Forum:Worlds In Time not valid... Why?

Okay, look, I've been over this a billion times... And once again we seem to be leaning towards (Or rather pushed towards) this strange idea... Worlds in Time is not a valid source- indeed not even worth creating pages under... Why. Why. Is it a roleplaying game? NOT REALLY, IT'S BASICALLY JUST A GAME WHERE YOU DECIDE ON YOUR FACE. WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE DOES NOT AFFECT THE NARRATIVE. THE PLOT IS SET IN STONE, EACH PLANET IS A NEW LEVEL, AND EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME, IF NOT OUT OF ORDER. WHY WOULD THAT MATTER? AT ALL?

The simple fact is that we made the NO ROLEPLAYING GAMES rules because of the sharply different play outs, and that is a problem that WIT does not have. Worlds in Time has ONE story to play through. It has ONE plot threat and ONE easy-to-write plot. The reason we're not covering it is because some people appear to think that it would be hard to cover when it wouldn't be. I have not seen ONE legit reason why we shouldn't count worlds in time. All I ever get is mumbo-jumbo about IMS and chat. WHY DOES THAT MATTER. What does it matter if there is a small white box where I type stuff? How does that affect the narrative? The characters don't react to what you say, and what you type only affects if you get blocked or not, so why does that matter? Basically, someone took the sentence "This will be tricky to cover" and turned it into "This is IMPOSSIBLE TO COVER!!!!!!"

Basically, we should definitely cover this. DEFINITELY. How? easy. We cover it all in a way that is ver ambiguous. Before you choose the person's name or face, we meet them in the shadows, and thus they aren't "fan made", their "fan designed after introduction." Then we can create it a page called "[Companion (Worlds in Time)]" and add info not revealing anything about the person's name, face, or species and then put all info in the Behind the Scenes section. And why not? That's a simple solution to a simple solution. And why not? Instead, we seem to have jumped right to "Nope, impossible to cover because it has chat."

0o ~

Then we could add info to other pages saying stuff like "... Was invaded by Zygons. The Eleventh Doctor's [Companion (Worlds in Time)|companion(s)] stopped them however..." (I left out a lot of info because I don't know a lot) What is wrong with that? Why do we have to jump on the NDWU wagon so quickly before even looking around? This is crazy and needs to be fixed. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 00:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Haven't we had this discussion at length at Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time? --Tangerineduel / talk 02:16, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't that end abruptly with little to no conclusion? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:07, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It ended at an incredibly leisurely pace with you saying on 2 April 2012, "But at this point, I think marking WIT as Nc would not be the end of the world."  So, I've marked it as  over six months later and you're screaming in all caps about it.  You can't have it both ways.  You agreed to it not being a valid source.   03:14: Wed 31 Oct 2012


 * Hm... I do recall saying that, but I think it was just because I was tired of it all. Look, I just don't understand what the problem is, what is wrong with this story? It... It's just an online video game where you get to use chat and change your face, it's not that much of an issue... And even if I didn't have a proplem with you adding the tag on the page, why not allow it al all? Why delete every page created for the game instead of adding the template-formally-known as-"nc" and letting it stay? I don't understand the sudden outlaw of any info from the game? Also I thought your "why we don't cover it" paragraph was out of place. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:38, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly "sudden". That thread was left active from early April to late August before being archived. You got the last word on the discussion and your last word was "yeah, okay, it's notdwu".  There was plenty of time for additional comment, and none was forthcoming.  In the end, the only thing left somewhat open was what to do about FYF/DYD stuff, so another thread was later opened about that specific aspect of the discussion.  That discussion had no significant opposition to the notion of WIT as an invalid source.


 * The decision to delete articles related to WIT was a simple one. If players experience various characters in different ways, even if subtly so, it's more trouble than it's worth to write an article about them.  Moreover — and this is the real kicker — there's another wiki for that.  WITpedia is a great wiki.  It's well-developed and well-maintained.  Our coverage of this subject will always be hopelessly behind theirs, because WIT is all they do.  In the end, it's much more helpful to our readers to say "go to the official wiki" than for us to try to cover something we've agreed by consensus discussion isn't a part of the DWU.


 * Put most simply, this is the DWU wiki and that is the WIT wiki. We're simply covering different things.


 * Now, it is true that we do sometimes allow for articles about characters from non-DWU stories. We've got articles for Thirteenth Doctor (The Curse of Fatal Death) and Susan (Dr. Who and the Daleks), for instance.  But in these cases, the narrative is singular and there's not really another wiki out there that can do the job.  If there were a "Dalek movie" wiki, I'd push all our content over there, just like we pushed all our Faction Paradox info and most of our BBV stuff onto other wikis.   03:52: Wed 31 Oct 2012


 * Yeah, alright. I see your point. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:31, November 4, 2012 (UTC)