Talk:TARDIS Eruditorum

Contributed Interviews & BTS Material
So there isn't much in the way of interviews per se on the main project. I could add in discussion of the associated podcast, which absolutely has interviews, but those are more a side area. As for BTS material, I think the most prominent example is Harness giving access to earlier scripts of The Pyramid at the End of the World (TV story), something on the blog but not yet in print. Would comments on the website count? If so, that would be a truly massive undertaking to document. Najawin ☎  20:25, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just include the books, not the website. If we include the website, we'll have to cover every single fan blog that some rando wrote on the internet, and I know that no one wants that. The books are fine to cover, though, wiki rules allow it. Also, covering only the books solves the deadname problem you mentioned below. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  21:55, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'd argue that some of the rando fan blogs probably should be on here, like DoWntime. But it's definitely a slippery slope and depends heavily on issues of quality. My concern is if we cut out the website we're definitely losing some of the text, since the comments are part of the text. And again, we're in a weird spot where we have things like Kate Orman talking about her thoughts on The Timeless Children (TV story) in the comments section of this website, indeed, in parts of the website that aren't technically part of "TARDIS Eruditorum" but are instead episode reviews that are like TARDIS Eruditorum 0.1. It's really weird and should definitely be discussed, you're right.Najawin ☎  22:09, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, for a few reasons. First, what does Kate Orman's opinions on The Timeless Children (TV story) have to do with the wiki at all, except maybe as a couple sentences on her page. Second, including DoWntime the blog is frankly, in my opinion, a bad idea. It opens the floodgates to, as I said, randos on the internet, including some pretty high profile NMDs and others of bigoted leanings. Plus, its a fan blog. This is a wiki for official stuff, like the book. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:18, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * So let's be clear here about a few different things. The first is "thanks to the internet, how creators interact with fans has radically changed and will continue to radically change". This is the point made with the Kate Orman example. My point is that we're in a very weird spot due to these things, not that we should have a free for all or that the Kate Orman example is explicitly an argument for keeping the website, but more a symbol of the times we live in and how documenting things properly becomes near impossible given the decentralized nature of the internet. Next, the book isn't really official. It's just as much a fan work as the blog. Similar for most reference books in fact, they're covered under fair use. And then as for DoWntime, I did make it clear that I agreed that it was a very slippery slope and it very much depended on the specifics of the website. The example I picked was specifically of very high quality for this reason. Najawin ☎  22:41, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a couple things here. First, yes, the internet has changed things for the wiki, but that's for official stories that are licensed and such, not for fan blogs. And we can't use 'quality' to determine if we include something or not, because everyone has a different definition of quality. Third, letting in fan blogs at all allows anyone to say one thing about DW on their blog, and be included. That leaves the door open for some pretty iffy people, such as the transphobic Father Ted guy because he wrote about Dreyfus one time. That's why we don't include fan blogs on the wiki in the first place, regardless of their percieved 'quality', and why I think that we should focus our coverage on the books, not the website. TARDIS Eruditorum as a book series falls under the rules on what the wiki should cover, the website and the fan blogs are not. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:50, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to note that "blog" isn't really the right terminology here, even though I've used it myself. It refers to a more casual type of post, historically even a diary (though reviews could count). Critical analysis essays would not be a blog. We can just use as criteria a consistent engagement with critical literature. Referencing Dreyfus once wouldn't be sufficient, but if someone referenced Dreyfus consistently and was still transphobic, well, I mean, there are certainly some episodes of the series I could point to as having horrible politics as well, as well as academics, so as much as I find it distasteful I would feel documenting it as a critical analysis of the series is still important. I do get why you disagree, however, and fully sympathize.
 * I'll also note that, again, none of this is licensed. So obviously the internet has changed more than what you're claiming for the wiki. For instance, Lance Parkin made a snide comment on Facebook about The Timeless Children plagiarizing him, which has nothing to do with licensed work except in the "notes" or "behind the scenes" sections. That's something that should, ideally, be documented. It's also something that's really difficult to track down and I have no idea how I stumbled across it.
 * And just to really note why this whole thing is impossible, go look at the the Logopolis entry. The proper way of experiencing that is in choose your own adventure form. Which was made and is now out of print. Similar problems exist for the second Interference entry, the Smile entry and the Silence in the Library entry. The problems can in principle be overcome, but the project just was built for an online medium first and foremost, then later made into books, and the comments are a critical part of the text. To only cover the books is to remove something important from the work. I could understand the argument of "if a work is both online and in text cover both, but just online ignore it", but "ignore online entirely" seems untenable to me. Najawin ☎  23:23, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * To go back to how this conversation started, Harness's revelations about the original Pyramid script is in fact of the major things I had in mind.


 * There's a section in T:VS about us being able to recognise some websites as equivalent to scholarly reference works, in terms of what is a "valid source" for real-life info. I think Eruditorum passes that bar easily on that basis alone. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:15, June 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess we could say such a thing would be coming from a valid behind the scenes source when it's in print and not online, depending on the outcome of an interpretation of T:UNOFF REF, but I also think the issue of Orman's comments are an interesting one. Orman has been on the associated podcast and has worked with the website to republish some of her critical essays there. So clearly we can be certain that when "Kate Orman" is seen commenting it is in fact Kate Orman. Would that meet the standards of validity? Similarly, Sandifer discussed a facebook interaction she had with Moffat concerning his thoughts on Donna's mindwipe in her post on Hell Bent. Obviously he's since discussed that with Davies on record to a small extent, but there's the question of whether reporting this, since we can't verify it and it's heavily paraphrased, is appropriate. I will say that the wording of T:UNOFF REF is continuous with my view, that certain things are forbidden because of "fan involvement and lack of intellectual rigour", not fan involvement alone. DoWntime has specific interviews with people behind the scenes. But again. very slippery slope, and DoWntime is about as far as I'd go. Najawin ☎  19:37, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine will it being mentioned in Behind the Scenes portions, but I don't want an entire page dedicated to it. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  19:48, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * We obviously don't have to litigate that here. And I have no intentions of actually making a page for it, even if I think there maybe should be one. Do you have thoughts on the more general issues related to Eruditorum as a website being here? Najawin ☎  20:05, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * My position on the website is that it should be put in like, behind the scenes and stuff when appropiate, but I don't think info from it should really be given prominence, due to the fact that the books fall under the academic license, but the website is basically a fan blog. A big one, yes, but a fan blog. Also, not really including the website makes certain that no one will try to 'sneak in' the deadname. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  20:09, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you glance through T:UNOFF REF? It specifically notes that there are websites that are "behind-the-scenes scholarship". I understand the wording is vague though. Najawin ☎  20:13, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * But the site isn't really a dedicated behind the scenes site. The BTS content it has is more that she has friends in high places who are willing to give her info and she talks about it. We can include it, yes, but only when BTS content related to the DWU is specifically mentioned and confirmed. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  20:20, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

It's a scholarship site, and behind the scenes as opposed to in universe. Regardless. I don't think we're going to get anywhere, politely. Would you mind terribly if I wrote this up as an inclusion debate? I think that would be more fruitful. Najawin ☎  20:24, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we both slightly misunderstood each other: I'm not opposed to this being covered, or the behind the scenes tidbits included in the articles. I think that I thought you were trying to cover the website as its own seperate article and/or include Media DoWntime as its own article. My apologies. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  20:27, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. I'm just keeping things as they are. My concern is with "Just include the books, not the website". That seems like you want me to delete the content currently on this page that concerns the website, or move it to behind the scenes sections. Rather, I think the website and the books are one project that can't be separated from each other, and we honestly might even need to include more content about the website, but it would still be on this page. Since it's the same project. Najawin ☎  20:33, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds fair. Just as long as this doesn't open up a thread of random fan blogs getting their own pages, I'm chill with this. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived  ☎  20:36, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

So since we've stuck a pin in that, we've still got the question of how to deal with comments, or if we want to include reference to them at all. Najawin ☎  20:48, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say if they are a prominent Who figure that can be confirmed, than 100% sure. If they're some rando on the internet, no.Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  20:53, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I'm not going to have a million sentences talking about all the different commenters. But do I note "Oh, part of the project includes a comment section in the website format wherein the author will respond and prominent members of the Who community will occasionally venture, such as Kate Orman", or list specific comments made, etc etc. If I do the first, we have the deadname issue. Najawin ☎  20:58, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, we could just not put the deadname. The wiki's policy allows for that, I'm sure, and it's the morally right thing to do. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  21:01, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue is that if we don't do it we leave out important context, making it damned if you do damned if you don't. I 100% agree in principle, it's just a mess. Najawin ☎  21:05, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at Lilah Sturges' page, we don't have her deadname. We can just put 'credited under a different name' instead of the actual deadname, and just leave it at that. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  21:29, June 3, 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's not my concern. It's people responding to comments with a name that no longer appears in the comments, so comment threads become confusing. The older, in print versions of books have Sandifer still credited under a different name as well, but she's going back and putting out new editions with her name updated, and the digital versions have already been changed. (Indeed, if you click the TARDIS Eruditorum as books link it directs to a page where the covers still use her deadname and don't even have the most recent book) Najawin ☎  21:41, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at Lilah's page again. She was credited under a different name, yet we don't put her deadname. Why? Because we really don't need to. Like, type her old name in the search bar and her current one comes up. I'm sure that's some admin secret trick that they can use for this example as well. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  23:44, June 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I never saw this response. I don't think this solves the issue. The issue is "how do we communicate to users on this wiki, if they want to read comments, which are part of the text, that this complication exists due to the fact that the author has transitioned". Not doing so and hoping that they figure it out from context clues is certainly one option, but I'm not entirely sure I want to place my trust in the literacy of Doctor Who fans given my interactions in places. :> (Or, you know, given the fact that I searched "tardis wikia" on twitter today and saw someone suggesting I was a sock puppet because I suggested we ask a Faction Paradox expert for info about FP in a thread just to shut down discussion. Suffice it to say that I don't think we can trust that people can properly interpret a comment thread.) Now, we can always say "well, even if there's an unavoidable flaw here in our coverage, talking about the deadname at all is beyond the pale". Which is certainly a perfectly valid position to hold.
 * But I just don't see how the admins could do some trick to get discussion of how her deadname is used in the comments section ON HER WEBSITE, and explaining what it is to make sure people aren't confused, could be converted in some way with a redirect. Since the problem in question is on another website and we're just discussing how we should approach covering the problem. (Obviously the best solution is if the website would have a bot go through and do a global regex find/replace deadname/Elizabeth, but it's a bit complicated to code, so I understand why someone with a literature degree hasn't done it.) We could always just decline to cover the comments entirely and that solves the entire issue. Najawin ☎  10:02, June 5, 2020 (UTC)

Deadname Issue
Another problem that emerges is that because the blog has a comment section and the other is trans, and this project started before she transitioned, older comments will refer to her by her deadname. And since the older comment sections aren't threaded, if users go back and attempt to read these old sections without knowing this fact, they might become confused as to who (deadname) is, when people respond with that, since nobody there is by that name. I'd make a note of this, but I believe it's against wiki policy, and am unsure how to proceed. Since this is a situation where knowing this actually provides important context for properly understanding bits of the work (ie, the comments). Najawin ☎  20:25, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * See my above comment for a way to avoid including the deadname. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:01, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Why is this covered here?
I'm just wondering why this website and series of books are being covered by this wiki when they are not released by any license holders, and thus fail the critera to be included? Sabovia (Message Wall) 20:57, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * There's substantial precedent. For instance, all of the works referenced in the body of the article, but most notably About Time and The Black Archive. Najawin ☎  20:59, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Wonky Structure
So I'm assuming this is in reference to "Recurring sections", "Fundamental concepts", and now "Associated podcast", though that wasn't present at the time. I actually think these are appropriate. If we look at About Time, we see a "Notable features" section. This is, in a sense, breaking up "Notable features" into two separate sections to better explain each section. The "Associated podcast" being wonky is a fair cop, though I think it's the only reasonable solution to the issue of including the info without making a weird stub. Najawin ☎  22:01, June 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are splitting the sections in two, why can't they both be under the same heading as sub-headings? So 1. Features --> 2a.Notable aspects + 2b.Associated podcasts, or something like this. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   22:04, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That could work. I'll try that and if it doesn't look good we can change it back. Najawin ☎  22:09, June 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the podcast bit, what do you think? Najawin ☎  22:12, June 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, you are the main creator of the article so far. Since it's in its early days, you should really add as much content as you have on to the article, since information is always good. We can sort out the structures and cutting down information deemed unneeded later. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   22:15, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

I meant whether it should be a subheading or not. Just a formatting issue really. Najawin ☎  22:17, June 2, 2020 (UTC)