User:Najawin/Sandbox 1

So it seems that we're waiting on opening posts for topics in the opening forums. As such, I'm taking the liberty to write up those that I'm somewhat acquainted with.

=IU DAB Terms: Ready=

Opening Post
A spectre is haunting this wiki - the spectre of Doctor Who (N-Space).

There was substantial discussion on how to handle the in-universe iteration of the Doctor Who franchise in the now hidden forums. At first the page was dabbed using The Thief of Sherwood, but the situation was always complicated, as Remembrance of the Daleks had an allusion to the show, and earlier works began to pop up as the thread went on. (In addition, it came to light that Thief was intended to be in a completely separate universe as well.) In the end, due to this nuance, (and, I believe, the fact that the earliest story known at the time to reference the in-universe franchise also had a dab term, making the thing clunky) it was decided that T:DAB OTHER would be applied to the situation, in a... creative interpretation of this policy. Since then, as shows, the situation has become more and more convoluted, we've (mainly Epsilon, but others as well) discovered a wealth of information relating to in-universe analogues of the real world franchise or people involved with it. I think it's time we reconsider.

Aside from Doctor Who (N-Space) these pages are dabbed through a hodgepodge of various rules, sometimes not having dab terms at all (Bbcdoctorwho), sometimes being dabbed through the story they first appear in (The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation)), and sometimes through other means entirely (Give-a-show Projector (device)).

Is it plausible to go backwards? Can we return to this patchwork system of dab rules for the franchise in its entirety, and call it Doctor Who (Story Name)? Well, the first instance I could find of the franchise appearing in the DWU, at least on this wiki, is TV Terrors (TVC 709 comic story). If we consider this a parody, the second is Lady Penelope Investigates the stars of the Sensational new film Dr. Who and the Daleks! (short story). And I believe the first unambiguous DWU reference (that is, you can't quibble that it's a parody, you can't argue that it's TV Century 21 which some (wrong) people might take umbrage to) to the franchise is A Letter from the Doctor (DWM 1 short story). Of these three options, two have dab terms themselves. So this won't work.

Alright. We can't go backwards. Does staying still cause problems? Yes. A patchwork, inconsistent system is inherently a problem. But even if we ignore that, see the discussions at Talk:Give-a-show Projector (device), and Talk:The Woman Who Lived (The Zygon Isolation), two criticisms have been leveled at our current situation, that the current dab term framework makes in-universe counterparts harder to find (and, yes, Epsilon's template has made this less of an issue, but ideally it would be nice to make them easily searchable as well as having a navbox), and that for some of our undabbed in-universe counterparts there's some inherent level of confusion between them and their real world counterparts. (Against Nature, TARDIS Wiki, BBC iPlayer, etc)

So. Backwards is out. Staying still has problems. How do we proceed? A single unified dab term. But there are at least two open questions.

1. What is this dab term? Currently we're using (N-Space) on the franchise page, and there's been some suggestion that it will be the single unified dab term. Since we're here to define an entirely new dabbing policy, I'm not wedded to this idea. I would accept (N-Space) if others were set on it, but I think the better option is just to move everything over to (In Universe), and this is what I support. I think this dab term is simpler for the average user to understand, and is easier to search. The only reason to use (N-Space) was to apply T:DAB OTHER, which isn't necessary if we're defining new policy, or for sentimental reasons, given that we've lived with it for almost 3 years.

2. What is the scope of the dab term? This may seem like a trivial question, but it's not. Are we concerned with things related to the in-universe counterpart of the DW franchise, in-universe counterparts of things related to the DW franchise, or the intersection of the two? I think the first is clearly out, if something is stated to be related to DW (IU) but has no real world counterpart, there's no clear reason to dab it. The second might be doable, but it seems... questionable. Notable problems with this line of thought are Niki (For the Girl Who Has Everything), Antonio Amaral (Omega), and Vitas Varnas (Omega), (yes, those last two are only very tangentially related to the real world DW franchise, being backers of Omega, but technically they would qualify). I think the third is the most viable, but it does run into some issues when we consider that the in universe versions of Faction Paradox, etc, haven't been explicitly stated to be related to the in universe version of DW, so we have to do a little bit of sleight of hand to make everything work.

I think pursuing this reform of our massively convoluted approach to the in-universe franchise, a T:DAB IU, if you will, will benefit both editors and readers, in providing a unified approach to the subject that has frustrated many of us for years, and removes confusion that the average reader might experience. Najawin ☎  17:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
=T:BOUND Reform: Ready=

Opening Post
So for quite some time it has been the semiofficial stance of this wiki that T:BOUND implies some additional policy, something vaguely related to people "being bound by the way we currently do things". This informal broadening of the policy has never been precisely fleshed out, but has been alluded to quite a few times in admin decisions, including those that have had substantial discussion on the very nature of "community consensus" or T:BOUND itself. See, for instance, User talk:Shambala108 and Talk:Hugh Grant.

It's been suggested in the past that our rules can be difficult for new users to learn, and this is certainly the case. But having a rule that simply isn't written down and only exists due to self justification, the ultimate bootstrap paradox of a rule, makes this situation even more frustrating for new editors. It's important that we codify this policy formally into our rules in order to make things more accessible for new users. As stated at Tardis talk:You are bound by current policy, it's not immediately obvious that a forum thread is needed for this, but I think it's reasonable to have one in order to hammer out the precise wording.

Two years ago it was stated that


 * it makes sense to have a policy that says "even if the current setup isn't codified by a specific policy, you shouldn't, on a whim, try and implement a change that would have ramifications on thousands of pages without starting a discussion".

And I think this is the correct approach to take. In the main body of the rule, that is the section with three paragraphs, I suggest that we add a fourth, between what is currently the second and third paragraphs. The current wording I'm floating is the following:


 * As a corollary, "policy" doesn't just apply to those decisions that have been officially enshrined through discussion, but also refers to operating procedures that apply to multiple pages over large periods of time with the express knowledge of admins, even if these procedures technically contradict the results of a previous forum decision. Do not make large scale changes to the wiki without opening a discussion about these changes first.

But obviously the purpose of this thread is to workshop the wording. With that said, given the nuances of the issue, I would like to bring up another option. Separating this policy from T:BOUND entirely. I'm not sure this is the right path forward, and historically it's not what we've done. But it's certainly an option I think we should consider in this thread.

Discussion
=T:NAVBOX: WIP=

=Conflict of Interest Rules: WIP=

Opening Post
Look, I'll be honest, this issue is a headache, and I'm not proud of my behavior in what led to the discussion of reframing our conflict of interest rules. (I'm sure other people might not care, and User:Shambala108 has assured me it's not a big deal, but I'm really not comfortable and don't wish to recount it.) If someone really cares to look, it's all available through the edit history at Russell McGee, my talk page, Shambala's and User:OncomingStorm12th's.

The tl;dr is that an author was editing his own page, and after it was pointed out to him that this was against the rules, his wife did so for him, both first adapting a Goodreads bio written by the author, and then later using a new bio that was written by a frequent collaborator of his, effectively trying to use the page for self promotion. (Quite frankly, I think the page is still too florid on his charity anthology work + schooling, but w/e.)

Now, look, obviously most authors aren't out here doing this. But it's an edge case in the rules that we might want to clean up. I don't have a super clear policy proposal to start the thread with, there's a variety of directions this can go. Maybe we don't need to fix this! But at the very least I think it's worth talking about.

The most obvious question is "how close is too close?" Like, sure, TBotP is down on my list (though with Nate's vagueposting that might change...), but I'm probably still going to be the one who writes the summary of Nate's short stories. Is that forbidden? By the very nature of who they are, there are some DWU authors whose stories might never get covered if we apply this policy a little too broadly. (So, for instance, I think "acquaintances" is instantly disqualified as a metric. Simply knowing a person does not disqualify you from writing about them.) Maybe no policy is workable. But I think we can at least try to figure it out. Najawin ☎  05:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
=Quickstart Guides: WIP=

=Validity: Biographies of Authors: WIP=

=Invalidity: Curse of Fatal Death: WIP=