possible). I am finding tracing the official videos down incredibly hard though.
These are the titles I have found so far:
- Doctor Who: Let's Kill Hitler - Series 6 Episode 8, Prequel - BBC One
- Doctor Who: The Prequel to The Wedding of River Song - Series 6 Episode 13 - BBC One
- Doctor Who: The Prequel to The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe - BBC One
That's all I found for the 'BBC' YouTube titles.
The remaining 'BBC America' one look like this:
- Brain Trafficking: Doctor Who Episode 7 Prequel
If we can't find the proper title for The Curse of the Black Spot (I think is the only one remaining) the best way to go, as OttselSpy said is Prequel to <story title> (webcast).
- Borisashton
Are there any more bulks of untitled stories that wouldn't go with the format we've established here before changes are implemented?
- Shambala108
I just want to point out, for anyone reading this discussion, that any page moves/renames can only be done by admins after any moves/renames have been approved. There is to be no moving/renaming by non-admins. See Thread:128198 for details. Thanks for your attention.
- OttselSpy25
Of course.
- Borisashton
Shambala108 wrote: I just want to point out, for anyone reading this discussion, that any page moves/renames can only be done by admins after any moves/renames have been approved. There is to be no moving/renaming by non-admins. See Thread:128198 for details. Thanks for your attention.
Thanks for responding. I actually just meant are there any groups of stories that hadn't already been brought to discussion here.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:213865
평촌오피 평촌OP 평촌마사지 오피쓰 https://twitter.com/i/moments/845711252269613056 이 사이트 주소를 방문해야합니다. 건물주 연락처를 알 방법도 없어서 너무너무 답답함... 구청에서도 개인정보여서 평촌오피 평촌건마 평촌휴게텔 평촌키스방 평촌마사지 평촌안마 평촌OP 수 없다고 그러고..ㅜㅜ 어떻게 대처하는게 가장 현명한 것인지부탁드립니다ㅠㅠ 그리고 여러분도 맨홀 조심하세요!!!!!!! 처음 드는 보험, 삼성 안동오피 안산오피 안성오피 산본오피 괜찮나요? 방탈 죄송합니다..여기 있는 분 들이 너무 지혜로워서 여기다 화정건마 논현건마 강동건마 제주도건마 전에도 글 남긴 적 있는데 ㅜㅜ 어려워서 다시 쓰네요.. 광명휴게텔 문산휴게텔 통영휴게텔 이제 만20살 되었어요! 처음으로 보험 들려고 해요. 처음이고 주변에서 청라키스방 답십리키스방 부평키스방 줄 사람도 없어서 판에 계속 물어보네요.. ㅎㅎ 죄송해요! 아는 평촌마사지 종로마사지 용인마사지 홍대마사지 어머니가 삼성보험회사 하십니다. 이쪽 보험으로 들려고 했는데.. 삼성은 비싸고 남양주안마 제천안마 구로안마 길동안마 하시는 분들이 많더라구요.. 추천좀 해주세여 ㅎㅎ..!! 그리고 보험 들 의정부립카페 야탑립카페 세종립카페 구월립카페 밑에 조건 말 하고 드는게 날까요?! 지금까지 판 보면서 강릉풀싸롱 서초풀싸롱 거제풀싸롱 간추린겁니다!! ❣️변액보험 종신보험 X ❣️100세만기 20년 비갱신으로 순수보장성(환급없는) 으로 ❣️실손╋3대진단비(암,심장,뇌)요렇게(비갱신) ❣️암,뇌,심장 3천 정도 .❣️ci같은건 절대 안넣음 감사합니다.<imgclass="emblem"
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:213993
Hi just editing Ace's and the Seventh's Doctor's pages and noticed there was a confusion in placing stories in relation to companions as for the Seventh Doctor it is:
- Ace TV
- Ace + Raine
- Ace (Past Doctor Adventures, The Genocide Machine and Early New Adventures)
- Ace Benny
- Benny
- Benny Ace
- Benny Chris Roz
- Chris Roz
- Ace (Main Range Big Finish accept The Genocide Machine)
- Ace Hex
- Ace Mel
Whereas Ace's is
- TV
- With Raine
- Big Finish Main Range 5,7,21,25,36
- With Hex
- With Mel
- New Adventures
- Spacefleet
- Further Travels
- In the Academy.
So what I am confused about is either Ace Travels with Hex then with Benny or with Benny then with Hex. Before I go on a massive edit and move anything with Hex and Ace on the Seventh Doctor's Page before Benny (as that is what I believe is true from listening to all the Main Range and reading some of the Books) what is the general concensus here as it might have some other consequences.
Thanks AdricLovesNyssa
- TheChampionOfTime
I believe this difference exists just because editors don't care about Ace as much as they care about the Doctor. : (
About half a year ago, Theory:Timeline - Seventh Doctor was made what it is today. The reasoning behind putting the Hex stuff after the NAs was actually almost completely related to Ace. Basically, Ace in the audios developed to be more mature than Ace when she first left the Doctor on Heaven. Instead of forcing us to go down the "according to one account" path, one can point to The Prisoner's Dilemma (audio story) as an explanation as to why Ace acts so young in early Hex stories: it's a post-NA story which has Ace lose many of her memories.
I'm sure they explain it better on the timeline page.
- AdricLovesNyssa
Ah using Prisoner's Dilemma as a retconning device always hated that reasoning, but does make it easier to edit Ace's Page. Though doesn't explain The Genocide machine being put in the wrong place. I'll move Ace's page about then.
- OttselSpy25
Sounds like speculation to me.
What people have to accept is that these sources are never going to fit together. We have to find a way to organise these while keeping it clear that there is no one "timeline."
- HeartsHaven
Having heard all of the audios and read many of the Ace/Benny NAs, my personal preference is:
S26 → Lost Stories → New Adventures → Benny's → Main Range → Gallifrey
The "Genesys" and "Prisoner's Dilemma" mindwipes clean things up quite nicely. I'm against placing Big Finish Ace between "Timewyrm" and "Love and War," as that creates all sorts of contradictions; like Ace's maturity, romantic life, and awareness of her age. It's probably best to separate the Main Range from the New Adventures with one of the mindwipes (I prefer the "Prisoner's Dilemma" one).
I'm not sure about the Past Doctor Adventures. I would place them either before "Genesys" or after "Prisoner's Dilemma." They are loosely connected to early Main Range Seven, but I believe "The Genocide Machine" is the only audio to be referred to as a past event in those novels. "Dust Breeding" refers to one of the books, but as I place the MR after the NAs that doesn't really matter.
AdricLovesNyssa wrote: Ah using Prisoner's Dilemma as a retconning device always hated that reasoning, but does make it easier to edit Ace's Page.
Well, by "Gallifrey" Ace has retained her New Adventures memories. We don't know how, but we know her memories were uploaded to the Matrix in "Lungbarrow." This is entirely speculation, but perhaps that could be the source of her returning memories.
- OttselSpy25
Here's the thing... Does Prisoner's Dilemma directly say that Ace forgot all of the adventures that happen to not fit?
If not, then it's speculation and I don't think we can use it as a basis for sorting pages.
- HeartsHaven
It's been awhile since I've heard it, but I believe the only thing Ace mentions as she loses her memories is a woman heavily implied to be Bernice Summerfield. This implies that the memory wipe went back as far as "Love and War" at least, which is good enough to get rid of contradictions between Big Finish Ace and Space Fleet Ace.
- AdricLovesNyssa
From listening to Prisoners Dilemma many time she remembers bits and pieces, mainly the Doctor and Benny and their most recent adventure. Bit's she does remember do fit into the NA range rather than the BF range so does make sense to have NA Prisoners then BF/ Though the purpose of this discusion was meant to be do I correct Ace's Timeline or the Doctor's and reading the Timeline Theory bit I corrected Ace's as that was the consensus on that timeline theory, I also forgot
In any case, the thread's been inactive for six weeks, so let's close 'er up.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:214093
there is only one piece of terminology in terms of travelling through time and space, and that is the "Time Vortex", what the Doctor's TARDIS travels through. i was wandering if anybody knew of any more terminology? I already know about the Doctor, Daleks, Cybermen, Weeping angels and the TARDIS obviously so those can be excluded.
- Amorkuz
I am not sure in which sense Cyberman can serve as "terminology of travelling through time and space". However, the best bet for finding such terminology is to visit the page Time travel.
- Thefartydoctor
"Causal nexus", "cause", "effect", and then you have all the paradox pages. That's just time. As for space, surely, there are tonnes? Wormhole? Rift? :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:214434
- SOTO
- StevieGLiverpool
Thanks for the answer, I'd like to see it sometime. :)
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:215052
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:215131 Template:Archive
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:215239 Template:Archive
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:215518 Template:Archive
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:215945 Template:Archive
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/The Panopticon/Thread:218056 Template:Archive
.jpg){kind=link}
