User talk:Victory93

Welcome to my talk page.

Captain Adelaide Brooke Card
Please could you tell me the location of this collectable in City of the Daleks please as it's the final one that I need to collect? Dsrwade23 11:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Unmade
Hi. What's wrong with using the template:Nc template? Rather than unmade? It's certainly a lot less...imposing than a huge banner (usually that size is reserved for cleanup style things that get removed later). --Tangerineduel 13:59, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the unmade for the nc template especially after looking at the unmade template under the new wiki skin that's rolling out, the combination of the large tag, bolded font, fixed width of the page, just means that the tag is a little too big for what it's trying to say. The NC one has practically the same point, the 'unproduced' element of the pages is usually communicated in the first paragraph in any case. --Tangerineduel 16:32, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Return to Varnax isn't canon, the use of Varnax in The Infinity Doctors and where ever else makes the name "Varnax" and its description of it in The Infinity Doctors canon. But it doesn't make the unmade work canon.
 * Shada is a unique case in that the BBC released a video version somewhat completing/acknowledging it.
 * The best thing would be to note, within the articles that ideas, concepts or whatever has been worked into later works which are within canon. But I don't think a template is the way to do this. For example Varnax cites canon sources, whilst noting within the behind the scenes section that it was to have featured in an unmade movie in the '90s. --Tangerineduel 12:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Shada was made into something released and sanctioned by the BBC, in being released by the BBC it's completed sort of and therefore canon.
 * The issue is that those stories that template on aren't canon. The concepts used for example Varnax are canon because of their use in the canon sources. Because they're mentioned in an unmade source doesn't make that unmade source canon.
 * The small text underneath should be worked into the article, not placed within a template.
 * The stories which are listed are unmade, and therefore aren't linked to anything in universe (because those in universe things would link to the canon reference). So there doesn't need to be a tag informing users of that. The articles themselves need to inform people. There is sometimes a case of too many tags on an article. --Tangerineduel 12:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a little unsatisfactory to use Nc for unproduced stories, because they never even got to a stage where their validity could be established. It is a different thing to be "non-canonical" than it is to be "unproduced", particularly in terms of intent.  Most stories with the nc tag were never intended to be a part of the DWU.  Most unproduced stories, by contrast, were absolutely meant to be a part of the DWU, but they just never got made.  At the end of the day, the two types of story have the same effect — we can't really talk about them in in-universe articles — but for very different reasons.  Therefore, I've created and emplaced unprod.  Following on user:Tangerineduel's concerns, though, it's done in exactly the same style as other top-of-page templates and its language obviates the need to use either real world and nc, both of which are partially applicable to unmade stories. Thanks for the suggestion, even if it was a year old!  17:17: Mon 10 Oct 2011

Dalekese
It is a trusim of wiki administration that there are far more people creating articles than there are administrators to police them. Thus, you will always find examples on the wiki of things that "aren't right" according to the site's rules or even just plain common sense. The fact that you can find articles which are based solely on information from secondary sources like reference works means more that we've just not got around to deleting it. It doesn't mean those articles should be allowed to stand.

The problem with Doctor Who reference works is that so many reference works are, frankly, crap. Unlike the Star Wars universe, where many reference works are actually used by writers and therefore "respected", many reference works in the DWU are aimed at younger fans, writers therefore don't treat them seriously, and thus information in them is quickly invalidated. A classic example is Jean-Marc Lofficier's assertion that Polly Wright's last name was Lopez. This came from Lofficier's own mishearing of a line in The Faceless Ones. So not only was it not actually Polly's last name, but the word "Lopez" never appeared in the serial! And there are many, many other examples — including, I'm afraid, "Dalekese". For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist in the DWU, because no writer has picked up on it.

So reference works can be used to supply secondary information, typically in a behind the scenes section, but they should never be the entire basis of an article.

I think you can briefly mention it in the behind the scenes section at Dalek, but by no means should you try to reproduce the vocabulary list. If you can find a reference to the existence of "Dalekese" in any narrative — and by that, I mean that the word Dalekese must appear in a story — then you may re-create the article and return the vocabulary list. Otherwise, it's really only worthy of a sentence or two at Dalek's behind the scenes section. 09:43: Sun 09 Oct 2011
 * By the way, if Dalekese is going to be anywhere, my guess is that it would be in a Dalek annual. I've recently been reading and writing about these.  I don't recall this word, but it has a very "Dalek annual"-y vibe to it.  I will be on the lookout for it, and if I do come across the word, you can rest assured that I will instantly resurrect your article in toto. In the meantime, I can eliminae some things for you.  It absolutely doesn't occur on screen in any canonical television episode.  I've never heard it in a BF Dalek play written by Nick Briggs, which leads me to believe he isn't a particular fan of the reference work from which you got your information. Given the amount of Dalek material he writes, that's a serious blow to the term's narrative credibility. So I think you're looking for a Dalek annual from the 1960s or 70s, or maybe a very early use of Daleks in an original novel.  Maybe John Peel might have done something with the term, as an obvious fan of Hartnell-era Daleks.  09:56: Sun 09 Oct 2011
 * It's not about whether the work is licensed or not. Obviously The Dalek Pocketbook and Space Travellers Guide is "official" in that sense.  It's about the fact that the BBC has never tightly controlled and edited the things that have gone out with its logo.  Reference works, even if they bear the BBC logo, are simply prone to error.  More to the point, though, this site is dedicated to cataloguing the narratives of the DWU.  RTD has speculated in a non-fiction part of the Doctor Who Annual 2006 that the first salvo of the Last Great Time War was Genesis of the Daleks.  But that's not in a narrative so it doesn't "count" for our purposes.  We can mention it in a behind the scenes section, but we can't flatly sate in the in-universe portion of an article that it is so.


 * You want this article in because you wrote it. I'd love for you to have it in, if you can find a narrative reference for it.  But the situation is no different from the examples you gave of Kaldor being misspelled Caldor. You're choosing to say that it's a "spelling error" or "continuity error" simply because you don't like that spelling, not because Robots of Death actually contradicts it.  I'm saying that must be ignored because it's from a non-narrative reference work.  That reason is a hell of a lot easier to administrate than treating Doctor Who: 100 Scariest Monsters on par with narrative elements.  If we treated reference works on an equal footing to narrative elements we'd have one HELL of a time sorting through a raging sea of bad information.  You make spelling errors seem like a dawdle, but spelling errors are amongst the biggest problems on a wiki.  Nothing matters quite as much, in fact, as the title you place on an article, because it's the article titles, and not the content, which really creates the spine of a wiki.


 * Believe me, I'm not trying to block you, in particular, from doing something cool on the wiki. Silcronian hasn't been "kept"; I've simply not run across that article.  It's now deleted.  Thanks for pointing it out.  If you see other articles like this, please let me know, as I will delete them just as swiftly as I did yours.


 * In terms of the practicalities of administering the wiki, we absolutely need to be able to prioritise the possible sources out there. Thus there are some things which are positively properly licensed which are nevertheless "inferior" information. If we allowed in Dalekese, we'd have to allow in Polly Lopez, Caldor, Wirrrn, and God knows what else.  And that's just not happening.  It's hard enough to justify using "Polly Wright", without also having to allow a redirect from Polly Lopez.


 * It's for our own sanity, really, that we've taken the stance here that narrative trumps everything else. Reference works can be used only in a supplementary fashion on in-universe articles.  Obviously reference works are written from a real world perspective, and thus aren't "in-universe".   Hope that clears things up.    10:53: Sun 09 Oct 2011


 * Your recent proposal is really just what you've been saying all along, but put into a new section on my talk page. You're really not grasping the administrative difficulties of what you suggest.  So I'll respond by repeating myself, too.


 * In-universe articles must only describe things that exist in the DWU. If a thing isn't present in any story, it doesn't exist in the DWU because the DWU is a narrative construct.  Dalekese doesn't exist in any story of which either you or I are aware.  Thus, it can't have an in-universe article written about it.  It's really that simple.


 * And I'm really sorry, but there is no compromise aside from that to be had here. There's so very much to write about which doesn't come close to this problematic area. I strongly urge you to make a note about Dalekese at the behind the scenes section of Dalek and just move on.


 * That's really all there is to it. But I'm concerned that you think this is all about a few minor errors in an ancient reference work. It's very important hat you understand this is not the case. Reference materials, especially from the classic series, are notoriously inaccurate.  It's not just about the tiny errors that have been mentioned in our discussion so far.  You're seriously underestimating the size and scope of the difficulties if you believe the problems with reference books are limited to just spelling errors.


 * In some cases, the whole perspective of some reference works is just wrong. Take for instance, Doctor Who: The TARDIS Inside Out.   It's ostensibly a book that gives JNT's views of the actors who have portrayed the Doctor, and, broadly, the DW phenomenon itself.  The thing is, none of it is really accurate.  It's not even an accurate reflection of his own views.  It's 100% fluff and spin.  It wouldn't be right to use his statements in this book about his relationship with Tom Baker without also giving other quotes from himself seen in other sources.  The book is virtually useless as a serious work of genuine scholarship, as it's JNT's obvious attempt at revisionist history, most of which can easily be disproved with a modicum of research into other works.


 * A more modern example of the same phenomenon is Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale. There are a number of in-universe things that are mentioned there.  Can we create an article on, say, the-companion-named-Penny-who-never-was?  No.  The fact that her existence was mentioned in an officially licensed book means nothing because she never made it into a narrative. The book is a treasure trove of behind-the-scenes info, obviously — but it's totally useless as a source for any in-universe information.  Because its perspective is that of a conversation between two people in e-mail, you're never quite sure how much of the in-universe information is trustworthy, and how much posturing, sarcasm, or irony.


 * Another example is The Doctor Who Technical Manual. Its blueprints regarding the Daleks and K9, just for a start, show things that simply cannot be squared with known functionalities or pre-existing blueprints that were actually included in narratives.  It's a jaw-droppingly awful piece of "scholarship", done by people who may not have actually seen that much DW.


 * An important point to realise about a lot of reference materials from the past is that the authors didn't have the advantage of home video, and they may not have even had meaningful access to the BBC archives. Most reference books really are riddled with errors simply because they were written before the existence of cheap home video.


 * Of course, we can't have a rule which says some reference materials are good, whereas others are crap. If we start down that route, we'll end up saying, "Well, I don't much like Paradise Towers, so I won't count that, either."  For administrative ease, the rule must be based upon an entire class of publication, not individual publications.


 * Nobody's saying you can't use the information you glean from a reference work. It's just that you can't base an article on only information from a reference work.  You can still talk about Dalekese on this site.  It just has to be done within the confines of a behind the scenes section because it has no narrative presence.


 * We can't possibly administrate a policy like you suggest. Is it really reasonable to ask an administrator to fact check an article on the basis of whether one source conflicts with another? Given that DW reference works are far more likely to be wrong than right, it is simply easier to consider them the opinions of the author, and therefore include information from them in behind the scenes sections.


 * Again, though, this is a very simple concept that doesn't really warrant the size of this conversation. This wiki is about the DWU.  The DWU is created by narrative alone.  If there is no narrative, then the thing can't be in the DWU.  If the thing isn't in the DWU, then you can't write an in-universe article about it.  If you can't write an in-universe article, then the only place for the information is within the bounds of a behind the scenes section.


 * Honestly, the underlying concept here is a matter of very simple logic, which doesn't allow for negotiation or exceptions.
 * 04:10: Mon 10 Oct 2011


 * Are you actually reading everything I'm taking the time to write? It's like you pick up on one tiny aspect of the total statement, but ignore the rest.  I explained, twice, in my last message alone, why reference works cannot be used as the sole source for narrative information.  That I gave a variety of examples to demonstrate the unreliability of reference works.  Some of those examples had to do with OOU matters, some with IU, but all demonstrated the general unreliability of DW reference works.


 * There is no argument which you can possibly construct which will allow the creation of in-universe articles using solely reference works. It's just not gonna happen.  Dalekese will not be an article unless you can find a narrative which mentions it.  Please turn your attention to other matters.
 * 05:13: Mon 10 Oct 2011


 * We simply can't go around dividing single works into parts that are valid sources and parts that aren't. They're either all in, or all out.  And, trust me, they're all out.  I'm also not prepared to countenance making up some list where we put the "good" reference books next to the "bad" ones.  Again, for ease of administrations, the whole class of books has to be treated the same, in order for policies to be communicated simply.


 * In your latest message, you speak of accepting parts of reference books written "from an in-universe perspective". It's not about perspective, really.  It's about actually being in-universe.  And again, if it's not a narrative, it's not in universe. Writing about the DWU is a very different thing from writing in the DWU.  Pages can only be started with information that comes from a DWU source.  That's an obvious fact.  I don't understand why you're trying so hard to get around it.


 * I am absolutely positive that no admin in the history of the wiki has ever given so much time to giving a simple deletion rationale. I've been more than generous with my time.  However, I must inform you that I do have other duties around here, and this is kinda gettin' in the way.  So let me be blunt.  Your reqeust is denied.  A reference work cannot be the only source of information about an in-universe subject.  I can't put it any more plainly than that.


 * I'm sorry if I've not been able to adequately explain that decision to your satisfaction, but I've given it one hell of an ol' college try.
 * 05:48: Mon 10 Oct 2011


 * There is a difference between in-universe and an in-universe perspective. We strive to write our articles around here from an in-universe perspective.  That doesn't make one word of what we write here a valid part of the DWU.  In-universe definitely, unambiguously, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt means narrative.  The two words are not divisible.  If something happened in-universe, it necessarily happened within a story, and only within a story.  It didn't happen in the pages of some tie-in encyclopedia.  As I've consistently maintaied in this discussion, the DWU is created entirely and solely through narrative. To have an in-universe article, like you were attempting at Dalekese, you need to have it referenced in an in-universe source, nor merely a source "written from an in-universe perspective".


 * The examples you give rather miss the point. You're not trying to create an article about Gallifrey from The Gallifrey Chronicles, nor of Leadworth from The Brilliant Book 2011, nor Skaro from The Dalek Pocketbook and Space Travellers Guide.  These topics all exist within the DWU and are not dependent upon info from one of those books to exist as a free-standing article.  Dalekese, by contrast, cannot be written at all without citing a reference work.  It's a totally different situation.


 * [By the way, it's not important to this discussion, but The Monster Files are obviously narrative. The narrative is pretty much all the same — Jack (or whoever) reads us a story about a monster from the archives.  But it's still a story that has exactly the same narrative structure of The Princess Bride and several episodes of I Love Lucy and The Cosby Show. It's a pretty well-worn structure which has one character telling the audience — sometimes represented by another, mostly silent character — a story. There's not much narrative in the framing structure; like a sandwich, it's all about the filling in the middle. ]


 * I think, somehow, you believe — despite what I've repeatedly said, above — that some portion of this is up for negotiation or debate. It's not.  You cannot create an in-universe article on this wiki based solely on a reference work.  That's all there is to it.  Please stop trying to find some loophole, cause there ain't one. The only place where your Dalekese information can currently go is in the behind-the-scenes section of Dalek, and then only briefly.  Another possibility is if you found a positive reference somewhere in a narrative to "Dalek language".  I can't think of one off hand, but you probably stand a better chance of finding the words "Dalek language" than the word "Dalekese".   13:26: Mon 10 Oct 2011


 * Um what the hell? Despite all of the time I've taken in responding to your query, you've gone and created another article that has exactly the same flaw as Dalekese.  Time Sceptre is now deleted.  If a thing isn't named in a narrative source, then it doesn't exist in the DWU.  This is not the Star Wars universe.  Wookieepedia must allow in articles based upon various Encyclopedias, because that's the official canon policy of Lucasfilm.  By contrast, Memory Alpha lets in virtually no reference material, because that's the official canon stance of Paramount.  So, for instance, you can't just create an article on one of the several named starships in The Star Trek Technical Manual.


 * We're somewhere in the middle. You can't create an article based solely on a reference work, but you can use that information to supplement the in-universe material, mainly by placing it in the behind-the-scenes sections. Please try to understand, we're not having "an argument".  This isn't a negotiation.  I'm explaining to you how things are, and you're resisting it.  If you keep making these articles, I will simply continue to delete them.  So why waste your time?  Please, just stick to creating articles found in narratives.   13:54: Mon 10 Oct 2011

In-universe material
From out Tardis:Canon policy:


 * Any subject mentioned in or derived from a television story, prose story, comic story, radio or audio drama. 

Which basically means anything that's mentioned in the stories of narrative can be written about.

Our Canon policy continues to evolve, and is often further clarified following discussions such as these. We have to keep the reigns on what is covered by this wiki and what isn't. It's a process that continues to evolve as we've gained more admins we've been able to wade through the articles that have been basically; "find a Doctor Who A-Z, look up an obscure planet/object/idea and write about it, rewording the dictionary/encyclopaedia info slightly, article created", but no, it doesn't work like that.

'His reason to not agreeing to this is from what I've read is based on opinion which he mentioned some reference material is crap, which in other words not that well written even though it may be fact.'

Information in reference books may be…'fictionalised fact' for want of a better term, but it's not a real 'DW universe fact' in that the Time Sceptre while interesting doesn't "exist" within the Doctor Who universe, because it hasn't appeared/mentioned in a story (a narrative).

The Dalek Pocketbook and Space Travellers Guide may be written from an in-universe point of view, but it doesn't "exist" in the Doctor Who universe. All of the books in the Category:Books category, they exist within the Doctor Who universe. But only within the confines of what's provided in the narrative as it states in the categories X of the real world "Please remember that the main parts of articles within a DWU category should only give information that is actually provided in the story or stories concerned.". Stuff like the Visual Dictionary are on even shakier ground as they're presented as an out-of-universe text with contents that are interpreted by some readers as in-universe.

We're not about offering explanations to the narrative, Gallifrey's been destroyed at least 2 times, Time Lords were loomed yet have parents, Britain had an Ice Warrior Prime Minster in the mid 90s yet everyone's surprised by aliens in 2006. These things are acknowledged but there are rarely explanations inserted into the articles for these things.

We also can't be including and excluding information based on whether it conflicts or not, how would we ever make a ruling based on that, it would end up being 'well I like this version' vs 'this version of things explains things better.'

The Wookipedia (Star Wars) and its line of books, games, TV series etc has fairly strict levels of canon and copyright applied to the Star Wars franchise, the same goes for almost any other series/franchise you could name on the web. Unfortunately the Doctor Who universe and its copyright doesn't work like that, the BBC has a fairly complicated rights management system, which means we can't just say that everything from the BBC is included, because there's lots of independent creators' work here also. Also linked is the idea of "canon" Star Wars and Star Trek both have firm scopes of canon, with Star Trek having two separate wikis to manage their different scopes of canon (Memory Alpha and Memory Beta), again unlike these franchises the BBC has never been formal about what "canon" is. So we've had to come up with what it means to this wiki, because we can't cover everything. For the simple sake of fact checking and making sure everything is correct and referenceable we have to restrict what is covered by this wiki and what we use as sources for in universe articles.

Thanks for contacting me about this issue. I hope that I've addressed your issues on this subject. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:03, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't cover everything, I think Wikipedia is the only wiki-esque thing that makes a pretence about covering everything.


 * There are wikis out there that exist in addition to this Wiki that provide Doctor Who information in a bid that together we can try and cover a large spectrum of what is produced, released and exists within, without and around Doctor Who and its spinoffs.


 * There is the Doctor Who Special Features Wiki, Doctor Who Expanded Wiki, Doctor Who Fanon Wiki, Doctor Who Collectors Wiki and the Faction Paradox Wiki. All of which cover information in much more detail than we do.


 * The Collector's Wiki greatly improves upon our pages with a lot more detailed info about DVD/VHS releases than we cover here. And I don't think that's a short coming on our part, we're not trying to focus on that element and likewise they're not trying to cover what we're doing.


 * As CzechOut has mentioned if you've found an extremely notable bit of information put it in the behind the scenes section. But don't fill the behind the scenes section with all the stuff you think should be in a stand alone article. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:54, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

07:36: Wed 21 Dec 2011

Standard apostrophes
When you created Somebody Else's Problem: A Gwen Cooper Story you used the typographically "correct" apostrophe seen here: Somebody Else’s Problem: A Gwen Cooper Story. Not sure if that'll register for you unless you really go up in text size to look at it, but I'm sure you'll remember typing it, since it would've taken some effort. In any case, since most users don't immediately know how to produce this typographical mark, we by default use the lowly single quotation mark to stand in for a "proper" apostrophe. This allows people to find the article easily. In future, please use only the single quote/apostrophe, typically found to the immediate left of on most English language keyboards. Thanks :) 14:08: Mon 20 Feb 2012