Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein

Discussion
I think I support the validity of all the sources listed here, although Battle for the Universe is one I'm less certain of. Pluto2 ☎ 02:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I've been following this with a lot of interest as it was written, so I have many thoughts, but they're still somewhat unstructured. I think I'll start with covering some of the important history OS25 missed before proceeding to more general issues. But before that, just to "establish my credentials", as it were - let me just point out Talk:Warring States (novel). Thinking about branching path stories has been on my mind since my second plot summary on this wiki. (Also, you know, Rule 1 is dead and I have killed it. :P) If there's disagreement here, and I expect there will be with many users in many areas, it's meant fully in the constructive sense.


 * So, history. Firstly, I think it's mistaken to suggest that at any point
 * This wiki used to cover Ten Doctors. That was it.
 * The things being cited as evidence for this were declared "non canon" for specific reasons, the Bernice Summerfield spinoffs were always "canon", or, well, were after the very first year or two of really rough discussion where it's unclear what's all "canon" and what isn't. But even this doesn't imply that the users disliked the stuff that was "non canon" See discussion at Forum:Name of the wiki - revisit for example.
 * We also cover things we explicitly label as being outside the DWU. Not just the non-canon stuff, but the behind-the-scenes stuff. This isn't a wiki that's just about the fictional universe; it's about everything related to Doctor Who. Given how much editing I've done on the real world side of things, I actually take offense at the diminishment of my work implied by the new title - User:CzechOut
 * I think this framing is just historically inaccurate and uncharitable. Similarly, OS25 has missed two important threads for this discussion. The first is Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do?, which establishes that stage plays cannot be valid because the events of the narrative might subtly change night to night, performance to performance, as the actors slightly diverge from the script. Forum:City of the Daleks is also critical, as it's the genesis of the idea that gameplay is part of the narrative - it predates Forum:We need a policy on videogames.
 * The BBC really should release an official play-through video of someone doing everything exactly as intended. No matter what they say, I don't think it's actually canonical that "the Doctor walked around in circles for a while because Amy wouldn't go around the edge of the wall, then he accidentally walked directly into a view of the Daleks and got exterminated, but the last minute of time was somehow undone, and after four more reptitions of this, he finally made it to the Underground."
 * I note also that the Lego Dimensions thread that OS25 alludes to features a closing post containing the following
 * As has been discussed numerous times this decade, any game which has multiple outcomes depending on how the player chooses to play isn't an actual narrative. It's a "choose your own adventure", which aren't allowed. Full stop. The presence or absence of cut scenes is irrelevant. [Emphasis mine]
 * Arguably this overrides the original discussion on The Adventure Games, and is why video games since then have been invalid. But at that point TAG should be invalid as well, and, you know, it would apply to literally every video game OS25 listed, I believe. TAG gets a pass just because The BBC called it canon, as far as I can tell.


 * I, respectfully, think it's a misreading of User:Amorkuz's comments at The Saviour of Time. He didn't suggest that it was true only in that case, but that in this case it necessarily happened - that the argument given simply can't work in the scenario. This is denying the antecedent. (Now, it doesn't mean that the people citing the talk page were right to do so. But neither does the talk page establish that this was an exception or a one time thing.)


 * Real briefly, while we're discussing Infinity, since you brought up the subject of visual novels, we should clarify their status on this wiki. Well. There's only one so far. But there's almost certainly going to be more. Are they considered books or video games? I haven't yet played Spun Glass, but my understanding is that the plot is linear enough that it would be valid (aside from perhaps dialogue options).


 * Now, before we get to a theory of coverage, let's just say, is argument 3, as OS25 terms it, reasonable?


 * I mean. Of course it is. Once again, I note that our classifications are for our benefit as wiki editors, if it's truly the case that making these stories valid would put an undue burden on our editors than there's a simple solution - to not do it. As has been stated before
 * Sometimes [admins] have to vote against something [being valid] because including it isn't worth the trouble it could/will cause.
 * I'm not entirely convinced that the issue with branching/nonlinear stories is validity, however, I think it's them having story pages. The proposal to deal with everything as "according to one account" works perfectly fine, we do it all the time, but I'm just not convinced that what's presented here in terms of story summary is a clear solution.


 * Cite source template, great idea, huge help. Flow charts on pages to help organize readers. Very helpful. I don't know how I can express my true feelings about Search for the Doctor without coming across harsh. It obviously took a large amount of time and effort, and it doesn't impact me in any negative way. But I just can't see it as a viable path forward for writing plot summaries for branching path stories. I just now tested whether you can have your markers link to other markers on the page (didn't think you could, but it was worth a try) and you can't. I guess we could do a Recursion style workaround, maybe, but that's just a headache for everyone trying to write one of these stories. As soon as one of these stories gets moderately complicated a user will be constantly scrolling up and down the page (or, indeed, if they just want to go through each path), and there's no clear relationship between the markers - you don't inherently know that 5 is related to 0 because you can't see the flowchart at all times. I think this is a horrible approach to covering these sorts of stories and this issue is my biggest holdup with just pushing for validation.


 * I've thought about having a series of subpages attached to each story page, along with flowcharts on these pages showing the relationships between the "markers" and allowing you to navigate to any other "marker" from any subpage. The main issue is that trees don't work on mobile, iirc, so it would have to be some sort of css + image thing which is a headache for any user who wants to write up a summary for a branching path story.


 * But even this wouldn't solve the issue of video games if we still treat gameplay as narrative (nor would "according to one account solve validity under this issue, btw). The issue here is that there are a rather small number of states each branching path book moves through, though it might eventually loop through them. This.... isn't true with video games. You can do quite a bit more. So we have to fundamentally reverse the ruling in Thread:176459. Which we can do, and I'm all for. But let's be clear that it's a bit more involved.


 * Anyhow, so obviously the FASA books shouldn't be allow--
 * Yes, this is a novel about the Doctor and his companions attempting to stop someone from changing the past by allowing the South to win the Civil War.
 * What. Okay, I'm listening.


 * Alright, reading through the Rebel's Gamble section I think I'm skeptical of validity based on the "questions" mechanic. I need to know more about that before committing.


 * Modules shouldn't be valid, they're not works of fiction per se. They're OOU descriptions of how a GM should set up a specific IU fictional scenario, it's the latter that's the work of fiction. (Though they may provide fictional elements to convey these details to the GM, in the case above the biography of Carruthers.) Coverage is fine. Though, you know, /glances at where we are/ I'm sure many of us have GMed before, so we all have our own strong opinions on this topic. Najawin ☎  03:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So from my understanding the questions mechanic is basically like, at some point the Doctor stops and asks Dr. Jenner a bunch of questions, at which point you're meant to read the end of the book. Then on occasion someone in the story will ask you a question or you'll need to state a fact and the solution was in Dr. Jenner's rants. Thus basically you're supposed to have a really good memory of that part of the book so you can pick the right path.


 * On the topic of the visual novel, there's really some debate which could be had about all content which might have the GAME prefix. Is Search For the Doctor a GAME? Do we want to make a new prefix for board games? For the RPG stuff?


 * The only precedent I can think of is that Attack of the Graske used to have (TV story) but now it doesn't. OS25🤙☎️ 04:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ....That doesn't seem to line up with the screenshot. Weird if true! Probably valid if true. I'd really like more info still. Gonna beg off committing on that issue at this time. Najawin ☎  04:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Having looked into things, I think I have to push back on the Savour of Time thing. This is the quote I was referencing with Amorkuz:


 * "...all stories with multiple endings, or indeed mushy middles, are invalid. Well, this is a case of a mushy middle. It's all good and dandy to talk about the differences being confined to the dialogue. But this game is almost exclusively dialogue, infinitely variable (and not very smartly written and executed) dialogue. Worse than that, dialogue that is sometimes skipped as a matter of bug. The page clearly states that for one of the tasks, if you do not solve it fast enough, the Doctor solves it for you. This is not an "Easter-egg" difference. This is the matter of who saved the world, so to say."


 * I just don't see how reading this as very specific to Saviour and not to Lonely Assaassins is an incorrect reading. Lonely is not exclusively dialogue options, and said dialogue options do not effect the plot or ending. Osgood doesn't save the day for you if you pick the wrong options, as far as I know.


 * I'll also note that while the natural reading of the LEGO Dimensions forum is that any video game can be called non-valid, I don't think that was the intention per se. So I'd think that was the reason there was no retconning of older, less-current games, especially as I think by then said games were offline. OS25🤙☎️ 04:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Amorkuz's comment was specific to Saviour, I specifically said that people citing the talk page might have been wrong to do so. You went further and said:
 * then-admin Amorkuz originally stated that alternate dialogue options are only excluding features in titles where the entire game is typing out dialogue options. [...] in reality, it was directly stated that invalidating this story based on branching dialogue options was a one-off thing.

This is not true. It's the difference between: (as a one off thing, making a ruling), and (ruling that this is a one off thing). Subtle distinction, but an important one. Which is why I mentioned it briefly. Najawin ☎  04:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Right. Thoughts.


 * Do you think everything listed in this post should remain invalid on Tardis Wiki?
 * No. That would be silly. I do, however, believe that everything listed in this post should be valid sources on Tardis Wiki.


 * On Fiction Modules
 * Now, there seem to be rather a few people saying that these are not works of fiction, and that they fail r1. I think, with a little bit of logic, this can be easily rebutted.
 * So, these are, in fact, works. This is an undisputable fact. The question is, are they fiction? I will answer this in a roundabout route, which is to say: Non-fiction is defined by not being fiction. Anything that is not fiction is non-fiction. Non-fiction describes events that have happened, or do happen, or will happen, in real life. Are fiction modules non-fiction? Did Lord Rollo the Time Lord really exist in real life? The answer to that is no! So, if fiction modules are not, in fact non-fiction, then by indisputable logic, they must be fiction! And, therefore, they pass rule 1.


 * Additional comments
 * Doctor who and the micro:bit was, I believe invalidated for breaking the fourth wall. I'm only three minutes into it at the moment, as can be seen at Julia Hardy (in-universe), but I'll comment on this once I'm further in, unless it's decided that this topic is, in fact, for another time.
 * I'm not even going to attempt to comment on Battle for the universe.


 * Have a nice day, Aquanafrahudy ☎  09:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I will collect all my thoughts about this subject at a later date, but I thought I should point out that it is possible to link to different Markers in plot sections. @Najawin, I think your testing at Search for the Doctor was foiled because you linked to the headings "Marker Five" and "Marker Two" but they actually exist at "Marker 5" and "Marker 2". Borisashton ☎  11:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is quite well-reasoned. I am particularly in support of Lonely Assassins being considered a valid source, and I think most of the other video games should be considered valid as well, given the suggestions for slightly differing paths given in the main post. Moosana ☎  16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh boy do I have a lot of thoughts on this subject.


 * I am gonna come right off the bat and say that, firstly, @OttselSpy25 deserves applause for this mega opening post. He has not only created such a beast of a thread it has taken a couple of reading sessions for me to get through, what with its thorough analysis of the different series and how best to feasibly cover these sources, he has gone to the effort to actually test these proposals to ensure they work.


 * I completely support the validation of branching narratives, as this is been a thorn in my side for a while. I don't care if it takes a lot of effort to do, our validity policies shouldn't be based on something as arbitrary as "it's too much work". I do want "fiction modules" and their ilk to be valid, but I have a lingering feeling that may be better suited to another discussion (though ideally I'd rather not see that as it would take a lot of work to create another large OP like this one).


 * Where to begin with my minor questions and thoughts on the matter...


 * I find it extraordinarily strange that stories with any sort of variable content, such as WC: The Runaway, where literally the only difference between playthroughs is the position of your POV camera, are invalid due to being a "multi-path". This makes absolutely no sense, when we cover Shada (TV story), Shada (short story) (this one doesn't have a page yet but it does exist), Shada (webcast), Shada (audio story), and Shada (novelisation) all 100% equally. So the Wiki's policies say that we can cover five different versions of the same story, some even with a different Doctor in them, but as soon as a video game has a bit of dialogue as an easter egg, that becomes too much work for us and thus invalid? Just... no.
 * In fact, this is a bit of a problem. When I found that multi-path narrative games are invalid a few years back, I, so stupidly(!), did not realise that "easter egg dialogue = multi-path narrative", so you'll find I have incorporated games with such easter egg dialogue as valid. I didn't realise this "mistake" (I will be putting this in bunny ears as the culpability of the mistake is completely with the policy, let's be real) until I read @Ottselspy's earlier drafts of this OP.
 * This conflation is absolutely unintuitive, even for an experienced editor like me. Y'see, what I define as "multi-path games" are games with actual differing endings (or similar). I watch YouTubers such as Jacksepticeye, where he plays multi-path horror games such as The Mortuary Assistant, which actually has different paths based on the actions of the character you play, so for an example, if you explore the basement of the mortuary, you are shown a flashback of the character's life a few years before, which you get trapped in, like a nightmare, and you have to escape. That is a multi-path game, not "you can ask a NPC a question, unconnected to the plot, and it will give you an answer".
 * And frankly, saying that multi-paths are not narratives is a bloody insult to anyone familiar with video games. If anything, they are supernarrative or something. I really dislike policies historically where they have been written first, with justification coming (often much) later.


 * One concern I have — although its implications have yet to be anywhere nearly remotely realised in any video game AFAIK, let alone a DWU game — is what to do with NPCs that could use AI to generate dialogue. This is an issue for coverage, but I am not sure how to deal with it; it may be best if we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, although I feel planning out such a development may be worth thinking about now.


 * Another concern I have are non-narrative video games. Such a concept is few and far between, with the only example that I know of being Untitled (U.N.I.T. website video game), where you control a missile and you can decide to detonate it (or not). There is no plot to it, so really, it isn't a multi-path narrative as there is no narrative to begin with. Shouldn't that be valid, even without validating multi-paths? And what happens if the BBC creates a fully explorable TARDIS control room in ? Surely that would be valid, as it is essentially a 3D, interactive, feature/illustration.


 * Another question I have is clarification about Terror Moon and Race Against Time having their time loop shenanigans be covered as "plot" but with sources like The Adventure Games and Doctor Who and the Rebel's Gamble are just "gameplay". Is this because in the latter two examples the character gets killed by an enemy but not in a way that triggers a game over?


 * I feel, historically, the reasons for not covering any Doctor Who tie-in websites were given the "Worlds in Time treatment" of absolute non-coverage except for an occasional behind the scenes note, but what was worse is that there was no other Wiki covering it; all because it had limited and curated user generated content, which therefore meant absolutely nothing deserved coverage, except where editors ignored that because it didn't suit them. The reason I bring this is up is because many of the websites rely on the context of you being a reader of whoisdoctorwho.co.uk; I want to know how this thread will effect coverage of this. I doubt it will in any significant way, but I wanna be sure.


 * I do have some interest on prefixes and dab terms. While DYD novels are games, I would feel much better for them to remain being covered as PROSE, not GAME s . This also connects to my work with alternate reality games, where some are covered as games, some are covered individually by the constituent parts (which is a complete misunderstanding of how ARGs bloody work) and thus are covered by each part's respective medium (e.g. a mix of PROSE and AUDIO and so on); ideally, we should create a whole new prefix and dab term system for them, perhaps rather intuitively as ARG and "(alternate reality game)". But more on this another day.
 * What is currently worth discussing is "(game)". Some pages have that term, while others are under "(board game)"; frankly, if we can do "(video game)" for most games, then we should extend that precedent officially to board games and TCGs and allow "(board game)" and "(trading card game)"/"(card game)" more freely.


 * As for covering information from RPG sourcebooks, I mean, I have already added info to some pages. Just look at Skaniska Incident, which was featured as a mission in Defending the Earth: The UNIT Sourcebook; I've added info solely from the mission briefing type thingy to the article, and... there is no problem there that will make the entire website combust.


 * One question I have which is an extension of Battle for the Universe are those snakes and ladders-style games inside annuals, that are the same medium as BftU, but lack the optional characters and such, with the only variances being "you get sucked into a wormhole, go back three spaces"/"you hop on a passing comet and go forward three spaces" depending on how lucky you are with a dice roll.


 * While I know it won't be under the scope of this thread, stage plays remain a frustrating part of "variable content" narratives. In an ideal world, we'd get the treatment and be given official DVD releases of the stage plays, however we don't have that luxury, so we'd realistically rely on a script. Except script releases are few and far between, and perhaps not even reliable with immersive experiences, given their fluid nature. Just a thought or so, y'know?


 * Also, @Najawin, you said this:
 * I just now tested whether you can have your markers link to other markers on the page (didn't think you could, but it was worth a try) and you can't.
 * This isn't true. You can type out  Marker 1  on the source's page, or one other pages, you can do  Marker 1''  for precise citing. This ain't an issue. We could even streamline this process and integrate it into !


 * I think that this is everything that I can think of. Sorry if this is a long reply! Just a topic I am particularily invested in. 16:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A lot to talk about here Epsilon! To answer your question about video game deaths, it basically comes down to if a narrative explanation is given as per the "reset" happening. In a video game, when you fall down a pit and the screen fades to black before restoring you to a checkpoint, there is no narrative justification given. You didn't time travel back in time, you didn't restore yourself with magic - the game reset you because you messed up. Some games (see: Undertale) do justify a narrative reason for such things. In the same way, some Find Your Fate novels will try to make the reset part of the story (You rewind time! Go back to 1) but most will simply make it part of the game and nothing else. (You failed. Go back to 1 to try again) and others will even just say THE END with no other commentary. I think the difference is very impactful per how we cover the difference.


 * I also want to bring up that with fiction modules, there could be an argument made that we are actually covering the fiction produced during gameplay rather than the module itself. It's simply convenient that the modules in these cases tend to give a very detailed description of the unified portions of every single campaign. So we'd be covering said campaigns under the "shared elements" logic used when creating Human (Attack of the Graske) and Companion (Worlds in Time) etc. OS25🤙☎️ 17:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for pointing that out Boris and Epsilon. I'm still not sure this is ideal, given how convoluted the overall structure can get and how I think users should have a bird eye view of the entire plot structure, but if this is the best we can do I'm willing to accept it.


 * As for the idea that modules are fiction, let me push back on that very strongly. They absolutely describe things that take place in the real world as key components of them, even in the main places that you might think are fictional. To whit:
 * The Iytean Menace is a fairly intricate adventure. [...] The characters in this adventure are [...] The adventurers learn [...] The remainder of the adventure deals with [...]
 * Moreover, simply talking about things that don't refer in our reality does not a work of fiction make. R1 is specifically used to disallow statements made by showrunners about their intent if it's not in the episode, for instance. But their musings on Doctor Who related stuff is still statements about fiction, it doesn't refer to anything IRL. It's just not a fictional work for the purposes of R1. Najawin ☎  17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I'm afraid I wasn't clear. I think that the OOU modules fail r1 and should be invalid. I was talking about the in universe ones. Aquanafrahudy  📢  19:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Before I write up my thoughts, I just want to say thanks to OS25 for putting together such a comprehensive and enjoyable to read OP.


 * In general, I feel that all of the sources discussed in this thread, other than the final 2 (the FASA's The Doctor Who Role Playing Game and Battle for the Universe), should be valid for the reasons presented using the framework and systems discussed. I feel that this should be extended to all Find Your Fate, Decide Your Destiny and Choose the Future books as the examples used in the OP from these series have convinced me that the coverage of their entire series is reasonable. Similarly, the discussion of Doctor Who and the Rebel's Gamble has convinced me that both it and Doctor Who and the Vortex Crystal should be valid. Also similarly is that The Edge of Reality which I've heard is so similar to The Edge of Time that, if we validate one, we should validate the other as well. There are some other things listed at but I don't feel that I know enough about these to comment at this time.


 * Regarding both FASA's The Doctor Who Role Playing Game and Battle for the Universe, I'd like each of these to all be valid, but I don't think we should do it in this thread. I feel that we need more time to hash out a framework for coverage and should revisit them in future.


 * In particular, with FASA's The Doctor Who Role Playing Game, I'd like to discuss this alongside other TTRPGs (Table Top Role Playing Games) such as Time Lord, Adventures in Time and Space: The Roleplaying Game and The Roleplaying Game: Second Edition. As both an avid player and game master of these sort of games, I have my own complex thoughts here, and I also think that the way we cover these games in the behind the scenes aspect also needs looking at.


 * Similarly, with Battle for the Universe, I would like to discuss this alongside other board games. In particular, I think theres a case for the validity of Doctor Who: The Interactive Electronic Board Game which we don't yet have an article for, and there are many other board games worth discussing as well.


 * As for where to draw the line in general, I think that this should very much be a case by case thing with individual discussions for each source or set of sources. Hard boundaries are how we end up in situations like this where there are things that really should be covered mixed in alongside other, much more complex things but with all being dissallowed. While there is currently a decent backlog of these sources to get through, once this backlog is cleared, new multi-path/"multi-path" sources don't release that often so debating them when that happens should be fine. Specifically regarding any future sources that would warrant a discussion under this, I feel that the editor creating the page should use their best judgement to look at similar cases and decide whether the source should start out as valid or invalid. If people disagree on this judgement, only then should a debate be started. For example, if The Runaway 2 released with the same mechanics as The Runaway, assuming that this thread validates the existing source, its sequel could be created as valid and discussed if deemed necassary. On the other end, if The Roleplaying Game: Third Edition were to release, assuming that existing roleplaying games remain invalid, this would be created as invalid and discussed if necassary.


 * Regarding my template, it is nearly ready and I expect to start its forum thread within the lifespan of this thread. I would like to point out that, based on my reading of some early drafts of this OP, I added support for citing markers that I feel makes it a little easier for editors and readers than the examples using the template in the OP. Full details are at Template:Cite source, but the gist is that typing  (PROSE: )  produces the following:
 * (PROSE: )
 * There is also a way to just display the marker without the source name, although it might be preferable to not use the template here as the extra collapsible isn't really necessary:
 * (PROSE:, )
 * Having now read the full OP, I plan to add support for other systems of multi-path citations such as "paragraphs", "outcomes" and page numbers (but with them displaying next to the source name, not in the collapsible bit as is currently possible), as well as the option to put free-form text in this section which could help in other scenarios ("(GAME: Attack of the Graske: good ending)" could be a viable way to cite these scenarios accurately).


 * Najawin mentioned, stating that he doesn't think it works on mobile. While this is currently true, Fandom recently released mobile CSS support making mobile trees a possibility. In fact, I have all of the required code ready to steal take and adapt for use on Tardis, crediting the original authors in the process. I just haven't got around to it yet. I'm not sure that this is the best option, however, as some of the diagrams are very complicated and isn't always the easiest to use. Another option would be to use Extension:ImageMap which is what is used to make different parts of the main page Transmat graphic go to different pages. This is potentially even harder to use, though.


 * I think that that's all of my current thoughts. Bongo50   ☎  19:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok so!! I finally finished reading both the OP and all the current answers to it, and I have to say, huge thanks to OS25 for writing such an indepth OP!

I'll try to go through most of the sections in orders and outline my specific thoughts, but let me just preface this with saying: I supportthe validity of these sources, with a few caveat I'll cover in more depth later. Frankly the way this wiki has historically treated video games has been a long standing nagging point for me, as someone who loves video game and works as a game artist. I think this post puts forward a solid and actuable plan on how to cover these stories too, and if we take into account the templates Bongo50 has been working on, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to create from an editor's perspective, and incredibly easy to follow and understand from a reader's perspective as well.

For Doctor Who: Infinity frankly I feel I have nothing to add: They truly should just be valid, and it seems an oversight, or more likely a misunderstanding of more modern medium and how narratives and stories are built into them. A good example on how common a video game having story cutscenes cut by some gameplay sections, where winning leads to you unlocking the rest of the story is well. Pretty much every single mobile game out there. Just about every single gacha game follows a similar format, where you can adapt and edit your team as you want, without it having any actual impact story wise. This is just the same thing, and if we look at how the wikis for those games cover them, we can see that they just. Cover the content of the section. As a big fan of visual novels as well, it is a very accurate description for Infinity, and frankly, I would be happy to see it finally validated, it certainly is long overdue.

Attack of the Graske and The Saviour of Time also seems like pretty clear cut to me.

As for Doctor Who and the Warlord I don't have much to say except that I didn't know it existed, and I find old style text adventure games fascinating, so this was very cool to read about! Considering how very rigid and set it stones it seems to be (even for text adventure games standards), it certainly should be valid. The proposed version of covering the full, 100% playthrough and keeping some lore or character details mentioned in other "bad" ends only covered on the pages where it makes sense is a solid one. If anything, it is also how most video game wikis handle such narratives.

I think making those valid also greatly improves the wiki reading experience for casual users, as personally, learning about an obscure text based game from the 80s is exactly what I use wikis for!

Learning about World in Time just. Makes me sad. I think wikis can be a place to preserve art and media, and learning just how badly Tardis wiki failed this game is painful to read. I am hoping something like this never happens again, and I hope that thanks to this thread even World in Time might be better covered. Who knows, maybe it being more present on the wiki might help to make some of the lost levels resurface? A far flung hope perhaps, but one can dream.

Also let's be real. This is a Doctor Who wiki. Covering lost media is an integral part of who we are.

As for the VR games, The Runaway in particular (the only one I've experienced myself), I think there has never been a single good argument against their validity. They are 'Games' and thus got shut off into non valid sections with little to no discussions, simply because I think this wiki has a lot of misconceptions, and misunderstanding over video games as a medium, and even more so about VR as a medium.

I think we all have our little darlings on the wiki, stories we love to bit and want to see valid or better covered, or more known, and well. The Runaway is mine. Even without changing any of our rules, it should be valid, and it is one I have been trying to put forth a good, well argued proposal to validate ever since I learnt forums would finally be returning. I am not the best with words, or convincing arguments, or not make long-winded sentence, so I am extremely thankful to OS25 for putting it so well.

If nothing else, I am hoping that by the end of this discussion, The Runaway will be considered a valid source.

Now, I haven't read any of the Find Your Fate, Decide Your Destiny or Choose Your Future books, but I think the manner of coverage proposed sound really good. I honestly think those are some pages where making a wide use of subpages would also be warranted. I also love the idea of having some graphs to illustrate them, if only because well. I do love any nodal network. Not gonna lie, after reading this OP I'm actually curious and kinda want to read through Search for the Doctor as well.

I also think Rebel's Gamble should be valid, and covered in a similar fashion as the other Choose your own adventure books.

And now the the two where I am a bit unsure:

As for the Roleplay books, I would agree with Bongo50 above, I think this might deserve a longer, separate discussions covering also other similar roleplaying games. As for validity... I would be for considering modules and overall lore content of the sourcebooks as valid, though I am not too sure for the overall campaign blurbs. I used to be an active player of the Adventures in Time and Space: The Roleplaying Game as well, so I have quite a lot of feelings and opinion on how we could cover those, both in and out of universe.

Frankly, I would be for covering such games as Battle for the Universe, and I do think some of the objects or lore description could be valid? But I'm not too sure about that. If anything, I think a non-valid coverage would be good. It is a bit more difficult for sure, as I firmly believe that this wiki should cover all aspect of Doctor Who as a franchise, and that includes such board games, but how to properly cover them is another story for sure.

To summarize this very long comment, and to answer OS25 four little questions:


 * 1) Do you think everything listed in this post should remain invalid on Tardis Wiki?

Frankly, I'd even say everything listed in the post should be valid. I'd want longer, separate discussions for the last few to iron everything out, but the rest? I think they should be valid.


 * 1) If you think the earlier “simple” stories should be valid, but the latter “complex” ones shouldn't, where is the exact line where stories are too complex for the wiki?

That is a good question. I'm not really sure there is a line where it is too complex, as the wiki is ever evolving, and something that would be difficult to cover today might turn out to be much more possible with the introduction of some new templates or some new way of editing. I think any line we draw there should be understood as only being a line in our current context, and open to change in the future.


 * 1) Do you support fiction modules being valid on the wiki for coverage?

Yes, I would, as I think there's a lot of rather interesting content to cover. However, the details of what we consider fiction modules, what's an IU module, what's an OOU module, and all that is, I think, something we should discuss in a separate thread.


 * 1) Do you support interactive fiction being valid on the wiki?

Absolutely, 100%, I think interactive fiction should be valid on the wiki, and my biggest hope from this thread is to see interactive fiction finally being validated.

I'm sorry this is very long, but I certainly had a lot of thoughts over this subject. I am glad this is being discussed in this manner, and I have great hope for the future potential of the wiki with all this. Liria10 ☎  23:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The complexity of trees is definitely an issue. I had a real headache trying to make one for You are the Absurd Hero in one of my sandboxes. (Maybe we could ask ChatGPT to do it - just to make things even more controversial. :P) I do think that showing people the overall structure of the story at every decision they're making is a good idea, however. Even if they ultimately choose to ignore it. Najawin ☎  00:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't ask ChatGPT to write my dog a eulogy. OS25🤙☎️ 01:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (I've not toyed with it, but my understanding is that it's actually decent at basic coding/scripting - revenge of the artists >:D. Not sure that it would easily work in this situation though, just a joke.) Najawin ☎  02:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (This is a direct reply to the OP, which took time enough to read, I can't also read all of the comments ATM)
 * Well done for this extensive OP, OS25! I agree that all 'interactive fiction should be valid by default, using the methods you outlined wit language like "according to one telling". Specifically, however, I think we should say "according to one telling of an account,...." and attempt to keep further "possible language" to a minimum, as "according to one telling, Omega was possibly dead, potentially because of the Doctor" sounds quite silly. But if that phrasing is the only way to do it, that's fine.
 * So-called "fiction modules", however, I think should be invalid by default, but encouraged to have inclusion debates.
 * Finally, I think that, as you said OS25, if we decide to keep "fiction modules" invalid, we should still decide how to cover them (but perhaps in another thread?). Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I just want to comment quickly on the use of AI to create trees from a purely technical perspective. I am immensely doubtful that it would work. The syntax isn't like a regular, well-known programming language. There are no GitHub projects using it, no online tutorials, no StackOverflow examples. All there really is available is a few examples and the source wikitext of any pages using it (and I am highly doubtful that ChatGPT has this source wikitext in its training data). Add to this that the syntax used for trees actually varies between wikis with similar templates and the chance of success seems immensely small to me.  Bongo50   ☎  08:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly I would like to say a huge thank you to OS25 for the extensive opening post and all the work that has gone into this proposal! This is something I've long awaited and OS25 has covered all bases better than I ever could. Thank you also to Poseidome for the branching segment trees, and to Bongo50 for the collapsible citations which should be very useful and I look forward to seeing wiki-wide.


 * Over the last 20 years, we have seen huge advances in interactive fiction, whether that be games, VR experiences or immersive events. Directly as a result of our policy on branching narratives, we have ruled pretty much all of it invalid. The fact is that interactive fiction is built on branching narratives; that's what makes it interactive, and ruling all of it out - especially as we are seeing more and more interactive content - is actively harming the wiki as a whole. Furthermore, the Doctor Who franchise is built on branching narratives and alternate timelines. Ace is full of contradictions, "one source said" this and "another source stated" that. There are whole wikis dedicated to video games, so it really shouldn't be an issue and if there are any sticking points then we can perhaps look into the precedents of other wikis. Besides, branching narratives is one thing, but the rule has come to encompass everything from branching dialogue options to camera changes which really shouldn't be the case.


 * It seems to me that, as Epsilon states above, most of these title have been invalidated simply because "it's too much work". That shouldn't be the case. Even if there's a lot of work involved, and even if this remains work in progress for some time, we should still validate. As OS25 states, "You" being the main character should no longer be an issue. We simply go by what is stated in narrative. If the source states that they are a human, that is exactly what we put. Nothing from outside of the narrative should come into this. I personally see Human (Attack of the Graske) and Companion (Worlds in Time) as identities rather than specific individuals. I'll now go through my thoughts on each title in the order raised by OS25:


 * I see no issue with Attack of the Graske and using the terms good ending and bad ending in citations seems clear enough. Doctor Who: Infinity also seems an open and shut case. It should really already be valid and it's an example of how badly video games have been treated by this wiki. I also don't see any issue with The Saviour of Time. Seems a case of branching dialogue options where we probably won't need to go into too much detail anyway. With Doctor Who and the Warlord, I agree that the 100% route should be the version that happened for real. That shouldn't exclude information from alternate endings, but they should be treated more as alternate timelines.


 * I never played Worlds in Time, but I feel your pain in this wiki's refusal to cover it. I agree that it should be covered as valid. If there's specific species set by the developers in the character creation feature, we could perhaps say that "Accounts differed as to whether the companion was a human, Silurian, Catkind or Tree of Cheem". You say it was broken down into episodes or levels; could we perhaps cite by episode, level or mission in order for further clarity? As I say, I never played it, and it may be too much has been lost to even cover it in such a way. As a result of Worlds in Time, I think that even if something fails to be validated by the end of this discussion, we should prominently allow the creation of invalid pages covering branching narratives and their components.


 * The Runaway and The Edge of Time should be valid. The Edge of Reality should also be valid imo as it is basically just another interpretation of The Edge of Time, similar to how we consider novelisations valid.


 * I also see no issue with The Lonely Assassins. The branching is merely in the dialogue, not the narrative, and - as OS25 states - the secret ending does not contradict the main ending. Variations in dialogue are a feature used in many interactive forms of media. To invalidate variable dialogue and such-like just seems petty, as we rarely go into that much detail on the wiki anyway. Furthermore, the game plays out pretty much the same no matter which dialogue options you choose anyway. You may unlock an extra cutscene, but I wouldn't call it a branching narrative.


 * Regarding the Find Your Fate and Decide Your Destiny books, I have no real experience of those. Never the less, I would like to see them validated, even if there will be a lot of work involved. To me, it's better to have them as a work in progress, than to leave them invalid.


 * I don't really have any experience of fiction modules either so I'll leave those for others to discuss. Thanks again to OS25 and all who have contributed to this. 66 Seconds ☎  11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As promised, I've added support to to cite "paragraphs", "outcomes", "pages" and more generic "endings". I've also added a freeform option to produce citations like "(GAME: )".  Bongo50   ☎  13:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(As stated, said comment was a largely tongue in cheek joke. We'd have to give it our specific tree syntax and then tell it to use that to generate a specific tree that lines up with a specific image. This isn't in principle something a LLM can't do - I believe it's done somewhat similar where you insist that it approach problems from particular perspectives or incorporate specific words in its prompts. But the specific nuances of this related to something that would effectively not be in its training data at all, yeah, not sure how that would work. For instance, maybe RtD has data you've trained on, and maybe Star Wars has data you've trained on, but that doesn't mean that there's RtD writing Star Wars data that you've trained on. In this instance it's not immediately clear that it's even trained on the tree syntax. Depends a lot on the specific AI and the specific prompt how well it would react to the new information. Given that it was, again, a joke, and I'm not an AI evangelist, unlike some of my friends, and haven't even used any version of GPT, I couldn't tell you.) Najawin ☎  16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I just Wikified (and sadly invalidated) Mix Her Own Adventure to get some experience on editing CYOA stories, and I have found another question.
 * Firstly, some CYOA stories have consistent backstories when others don't; so I am specifically referring to those with consistent backstories across branches. When we have a specific branch, we Wikify it as "according to one variation of a source" or similar, but do we necessarily have to do that for backstory that is intended to be consistent between branches? So for example, in one branch of MHOA, the bartender remembers that they never asked Anne Rutimeyer to a school dance. While the specific recollection of Anne is only in one branch of the story, I don't get the impression that the character exclusively only exists in that branch. So we can Wikify characters like her in the same way we'd Wikify a character from any story, and then just for the specific bit of the article that has a connection to one branch, we say the whole "according to one variation of a source" phrasing? 17:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well in my opinion, it should really be a case-by-case thing. In The Time Crocodile, it's undeniable that most of the lore changes depending on how you experience the book. But most stories like this, from my experience, aim to have a more internally consistent universe, to the point that you're meant to explore the different endings to fully understand the lore of the story.


 * So unless Mix Her Own Adventure has any purposefully inconsistent elements, I'd say you would cover Anne Rutimeyer as always being in the bartender's origin. Speaking of more obscure branching stories, I would love to know if anyone here has read You are the Absurd Hero. OS25🤙☎️ 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Like many others above me, I'd like to commend OS25 on the lengthy post that I had the privilege of seeing earlier in the sandbox. This has been a topic VERY dear to me, as there are so many sources over my time as editor that I've found very unfairly stricken down for no real good reason, in my opinion, and back when I'd voice complaints about it, I was too inexperienced to really argue them well enough. OS25's post is the post I wish I could've written, because it summises everything so well.

The wiki is so damn inconsistent, justifying branching narratives because it gives an in-universe reason but not the ones that don't because...? If we did it one way, we can another, no? With very little legwork? People talk about how complicated it'd be but I highly disagree. Or how about how some games can be valid with "you" as the protagonist just by making a human character but or companion character but can't other times because...? I will never understand how The Edge of Reality isn't linear (and probably The Edge of Time but I haven't played it) and if "you" are the companion is the problem why not just make a Companion (The Edge of Time) page?

I don't even want to talk about Infinity because there's no way it should be invalidated at all. Not a single good reason besides the fact some people don't want to include video games, though some are fine. Like... those that enjoy these can edit the pages, it's cool.

Board/physical games are... not my forte. So I don't feel comfortable commenting on them. That being said with all the video games and DYD type books, unwavering support for the validity of them and, assuming it goes through, I can't wait to experience them all for the purposes of wiki coverage! Thanks again OS! StevieGLiverpool ☎  23:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, I read You are the Absurd Hero. I even tried to do a for it - and gave up, because it was awful and kept changing. Anything you're looking for in particular here OS25? First and foremost there's an in-universe justification for the entire thing so arguably it's valid already under the Flip-Flop precedent. But I'm not entirely sure how helpful I can be as there's some inconsistencies in the story, and I'm not sure if this is just a flaw with my ebook copy or if this is an issue with the physical release as well, someone please inform me, two of the markers it refers to and tells you to go to (1ABBAA, 1ABBABAB) don't exist, and there are two sections that are unmarked but don't make sense as referents to these markers - they only make sense if they're unlabeled sections that you can't access by a normal transversal of the story. (EG, the previous section says "Oh well. Time to die." and tells you to go to a different section, but if you keep reading part of the text in the next section says "but you refuse to die. Is that all it takes? Sheer bloody-mindedness to keep going?") There's yet another section that you can't access by regular transversal that's a reference to the cracks in time from S5, acting as a crack in the story.


 * I suspect that all of these things are present in the physical copy as well and they were the author's intent, but someone would have to verify them. (Indeed, the only one I have any doubts on is 1ABBAA. I'm pretty sure from context that the rest are correct.)


 * It's a branching path story that intentionally disobeys the normal rules of branching path stories, but I'm not sure that it causes problems for anything floated here. Maybe the crack in the story means that your proposed approach to covering story summaries is slightly less viable, but I wasn't thrilled with it in the first place, and I don't think it will move the needle a ton for people on either side of the issue. Najawin ☎  01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've managed to confirm that the physical copy should actually have page numbers, instead of the 1ABBAA, 1ABBABAB stuff. Sounds like the eBook just had some kind of copy editing errors likely caused by the format. OS25🤙☎️ 03:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So that's another nuance to work out in how to write up summaries - the difference between markers for ebooks and physical releases (ignoring errors in copyediting). For context, this is the layout I found in the ebook. Najawin ☎  03:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been able to figure out that the print version and thus the "final draft" doesn't have the two bad-links to non-existing markers. Apparently they were cut for the print release but an oversight saw them in the eBook still. Otherwise all the markers are the same. OS25🤙☎️ 07:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh. That's a fun little nuance! Probably should be discussed at the talk page, unless we want to discuss the more general phenomena of when ebook CYA books and physical CYA books differ, but this is a mistake apparently, so not clearly applicable. Najawin ☎  07:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The template is probably still too complciated to use but, for what it's worth, I've imported over from the Avatar Wiki. Unlike what I had thought, it has a different syntax to  but it does work on mobile and will be much easier to work with and expand in the future. There are a few styling changes to make, but it is pretty much functional.  Bongo50   ☎  20:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to see my graphs so well received! Yeah, I absolutely agree that the way the wiki covers games can be improved. I think the CYOA-books should be the easiest to cover on the wiki: The text is fixed, what's there is there, nothing to be debated about. Having constructed a couple of flowcharts now for the CYOA-books I feel the best way to do the actual coverage is to focus on the longest possible route first and make that description act as a sort of spine that the remaining summary can be built around. It makes sense with the more linear books from the 80s because that approach already covers 90% there is, from the beginning to the proper intended ending, but it also makes sense for the more modern books where one endings isn't necessarily better than another. Having looked through Terror Moon quite a lot now, many of the endings you can encounter at earlier points aren't necessarily "bad": the villain is always defeated, but they are deliberately anti-climaxes. One ending for example happens at the very start, a monster tries to take over the Doctor's mind and the Doctor simply overpowers it, the story is over before it even began. Another early ending is one where UNIT just shoots the monster. Tension falls very very suddenly, and you are robbed of the proper final confrontation that the story is clearly trying to lead up to. Here is Terror Moon with one of the three longest routes marked in bold black (the route to the arguably intended final ending). Gray is everything that splits off from black but rejoins it later, and rainbow is everything that leads to different endings altogether. After one's done the longest possible route one could summarize the second longest route that lead to the same ending, then the third longest route leading to the same ending, until nothing's left, and then one can cover the alternate endings and the routes leading up to them. Here's the graph from before, but the longest and second longest gray-routes quickly marked out. You can instantly see how this already covers most of what there is. And as OS25 has said, different routes can simply be differentiated via account language. This all isn't to say one route is better or more valid than another one, the order I'm suggesting here is purely for structural reasons. The You-Factor in these gamebooks really shouldn't be a problem. These are books written in 2nd person about an unnamed character, but that character is firmly part of the whoniverse, not literally you the reader. They're more akin to avatars or player characters. As OS25 has pointed out, in Search for the Doctor You are a part of this fictional society in the future, a descendant of people Sarah Jane was friends with. You have parents, a home, and dreams for the future. In Time Crocodile and War of the Robot You are just a normal person who saw the mysterious police box and walked in out of curiosity, not unlike certain classic-companions. In Claws of Macra You are a kid who's on a school trip to an oil factory where the Doctor happens to be at, etc. These are very different situations to the fourth-wall-breaking-stories we are usually sceptical about where the Doctor directly addresses the kids in front of the television. Big exception might be Race Against Time, which really ought to have a separate validity-debate (though I'd generally be in favour).

Video Games are a little trickier, but nothing to be worried about. Mushy Middles really shouldn't be much of a problem in my opinion, every game works on mechanics and specific events causing progress. Taking City of the Daleks as an example (I know we already cover it as valid, which just proves my point): the Doctor and Amy arrive in a city controlled by the Daleks, a rebel attacks the Daleks and flees into the underground. The Doctor wants to follow, but Daleks are patroling. He gets through them via sneaking. The entrance to the underground is boarded off, so the Doctor drives a car through it. We can pinpoint exactly what must be done to progress the story and reach its proper conclusion, so we can exactly say what's at least the minimum of what must have happened, without having to worry about the possible playthroughs where the Doctor walks in circles for a few hours. From lock to key to lock to key. Designers of adventure games have taken to using Puzzle Dependency Charts to visualize this process, but they can be used for pretty much any game that has any kind of progress or story-element to it. Here's what a chart would look like for the first five minutes of City of the Daleks. If we again take the describe-the-route-with-the-most-story-content-first-approach then we'd describe the steps of clearing the game 100% first + doing all possible sidequests, and then we'd go "according to another telling the Doctor just did a fraction of that". Maybe even a "according to a series of other accounts, the Doctor did the same but in a different tempo/order" if we really want to be obtuse. What this approach doesn't include are customization options that don't have an immediate effect on story-progression, but I think you have already described a good way of covering that at your Worlds in Time section, OS25. Treating deaths as alternate endings is definitely.. let's say in the realm of possibility. I agree that this is something the wiki shouldn't have to do, especially when there is no further narrative derived from it, but if we want to it should be as simple as adding "For each of these deadly situations there is at least one telling where the Doctor succumbed and died" at the end of each description or something like that. I think it definitely makes sense to treat gameplay and story as separate to a certain degree. For example the adventure games include collectible info-cards all over the maps about the Doctor and characters he has met, I don't think we treat this or should treat this as valid, right? Incidently, I disagree with your assertion that the regenerations in Rebels Gamble are purely gameplay-mechanics. There are only a handful of very specific situations in which regeneration can take place, and in the text they're not really treated as any different to other decisions and in-universe-actions you can take. Here is one as an example:

this is as narrative as it can get in my opinion, and the Doctor's short blackout even has consequences for the story.

Tabletop RPGs sound tricky because of the freedom players have, but when actually looking at adventure modules one will see that they all of them are stories that are meant to lead to one relatively specific path and one specific conclusion, and includes various ways to nudge players onto that path. From the adventure modules I've read so far (Arrowdown, Einstein Engine, Doom of the Daleks and a few other) they present more the illusion of choice, let's put it like that. The modules often address the act of playing and tv-episodes by name, but we have to remember that we are covering games and not prose here, and during actual gameplay you are never supposed to actually read these. The Game Master is supposed to absorb the information and then relay it at appropriate moments via in-universe-devices during gameplay-session. Declaring modules invalid because of that is the equivalent of decompiling a video game, treating that code as prose and then pointing at the developer-notes that you are never actually meant to see during gameplay. There are a lot of instances where they suggest changing rules and information for personal use, but I don't think that needs to be regarded for the wiki. The games are carefully designed and balanced around what is actually printed here. You can add houserules to Monopoly, but that doesn't make the original rules to Monopoly disappear, know what I mean? Since its first edition DnD has always said disregard the rules if they get in the way, but the rules are still so precise and concise that players can even take part in official tournaments where their performance is objectively judged. The Sourcebooks full of in-univere-information are similar. the Paternoster sourcebook features a pre-made adventure (A Study in Flax), and separate from that a whole array of worldbuilding. Not only does the book describe London and the various locations you can visit, it includes a whole network of new and old character who all connect to each other in some way. There is a single Dalek who survived the events of Evil and has drifted off into organized crime, a single Silent living in a church and trying his best to fulfill his priest-duties, another victorian Clara-splinter who works for Torchwood and is their most ruthless agent, etc. A bit of this comes up in the adventure module, but not everything. The adventure is very much written with knowledge of this background-story, in the context of these characters relating to one another and existing side by side. However, this specific Sourcebook also offers suggestions for campaigns, which is separate from the lore they built up. For example, in a completely separate segment they SUGGEST on how to include Jackson Lake in this world, either by mudding up the dates unit-style (Next Doctors occurs 40 years before The Snowmen after all), making Lake instrumental in the creation of a paternoster-predecessor-group, or focusing on his son who would now be middle-aged and might act on his own. And as much as I like these suggestions I don't think these bits of information should be valid. Best approach would really be to do a separate discussion for RPGs and RPG-lore after we have gotten a proper conclusion here.

Boardgames, or rather player-versus-player-games in general, are what I'm the least familiar with, and really might need a thread all on their own. There are so many of them, I don't want to judge just yet. They also seem to be the most diverse kind of games, with releases like The Time Wars, Time of the Daleks to even something like Cluedo Doctor Who edition.

Anyway my concluding words: good thread, many good points, branching path should not have an influence on what the wiki consider valid because we already have a way of dealing with that via our account-language.Poseidome ☎  12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that branching narratives in general should be valid unless there's some other reason for them to be invalid - this is a wiki centred around a sci-fi series primarily focused on time travel. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Poseidome, for the charts and the response above! Your RPG "developer notes" comparison unclogged something that had been holding me back from weighing in on this proposal. I can now support the validity of all parts, including individual RPG adventure modules, which – if their validity is not to be resolved in this particular thread – should at minimum be covered as invalid short stories. The various releases discussed in this thread amount to a veritable wealth of fictional content, including original stories by Gary Russell and Scott Handcock, which have gone totally neglected on this wiki. Whatever we decide, either way I absolutely insist that your charts be included in the Notes sections of the relevant books!


 * My only comment is that I'm a bit concerned by the, ehrm, playability of Search for the Doctor (novel). We have to walk the line between summarising content and actively duplicating it, and it seems to me that our plot summary there is verging on replacing the gamebook for the user. My modest suggestion is that, in cases where Y is the only next step from entry X, and no other entries link to Y – for example, Search for the Doctor entries 7/9 and 32/33 – we summarize those entries in a single section. For linking purposes, we could use to make sure that links still connect to the right sections. This kind of situation occurs rarely in well-crafted CYOAs, but it would still go some way to ensuring that we're not totally duplicating the structure of the book. A bolder approach would have us also summarize one-entry "dead-ends" (specifically, those which are only reached from one other entry) as part of the entry which links to them. See User:NateBumber/Sandbox/2 for a demonstration of how this might look, combining six "markers" of Search for the Doctor into two sections without (in my opinion) sacrificing any readability. – n8 (☎) 22:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Very good analysis Poseidome, my only note is that while we could use "according to" language for stories like City of the Daleks, it should really be a situation where less is more. I think even saying "According to some tellings, the Doctor could have died at many points of this adventure" for something like a video game using check points is just not needed. OS25🤙☎️ 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that I have just posted Forum:Cite source, a new citation template. If anyone is interested in this template's utility for citing multipath stories, please feel free to come and discuss it in this thread. Bongo50   ☎  21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, first off, wonderful OP, exactly the sort of thing that is very good at convincing me. Anyway, I think just about everything that's listed here should be valid. Though I would hold off on validating modules until a later discussion takes place. Time God Eon ☎
 * the points made in the opening post represent how I feel. The only one I believe which should be invalid however is the FASA source books as they are out of universe. I think the experimental sourcing method will be the ideal way to source all these when it is rolled out your suggestion on a temporary fix is whilst not ideal the best option we have. And you know what I think I may try and find a copy of those old FASA single play adventures as they sound wild. One final not I think we should definitely expand our coverage of this old find your fate novels as they are definitely an important part of EU evolution being. Some of the earliest original Prose based narratives, as at the time most novels were adaptions of TV stroies. I think it is important to fully cover these for historical purposes as well as wiki purposes.Anastasia Cousins ☎  08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So as of me writing this, we are now about three days past the 30 day mark, which is where most forums would be wrapped up. Obviously we've agreed upon extra time here - but I'd like to question how much time. In the original OP, I recommended twice the regular time, but I'm starting to think that there's no need to go that extreme. I'm thinking six weeks in full would probably be fine at the end of the day.

To those who disagree, I must honestly ask - what is left to discuss? What have we not gone over? What discussions would we have from the 15th to the 31st that we won't have had by the 15th? It's just very obvious to me that the forum has been dead for several weeks because we've all clearly said our pieces. OS25🤙☎️ 13:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just bought a physical copy of The Edge of Reality, and as I'm nearing the end, it does really baffle me that the game is invalid. There are no branching elements, and the closest thing to that is that you can die, which is clearly a gameplay element. Perhaps one minute issue (and I do mean minute) is that in the Deluxe Edition, you can change the gloves and the sonic screwdriver that the companion uses. While there are no cutscenes in this game to make it clear what is gameplay and what isn't, I do feel like this bit of customisability is a gameplay feature as in-universe, you are only given Thirteen's sonic, and when you close down the game and reopen it from the home menu, whatever sonic you chose is reset to Thirteen's.
 * The very fact that a game like Edge of Reality is called a multi-path narrative when it is so linear, with little to no exploration and a convenient Artificial Intelligence to guide you if you get stuck even for a minute, is a fundamental misunderstanding of videos games. 14:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Finished the game, and I've two things of note: first, the Nintendo Switch version appears to have different colour grading to the Xbox/PlayStation/Steam versions, which isn't really anything to do with validity TBH; secondly, at the end, you are given a "choice" (won't say what for spoiler reasons but you'll know if you've played it)... where you actually cannot choose, you can only do the one path. This is the point in other games where you likely could have multiple endings but this game is so linear you literally cannot choose to go down another path even when "presented" with the option. 15:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Just completed The Lonely Assassins and I feel that, while there is definitely more branching elements (mostly just differing dialogue options, although there is a bit where you can fail at a mission so Osgood helps you out as well as there being two endings, although this is more like an incomplete ending and full ending, depending if you complete a side-mission) none of these elements pose a problem under the outlines for coverage @OttselSpy25 proposed, so no thorns here!
 * As a side note Anthony Williams is pretty much 100% complete now which makes me happy. 20:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Today is, I believe, the final day of the forum. I wanted to quickly thank everyone for an amazing debate and for humoring me so. I've missed discussions like these for the past few years. OS25🤙☎️ 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a brilliant OP! There really is no reason why we shouldn't cover something like Night of the Kraken, and I'm glad that we can now (hopefully!) rectify this. :) Aquanafrahudy  📢  17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The elephant in the room
The sheer magnitude of this thread is hard to overstate, both in terms of scope and of sheer size. User:OttselSpy25's opening post was one for the ages, making the very thought of writing a fitting closing post daunting even before the community rose to the challenge and discussed the proposal's ins and outs at great lengths. I'm sorry to begin this closing post with comments on form rather than content, but, if you'll forgive the expression, one must address the elephant in the room.

When an opening post rises to the level of intimidating the admins who are supposed to close it — and of clever hacks being necessary to allow editors to successfully load the page editor in their browser — one might worry that there is a problem. Certainly I wouldn't want to have to deal with too many threads like this in the future. But here is the thing: there was a big problem. The problem was that we, as a Wiki, systematically failed in our coverage of an area of licensed DWU fiction. (Again.)

Why we're validating this stuff
In a way, this proposal spent its entire sandbox-gestation, and lifetime within the actual Forum: namespace, becoming less of a radical policy proposal and more of a "so how do we do this, given that we clearly need to". The diktat against branching fiction and video games died not in one fell swoop but of a thousand papercuts: the long-overdue rethinking of Rule 1 and the dismissal of the idea that a second-person "POV character" is the same thing as fanfic or a fourth-wall-break, already dismissed two of the main arguments against sources of this type. Practicality remained, and while high-minded statements in recent closing posts of my own devising put paid to any notion that such culpable institutional ‘easy outs’ would ever be tolerated again, the honour of introducing a practical solution — — rests firmly with User:Bongolium500.

So, then: I shan't bore you with extensive restatements of why we must do this. If you read through this whole thread and do not understand why we need to do this, you may be beyond help. Early on, User:Najawin quoted a claim from another admin that "Sometimes [admins] have to vote against something [being valid] because including it isn't worth the trouble it could/will cause", but, uhm… the fact that the context was a restatement of the invalidity of The Outer Universe Collection — one of the most shameful and infamous miscarriages of justice in the Wiki's recent policy-making history! — should be something of a deterrent, though of course I'm sure many other citations could be found.

I have said it before and I will say it again with the full force of policy behind me, ruling something to be out of bounds because covering it sounds difficult should never ever ever fly again. It's irresponsible; I'd even say it's unethical. And perhaps it wasn't fifteen years ago, but we've grown, since then. We are more exhaustive and more respected than we were then. More serious, perhaps. And what that means is that there's nobody to pick up our slack, because we cover so many other things that we take up all the oxygen. If we then shrink from one particular task which by all rights should be within our remit, and then try and justify ourselves with "it's hard, and we're not getting paid for this, it's our site, leave us alone"… well, then we're a little like a volunteer fire-brigade who fulfill 99.5% of our expected duties, but have decided that one particular house can be left to burn for all we care. I do not think the inhabitants of that house would be very convinced by the "hey, we're only volunteers, and we've decided that we protect every other part of this city block, but not you; which is our right. Free country".

Hyperbole? Well, perhaps a little bit, but not that much. Our recklessness in this matter seems to have led to actual information becoming irretrievably lost because we did not preserve it in time. Substitute the burning house for a burning library, and it's a difference of degree, but not of kind.

Alright, so that's coverage. Why validity? Well, why not validity? Rule 4 has never been seriously doubted for most of these except in terms of variability. Practicality, as OttselSpy25 and Najawin's historical reviews largely corroborated, was the key sticking point; they were non-valid because we didn't, and ostensibly "couldn't", cover them properly. Now that we have found a way, we are free to examine them by the normal Four Little Rules, and inevitably find that the vast majority of them can and should be covered as valid.

Role-playing games and modules
The main area where, even with this thread's extended lifespan, some people felt that further discussion would be needed, was unsurprisingly with the more freeform games that are role-playing and/or table-top games. As per User:Bongolium500 and several others' opinion, a broader thread on how to cover "non-narrative" RPGs should be held at a later date. In the meantime, we should boost coverage of such material as the various generic Doctor Who Role-Playing Games — from FASA to NuWho — or Battle for the Universe, but refrain from validation.

I do not, however, accept the same as regards fiction modules, contra the wishes of a few participants in this discussion. True, something like The lytean Menace is a very different animal from a CYOA game. What it is actually like is a video game. The more I looked into them, the clearer it became that the FASA fiction modules are nothing more or less than "analog video games", relying on the GM and one's own visual imagination to act as a game engine and convert the plain-language "code", including the plot synopsis, into a fully-realised interactive gaming experience. Yes, the Plot Synopsis talks about how "this adventure" goes and who "the characters" are, but it's a mistake to try and treat it as a piece of prose, because it's not — it's part of the make-up of a GAME. The OOU flourishes are of no more concern than a video game's opening tutorial explaing "your player character is the Sontaran warrior Thurg; his backstory is XYZ; you can control his actions by pressing such-and-such buttons…".

(The resemblance to old-school, printed video-game manuals is also startling, and there is longstanding precedent relating, among others, to Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror for considering such things to be valid as extensions of the video game itself.)

So yes, in a very real sense, User:OttselSpy25 was on the right track in suggesting that… "(…) we are actually covering the fiction produced during gameplay rather than the module itself. It's simply convenient that the modules in these cases tend to give a very detailed description of the unified portions of every single campaign. So we'd be covering said campaigns under the "shared elements" logic used when creating Human (Attack of the Graske) and Companion (Worlds in Time) etc."

- User:OttselSpy25

I think the difference relative to off-hand quotes from screenwriters is very clear. Something like The Legions of Death has a title and everything; it's a complete book, which allows you to experience a Doctor Who adventure (just by playing it instead of reading it — just as a video game requires you to play it instead of just watching it unfold!). It's trivially a work of fiction in a way that an off-hand quote simply isn't. Whether it's a complete work of fiction is a somewhat more subtle point, I will grant User:Najawin that much. But I do think an unplayed, raw module is as much a complete work of fiction as an unplayed, raw video game. Both are in a certain sense abstractions; you have to play them and add your own input to truly experience the adventure as intended. But if we can separate the story content from the infinitely-changeable gameplay in one case, we can do it in the other. The Plot Synopsis as written may not pass Rule 1 — but the overall book does.

This, again, does not apply to the main The Doctor Who Role Playing Game book, nor the more recent efforts discussed by e.g. User:Poseidome. Lacking a single throughline or bespoke story-title, how to approach them is significantly harder to intuit, and we need to have a thread seriously examining their "whole work" credentials and forming a robust theory of coverage.

Practicalities
I keep trying to restate what I'm ruling in favour of, and finding myself just wanting to quote wholesale from User:OttselSpy25's opening post, whether for justifications or statements of policy themselves. I don't know what this is a sign of, but it surely means something. Either way, it was getting silly, so I won't bother. Please just reread the opening post in detail, and assume that its detailed theory of coverage is broadly endorsed unless I state otherwise below. One major point is of course that coverage of possible paths should now be done via, since it is now live in the main name-space — not through the various inferior solutions Ottsel suggested in the meantime, which have become moot.

But perhaps, after all these mammoth discussions, a bullet-point summary of major points might be helpful. So, aiming more for skeleton than exhaustiveness, the changes to policy:


 * The Wiki should henceforth strive to cover licensed DWU video games, branching novels, role-playing games, and all other interactive or branching fiction of either of the types outlined by Ottsel ("interactive fiction" and "fiction modules").
 * Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, absent other reasons for invalidity under T:VS, these sources should be considered valid.


 * Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which may or may not play depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment. In a role-playing-game module, the character biographies or worldbuilding background is valid, and, if one is provided, the summary of the overall plot; but any details which a game-master might make up during a particular playthrough is obviously beyond our remit.


 * can be used to give precise citation for elements which might vary between playthroughs, or derive from ancillary material e.g. a game manual. In the case of CYOA books which do not give a specific name (e.g. "paragraphs") to their segments, but do not use page-numbers, we should default to the term "marker", e.g. "Marker 1".


 * Many games have unserious "game over" animations, like Amy regenerating, or other game mechanics dressed up as fictional content in an ostentatiously illogical way. These are not valid, any more than massive letters spelling "INTRODUCING JOHN HURT" appearing in the Doctor's time stream is a valid fact citable to The Name of the Doctor; for the same reason it does not impinge on whether the source otherwise constitutes a "complete work of DWU fiction" as per Rule 1 and Rule 4.


 * Distinct from the above, although Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-type novels (for example) typically have a clear "intended path", they also have possible alternate endings which should also be covered as valid, in-universe events. However, these should be phrased in terms of "alternative possibilities" or the like (with specific wording liable to be tailored to the wording used in the source itself, e.g. "in a timeline which was then rewound…").


 * Unnamed player-characters should be covered as Companion (Video Game Name) or other such neutral names.


 * CYOA novels and the like, being largely marketed as novel lines, should for the time being be kept as "(novel)"s. In contrast, being essentially "print video games", fiction-modules should use the dab term "(game)", as other printed games such as Annual games already do.

I will additionally endorse User:Bongolium500's note regarding future debates: ". While there is currently a decent backlog of these sources to get through, once this backlog is cleared, new multi-path/"multi-path" sources don't release that often so debating them when that happens should be fine. Specifically regarding any future sources that would warrant a discussion under this, I feel that the editor creating the page should use their best judgement to look at similar cases and decide whether the source should start out as valid or invalid. If people disagree on this judgement, only then should a debate be started."

- User:Bongolium500

As regards plot summaries, it seems a technical solution has been generally agreed upon. I think it may need iterating upon, but it is not clear that we can get anywhere in particular without knowing what sorts of issues actually crop up. n8's concern about not being so granular that our summary becomes playable in itself is well-taken, and we should not necessarily strive to represent every minor choice and every strand of possibility, just the main possible plot developments.

As regards trees/graphs, they're a very exciting possibility but the coding doesn't seem up to scratch yet. They shouldn't be implemented in the main namespace for now, but people are welcome to iron out the kinks and present a more worked-out practical proposal as its own thread later; I do not rule against the principle but against the state-of-the-art prototypes currently available.

Other matters
In addition to the above points, LEGO Dimensions should not see its coverage altered as yet. Its structure brings up several problematic points in terms of Rule 1 and how much of it we ought to cover; and although the "interactive" aspect, which was the eventual grounds for invalidation under Rule 4, has become moot, there is worth in hashing it out once again given the new evidence, in both directions, which has arisen since those days with regards to the LEGO universes' diegetic status relative to the likes of the "real", live-action N-Space.

Final thoughts
I'm honestly pretty drained now, so I'll be even briefer than I often am. But once again, thank you to everyone who participated. This closing post isn't exactly brief, and still I feel I am not doing all your efforts justice to the full extent I wish I could achieve. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 05:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)