Talk:TARDIS Eruditorum

Contributed Interviews & BTS Material
So there isn't much in the way of interviews per se on the main project. I could add in discussion of the associated podcast, which absolutely has interviews, but those are more a side area. As for BTS material, I think the most prominent example is Harness giving access to earlier scripts of The Pyramid at the End of the World (TV story), something on the blog but not yet in print. Would comments on the website count? If so, that would be a truly massive undertaking to document. Najawin ☎  20:25, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just include the books, not the website. If we include the website, we'll have to cover every single fan blog that some rando wrote on the internet, and I know that no one wants that. The books are fine to cover, though, wiki rules allow it. Also, covering only the books solves the deadname problem you mentioned below. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  21:55, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'd argue that some of the rando fan blogs probably should be on here, like DoWntime. But it's definitely a slippery slope and depends heavily on issues of quality. My concern is if we cut out the website we're definitely losing some of the text, since the comments are part of the text. And again, we're in a weird spot where we have things like Kate Orman talking about her thoughts on The Timeless Children (TV story) in the comments section of this website, indeed, in parts of the website that aren't technically part of "TARDIS Eruditorum" but are instead episode reviews that are like TARDIS Eruditorum 0.1. It's really weird and should definitely be discussed, you're right.Najawin ☎  22:09, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, for a few reasons. First, what does Kate Orman's opinions on The Timeless Children (TV story) have to do with the wiki at all, except maybe as a couple sentences on her page. Second, including DoWntime the blog is frankly, in my opinion, a bad idea. It opens the floodgates to, as I said, randos on the internet, including some pretty high profile NMDs and others of bigoted leanings. Plus, its a fan blog. This is a wiki for official stuff, like the book. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:18, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * So let's be clear here about a few different things. The first is "thanks to the internet, how creators interact with fans has radically changed and will continue to radically change". This is the point made with the Kate Orman example. My point is that we're in a very weird spot due to these things, not that we should have a free for all or that the Kate Orman example is explicitly an argument for keeping the website, but more a symbol of the times we live in and how documenting things properly becomes near impossible given the decentralized nature of the internet. Next, the book isn't really official. It's just as much a fan work as the blog. Similar for most reference books in fact, they're covered under fair use. And then as for DoWntime, I did make it clear that I agreed that it was a very slippery slope and it very much depended on the specifics of the website. The example I picked was specifically of very high quality for this reason. Najawin ☎  22:41, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a couple things here. First, yes, the internet has changed things for the wiki, but that's for official stories that are licensed and such, not for fan blogs. And we can't use 'quality' to determine if we include something or not, because everyone has a different definition of quality. Third, letting in fan blogs at all allows anyone to say one thing about DW on their blog, and be included. That leaves the door open for some pretty iffy people, such as the transphobic Father Ted guy because he wrote about Dreyfus one time. That's why we don't include fan blogs on the wiki in the first place, regardless of their percieved 'quality', and why I think that we should focus our coverage on the books, not the website. TARDIS Eruditorum as a book series falls under the rules on what the wiki should cover, the website and the fan blogs are not. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:50, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to note that "blog" isn't really the right terminology here, even though I've used it myself. It refers to a more casual type of post, historically even a diary (though reviews could count). Critical analysis essays would not be a blog. We can just use as criteria a consistent engagement with critical literature. Referencing Dreyfus once wouldn't be sufficient, but if someone referenced Dreyfus consistently and was still transphobic, well, I mean, there are certainly some episodes of the series I could point to as having horrible politics as well, as well as academics, so as much as I find it distasteful I would feel documenting it as a critical analysis of the series is still important. I do get why you disagree, however, and fully sympathize.
 * I'll also note that, again, none of this is licensed. So obviously the internet has changed more than what you're claiming for the wiki. For instance, Lance Parkin made a snide comment on Facebook about The Timeless Children plagiarizing him, which has nothing to do with licensed work except in the "notes" or "behind the scenes" sections. That's something that should, ideally, be documented. It's also something that's really difficult to track down and I have no idea how I stumbled across it.
 * And just to really note why this whole thing is impossible, go look at the the Logopolis entry. The proper way of experiencing that is in choose your own adventure form. Which was made and is now out of print. Similar problems exist for the second Interference entry, the Smile entry and the Silence in the Library entry. The problems can in principle be overcome, but the project just was built for an online medium first and foremost, then later made into books, and the comments are a critical part of the text. To only cover the books is to remove something important from the work. I could understand the argument of "if a work is both online and in text cover both, but just online ignore it", but "ignore online entirely" seems untenable to me. Najawin ☎  23:23, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * To go back to how this conversation started, Harness's revelations about the original Pyramid script is in fact of the major things I had in mind.


 * There's a section in T:VS about us being able to recognise some websites as equivalent to scholarly reference works, in terms of what is a "valid source" for real-life info. I think Eruditorum passes that bar easily on that basis alone. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:15, June 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess we could say such a thing would be coming from a valid behind the scenes source when it's in print and not online, depending on the outcome of an interpretation of T:UNOFF REF, but I also think the issue of Orman's comments are an interesting one. Orman has been on the associated podcast and has worked with the website to republish some of her critical essays there. So clearly we can be certain that when "Kate Orman" is seen commenting it is in fact Kate Orman. Would that meet the standards of validity? Similarly, Sandifer discussed a facebook interaction she had with Moffat concerning his thoughts on Donna's mindwipe in her post on Hell Bent. Obviously he's since discussed that with Davies on record to a small extent, but there's the question of whether reporting this, since we can't verify it and it's heavily paraphrased, is appropriate. I will say that the wording of T:UNOFF REF is continuous with my view, that certain things are forbidden because of "fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour", not fan involvement alone. DoWntime has specific interviews with people behind the scenes. But again. very slippery slope, and DoWntime is about as far as I'd go. Najawin ☎  19:37, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine will it being mentioned in Behind the Scenes portions, but I don't want an entire page dedicated to it. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  19:48, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * We obviously don't have to litigate that here. And I have no intentions of actually making a page for it, even if I think there maybe should be one. Do you have thoughts on the more general issues related to Eruditorum as a website being here? Najawin ☎  20:05, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * My position on the website is that it should be put in like, behind the scenes and stuff when appropiate, but I don't think info from it should really be given prominence, due to the fact that the books fall under the academic license, but the website is basically a fan blog. A big one, yes, but a fan blog. Also, not really including the website makes certain that no one will try to 'sneak in' the deadname. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  20:09, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you glance through T:UNOFF REF? It specifically notes that there are websites that are "behind-the-scenes scholarship". I understand the wording is vague though. Najawin ☎  20:13, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

Deadname Issue
Another problem that emerges is that because the blog has a comment section and the other is trans, and this project started before she transitioned, older comments will refer to her by her deadname. And since the older comment sections aren't threaded, if users go back and attempt to read these old sections without knowing this fact, they might become confused as to who (deadname) is, when people respond with that, since nobody there is by that name. I'd make a note of this, but I believe it's against wiki policy, and am unsure how to proceed. Since this is a situation where knowing this actually provides important context for properly understanding bits of the work (ie, the comments). Najawin ☎  20:25, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * See my above comment for a way to avoid including the deadname. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:01, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Why is this covered here?
I'm just wondering why this website and series of books are being covered by this wiki when they are not released by any license holders, and thus fail the critera to be included? Sabovia (Message Wall) 20:57, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * There's substantial precedent. For instance, all of the works referenced in the body of the article, but most notably About Time and The Black Archive. Najawin ☎  20:59, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Wonky Structure
So I'm assuming this is in reference to "Recurring sections", "Fundamental concepts", and now "Associated podcast", though that wasn't present at the time. I actually think these are appropriate. If we look at About Time, we see a "Notable features" section. This is, in a sense, breaking up "Notable features" into two separate sections to better explain each section. The "Associated podcast" being wonky is a fair cop, though I think it's the only reasonable solution to the issue of including the info without making a weird stub. Najawin ☎  22:01, June 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are splitting the sections in two, why can't they both be under the same heading as sub-headings? So 1. Features --> 2a.Notable aspects + 2b.Associated podcasts, or something like this. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   22:04, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That could work. I'll try that and if it doesn't look good we can change it back. Najawin ☎  22:09, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the podcast bit, what do you think? Najawin ☎  22:12, June 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, you are the main creator of the article so far. Since it's in its early days, you should really add as much content as you have on to the article, since information is always good. We can sort out the structures and cutting down information deemed unneeded later. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   22:15, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

I meant whether it should be a subheading or not. Just a formatting issue really. Najawin ☎  22:17, June 2, 2020 (UTC)