Forum:Consolidating all of the 'How The Monk Got His Habit' pages.

Opening Post

 * Moving this over into a proper forum debate for the sake of protocol and responsible jurisprudence. Simply put, we are grossly overcovering an invalid source (How the Monk Got His Habit) due to a less than clear outcome of a forum thread that quite literally broke our forum system. The fact of the matter is having more than one page on this matter is not only unnecessary, but actively unhelpful.
 * First of all, it being presented as "an extract from a novelization" is no different from Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) being presented as an extract from a novelization and should not be used to dictate coverage.
 * Second, even if the novelization was in any stage of having been created, it would not warrant coverage. The story How the Monk Got His Habit was not commissioned by the BBC, by Harness's own admission --and there was no suggestion that the novelization was even pitched! If the novelization was in any stage of development, it would be fanfiction (and not even completed or released fanfiction) and thus would not warrant a page.
 * Third, and perhaps most importantly, this page serves absolutely no point. Right now, we have three different pages covering an invalid story that was, by the authors own admission, not picked up: (1) How The Monk Got His Habit (short story); (2) How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced novelisation); and (3) How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced TV story). All three of these pages cover the exact same material, or actively avoid covering helpful information to avoid creating an identical page. There is no material on one that is not (or should not) be covered on the other two.
 * I'm begging us to have some common sense and just get rid of this page and consolidate the material onto either the short story page (which I think is disingenuous coverage) or the unproduced TV story page (which I believe is more accurate, given that it's a presentation of an otherwise unproduced story and was specifically not commissioned or produced). Be sensible, please. I would advocate for a single page, How The Monk Got His Habit (unproduced TV story), which covers all of the material. NoNotTheMemes ☎  18:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I'll find the historical precedent in a second. Just to note, I'm against this discussion for the time being and would like it delayed, oh, 7 months. This is because I would like to propose another round of amnesty for the 60th anniversary, and I think (dear lord why) that this discussion would benefit from User:DiSoRiEnTeD1's voice, provided that the proposal passes and they return. Najawin ☎  19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain DiSoRiEnTeD1 was hit with a FANDOM-wide ban for sockpuppetry-based ban evasion, which means he'd be ineligible for such an amnesty (which I do agree we should have). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He was not! See his CC profile. Other accounts that I know there have been suspicions about have been. But not DiS. Najawin ☎  19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether DiSoRiEnTeD1 has been hit with a FANDOM-wide ban for ban evasion, I strongly disfavor delaying a forum thread to await a theoretical dissenting voice --let alone somebody that has been banned from the Wiki. DiSoRiEnTeD1's position on this matter was exhaustively articulated in the precedent, if anybody believes that their position is not refuted by my points they can feel free to voice that opinion, but I believe a delay for a potential dissent on a potential round of amnesty is unnecessary. NoNotTheMemes ☎  19:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, odd. His blocking message on Tardis does say he got an "automatic infinite ban" for sockpuppetry; aren't those meant to be FANDOM-wide?


 * But yes, I'm inclined to agree with NoNotTheMemes that a seven-months(!) delay is unreasonable. It would be one thing if the amnesty was just around the corner, but this is such a long-shot hypothetical that I'm going to fall back on my frequent refrain that if DiSoRiEnTeD1 does somehow resurface with additional points that this thread fails to yield, he will then be empowered to start a new thread, if it comes to that. That does not mean we can't do what seems to be best in the here-and-now. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * People are free to disagree! I'm just making my stance known, I think it would be slightly unfair to relitigate this without him if we're contemplating an act that would unban him not too long after. And I'll leave the quiet part unsaid, if you know, you know.


 * Okay, so, prior discussion on this is at Talk:How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) and Thread:275277 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2. And for the fullest context, if you absolutely hate yourself, you might want to read (the skies tremble, the voices of the world cry suffering, animals hurl themselves off cliffs to avoid the terror of what comes next) Thread:273268 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV. (Do not.)


 * My position is fairly well laid out at 275277, I'm gonna CoI myself out unless nobody stands up in favor of invalidity/the status quo and then I might have to Devil's Advocate. But I intend to sit this one out if there's even a modicum of back and forth. Najawin ☎  19:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think asking us to wait on a debate nearly half-a-year is reasonable if I'm being honest.

Moving us back to the debate at hand, I feel mixed on this one - I think there's no harm at all in covering the "short story" in the invalid space, and thus I'm hesitant to merge all of the info into one unproduced page. I also think doing so would make it harder to cover the snippet as something released alongside Lockdown! and furthermore I'd argue that the "short story" was simply something fun he threw together as part of the event. Thus it is not a part of the canceled episode, it is an adaptation of the pitch.

But I do think merging the novelisation and the episode together makes perfect sense as again we have no evidence that the novelisation was anything more than him being witty. Often playful language gets misinterpreted on wikis, and I think this is a case of that rather than any malice intentions.

(A more general issue on the site is that due to the very black-and-white category system on (non)valid content, we have many pages that basically exist in two forms just so one can be "Valid" or "Covered." So, for instance, A Fix with Sontarans and A Fix with Sontarans are the same thing, but one version of the page is a valid source. This is an issue with the site I feel this forum is not within reach to actually effect at all) OS25🤙☎️ 19:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this merger into the "unproduced TV story" page, with redirects from the other two. If the short story is preferred as the merge by this thread, I'm okay with that but I do want just one page. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the harm in covering the "short story" in the invalid space is that it takes information away from the "unproduced" page --and I personally don't see how it would make it harder to cover the Lockdown! content. Moreover, we grossly over cover this """short story""" on The Monk. This much material from an invalid story should not be on a page in the valid namespace:

":: According to NOTVALID: How The Monk Got His Habit, which is not accepted as a valid source for in-universe articles on this wiki, Mortimus had spent many years satisfying his hedonistic yearnings in Earth's 1970s under the unassuming name of 'Roger' by his fifth incarnation. He had acquired a taste for Earth tobacco — which made his voice turn gravelly over time — as well as for Earth's pop music, which they often played on his TARDIS's hi-fi system. He was 'a suave, debonair-looking man', with jet-black, shoulder-length hair, and they bore a long moustache, as well as neatly-trimmed cavalry whiskers. He wore a plum-coloured velvet suit with 'tight, figure-enhancing' hipsters." NoNotTheMemes ☎  19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Four sentences is too much? I think the amount of detail that is there is only present because the story features a unique incarnation. If the story was valid this is about as much coverage as it would have. OS25🤙☎️ 20:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it should all be merged into the unproduced TV page. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Having looked into it, it seems to me that the "short story" was just something tweeted by the author with no BBC approval. Thus I think you could argue that it doesn't pass Rule 2 and thus doesn't justify coverage. So I'd be in-favor of "merging" all three pages if that's the context. OS25🤙☎️ 22:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I meant four sentences is too much for something tweeted by the author with no BBC approval. It's not JUST that it's invalid, it's the means by which it's invalid. Merge'em. NoNotTheMemes ☎  23:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As a point of terminology, as outlined at Tardis:Valid sources "invalid" means covered-but-in-the- space. If we cease to cover How The Monk… altogether over it not being licensed, then it won't be "invalid". It'll be non-covered. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Scrooge is right about this. An "unreleased" story can not be invalid thus the distinction is relevant. Merging all three pages will mean deleting all of the "non-valid" coverage. OS25🤙☎️ 01:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)