Talk:Howling Halls

Archived old talk page
I have archived the old talk page that included the discussion about the proposed deletion of the talk page and the speculation. If you want to raise them again, do so on this page, and not the archive. Mini-mitch 16:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth did you do that? The conversation wasn't even a week old. And not every section that you archived even had a chance to generate any sort of real discussion. By archiving the page, you stopped a valid consensus vote before it was officially closed. I don't agree with anything Bold Clone was doing to or asserting about this page, but what you've done here is just as petulant.


 * I don't like the precedent set by your actions, Mini-mitch. Not one little bit. Thanks to this heavey-handed action, I feel we now need a policy on how, when, and by whom an entire talk page's contents can be archived. It feels totally wrong to archive a week-old conversation just cause you're tired of dealing with it. If you're tired of it, just walk away. The ongoing vote was clearly going to end the discussion anyway; you didn't need to sweep it under the rug like it was a "problem". What you've done is, in my opinion, way worse than the edit wars this tiny, insignificant page has attracted. The discussion you incredibly prematurely archived has had the positive effect of generating forthcoming policy changes. It doesn't deserve to be shunted into an archive quite so quickly. It should be proudly on display so that those users who weren't a party to this discussion can have an opportunity to easily see it. But, no, you've gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 02:21, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Let's not starts another edit war
I readded the bit that say about the The Doctor implying it's a prison because a)It was added by an admin to stop an edit war b)It does add more information to an article than just mere speculation (which most of it was earlier). Although it does needed a source (such as an episode or comic), I would give suggest maybe a week or two for User for User to find a source, if none is up by then, then remove it, seem fair? Mini-mitch 18:11, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a better idea; leave it off until we can find a source definitively proving that the Howling Halls are a prision. Otherwise, the info is user speculation, and should be removed. I'd also like to point out that: a) Keeping it off probably would have kept the edit war from occuring, and b) It adds more mere speculation to the page. I don't have a problem leaving the info on the TP as a probation until someone can find a source. -- Bold  Clone  18:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

It states "implied" and is in itallics.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:28, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference. Fan speculation is fan speculation; period. -- Bold  Clone  18:30, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on that it should stay there, for s short period of time (1-2 weeks) until we get a source. Until then it should. After that time, if there is not source, it should go. Does that not seem fair? Mini-mitch 18:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'd rather it stay up for a few days; if it can't be proven as anything other than fanon, then it needs to go ASAP. Does that not seem fair? Does trying to maintain the factuality and accuracy of our wiki not seem fair? Perhaps we should just check with Tangerineduel for what would be best? -- Bold  Clone  18:41, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

The source is Love and Monsters.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:51, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...No. The source for your speculation. Unless you can find a valid in-universe source that explictly states that the Halls are a prision, then this is fanon and I will rightfully remove it from this wiki, as is my job and your job. -- Bold  Clone  04:31, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a stickler for trying to adhere to what actually appears in a story. But even I think you're being ridiculously anal in this case, BC. It's not "fanon" to suggest a possible reading of a direct quote from a canon source. It is true to say that the word "escape" implies a prison. One doesn't "escape" from paradise. That interpretation may, at some time, be proven wrong, but it is still true that the word "escape" is often a verb associated with the act of voluntarily bustin' outta jail. The sentence was clearly marked as a behind the scenes note, through the use of italics and indentation. Had it appeared within the body of the in-universe section, you'd have been right to excise it. But it wasn't that. It was a concise, interpretive note which merely drew the reader's attention to a word in the actual quote, and never definitively stated that it was a prison. You can't disprove the statement, "The use of the word "escape" implied that the Howling Halls may have been a prison" — so you probably should have let it slide.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 08:41, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't disprove the speculation, as there is not enough infomation to reach a conclusion. But you also can't prove that the speculation is right, as there is not enough infomation to reach a conclusion. -- Bold  Clone  21:54, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Time to find a compromise
We all know, by this point where people stand. But there's something about this tiny, insignificant article that's making people go crazy. Anyway, the statement isn't speculation. There's no assertion of narrative fact; there's an out-of-universe exploration of semantics. See, there's a big, fat, huge difference between:


 * The Howling Halls were a prison. (speculation)
 * The use of the word escape implies that the Howling Halls may have been a prison. (discussion of a script's wording)

I've not been a party to the seemingly endless war over including this sentence, other than that I was the one who originally introduced the phraseology in an effort to stop the edit war. Waiting for the requisite number of days to pass before reversion may be within the letter of our editing policy, but it's not within the spirit. It's just a slower war.

So let me propose a compromise again, since neither side is backing down. What do we think of this language:


 * The script for Love and Monsters in no way makes clear what the Howling Halls are. However, the use of the word "escape" denotatively implies that they may have been a prison.

That would seem to address Bold Clone's concerns about clearly avoiding the appearance of speculation, but at the same time allow the additional highlight on the word "escape" that other editors like Mini-mitch and Skittles the hog seem to want.

czech out ☎ ✍    22:14 Sunday 23 Jan 2011

It is simply that Bold Clone doesn't properly understand the definition of speculation, placing the implied sentence in the article is not speculation as it is just defining what the Doctor said in the episode. Revanvolatrelundar 16:27, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word escape implies that the Howling Halls may have been a prison.
 * This is fanon on the part of the fan. You can't prove that it is a prison, so it remains unproven. Ultimately, the statement needs to stay off completely, since it is speculation/fanon. The script says nothing about what it is, so WE should say nothing about what it is. To go beyond what the script/episode/commentary says is to go from canon to fanon. -- Bold  Clone  21:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Revan: Speculation is anything not confirmed by the script, episode, or commentary. This is clearly not canon. Clearly, you do not properly understand the meaning of speculation. What we are arguing about is fan interpretation of the episode--fanon--speculation. -- Bold  Clone  21:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentleman, please let's return to the new language I offered up as compromise. Surelly, BC, you can see that your position is not tenable. Some way or other, Revan, Mini-Mich, Skittles, and others do not agree with you. For that matter, I think your definition of fanon is far, far too strict, and trust me, I'm the closest person to your position on this wiki. I don't want fanon in, either, but this isn't fanon.


 * Fanon is a notion which has become popular in fandom but that doesn't appear in the actual text of any source text. It is, "Elementary, my dear Watson," "Play it again, Sam", or the Season 6b theory. It's not pointing out, from a behind-the-scenes perspective, that the script uses this word or that word. And, incidentally, "fanon" is not a contraction of "fan interpretation" or "fan speculation" or "fan opinion", but rather "fan canon". It's a line which is believed oft-repeated, or a concept that has been accepted to explain something that doesn't quite "fit" in the actual canon. This statement in no way fits any of that description. There's no speculation, this isn't a "popular" belief in fandom, because most fans would have missed this insignificant line, anyway. So please drop the debate over whether this is fanon or speculation or inappropriate to this wikia project. Every editor who has expressed an opinion on this matter disagrees with you on that point.


 * What remains is not whether this statement will ultimately go into the article, but how it will do so. How can we word this statement so that you're at least partially satisfied with it? You have a chance here to have some influence and get a clearly-worded statement that nowhere is it stated that the HH are a prison. Or you can simply be completely marginalized in the debate, and we can go with language that already has attained a consensus. Whatever happens, it's time to put this puppy to rest. We cannot go on with this sentence being put in and plucked out of the article. I don't care how slowly this is happening: it is still an edit war, and it still offends the spirit of Tardis:Editing policy. Please help us make the wiki better by finding a phraseology that you can live with. It'll help us in numerous other cases. Ultimately there's a chance that this whole, long debate might actually be of some broader use to the wiki. If you'll help.
 * czech out ☎ ✍   


 * The script says nothing about what the Halls are, so WE should say nothing about what they are. To go beyond what the script/episode/commentary says is to go from canon to speculation. That is my position, and I will not compromise from it. The material is ultimately unprovable and is nothing more than fan interpretation--speculation. Period. -- Bold  Clone  13:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked Tangerineduel to fully-protect this page (only admins can edit it) until such time as we can all reach a compromise. If this annoys you or upset, please leave a message on my talk page. Mini-mitch 18:44, January 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've protected this page for a week prior to adding my comment as I don't want my questions/comments taken as an affirmative or negative on this situation.
 * I agree in part with all parties involved.
 * The prison inference is based on the word "escape", we can, by looking at the Elemental Shade article further deduce that, given that it killed Elton's mother that it indeed was held within something that might have been a prison. The behind the scenes note is a good compromise given the information available. As CzechOut noted no one (unless it's part of the plot) escapes from a paradise, so due to the mechanics of sci-fi drama and DW story telling the Elemental Shade escaped from something that was holding it; a prison or something.
 * Now, on the flipside, we haven't categorised the Howling Halls as a prison, it's a location. Because we don't know for certain what it is, it hasn't been spelt out for us. But on the other side of this, we're not saying this, as it's behind the scenes we're just drawing attention to the word escape. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:31, January 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Sigh. To go beyond what the canon says is to add fan-generated speculation. No body will deny that. However, that is exactly what you are doing here. I don't have a problem with saying "the story doesn't state what the Halls are," but anything beyond that is speculation, and so should be removed. -- Bold  Clone  03:17, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it time to accept a lost to your case BC, 5 Users (and one unregistered User (who's comment you removed)) have argued that it should stay as it it, which is a compromise on both sides. There has been a major discussion about it, and the majority of User think the should stay as it is; just because you don't want it, gives you no right to remove it due to the discussion. Mini-mitch 12:32, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * And an admins decision is final, the matter should be settled because of this. Revanvolatrelundar 12:35, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mini-mitch: The IP's post was intimidating behavior (yelling and insulting others). I removed it for that reason. I think you would do the same. -- Bold  Clone  20:16, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because removing another's User comment on a talk page is vandalism. I let it go because we had bigger problems. Which, I hope we have now sorted. Mini-mitch 20:30, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh...no, because intimidating behavior (yelling and insulting others) is vandalism. That's why I didn't let it go. -- Bold  Clone  20:36, January 28, 2011 (UTC)