Forum talk:Temporary forums

Deletion
This page has been deleted, at least for now. The rationale given for creating it was given in the edit summary as follows:

"Any user can start a policy page (see the message when creating one), and given that we've been without forums for over a year, it seems that something like this is needed. There is even some consensus for it"

A few points: Thanks for your attention Shambala108 ☎  20:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Anyone can start a policy page" may be physically (or FANDOM-ly true), but as Tardis:Who writes policy states, on this wiki only admins write and pubish a policy page. This is similar to how any user can physically move a page but only admins are permitted on this wiki to move a page.
 * The cited consensus occurred on a talk page (Talk:Bibliophage (short story)), where admin User:Scrooge MacDuck specifically said that he didn't want to overrule User:CzechOut's decision. There are a lot of technical things with making forum posts, and CzechOut is the main admin who understands how that works. Just creating a policy page to cover it won't work (for one thing, the page would become unmanageable with many people responding to many topics). I understand the frustration, but let's be honest, the world hasn't stopped turning since we lost the forums. We are still able to discuss individual issues on the article talk pages, and that is going to have to be enough for now.
 * If CzechOut wants to restore this page, then he will. But please do not take on something like this without at least asking for admin approval. It would be extremely easy for any user or admin to miss discussions on a page like this and not be able to participate. That's why we have designated areas for discussions.


 * I second the fact that User:Bongolium500 should have checked with admins before creating this page.


 * That being said, another thing I mentioned at Talk:Bibliophage (short story) was that if we can create a consensus for it between us other active admins, I would personally be in favour of creating temporary forums of some sort. You say that "the world hasn't stopped turning", but… the issues that cannot by policy be resolved on talk pages, and/or which affect multiple pages, really are piling up to an alarming degree. Bongolium500's attempted solution may have been rash, but I do think we should be looking for a solution.


 * I agree that a single page wouldn't be manageable, with multiple editing it and such (although to play Devil's Advocate, that is how Forum:The original Panopticon worked!). This is why the temporary solution I would advocate, as I mentioned at Talk:Bibliophage (short story), would be a pseudo-DPL Forum, with individual pages for "threads" — either in another namespace than Forum: ( TemporaryForum: ?), or with subpages, set up similarly to userspace sandboxes. This way, individual "threads" would appear in Special:RecentChanges (allowing the community to easily see what discussions are being held), and once the real DPL Forums are activated, we could batch-rename these pages to move them to the "Forum:" namespace and thus into the proper archive.


 * …But yeah, at the end of the day, this isn't something a user should just start on his own with no explicit admin authorisation/prior discussion. If we do go forward with something like this, I'd at least want myself, User:Shambala108, User:OncomingStorm12th, User:SOTO and User:Doug86 to form a consensus on the matter first — and we'd also have to, first, notify User:CzechOut of our intentions to make sure that we don't put such a thing together only for him to show up with the proper DPL Forum the day after that. That would be quite silly.


 * In conclusion: @User:Bongolium500, you acted in error, but, I believe, in answer to a very real need of the Wiki at the moment. I'm really hoping we can all work together to find a less arbitrary solution. This talk page seems like the right place for that; I've notified the other active admins mentioned above to get their input in this conversation. My main takeaway from Talk:Bibliophage (short story), aside from the need for the Forums at all, was User:RadMatter chastening us admins for not yet having gotten together to work out a solution to this problem, and indeed, it's past time that we did. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for creating the page without asking, it was rash of me. I am just increadibly fustrated about the fact that there is nowhere to discuss policy at the moment. "Anyone can start a policy page" is actually stated in a box above the edit window when creating a page in the Tardis namespace, which is a thing that Tardis has customised, so it is local policy. From Scrooge's message, creating a new namespace such as TemporaryForum: requires asking Fandom staff (any page created with that prefix now would just be in the (main) namespace which is not desireable) and there is no garuntee that they would aprrove it. At that point, it would be easier to ask for the Forum: to be configured to allow all editors to create pages in it. Anyhow, I hope that the admins can come to a decision to resolve this issue. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is hardly "overruling" CzechOut's decision because, to my knowledge, he never ruled against having temporary forums. He simply stated that they were not needed because forums were returning soon. It is unbelievable that an admin would rather say "it'll have to do" than actually try and solve a relatively easy problem. RadMatter ☎  21:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with @RadMatter here.


 * There are much bigger issues than one good-natured user attempting to the Forums back of his own volition, especially as @CzechOut has made countless claims that he will bring back the forums for well over an entire year now, each time completely failing to deliver on his promises. And to be perfectly honest, can you guys instead look at the bigger picture as opposed to berating @Bongolium500? We need Forums.


 * While I'm not an admin, I entirely disagree that this should be an admin decision to instate Temporay Forums, mainly because this concerns every active editor on this site. Therefore, I would like advocate for the Temporary Forums to be instated immediately. Otherwise, the communal list of threads to be created is only going to get longer. 📯 📂 22:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't engage in this sort of hyperbolic phrasing, making User:CzechOut sound as though he is intentionally, guiltily withholding the Forums from us and breaking his promises. He is a busy man in real life, who has very good reasons for having focused his attention elsewhere than the Wiki. It is not my place to divulge them, but I shouldn't have to. Of all the Wiki's bedrock rules, assuming good faith remains one of the foremost.


 * Has the fact that the return of the Forum is way overdue harmed the Wiki? Unquestionably yes. But there is no need to attack individual users. If the 2020s have taught any of us anything, it is that sometimes the world simply decides to throw a garage's worth of wrenches in everybody's plans. We do have to deal with the consequences, but wasting time pointing fingers will not achieve that.


 * Let this be the final mention of User:CzechOut's lateness with the Forums, or the Wiki's alleged past mishandling of matters up till now, in this discussion. We must look to the present and future if this talk page is to achieve anything: let's focus on the solutions, not the blame. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 04:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll let the admins decide how to solve this as Scrooge has suggested, but I just wanted to share my opinion: I see no downsides in having a temporary forum, and not having them only further inhibits progress on the wiki. Chubby Potato ☎  04:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't have much to say that hasn't already been said. As been pointed out above, we have several threads -to-be piled up, with God-knows-how-many down the line. Now knowing that there is a viable (even if temporary) means to allow them to be created, I believe we should enable it.
 * Once our propper forums are ready to go (be it tomorrow, next week or whenever Czech is able to finish them, no rush there) we can transfer the archived threads to the approppriate place, as well as transfering any active discussions towards the newly-restored threads. OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any issues, personally, with transferring archives over after-the-fact. It seems useful to have a place to continue discussions in the meantime. Is the idea that everyone would be editing this one page? If we do go forward with this idea, I think we should institute a limit on the number of forum "threads" for this page. 18:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That was User:Bongolium500's idea — but as User:Shambala108 pointed out earlier, that has severe drawbacks. I think a series of subpages of this page would be best — so if I wanted to create, I dunno, a thread about citation policy, I'd do it as Tardis:Temporary forums/Citation policy idea, and so on. This would avoid editing conflicts, and make it easier to just rename the subpages when the time comes to transfer the archives. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure you don't get editing conflicts when you're working on a different section. What if we held them on the talk page, and separately archived the discussions. That way, Tardis talk:Temporary forums/Archive 1 would be a distinct closed discussion we can later move over to the correct title. 19:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (The idea to keep them on the talk page is based on the precedent of T:VREC, where contributions are made on the talk page to make archiving a lot easier.) 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I was basing my idea on Forum:The original Panopticon which has some clear issues so I think that using the talk page or subpages would be benneficial over having it all on the page I made it at. If the talk page is used, it would remove the need for the add section box that I added at the top originally as that is a built in feature of talk pages. If subpages are used, some simple DPL could be set up to get a list of threads that are open (DPL Forums could even be used for this; it doesn't just have to be used for standard forums and I've used it in the past for my talk page index, for example) and the add section box at the top could be modifed so that it creates new subpages. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  19:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a solid proof of concept for an index! I suppose there are certain benefits to having separate pages (subpages seems the best choice in this direction), at the very least for page load times if a discussion gets unwieldy.


 * Either way, I do still think we should have an artificial limit on the number of open threads, to make sure there are not too many threads left open without resolution. We want minimal work for transferring over, with maximum gain (real conclusions). 11:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ideally, I think we should have a maximum of 5/6 temporary-threads open at a time (preferably each temporary thread getting its own subpage, so that archiving and edit history is better preserved/flows better). Once one temp-thread is closed and archive, a "spot" is open for the next to be created. OncomingStorm12th  ☎  18:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If we're going down a path of temporary threads / forums etc they need to be serving/solving/answering certain things.


 * I agree with OncomingStorm12th and SOTO that there needs to be a maximum of threads open at once, there's been lots of discussions in the past that have run on without a conclusion, so setting a max amount and maybe a time limit as well would help. Anything not settled within the time limit goes back to the bottom of the discussion list. That way we can get through more topics, and those ones that failed to get consensus will eventually make it back into rotation as others are cleared.


 * And I agree that there needs to be an archiving method to tidy things up. Likewise keeping them all as sub-pages would also maintain some tidiness to all this, we don't want too much clutter. Especially as this is, and should be a temporary solution to our current problem. Just to allow us to work through the more pressing discussion topics that have been waiting. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If I were to suggest a topic to get started with, perhaps the coverage/validation of Baker's End. There has been a lot more evidence since the last discussion which points to Baker's End containing DWU concepts, and there are quite a few users who are interested in the subject so as a trial topic it would hopefully be a popular one. RadMatter ☎  14:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm… No, I don't think so, @RadMatter. Inclusion/exclusion debates can get long and heated, which is the opposite of what we want. And more generally, Baker's End has remained non-covered for a long time and can surely wait a few more months. Especially in the first batch, we should prioritise threads intended to resolve issues that are actually harming the Wiki as it stands. We're looking for threads that are in the Wiki's general and immediate interest, ideally; things to resolve issues that are impacting the Wiki across a large range of pages already.


 * Think something like the discussion at Talk:The Woman Who Lived (although that's just one example off the top of my head; there may be better ones still), or the planned discussion formalising the split of The Master into incarnation pages, which User:CzechOut himself (an important voice in the original merge discussion from years back) agreed we needed to split back again, all while highlighting that a thread would be needed for it.


 * At any rate, @Tangerineduel, SOTO & OS12th, I'm glad we all seem to be converging on a clear-cut plan forwards. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well I completely disagree.


 * I think that a less significant debate would be far more suitable as a test topic rather than something much larger that is "impacting the Wiki across a large range of pages already". Splitting the Master pages is far too complicated for a test subject as it is a massive job and users are undecided about what the pages should be named, absolutely it should be a priority but the test subject should be a far smaller and easier discussion so that we can all come to terms with the new way of doing things. I think Baker's End is the perfect test subject and I don't believe that any discussion regarding this topic would become too long/heated when so much evidence has came out in support ot its coverage/validation. RadMatter ☎  15:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry @RadMatter, while you may be right that an inclusion debate could be good as a test subject... Baker's End is not a good candidate for that.


 * Months back, I put in some research into Baker's End, and suffice to say, covering it will not be clear cut and it won't be straightforward; it'll probably be a long inclusion debate. And I'm sure users will have their opinions about its coverage anyway.


 * However, splitting the Master would be fairly straightforward. A few users have prepared fully written out drafts for each incarnation's page, and as for names, we could temporarily dab by story and find better ones later. E.g. The Master (Terror of the Autons). So it's not that complex, as the bulk of the work has already been done, all that's needed is essentially authorisation. Individual names can be discussed on the respective talk pages. 📯 📂 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting off track here. Before deciding which topics are more pressing / suitable for temporary forums, we first need to settle on a course of action. What we've gotten so far is that we need limits. Limits like the number of forums "slots". Time limits, to ensure we get decisive action. I like the idea of moving threads that haven't achieved resolution to the bottom of a list, to get back to again.


 * So let's finish working out the details of how this works, before jumping ahead to what we'll start with. We're so nearly there. 10:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think 6 would be a good maximum number of threads open at a single time. But furthermore, I had an idea on this: perhaps we could devote 3 to topics about policy or issues that concern a lot of pages, and 3 to inclusion debates. Back when Special:Forum was functional, The Panopticon and Inclusion Debates were really where the discussions were held. The type of things the other, minor forums concerned can remain in Discussions or talk pages. Speaking of which, if we have a maximum number of topics at a time, let's put them to good use and not forget to use talk pages, even for some things that in the past might have merited their own forum thread (e.g. the current discussion at Talk:First Morbius). Chubby Potato ☎  07:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this idea! Maybe 2 slots for inclusion debates, to start with? Still with the idea that discussions which go on without resolution get temporarily shelved. Inclusion debates can can unwieldy, so having to choose which ones are most important brings a good amount of focus, to make sure we have well-considered discussions.


 * Definitely agree on 6 slots, and I could pivot to 3:3 so long as other admin thinks that's a good idea. What do our most recent admin think? They haven't had too much of a chance in the forums. 08:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Two Years
As of publishing, it will have been two years since the forums have been removed from this wiki. (Indeed, I think that happened a day or two ago and we just missed it, but w/e.) T:WRITE POLICY and T:CHANGE, as written, still require us to go to a section of this wiki that has not existed for two years. In that time discussions concerning multiple pages and validity debates have continued to pile up. Moreover, it's undeniable that in some ways this has impacted the wiki quite massively. To draw a few specific examples from the list linked above:


 * The validity of Can I Help You? has simply never been addressed. The "story" was published under a week before the forums were removed, and I only was able to find the text for the story a month later. James Goss, who coordinated the entirety of Time Lord Victorious, told us in so many words that it was intended to be valid. (Obviously aside from the issue that wiki validity rules are not exactly the sort of things most writers care about - he made multiple statements emphasizing that he viewed this story as an important part of the overall narrative.) For almost two years this story has never had even the slightest discussion on validity, it's simply been assumed to be invalid because any discussion of it would require a discussion of our merchandising rules, and, as a result, could have massive ramifications for the wiki as a whole, which only further underlines the potential damage not addressing this issue does to the wiki.


 * Most obviously egregious is the continued validity of all of the author biographies from The Book of the Enemy. There's a section of biographies of contributors to this book, some fictional characters, some real life people, and some real life people who are treated as fictional characters. When User:NateBumber was first covering the anthology he decided to treat the author biographies section as a subsection of another, accidentally causing them to be treated as valid, and using that on the page Wilhelm Liebknecht. Nate was quick to point out that this was a mistake when I stated on another talk page that this section was valid, saying that he never intended for his own biography to be a valid source. The two of us figured this out basically at exactly the same time the forums went down (almost to the day), and as a result there's simply never been a discussion of how to handle the three different types of contributors to the anthology, whether we want to cover part of these as valid or none, and as a result our treatment of TBotE is incomplete in regards to certain characters who are fleshed out much more in these biographies, since I decided to completely ignore this section based on this confusion.


 * User:CzechOut stated, upon the resolution of the The Curse of Fatal Death inclusion thread that he wished to reopen discussion based on evidence that nobody had discussed. While to my knowledge the particular evidence he wished to consider hasn't been stated, in the following January, so, 21 months ago, I decided to go looking in the old Rec.arts.drwho forum based on a comment I remembered on TARDIS Eruditorum about the episode and Moffat's thoughts at the time. I discovered a wealth of new evidence relevant to the debate that was never addressed, suggesting that we were perhaps in error in validating the story. At the very least it was more than sufficient to open up a new discussion, and I think it might have changed a few minds, it certainly gave me pause. As a result, due to the lack of forums, for 21 months we've potentially had a fairly contentious story in the fanbase and on this wiki listed as valid when it might have properly been invalid this entire time.

Okay. So there's undeniably a problem. Is there a solution? Well there's a long term solution, the recovery of the old forums and then turning on DPL Forums. This is being worked on by CzechOut and others, and I understand that we're closer to this than we have been in a while. And I understand the delays to this solution so far. Far be it from me to complain about life being weird and throwing curveballs at you. I'm not here to complain about that.

But the issue is the problems we're experiencing don't go away in this time, and if anything they get worse. The List continues to grow. Frustrations continue to grow. And what's more, we have a short term solution. User talk:CzechOut details a perfectly workable solution to the problem we have in the short term. The response, User talk:SOTO, gives the rationale of not wanting an extra step in re-adding the forums, which, in all honesty, is a reasonable critique. But it's not one that should stand in the way of us taking steps to fix a problem that has no end in sight. Even if these steps are stopgap measures rather than the full implementation of the forums, it's better than nothing.

I leave you in the close with the following thought. T:WRITE POLICY contains the following line:


 * Except in cases where the community desires something that is technically impossible, the consensus of the community always has the power to veto or change any rule. [Emphasis present in the original]

What I, and others before me, am proposing, is not technically impossible. The very rule paralyzing this wiki seems to suggest that, if it's the will of the community, the solution that has been proposed must be implemented. Najawin ☎  07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)