FANDOM


  • CzechOut
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    Consensus reached and WEB prefix now deleted. Job of the thread is now truly done.
    14:53, September 6, 2013

    This may even be bleeding obvious, but I just need pointing out anyway. As the four little rules say, only stories count.

    Now, obviously, anything of the UNIT website or Who is Doctor Who? that's onscreen could be sourced to those episodes that show computer screens of those sites, but the Torchwood website; later instalments of Clive's website after Mickey took over; most anything prefixed with WEB...does this mean, per our rules, we shouldn't source them (aside from the aforementioned onscreen stuff)? User:CzechOut points out here that at least the Torchwood website is in no way narrative. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:09, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Martha Jones' myspace blog is an exception, too. A very tricky exception, because it's one of the few stories in any medium that is no longer publicly-accessible, even via the Wayback Machine. Its broader legitimacy comes from the fact it was referenced in The Pirate Loop. See Keisha Jones#Behind the scenes.

      (That said, it's maybe not an exception, exactly, in that it was genuinely narrative — if first person stream of consciousness.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Since this phenomenon is something that Moffat and company have not continued, it's kind of a closed chapter in Who history. The sites are now winking offline as the BBC finds fewer reasons to maintain connections to that era of the program.

      It's only going to be harder to justify the use of these sources on in-universe pages, since they can't easily be experienced by modern audiences. And it should be pointed out that they're not in great use now: only about 150 ns:0 pages use the link WEB.

      I think we need to take a good, hard look at everything at wikipedia:Doctor Who tie-in websites — sorry for the wikipedia link but our list is pretty incomplete — and consider whether the right approach might not be to consolidate all known information onto real world pages and to phase them out of use on in-universe pages.

      We could maintain and indeed improve our coverage of these sites by not having to work them into in-universe articles. Since many are not narrative, we could focus our energies on describing them on their own, real world pages to make sure we really got a sense of what the sites contained.

      This approach, it seems to me, would be doubly useful because several of the sites have multiple iterations. Some of the citations which currently exist may well refer to a version of a site that no longer exists. By restricting their use to just archiving, we'd do our readers a better service than trying to figure out which are valid, narrative sources and which aren't. Plus, it's awfully difficult to discern between the two types since some of these sites have pages that are arguably narrative alongside pages that aren't.

      I say we should declare all of them invalid — principally because their content is variable over time. That will then free us to systematically look at their archived history so as to create more complete picture of them for our readers.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree; they should not be valid sources as they have a mixture of in-universe and out-of-universe pages. But I think having the information on the pages becomes more and more important as time goes on, especially since people can't view the sites anymore. I they can't view the site, where else can they get the information but here? I think this is important. Therefore we should cover everything on the sites, but only in their own out-of-universe pages and in the Behind the Scenes section.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree with Smallerontheoutside: information cited to those websites should be moved to a behind-the-scenes section, not removed from the articles altogether.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That's fair enough. Almost always when I refer to an "in-universe page", I'm not talking about usage on the BTS section. Thus, when I recommended removal from in-universe page, I didn't mean to imply a ban on their BTS usage. But if they are cited on a BTS, care should be taken to define when the reference was valid. We probably do need to require some sort of "accessed on" date for not just these web resources, but any web citation. This is probably second nature to you, Josiah, but we've never made dating of web references required here.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Out of curiosity, how would this "accessed on" date be formatted and how would it be viewed when not editing?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well, this isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. If you're talking about general web citation, maybe it's time to require {{cite web}}.

      For these in-universe websites, you could use {{cite web}} or you could say — if we decide that they can only be in BTS sections — "According to the version of the <whatever> web site that was available in 2007, such and such is true." We could repeal the whole WEB prefix, forcing people to use some sort of sentence construction that mentioned a date.

      But we first have to decide whether we're agreed that in-universe websites are invalid for the writing of in-universe articles.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Well parts of Defending the Earth!, as I'm sure you know all too well, have been edited by and comments have been added by the general public. If we would make that a valid in-universe source, then I can go there and post something utterly preposterous like, "I'm the Twelfth Doctor. I have ginger." and all of a sudden, we'd have to create the Twelfth Doctor and add that he's ginger. But, no, that's ridiculous. So that's one aspect that definitely cannot be valid. Also, the UNIT site only adds to the UNIT dating controversy. I'm also sure that a lot on the sites (even the parts written by BBC) explicitly contradicts the TV stories.

      But I have one last point: these aren't necessarily "in-universe" pages. They can also be considered out-of-universe fictional websites based on the in-universe websites, and hence we'd have two different websites for Who is Doctor Who? (Rose) and Who is Doctor Who? (web) or something like that. The former would only talk about what we know about the website in-narrative, as the website that Clive Finch created because he noticed this Doctor that Rose noticed, whereas the latter would talk about the out-of-universe website that the BBC website put up and treat that information in the same way that we would The Brilliant Book 2012. Just putting my two cents in, whatever they're worth (I'd imagine about two cents...).

      CORRECTION: They might not be worth two cents, but they'd be Canadian and Canada Mint has recently abolished the penny. Everything's rounded to the nickel now.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Given User:Tangerineduel's addition of {{Proposed deletion}} to Adweam and Raltean, whose only sources are the "in-universe" Torchwood website, may as well bump this to see if anyone has anything to add in favour or against making them invalid.

      Certainly, it'll be difficult to use sources of websites that we can't even find like Martha's blog.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • My vote is for making them invalid for the same reason we use for making stage plays invalid: the content does not stay the same.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes. I agree with CzechOut and Tybort that we should invalidate the in-universe websites for writing our in-universe pages as they fail our T:VS.

      These sites can be used in the BtS sections on pages by saying "the in-universe Torchwood site states that Henry Parker obtained a suit of armour from the Raltean" and add the {{cite web}}.

      I also agree with CzechOut that a single overview page of the websites used in DW would be useful, as long as we're not replicating what Wikipedia is doing.

      Although I think if we have firm confirmation of them existing in-universe like search-wise.net then they should get their own page because we've got firm in searchwise's case on-screen evidence of it existing in-universe.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Search-wise.net, and Who is Doctor Who? (if not the Mickey-owned Defending the Earth!) are in Rose, and the UNIT website with the buffalo password's in World War Three.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Tybort wrote: Search-wise.net, and Who is Doctor Who? (if not the Mickey-owned Defending the Earth!) are in Rose, and the UNIT website with the buffalo password's in World War Three.

      Yep, those three. But only as they appear on screen. Anything else (like information gleaned from visiting them) goes in the behind the scenes sections.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • How should we be going about naming Clive's website? The title of the website comes off as "Doctor Who?" more than "Who is Doctor Who?" going by the "text" of Rose, though admittedly whoisdoctorwho.co.uk is visible as a url.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Use the URL I think as at least that hasn't changed. In the article we can note the various names it's gone under.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bump. Allow me to give some input to feed the discussion.

      I recently revisited the series 2 Torchwood website, which is no longer under the original URL but can still be found here. I would definitely argue that the "jobs" section of the site is perfectly narrative, telling multiple stories from different people's perspectives and overall supplanting information from other media. In fact, notice how you can't even get to the real-world sections of the website from there!

      But I suppose some would disagree. Because of the ambiguity of this case, I will (grudgingly — I could fill up half a calendar with that site!) stand by my previous opinion and say that we should not consider websites as a valid source for DWU info. Period.

      After all, we need to create a simple, solid rule. It can't be "sometimes websites can be considered valid, but not always". We can't start forum threads for every single website and every single page on them to determine if they're valid. So, even though I still do feel like we're missing out on a lot with sections like Torchwood's "jobs", I will grudgingly go with "no websites at all" if that is what the rest feel.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, this discussion has been open for long enough. Time to close 'er up. So-called "in-universe", BBC-operated websites are henceforth declared invalid. However, because they are official, information from the websites may be included, if properly cited, in "behind the scenes" sections.

      If you'd like to help cleanup pages in light of this ruling please go to Tardis:WEB cleanup, a page that's been set up to help with collaboration on this project.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Thanks to everyone who helped at Tardis:WEB cleanup. The bot cleared away the remaining links in non-vital namespaces today and the prefix WEB has now been fully retired.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+