User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-24894325-20170122203826

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-24894325-20170122203826 Not a tangent at all. A valid contribution regarding the current state of FPEntry and how timeships from FP are being integrated with TARDISes.

It appears that we're seeing a clash of cultures: editors from FP successfully used authorial intent to make FP a valid source. But now they are using it in in-universe articles outside of BHS, which is against the policy of this Wiki.

On this Wiki, after a year of discussions we still can't call Osgood "Petronella". And we certainly cannot claim her to be the daughter of Tom Osgood, despite a clear statement of Moffat that he meant it and various hints here and there. So it is certainly not okay to use mass speculation to equate all elements of FP "intended" to represent DW to those elements.

I am, frankly, a bit dismayed at the situation. Perhaps, it requires more admin management than initially anticipated (or, perhaps, CzechOut actually anticipated it all too well). On the one hand, we have eager editors rightfully wishing to capitalise on their win of validity, but not necessarily well acquainted with all the policies here (as evidenced by NateBumber not knowing that editing is not allowed until the discussion is closed by an admin). On the other hand, there are editors like me who suddenly learn that TARDIS has a sister and are unable to receive a shred of in-universe evidence of that. The former probably feel that the still open discussions impede their progress. And the the latter seem to be getting distrustful of these new changes. I certainly am.

Thus, my request to the admins. Would it be possible, as a courtesy to FPers, to close those relevant threads that actually have been agreed upon? I was not part of that discussion, but if some induction agreement was brokered with NateBumber and other FPers, could it be written into our policies? I keep looking at his list, which itself is on a still open thread, and am becoming wary of this list being controlled by just one person and hosted outside of this wiki, with no possibility of viewing the history of changes. Could this list (or uncontroversial parts thereof) be codified into the policies of this wiki? That would prevent many discussions such as this and Thread:208475.

At this point, as an ordinary user, not involved in FP, it is hard for me to figure out what has been established already. My repeated requests for in-universe evidence have so far been ignored. And this discussion does not fill me with confidence that the FP editors are successfully avoiding overreaching.