Talk:FindTheDoctor (series)

Recent promo image
A recent promo image released 16 August shows the cast standing in front of a graffitied brick wall, with a series of numbers (53.38038, -1.45899) including a highlighted number 5. Not sure if it's part of this or not. Perhaps it should be added to the notes section? 66 Seconds ☎  15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing here is that the promo picture is a big spoiler, not that I think anyone doesn’t know it at this point (but rules), and it doesn’t include the hashtag #FindTheDoctor. No one searching for clues has yet been to the location that it leads to, so we can’t really say anything for certain. The biggest pro is that this number is digitally added on the picture itself. The biggest con is that there has yet to be found the aforementioned hashtag. —-Danniesen ☎  17:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Update on this… it has been revealed that the numbers on the promo image, while containing nothing on the actual location in real life, if you go to the location on Google Maps and look in the photos section, you’ll see the TARDIS with “FIND ME 14/7” graffiti on it. This clue leads to a post the Doctor Who accounts posted of the Doctor reading a paper strip with a Morse code on it. This Morse code was supposed to lead the the Liverpool Gallery with the painting. So, a couple of steps were skipped by chance. The letters are E and G. —-Danniesen ☎  05:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Presentation of this page
I have a few things to say about the presentation of this page. Firstly, this is an ongoing "series" of sorts, so it absolutely does need a spoiler template. See: Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed, "Series articles must carry at the top of the the article, until that series has been completely released."

Secondly, I think a table, at least the current table, is not a good way of presenting the information. It contains too many redundant columns that would be better expanded upon in writing. A table would also require us to use some arbitrary title for each clue, when often none are available. This sort of thing is best described in paragraph form, but perhaps with a table as a summary.

Finally, not every clue needs its own page. We do not need a page for a photo uploaded to Google Maps or to Instagram. Placing these photos in a gallery at the bottom of this page would be a much more reasonably (and more reader-friendly) way to present this information that is not all over the place under several different pages. Danochy ☎  09:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the dab term series at the top, in relation to the spoilery information you want on here, it was a loose agreement made by a couple of users, admins included, to call it a series as there wasn’t really a clear consensus on whether it was actually needed. It should be noted that it was unspoilery before the change.


 * To expand on that in the second argument you put, a series page, in any of our cases, in itself does not contain heavy information on each chapter. That is reserved for the articles on which the particular part is based on. The series page itself would only contain a minor description of the particular part, with a link leading to that part. Whether that should be constructed as a table is still debatable.


 * As for your argument about not every clue needing a page, I will point you to the pictures RTD himself put on Instagram back in Lockdown days. These were literally just one-frame pictures that were agreed on this wiki to be valid articles. They were even given titles based upon a sentence or similar. Basically, they ARE different entries. —-Danniesen ☎  10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The RTD cartoons were very contentious, but, and this is key, the rationale for their having pages was that they were narrative — that they were comic stories in their own right, like newspaper cartoons, albeit very short ones. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel most of the individual entries should receive pages but not all.
 * The website works fine here and as it doesn't have any citeable information for in-universe articles it would receive no benefit from having a page.
 * A message from Yaz is clearly narrative and should therefore receive a page as a valid source.
 * I feel the Google Maps reviews would work well as a (serialised?) short story, receiving a page as a valid source called John Smith (short story) (this name doesn't seem the best but there isn't anything else that I could think of that was better). The image would therefore be an illustration to those reviews.
 * The Morse code Instagram post isn't narrative at all in my opinion but should perhaps receive a page as a non-narrative, invalid feature titled What’s the Doctor reading? (feature). I feel this is heavily debatable however. There is potential for it to maybe be citeable in a BTS section some page but there really isn't much information that could be given on the page.
 * La Boîte Bleue works well as a short story like it already is. I definitely feel it has a narrative, especially when considering the opening paragraph on the website.
 * I feel Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209 also works well as it is currently presented. There is no narrative present in my opinion and it does work well as a non-narrative, invalid feature as it introduces in-universe information.
 * As for future entries, I feel they'll need to be handled as we get to them. There is no point deciding a blanket rule for everything as this is clearly more nuanced.
 * These are just my opinions though so what does everyone else feel? Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As a side note, having separate pages would help with navigation in infoboxes, as well as any relevant navboxes. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  11:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Deeper discussion of validity
Owing to its nature at the border between the real world and the fictional, this topic is in desperate need of a proper discussion of the validity of the items involved. What we have so far can be divided into four categories:

Promotional material

 * 1) /mystery website
 * 2) Promotional image for next series
 * 3) What's the Doctor reading

Set within the DWU

 * 1) WC: A message from Yaz

Real world and DWU intertwined

 * 1) John Smith's Google Maps reviews - DWU reviews on Google Maps
 * 2) La Boîte Bleue - DWU painting at Liverpool Art Museum
 * 3) Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209 - DWU item at the Science Museum
 * 4) An almost complete mystery - DWU item at the Natural History Museum

No link to the DWU

 * 1) Mary Shelley - A pre-existing Mary Shelley biography which was slightly altered to tie into the event

Clearly promotional items and those with no DWU link have no business being valid; and obviously A message from Yaz must be valid. What remains is those three exhibits plus the Google Maps reviews. Upon inspection of T:VS, these four all seem to fall short of the very first rule of the "four little rules":


 * Rule 1: Only stories count
 * Rule 1 may seem redundant or just plain unnecessary. It's not. There are a lot of things about the DWU that aren't, in themselves, narratives. Most obviously, the thoughts of someone on the production team shouldn't be used to write an in-universe article, and this is the main situation Rule 1 was created to prevent.


 * ''But there are plenty of other disqualified circumstances under Rule 1. Sometimes you'll find a prose piece in a magazine or annual that describes in-universe locations or technology; it may even be written as if it's "real life" journalism from the DWU. Or you may encounter a game in an annual which sets up the puzzle by having the Doctor or his companion "telling" you the rules. Or there may be information about a DWU character on the back of a playing card or in the packaging on a toy. There are even entire books that contain fictional, but non-narrative, content. None of this counts on this Wiki.

''

I've bolded the relevant parts. First of all, the Google Map Reviews clearly do not entail a story. Reviews are not narrative. Sure, reviews could be used to tell a narrative, but that is not what's occurring in this case. All we see here are an assortment of references to various television stories in the form of reviews of those places.

The other three come under "real life DWU journalism". The sonic at the Science Museum has already been determined as invalid for this reason. The painting and NHM piece of amber have slightly more descriptive pages accompanying them, however they are still just descriptions of DWU paraphernalia, which rule 1 explicitly prohibits. Danochy ☎  06:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, concerning that last bit, @Danochy; the sentence you bold is only to invalidate things such as can be found in Category:Non-DWU features (that is to say, "in-universe DWU journalism" that isn't actually narrative). Once events are being described, then whatever the framing device, you have a story on your hands


 * Hence, the blurb of the "Unknown object" at the Science Museum is not narrative just because it's in-universe; but La Boîte Bleue can very well be argued to have enough of a narrative to be counted as a short story, as I originally took it. This isn't to say I can't have been wrong in that specific determination (I'm open to discussing it), just clarifying the general principle.


 * Admirable effort, though, on the whole! Scrooge MacDuck ☎  07:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my point. These are non-narrative; all three are just descriptions of the relevant exhibits. Danochy ☎  11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that these articles don't have narratives:
 * No-one's debating that A message from Yaz isn't narrative but I've listed it here for completeness.
 * John Smith's Google Maps reviews, in my opinion, tells the story of The Doctor visiting a variety of locations. Maybe that's pushing the definition of story a bit, although I would definitely call it flash fiction. I created it with the valid TARDIS Trip Reviewer short story from the Doctor Who The Official Annual 2021 and the similarly valid Martha Jones' MySpace blog short story in mind.
 * La Boîte Bleue, in my opinion, tells the story of the Walker Art Gallery acquiring the painting, La Boîte Bleue, and trying to figure out what it is by consulting with experts. I would argue that there is definitely a narrative here.
 * Mary Shelley definitely tells the story of Mary Shelley's life. While I would not argue that it is definitely DWU, I feel it deserves an invalid page as a short story that forms part of a wider event.


 * Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209 and An almost complete mystery don't, in my opinion, tell a story. An almost complete mystery is, in my opinion, a bit closer then Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209, but I'm not sure if it quite crosses the line. They should both probably have pages as non-narrative, invalid, features though.


 * Otherwise, I do not think that the website, promotional image or Instagram post are deserving of a page as a story or non-narrative feature, invalid or otherwise. However, I would argue that they should all have a page for the sole reason of making the navigation section of infoboxes actually fully useful. If they all have pages, someone could use that navigation section to work through the entire arg. These 3 item's pages probably shouldn't be structured as a story or a feature but rather a standard real world page, presenting purely real world information.


 * Anyway, that's just my opinion. What does anyone else think? Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  12:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the in-depth response. First I'll talk about pages for clues, then I'll discuss the potential narratives.


 * I'd always thought that the best way to do this would be to present all clue-related information on FindTheDoctor (series), while items which make up everything else in the promotion (i.e. webcasts, exhibitions, etc.) would get pages for their Doctor Who-related aspects. That's why I opposed pages for the Instagram post (the only thing of interest is the clue) and Mary Shelley (the biography is unrelated to Doctor Who). That said, if we were to also have individual pages for clues for those types of clues, as you suggest, I would be fine with that too. As long as those pages focus on the clue, and don't relay everything about Mary Shelley's biography onto the page...


 * Now, onto your arguments regarding narratives:
 * John Smith's Google Maps reviews probably has the best case for being narrative, but I do not think it is. You're right that it could be interpreted as a story of the Doctor's travels, but I do not think it was ever meant that way. What we do know is that it was written with the intention that clue-finders would stumble upon it and find a series of fun Doctor Who references. What I do not think is that it was written with the intention of telling a story of any sort.
 * La Boîte Bleue is a painting, and in my opinion, the page should be about the exhibition of said painting. The accompanying prose is, again, not trying to tell the story of how the painting was discovered. Its primary goal is to describe said painting.


 * Whether validity rules should be changed to include these sort of items is one thing (for discussion elsewhere), but changing the focus of the article in order to allow it to be valid is, in my opinion, disingenuous and does a disservice to the wiki's readers. Danochy ☎  00:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I still disagree that the 2 things in question should be considered non-narrative. I see where you're coming from, but I disagree (my rational for this, if you're interested, is that, firstly, anything that could be considered narrative should be in my opinion and, secondly, I feel that the painting's description is the main thing and that the actual painting is an illustration to it. Therefore, the page should be about the prose). Therefore, I feel that we may need some contributions from other editors in order to reach a consensus here. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  06:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm too tired to go into go very in-depth at the moment, but here are my opinions on what I consider valid:


 * A message from Yaz is the only one I think deserves a page let alone validity status. This whole thing is more of a promotional event than a series, and I don't think it really needs pages for every clue when they could easily be added to this page. Just convert the "Clues" section into more detailed paragraphs with subheadings for each clue (including a section for all the random ones from the Doctor who website), add one or two pictures for each clue into the corresponding sections, and get rid of the galleries (or alternatively, don't add any pictures to clue descriptions and instead put all the pictures into one gallery at the end of the article, with short captions for each one). LauraBatham ☎  11:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay so it turns out I must not be that tired seeing as I decided to try my hand at making a sandbox for my prosed version of this page (it's not finished yet but I'll share it when I'm done) and have discovered that the clues in the second gallery that I thought were "random ones from the Doctor Who website" were actually the clue from the email which led to the Mary Shelly biography, so sorry if that confused anybody. However, I would like to use my mistake to highlight why the page needs an overhaul. LauraBatham ☎  12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is a sandbox (my first ever, yay!) depicting my proposal for the page (or at least the first, gallery-less one anyway). It's a rough draft and would probably need work but I did my best to include as much of Danniesen's (and other users') work as possible. LauraBatham ☎  14:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that any of these pages (except maybe What's the Doctor reading) should be deleted. Even if they're not narrative and, as such, valid, they should still have pages as non-narrative (maybe non-DWU but that's probably deserving of a later discussion), invalid, features that can be cited on articles or the behind the scenes sections of valid pages. Furthermore, I would still argue that most do have narratives and should be valid (as per my previous messages). Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500)  ☎  15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I'm less set on the deletion of pages than Laura, I strongly agree with most of what she says. Furthermore, the sandbox is a huge improvement on the current article and makes the whole thing much easier to follow than it currently is, where you have to flit between FindTheDoctor (series) and the various pages about the clues to get a proper idea about what's going on. Expanding on what I've said already, I do think the individual Doctor Who-related items should have real world pages about them, if only to properly describe and discuss each item outside of the context of the clue it provides (and for citations as Bongo suggests). Danochy ☎  23:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My desire to delete these pages comes from my belief that this isn't a series as the current name suggests, it's just one event. But if we are going to keep this as a series, then I'm not going to make too much of a fuss if the pages stay. The only ones I feel too strongly about are the Instagram post and the Mary Shelley biography, I think they should be deleted regardless. However, I do agree that the pages should be invalid, as per their promotional nature, even if they do have a narrative.


 * Whatever we decided to do, I do stick to my sandbox proposal though (or something similar). If we keep the other pages, we could always shorten a couple of the sections so that we aren't doubling up on too much information. LauraBatham ☎  01:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh definitely. I did remove the term "series" from the lead when I tried re-working this page a while ago, but you're right that we should stop treating it as such across the wiki as a whole. Perhaps FindTheDoctor (game) would be a better title for this page? Or just FindTheDoctor (no dab term necessary)? I'm also not too bothered on the existence/non-existence of the exhibition pages, but as long as they're not treated as stories or part of a "series", then I can see some merit in having them. Also on the topic of the Insta post and Mary Shelley, we're in 100% agreement there. Danochy ☎  02:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that "FindTheDoctor (game)" seems like a more appropriate dab term, seeing as it's basically one big scavenger hunt. I don't know if it necessarily needs a dab term, but it may make it easier for users who are unfamiliar with it. LauraBatham ☎  02:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with (game) is that it doesn't really leave room for the separate instalments, which are, in my opinion, very clearly separate installments fitted into one larger series arc, to have pages. I feel (series) is a lot more descriptive of the event. Or perhaps we could try a dab like (event) or (ARG)? It may not be othordox but this ARG isn't really like anything else we've covered before. This really needs a forum thread (grumble) or something with more editors involved. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  06:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree that these are separate installments of a series, as I fail to see an overall narrative (though that may become clearer after the game is over). ARG would be a good dab term, but I think you are right about that being a forums thing (and I second that "grumble"). 08:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel that the overall narrative is that the Doctor is lost and that clues have been left to help find them (which forms most of thr individual instalments). Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So A Message from the Doctor is the end game, creating a narrative of Yaz leaving a message for the Doctor, who later replies by also leaving a voice message. But I don't really see how the clues are part of that narrative. They really do seem more like tools for the game rather than parts of a series. LauraBatham ☎  13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's quite clear that we have this interactive real world aspect (with Doctor Who elements) which is purely a way of finding the Doctor's reply to Yaz's original message. The in-universe webcasts are completely separate, narratively, from the out of universe clue-finding hunt which, as you say, are really just components of this ARG. Danochy ☎  15:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I still argue that some other entries are still stories and, even if they're not, they should definitely still receive pages in my opinion because they are licensed tie-ins to something we cover. I have made my points as to what I feel should be valid and why and they have not changed, even if there is no overall narrative. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Google Maps reviews: Let's not forget that Defending the Earth was deemed invalid and all those Doctor sightings can't be used as valid sources. Those come closer to narrative than these reviews (in my opinion). 19:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

One from yesterday
Just noting this one that has also been uncovered by fans here; [Link removed as per Tardis:Video policy]. Thought best to put here on the Talk page until someone can figure out where it sits relative to today's /message one (and actually how you were meant to get to this one) JDPManjoume ☎  12:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good find, but remember that per our video policy, we are not to link to off-site videos directly. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  12:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, my apologies! Looking at social media, it seems that the video is the end... but that there's possibly some shenanigans going on as to how it's been found. People apparently skipped the last three clues by looking at the website source code. Unfortunate. Hoping a website reports on it, as it would be nice to have a citeable source get to the bottom of what's happening here. JDPManjoume ☎  13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, the password was accidently inserted into the page's code early, allowing people to access the prizes before the final 3 letters had been found. This information is from a Discord server, so not the most reliable and definitely not citeable but I'm also pretty certain that it's correct. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  17:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)