Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20170618182814/@comment-24894325-20170618230249

Secondly, before getting to the heart of the question, unfortunately, I must restore the parts of our conversation that OttselSpy25 decided to omit creating a misrepresentation of the conversation---fill in the blanks, as it were. I apologise for thus taking the time of editors interested in the content of this discussion, but when information is not presented correctly and in full, it must first be corrected and completed. Here is the (shortened version of) the transcript of the conversation compiled from our talk pages, with important parts of the conversation highlighted: "You yourself created The Birth of Venus using real world information to name it."

- CoT, 18:31, June 8, 2017

"for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. However, the real-world name on the page should still be confined to the BTS section, which is perfectly demonstrated by the page for the painting I created.

...

One final comment about this situation. It is important to know that this footage is a forgery intended to override human memory. Thus, there is an additional degree of indeterminacy involved: we do not assume that DWU is exactly the same as the real world in general. But here, the Monks could additionally modify the footage. The images should of course be still used. But the wording of what they are should be really cautious."

- Amorkuz, 19:19, June 8, 2017

"I think that the point is that you can assign names to these images, but it's best not to use those names on an in-universe basis if they've never been identified elsewhere."

- OS25, 13:29, June 11, 2017

"Amorkuz, I've read through your posts, and I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of how we cover the appearances of real-world figures. As long as Martin Luther King (JR) has a page, we can of course discuss from an in-universe fashion his role in TV: The Lie of the Land and Remembrance of the Daleks.

...

Someone going to a page on MLK will want to know about where he is referenced or brought up. They aren't going to care if it's just an image, or just a clip of audio. Suggesting culling this information is unreasonable."

- OS25, 13:38, June 11, 2017

"In principle, I do not understand how editors would be disadvantaged from reading about this photo in the BTS section rather than in an in-universe one.

...

Your own example of Remembrance of the Daleks perfectly encapsulates how this wiki treats such occasions. Martin Luther King is mentioned only in the "Story notes" and "Ucredited cast" (both RW parts) and at both places his name is not linked because there is no in-universe link to the name."

- Amorkuz, 14:16, June 11, 2017

"The point is that you are suggesting a different page for all three of the current references to Martin Luther King Jr -- one for a mention of him in an audio, one for the stock audio used of him in TV: Remembrance, and one for the stock photo used of him in the episode.

...

With such precedent as the pages for Struwwelpeter and Anthony Eden, it is obvious that at some points bends to T:NO RW can be made for the sake of our readers.

...

So no, I am not arguing against the policy. I am arguing with you about how the policy is to be handled, and I think that trying to lie to our editors about what images of who appeared where is out-right a mis-use of the idea.

...

And if Martin Luther King Jr is mentioned in three stories in different terms, all three references should be included on one page."

- OS25, 14:41, June 11, 2017

"I really do not understand how putting things in BTS and "Story notes" qualifies as lying. I explicitly said: for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. How do you derive three different pages for MLK from this, I don't know. Of course, all this information should be on the same page."

- Amorkuz,14:59, June 11, 2017

"Wholly irrelevant. I find no precedent for removing information on references to ideas on the basis that you are suggesting."

- OS25, 15:47, June 11, 2017

"All your examples work against you: Struwwelpeter never mentions the name of the book in the in-universe part of the page. And "Paperback Writer" is not identified as a song by the Beatles on the in-universe part of the page either.

...

You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion. You have the right to your opinion. And I have an obligation to uphold the policies."

- Amorkuz, 16:09, June 11, 2017

"I must ask that you adhere to Tardis:No personal attacks. There is no need to resort to petty accusations, or to take the conversation personally. I am listening to what you have to say, and I am strongly disagreeing with you. If you don't want to have this conversation, that should have no bearing on our current policy.

Your position as an administrator for this site does not make your say final, and thus I would ask that you stop stating your loose interpretations as absolute "in the eyes of the law." How you've decided to view T:No RW has had no legitimate use in the past, there is no precedent for your current instance of how our policies work. You have your right to an opinion, but your opinion is not "the policies"."

- OS25, 18:27, June 11, 2017