Talk:Bibliophage (short story)

Covered?
why does this get a page? Simply because its characters were later used in a DWU story? From that logic, Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and episodes of Star Trek should get pages! NightmareofEden ☎  04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're right, I'm not sure why this exists, much less that it's valid. Danochy ☎  06:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe this follows the precedent of the non-Dalek-featuring stories in the early Dalek annuals; they are placed by authorial intent in the DWU, and the book they were published in had the rights to some DWU concepts even if they weren't used in this particular story; therefore we cover it anyway.


 * In this case the fact that the author later reused the characters introduced in Bibliophage in an unquestionably DWU story demonstrates apparent intent that the story was set in the DWU — and besides, the gimmick of "Wonders", being that each story explicates a different Wonder of the Universe, already implies that all the stories in the book take place in a single universe.


 * Of course, some might argue that this isn't strong enough, or have contravening evidence in terms of Stephen Marley's authorial intent at time of release. But this story has been covered by a long time; T:BOUND applies and an exclusion debate in the Forums would I think be needed to overturn the current practice.


 * Nevertheless you are both right that "retroactive validity" per se is not a thing, and the phrasing on this page should be amended. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The lack of forums is starting to get out of hand with the amount of discussions pilling up.


 * A work around should have been developed long ago, these discussions should be allowed to take place on talkpages in the absence of forums because right now we're trapped with glaring issues being unabled to be solved for years on end. It is ridiculous. RadMatter ☎  17:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * From our validity policy page


 * > BBV Productions' direct-to-VHS feature Cyberon was ostensibly meant to take place in the Doctor Who universe, and was a perfectly law-abiding product — but at the time it was released, it did not contain any preexisting DWU element to license. Thus, we don't cover it, though we do cover later uses of the Cyberons or Lauren Anderson in stories that also exploited licensed DWU concepts.


 * Does this still apply or does it need to be updated? Because surely the argument for validity being made here would fall under something very similar to this? NightmareofEden ☎  20:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Or would Cyberon be indeed covered if it were a segment in an anthology film and one of the other segments featured a licensed appearance by, say, Davros? If BBV had released its Audio Adventures in Time and Space series as box sets instead of seperate releases would we be having pages on the "Ace and Professor" audios and The Boy Who Kicked Pigs? If so, that's... a little odd, but at least I can understand why this would then be VALID. But then why aren't the OTHER stories VALID? NightmareofEden ☎  20:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Or would Cyberon be indeed covered if it were a segment in an anthology film and one of the other segments featured a licensed appearance by, say, Davros?" Well, yes, that's more or less the logic, with the added wrinkle that we do need some explicit proof of authorial intent that it was meant to be set in the DWU. In the Cyberon and the Bibliophage characters' cases, this is/would be provided by their subsequent appearances in stories by the same creators which clearly treated them as DWU concepts while remaining in continuity with the earlier story. We don't really have that intent for the other stories in Decalog 5: Wonders. But I think that if Stephen Baxter went out and said that e.g. Poyekhali 3201 was also meant to be in the DWU, then yes, we would cover it too, and so on.


 * There's actual an example of this in the Cyberon short story anthology, which contains six stories which are clearly in continuity with each other, to the extent that it can almost be read as a single narrative, so it suffices that some of the 'arcs' showcase DWU concepts such as Chris Cwej for us to cover the whole arc, even should one or two of the parts not feature anything that debuted in the DWU; but it also contains a seventh story, Under Construction, which doesn't have any DWU content and was not intended to have any narrative link to the rest of the book's contents, meaning it is therefore not covered.


 * All very twisty, I know… And I do not deny that Bibliophage is an edge case. I have no strong feelings on its inclusion, myself, one way or the other. My point is simply that there is a sensible rationale for covering it, backed up by precedent, so its proposeed deletion was not the kind of no-brainer that can be carried out without a Forum thread after years of coverage. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is unfair, however, to immediately remove the proposed deletion tag when everyone but you so far in this thread wants it gone. RadMatter ☎  21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean, I suppose I could re-add it with a note that this will be discussed in a thread when possible? But the point is that I am saying, admin hat on, that it is improper to discuss its potential exclusion on a talk page. That was the spirit in which I removed the tag, not attempting to present the case as "settled", as it were. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It might be "improper" to you, but as I said before - and was ignored - it is outrageous how long we have went without being able to discuss issues like this. It doesn't make sense to me how the admin team haven't been able to knuckle down and work around the absence of forums. A competent team would have thought to rightly suspend the rule regarding coverage/validity discussions only being acceptable on the forums for the time when forums are unavailable, and then they would have held controlled discussions on talkpages before transferring the relevant topics over to the forums when they return. The fact that this admin team have not done that just seems like they are brushing a lot of problems that are being raised under the carpet and this Wiki is a worse place for it. RadMatter ☎  21:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I've done the above. The pity is that I was rather hoping to manage to clear out Category:Proposed deletions in the near future, and now there'll be this one page where the tag can't be removed for the foreseeable future… Blah. But I'll admit that's just my OCD-adjacent side showing, there's no policy reason why that shouldn't happen.


 * As to the lack of Forums, believe me I agree with you that it's really harming the Wiki. I find the current situation highly frustrating, and certainly unsustainable in the long (or indeed medium) term. It is on record that I have some threads of my own which I'd like to be able to hold! And the ones listed there aren't even all of it. The thing is, though, that when I last suggested alternatives to User:CzechOut he assured me that he'd have the actual Forums back in place by the time Series 13 premiered, and so there was no need for a temporary solution, and that was the last I heard from him on the matter.


 * The thing is that I do not actually have the power to unilaterally declare something like this, myself — User:CzechOut has been an admin for longer and is actually FANDOM Staff. I can't take it upon myself to just overrule his decisions! At a push I suppose a consensus among active admins could allow for it, but I don't know how many of the other admins agree on this, and also, due to the whole "no Foum" thing we don't really have anywhere to officially get together to discuss it. If anyone has any solutions, feel free to present them.


 * EDIT: Also… again, I understand your frustration, I really, deeply do; but be mindful of T:NPA in terms of throwing around terms like "incompetence". I note and appreciate that you did not name names, and again see where you're coming from, just… tread carefully. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would message the other active admin members and gauge their reaction. And if they are also in agreement that there should be a workaround I would choose a test subject, perhaps the most important one or maybe just a random lesser one, and carry out a discussion on the talkpages to see how it goes. If it works out well then the rules can be ammended and the other discussions can be had too, as well as making a presendent incase forums go down again, and if it doesn't... at least something was tried instead of this void of nothing being done.


 * And I did not say that the admin team was incompetent, so I do not understand why that is falsely in quotation marks. I said that a competent team would have been able to find a work around, which I thought this admin team was so it baffles me that they haven't been able to. RadMatter ☎  22:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the temporary solution I had given some thought to, earlier, was not simply carrying out conversations on talk pages, but creating a sort of "mock-forum" in a different namespace from the still-restricted Forum: one. This has the benefit that once the proper Forums are resurrected, the "mock-threads" could easily be renamed and thus moved into the proper Forum's archives. It would also be easier to moderate, and be more convenient for discussions which go beyond the scope of a particular page, such as my suggestions about amending the dabbing policy. Relaxing talk page rules would be better than nothing, but it would be harder to keep track of in future if we want to link to conclusions; whereas besides Czech's earlier promise that this wouldn't be necessary because the real Forums were coming soon, I do not see any real downsides to the system in question.


 * Concerning the "incompetence", I did not say you said so. I feared that you were treading close to saying so, and was cautioning you to be careful. I'm not accusing you of having overstepped any lines, I'm giving you advice as someone who has, themself, fallen on the wrong side of T:NPA while incorrectly thinking they were staying on the right side of the dotted line! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope that you can get the ball rolling talking to the other admins because it really is beyond frustrating.


 * And, I just don't appreciate you putting a word that I haven't said in quotation marks. I was nowhere near crossing any line with my comments. I was simply expressing my confusion that a team I believe to be competent hadn't done something that I thought any competent team would have. RadMatter ☎  22:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As for this discussion itself, I don't understand its coverage on this site at all.

In my opinion the authorial intent of Stephen Marley doesn't matter in regards to Bibliophage's coverage because the story, at time of publishing, had absolutely no DWU ties. Just because another story in the same release was connected to the DWU doesn't mean this is. That story had legal ties to the DWU, this one did not. The "precedent" set by some of the stories in the Dalek annuals not featuring any DWU concepts but still being covered is not the same. That book was literally a Dalek annual and was Doctor Who through and through. Decalog 5: Wonders was not.

Things like this need to be well and truly nipped in the bud or it could get out of hand, fast. With this logic any writer could suddenly rock up and say that their entire body of work was DWU-related just because one of their characters showed up in a DW story years later. For example; Rachel Redhead's Judy Collins has appeared in multiple DW-related works, but do we cover her solo series from before she ever appeared? No. Sure it is extremely likely that Rachel's authourial intent is that this Judy is the exact same incarnation and thus her stories occured in the DWU, but it matters not as her original stories had no DWU links.

The only time that I think retroactive coverage should be done on this site is when a story that originally had no links to the DWU becomes so important that its coverage on this site is necessary. For example; I would consider the original Cyberon worthy of coverage (albeit invalid) due to how successful the Cyberons have become, and for the fact that the story was novelised anyway. RadMatter ☎  22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As there's been some discussion of the lack of forums here, I thought that I'd mention that I've taken it upon myself to create some Temporary forums. I hope that this will allow us to get the wiki moving somewhat again. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Aaaaaaaaand the Temporary Forums have been deleted. Wow yes, the Wiki has grinded back to a halt. Round of applause everybody! Absolutely amazing! 📯 📂 22:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Epsilon the Eternal, please let's not have this kind of passive-aggressive talk. It seems especially unfair given that in point of fact, things actually are moving at Tardis talk:Temporary forums in proactive directions, as well you know. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 04:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * User:RadMatter, an important context you're missing is that the story did not have "absolutely no DWU ties" at its release: it was part of the Decalog series, which previously was entirely set in the DWU; it was released in Wonders alongside a story which did feature DWU characters, the rights to which were possessed by the publisher; and the stories in Wonders were implicitly and explicitly set in a single universe. This ambiguity makes "Bibliophage" completely unlike the Judy Collins stories, where no ambiguity existed at the time of release.


 * A much closer comparison would be a hypothetical BBC anthology which is not released under the Doctor Who brand but nonetheless features licensed Doctor Who characters in all of its stories, with the sole exception of one story (say, by author Meven Starkey) that is completely standalone. Suppose also that in promotional materials for the anthology, the BBC says that all the stories are set in the same universe. In this hypothetical I imagine that many or most of us editors would be inclined to cover Starkey's story along with the rest; however, for the sake of the analogy, let's say that the most scrupulous editors win out and it's excluded on the grounds of the technical ambiguity in whether Starkey intended it to pass Rule 4.


 * But then, imagine the next series of Doctor Who includes an episode by Starkey which features the characters from his short story: furthermore, the episode doesn't make a lot of sense unless you've read that story! I believe in this case we would be idiots to continue to exclude the story from our coverage. Someone unfamiliar with the debate might come in and complain, "This is retroactive continuity! Just because a character is featured in a story doesn't mean we cover all their prior appearances!" That's a fair concern in general, but it's irrelevant to that case, since that isn't what happened.


 * I hope this comparison helps clarify the uniqueness of the situation with "Bibliophage". Rather than some new precedent which might validate Judy Collins via "Judy's War" (or Star Trek via Assimilation²), it's only because of the existing half-in half-out ambiguity in Wonders that authorial intent becomes the deciding factor. – n8 (☎) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)