Talk:The Monster Vault

Valid?
The The Doctor (Battlefield) page claims we do not treat this as valid? Yet this page says it treats itself to be an in-universe source?—-Editoronthewiki ☎  05:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does pose itself as an in-universe source, but it doesn't have a narrative, so it fails Rule 1 of Tardis:Valid sources. Although, modifying the rule to allow sources like this is the subject of an ongoing discussion which has been temporarily closed due to the migration of the wiki and forums. (As the creator of the thread, it did need more people's input, so if you're interested I'd recommend participating in the discussion once it reopens.) Chubby Potato ☎  07:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I gladly would join that. I see no reason to not alter the rule--Editoronthewiki ☎  15:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely forgot about this talk page. Upon actually getting the book, it was wrong to mark this as non-narrative. Same narrative in the sense of The Dangerous Book of Monsters (novel). Additionally, the Boneless and Weeping Angels are effectively its "main enemies". We should treat this with the same standard as other reference books, giving the story a "short story" page Editoronthewiki ☎  01:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me note that I have no issue with it being validated separate from the broader rule 1 issue if this is indeed the case. But until there's a thread, it is a T:BOUND issue, hence why I put up the delete tag. (Obviously a mod might ignore it until the forums are back in anticipation of it being resolved, but w/e. I just put the tag there.) (And iirc, can't find the policy off hand, but you'd need to be the one to make the thread. The person to make the thread needs to own the work.) Najawin ☎  01:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is a T:BOUND issue necessarily. There is a difference between something which was previously ruled invalid, and something which had just sort of been tagged as invalid without due process, especially if it's an oversight. In the latter case, we have, in the past, revalidated improperly-invalidated works until such a time as a proper thread can be amde (e.g.).


 * That being said, when it comes to the dubiously narrative, I like to subject a work under scrutiny to to the "floats like a duck" test. To wit: if Monster Vault is purportedly narrative, what event or events are actually narrated within it? Could User:Editoronthewiki write a summary of it? (Not a full, detailed plot summary, of course; but some short synopsis.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted! Would you like the plot summary on the page itself or here in the talk page? Editoronthewiki ☎  01:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This talk page, or perhaps a sandbox version of the purported story page. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Written like so on this page, figured it best to not fill up this talk page heh Editoronthewiki ☎  02:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Reply to Najawin: Oh I do own it now, that is what "upon actually getting the book" was supposed to say lol. If memory serves, this decision to make it non-valid was made after forums were closed. So reversing the decision while forums are down is just reversing a non-forums decision. This isn't The Dalek Handbook hehEditoronthewiki ☎  01:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(I realized, I meant that the rules, iirc say that in order to have such a thread someone must own it. So only a person who does, ie, you, can make the thread.) Regardless, that is, uh, a very loose framing device. I, personally, wouldn't call that narrative - I don't think notes inside a book are sufficient for there to be a story taking place within a book, but my perspective on these things isn't universal. (If I wrote a physics textbook but put in the margins "go buy groceries", would that be narrative? Or even if I instructed the reader to go carry out an experiment? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the content of the book, but this doesn't seem like a narrative to me. Knock! Knock! Who's There? had an actual story about characters being trapped in a joke book, with the author explicitly saying on twitter that he intended for it to be valid on wiki.) Najawin ☎  03:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it is a loose framing device, but we have a precedent in the form of "How to be a Time Lord (novel)", "The Companion's Companion (novel)", "The Dangerous Book of Monsters (novel)", "A Short History of Everyone (novel)", "The Secret Lives of Monsters (short story)" etc. They are in universe documents given a loose framing device that we take as narrative. Same standard as Monster Vault Editoronthewiki ☎  04:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on how loose those other framing devices are, but a loose framing device does not a narrative make. As far as precedent goes, the obvious counter example is TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, which is arguably narrative, (in the same way the examples you cite are) but is invalid, as it was the story that prompted the thread about these sorts of sources before the forums went down. (See User:Chubby Potato/Sandbox/Non-narrative fiction for a non exhaustive list of these sorts of stories. Suffice it to say that how we treat these sorts of things is wildly inconsistent and the best option we have, imo, is just getting rid of rule 1 or reforming it significantly.) We can let other users comment / an admin decide, but I'm just not convinced that this framing device qualifies as narrative. Others may, I'm by no means the person who matters on this subject. Najawin ☎  09:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rule is inconsistent in practice and our best option would just be abolishing it. However, as we stand right now, there is precedent for Monster Vault being valid, per the stories I noted in my previous comment. All those books are deemed valid for the same reason I am arguing Monster Vault should be. To be consistent, it should be treated valid like those. Editoronthewiki ☎  16:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I cannot comment on the strength of the framing devices of the others, having not read them. I can only evaluate the one you've presented to me, and I don't think it's narrative. Combined with the precedent of TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, I think it should be invalid under current rules. If the others are the same, then they should be invalid as well. But, again, I can't comment on these, having not read them. Najawin ☎  21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)