Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20121207092215/@comment-188432-20130105174320

Eladkse wrote: ... any changes should be based on the community decision, not what the admins think is best. If otherwise, there's no point in us voting. I'm a little bit sensitive to this idea that you seem to be repeating that I'm not playing fair with this discussion. I feel obliged to point out that this is a far broader and longer-lasting discussion than what happened to get us to "Tardis Index File" in the first place. That original process was one that was largely done by administrative fiat, so this process is a step up from that for the community.

Let's be very clear about our past: the original name of the wiki was "Tardis Information System", as you can see by reading this early 2005 post from Freethinker1of1 to Josiah Rowe. Obviously, Freethinker1of1 was aware of the proper, in-universe name, because he was the original uploader of file:TardisInformationSystem.jpg, the very first image ever uploaded to this wiki.

However, he simply decided to go in another direction and that was that. Note this fascinating exchange from Talk:Doctor Who Wiki/Archive 1: Hey! I just noticed: on the front page and the Manual of Style, the site is referred to as TARDIS Index File, but on the main Help page and Help:Editing it's called TARDIS Information System. Which is the site's name? --Josiah Rowe 05:51, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)


 * From the deletion log:
 * 21:30, 21 Feb 2005 Freethinker1of1 deleted "TARDIS Information System" (Incorrect title for this article. Created new one with correct title.)
 * So, it looks like the title should now be TARDIS Index File. Angela 07:25, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Founder here. When I posted announcements about the site to some of the Doctor Who newsgroups and discussion forums, a few people asked if the correct name for the database shouldn't be "Index File," since that's what Tegan and Nyssa were looking for when they got the screen reading, "TARDIS Information System - Ready for Entry" to come up. I decided either term would be correct, but "TARDIS Index File" would be a much less cumbersome one. My apologies for not announcing this change beforehand. So, yes, the name is now TARDIS Index File. That said, if you come across a page I missed, which still gives the site name as TARDIS Information System, please feel free to change it. Thanks. --Freethinker1of1 12:34, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)


 * Fair enough! --Josiah Rowe 17:23, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

So what we see is that Freethinker1of1 — who incidentally was not the wiki's founder despite his claim — gave the wiki the name "Tardis Index File":
 * after having called the wiki, properly, the "Tardis Information System"
 * based on the mistaken notion that "Tardis Information System" was a synonym for "Tardis Index File"
 * capriciously, and without even telling his own admin
 * unilaterally
 * well prior to the 2007 DVD release of Castrovalva, which obviously allows for a more careful understanding of the script
 * despite the objection that he must have seen at the talk page of the in-universe "not-quite-namesake", by someone he later made an admin

In other words, there is precedence on this wiki for admins just makin' the name up and moving on. It's important to understand that this is the first time that we've ever discussed the appropriateness of the name in what might be considered "the full light of day".

Now let's fast forward to 2008, where other practical parts of the name were decided.

The "SEO name" (which actually is "Doctor Who Wiki" or doctorwho.wikia.com) was actually decided by Toughpigs. He notified us of the change, but basically it was Wikia-imposed for good technical reasons.

Similarly, nothing abut our MediaWiki:Pagetitle was really up for significant discussion. It was directly changed by both Kirkburn and Toughpigs and stood that way until 2010. It was only then that it was revised by Tangerineduel following any sort of genuine community discussion. In other words, there was direct Wikia intervention to incorporate the phrase "Doctor Who Wiki" — the very name that some in this thread regard as mundane — onto our pages, resulting in the unwieldy "Tardis Index File, the Doctor Who Wiki".

Thus, Freethinker1of1's original reason for changing to "Tardis Index File" — that it would be "less cumbersome" than "Tardis Information System" — was shot. Obviously, if we want to go less cumbersome, but still have a high Google ranking, what we want is, as I originally argued, Tardis, the Doctor Who Wiki. But there is no significant degree of svelteness to "Tardis Index File" over "Tardis Information System", which, to my mind, would mean that we should prefer the thing which is actually in Castrovalva, as opposed to the thing which some people on Usenet back in 2005 thought was in Castrovalva.

So clearly there is a tension between administrative will and community decision-making. A discussion which results in all responding admin being firmly on one side, while most other users aren't is somewhat tricky. Admin have a responsibility to consider the wiki's best interests, while community members can sometimes be swayed by simply what seems cool.

What I think I've not heard so far from this discussion is a solid reason to keep Tardis Index File — despite Shambala108's best attempt. The principle arguments have seemingly been based on nostalgia.

The way I see it, there is no consensus to change in this discussion, but neither is there a consensus to keep. There is simply no consensus. In wiki discussions, that generally results in no change, but it also results in dissatisfaction and subsequent debates.

What I'm looking for are good, solid, practical reasons why:
 * we need more than just "Tardis"
 * should it be something which is not only unsupported by narrative but also makes no literal sense (i.e., this is a databank, not merely the index file of the databank)
 * it has to be based on something seen in Castrovalva

What I want is a clear victory for a name, so that we can say, "this name has been decided by the community", and for that statement to be unambiguously true. The current state of this discussion does not allow for that eventuality.