FANDOM


  • Shambala108
    Shambala108 closed this thread because:
    thread is based on fallacy.
    05:24, September 3, 2018

    You should never assume that because you personally know, say, Albert Einstein's birthdate, or the year the film Breakfast at Tiffany's debuted, or the duration of the Second Afghan War, that these dates will be the same in the DWU.T:NO RW [src]

    T:NO RW is one of our most basic and integral rules used to write in-universe articles. The basic concept of the policy is that it can't be confirmed that the Doctor Who Universe and the real universe are exactly the same, and thus we have banned the use of real-world facts within these articles.

    For instance, at one point the page Elizabeth I featured the dates of which she was born, and those for which she died. However, it was soon pointed out that no in-universe story featured these elements, thus they were removed from the article.

    The issue comes about when people take this (rather integral rule) a little too far. This has been the case as of recent, when one of our admins has decided that this rule applies to things like photographs and archive recordings.

    His logic, as explained on my talk page, is that if we don't have someone in the story saying “This is a photograph of ____,” or “this is an audio recording of a speech made by ____,” then we can not assume that this is the person that it is supposed to be. The suggestion was that these certain appearances should only be mentioned in behind-the-scenes examples, which only really helps the situation on short pages like Martin Luther King, and not on gigantic ones like The Beatles.

    I would like to remind you of T:NO RW. In short, you cannot identify a person by the image based on your real-world knowledge. In order to put those images on pages, you need either to use the context (like in the case of Neil Armstrong, where the event is identified by the narrator and there is enough prior DWU information to understand who is in the spacesuit) or you need to compare the image with images of the same person that were featured in the DWU before.Amorkuz [src]

    You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the policy. "Did a DWU source tell you that this is a photo of MLK?" is the question that the policy demands you to answer.

    ...

    You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion.Amorkuz [src]

    Amorkuz suggested that I move the discussion to a Pantopticon debate, and I have obliged. However, I am not, I might quickly add, arguing with policy. Policy is absolutely fine, and is written with fine intentions. I am disagreeing with this wholly unfounded interpretation of policy , and how little it accomplishes.

    Who does this serve?

    No one.

    We create our rules to help our readers understand as much as possible about valid Doctor Who stories and the so-called Doctor Who Universe.

    It is thus very helpful to separate in-universe depictions of events and those same events in the real-world. There is no need, for instance, for the page about Martin Luther King Jr to mention any of his accomplishments in the Civil Rights Movement, because no known DWU text ever references such things. All we know about this character is that he was assassinated in 1968, he was heard in TV: Remembrance of the Daleks (set in 1963), and an image of him was shown inside the Monks' Cathedral in TV: The Lie of the Land.

    There is, however, no true use to deny instances of references towards MLK himself simply because characters don't suddenly stop acting like normal people and instead start talking like robots. Expecting MLK to be positively identified every time audio or video of him is used is quite the insane request.

    A reader searching for info about 1966 will not need to know about how the info presented there contradicts real-world events. However, on the same level, there is no need to deny information presented. No reader will care about if a picture of MLK is identified as a picture of MLK, because that's just blatantly obvious.

    Do the rules really say this?

    No.

    T:NO RW, in fact, in designed to stop people adding in references that are solely out-of-universe in nature. Adding in information which only exists in the real world.

    Marco Polo's given DWU birthdate is different from the real world date. Modern day episodes of the show, like The War Machines, are based on qualities of British computer science that didn't exist in 1966. And episodes that were supposed to be set in the clear future, like The Tenth Planet, described events that obviously never came to pass.T:NO RW [src]

    Basically, T:NO RW is all about the fact that references to real world events can not be simply invented.

    Amorkuz's interpretation, meanwhile, is that we should use T:NO RW to disallow in-universe information from being used on the pages that they pertain to. The simple problem is that T:NO RW makes no single reference to this particular application.

    Our rules make quite the big deal to feature numerous examples of how certain policies should be used and applied. T:GTI features numerous examples of judgement on images, and even states some rules that otherwise aren't spelled out. And T:NO RW does not once, even in passing, mention this interpretation of policy.

    Does this have precedent

    No.

    There are, in fact, so many examples of this not being the case that I'm going to allow other users to point those out for me. Please note that if you think that any of the following uses are incorrect, you should not “fix” them, as per T:POINT.

    The page for The Beatles mentions their appearances in TV: The Evil of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks, and TV: Revelation of the Daleks.

    Further in the future, the DJ on Necros had posters of several of the Beatles in his recording studio. (TV: Revelation of the Daleks)Our page on The Beatles [src]

    "Paperback Writer" and "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" played in the background of cafés visited by the Doctor, (TV: The Evil of the Daleks, Remembrance of the Daleks) as did The Beatles' recording of "A Taste of Honey". (TV: Remembrance of the Daleks)Our page on The Beatles [src]

    The page The Entertainer discusses in pretty heavy detail an instrumental track whistled in one story and played on piano in another. The page, of course, uses the name linked and takes no qualm in referencing it as the song despite no one saying “HAHA I'M WHISTLING A SONG CALLED THE ENTERTAINER!”

    Because our readers, in short, need to be able to find information that they want without dancing around if characters are written like people or robots.

    In conclusion

    I did some hunting, and I finally found an actual old-forums debate that cites clear precedent on this issue. It was, in all places, in a debate about how to cover the then-upcoming Star Trek crossover.

    I hear ya, but IDW aren't going to spoonfeed aspects of the STU through dialogue. That would make for a very boring, very insulting read. After all, it's not like DW always names its objects. There are many, many episodes where the sonic screwdriver isn't named. We just know it is because we see it, we hear it, and, based on our prior knowledge, we can obviously put two and two together.

    After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like Volkswagen Beetle, HMS Teazer, London Borough of Barnet, real world people who appeared in archive footage, Doctor Who actors who played themselves — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of category:Songs from the real world. It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.User:CzechOut [src]

    It's because of these reasons that I thoroughly dispute that T:NO RW, or indeed any of our policies, stop us from identifying a Volkswagen Beetle as a Volkswagen Beetle, or a Beatles song as a Beatles song, or a picture of Donald Trump as Donald Trump, or a recording of Martin Luther King Jr as a recording of Martin Luther King Jr. When writing about a primarily visual medium, and thus we should allow our pages to be written as such.

    EDIT: There I changed two words.

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Who does this serve?

      No one.

      I couldn't agree more.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree. I don't think it makes any sense to deny users the right to identify something that is blatantly obvious.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Hear hear. While I don't think this is as much an issue in the specific case of Martin Luther King, where the mentions are still clearly visible despite being hidden in the BtS, I think this thread clarifies a valuable subtlety of the existing policy, a subtlety that affects multiple pages in meaningful ways despite not being well represented on the actual policy page (which should be edited to prevent further misunderstanding in this way).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: We’re a primarily visual medium, and thus we should allow our pages to be written as such.

      A warning to editors who may not be familiar with Tardis:Neutral point of view. This wiki does not treat DWU as arising from a "primarily visual medium", as erroneously claimed by OttselSpy25. It is a long-standing policy of this wiki to give all media equal weight. In other words, novels, short stories and audio stories carry as much weight as TV stories and comic stories.

      Policies are not written to "primarily" accommodate the shortcomings of the "visual medium", and pages most definitely should not be written in a way that discriminates against the non-visual media in any way.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't take that statement back. With comics being one of the most regularly published stories, and the TV show still being published every year, we still are a show primarily built upon visuals. My point was that, when discussing visuals or elements that involve appearances, it's important to be sensible.

      Specifically I said that to separate the discussion from mediums like audio and prose, which you had noted in another thread tended to be more tricky. I've changed a few words to make this more clear, but over-all I question why that was that important to home in on.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Secondly, before getting to the heart of the question, unfortunately, I must restore the parts of our conversation that OttselSpy25 decided to omit creating a misrepresentation of the conversation---fill in the blanks, as it were. I apologise for thus taking the time of editors interested in the content of this discussion, but when information is not presented correctly and in full, it must first be corrected and completed. Here is the (shortened version of) the transcript of the conversation compiled from our talk pages, with important parts of the conversation highlighted:

      You yourself created The Birth of Venus using real world information to name it.CoT, 18:31, June 8, 2017
      for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. However, the real-world name on the page should still be confined to the BTS section, which is perfectly demonstrated by the page for the painting I created.

      ...

      One final comment about this situation. It is important to know that this footage is a forgery intended to override human memory. Thus, there is an additional degree of indeterminacy involved: we do not assume that DWU is exactly the same as the real world in general. But here, the Monks could additionally modify the footage. The images should of course be still used. But the wording of what they are should be really cautious.Amorkuz, 19:19, June 8, 2017

      I think that the point is that you can assign names to these images, but it's best not to use those names on an in-universe basis if they've never been identified elsewhere.OS25, 13:29, June 11, 2017
      Amorkuz, I've read through your posts, and I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of how we cover the appearances of real-world figures. As long as Martin Luther King (JR) has a page, we can of course discuss from an in-universe fashion his role in TV: The Lie of the Land and Remembrance of the Daleks.

      ...

      Someone going to a page on MLK will want to know about where he is referenced or brought up. They aren't going to care if it's just an image, or just a clip of audio. Suggesting culling this information is unreasonable.OS25, 13:38, June 11, 2017

      In principle, I do not understand how editors would be disadvantaged from reading about this photo in the BTS section rather than in an in-universe one.

      ...

      Your own example of Remembrance of the Daleks perfectly encapsulates how this wiki treats such occasions. Martin Luther King is mentioned only in the "Story notes" and "Ucredited cast" (both RW parts) and at both places his name is not linked because there is no in-universe link to the name.Amorkuz, 14:16, June 11, 2017

      The point is that you are suggesting a different page for all three of the current references to Martin Luther King Jr -- one for a mention of him in an audio, one for the stock audio used of him in TV: Remembrance, and one for the stock photo used of him in the episode.

      ...

      With such precedent as the pages for Struwwelpeter and Anthony Eden, it is obvious that at some points bends to T:NO RW can be made for the sake of our readers.

      ...

      So no, I am not arguing against the policy. I am arguing with you about how the policy is to be handled, and I think that trying to lie to our editors about what images of who appeared where is out-right a mis-use of the idea.

      ...

      And if Martin Luther King Jr is mentioned in three stories in different terms, all three references should be included on one page.OS25, 14:41, June 11, 2017

      I really do not understand how putting things in BTS and "Story notes" qualifies as lying. I explicitly said: for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. How do you derive three different pages for MLK from this, I don't know. Of course, all this information should be on the same page.Amorkuz,14:59, June 11, 2017
      Wholly irrelevant. I find no precedent for removing information on references to ideas on the basis that you are suggesting.OS25, 15:47, June 11, 2017
      All your examples work against you: Struwwelpeter never mentions the name of the book in the in-universe part of the page. And "Paperback Writer" is not identified as a song by the Beatles on the in-universe part of the page either.

      ...

      You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion. You have the right to your opinion. And I have an obligation to uphold the policies.Amorkuz, 16:09, June 11, 2017

      I must ask that you adhere to Tardis:No personal attacks. There is no need to resort to petty accusations, or to take the conversation personally. I am listening to what you have to say, and I am strongly disagreeing with you. If you don't want to have this conversation, that should have no bearing on our current policy.

      Your position as an administrator for this site does not make your say final, and thus I would ask that you stop stating your loose interpretations as absolute "in the eyes of the law." How you've decided to view T:No RW has had no legitimate use in the past, there is no precedent for your current instance of how our policies work. You have your right to an opinion, but your opinion is not "the policies".OS25, 18:27, June 11, 2017

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: It is a long-standing policy of this wiki to give all media equal weight. In other words, novels, short stories and audio stories carry as much weight as TV stories and comic stories.

      Policies are not written to "primarily" accommodate the shortcomings of the "visual medium", and pages most definitely should not be written in a way that discriminates against the non-visual media in any way.

      I completely agree! As someone who's primarily a fan of the novels, it really peeves me when people pretend the TV show and/or Big Finish audios are "more official" or "more canon" than the book spinoffs.

      That said, I don't think the OP - which is merely clarifying part of a policy that has been in effect for years - counts as anything close to "discriminatory" against non-visual media. The policy being discussed is just common sense. If a few episodes back we saw a key on the Doctor's desk, but it was never mentioned, would it be fit to mention it on Key? Absolutely! Because it's a common object, so we can identify it based on sight alone. I argue that the exact same thing can be said about Martin Luther King Jr. This isn't a statement about his birthdates, or his status in the civil rights movement, or anything about him besides his image; all that still absolutely falls under T:NO RW. But every man, woman, and child watching Lie of the Land recognized the image on the screen as Martin Luther King, and it's almost self-defeatist to neglect that fact.

      Countless editors (and admins, per the above quotes) have understood this and kept this subtlety in mind when adding to the wiki in the past; I don't see why we can't do the same here.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • For those who would prefer not to read through this discussion in full, the "not listening part" I was referring to is two-fold:

      • OS25 accused me of wanting to create three different pages for MLK after I clearly said that the page title should be based on RW info;
      • OS25 accused me of proposing to "cull information" from pages, "lie to editors" and "remove information" from pages after I repeatedly explained that the information should be present on pages but relegated to BTS and "Story notes" sections (if supporting DWU evidence is insufficient).

      After several iterations, I simply ran out of ways to explain my position.

      In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated:

      It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.CzechOut
      That is exactly what I was trying to explain. And I still to this day do not understand where OS25 saw the contradiction between my explanations, the policy formulation, statements of CzechOut and actual pages given by OS25 as examples.

      However, as I stated before, I do not want to spend even more time arguing what has been a policy for a long time and what the pages shown by OS25 as counterexamples comply with. Perhaps, other longer-serving admins would be able to explain this policy in better ways than me.

      I'm sorry that OS25 disagrees with their understanding of what I was saying. It should be clear from the quotes I provided that they have been misunderstanding me all along. I believe NateBumber perfectly encapsulates the method that has been used all this time:

      While I don't think this is as much an issue in the specific case of Martin Luther King, where the mentions are still clearly visible despite being hidden in the BtSNateBumber
      I might only add that the speech from The Remembrance of the Daleks that OS25 was advocating for being easily accessible to the editors was not originally on the Martin Luther King page, and I had to add it there Special:Diff/2348121.
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote:

      In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated: ... That is exactly what I was trying to explain.

      Am I misunderstanding the quote?

      Give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.CzechOut
      A proper name in the STU ... and a "behind the scenes" note saying it wasn't named by the story. So if this reasoning were applied to Martin Luther King, the references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Lie of the Land would be included in the main body of the article, with a note in the Behind the Scenes saying

      "Martin Luther King was not explicitly identified in Remembrance of the Daleks or The Lie of the Land. However, it is unmistakably his voice and image."

      What am I missing here?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The contradiction I saw is evident.

      You moved Martin Luther King Jr to Martin Luther King due to an audio not mentioning the Jr, and then suggested that the picture of Martin Luther King Jr could be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr exclusively, without any reference within the article to who the person in the picture actually is.

      For instance, Martin Luther King Jr page could say something like: "an image of a prominent figure from human history could be seen on screens inside the Cathedral."Amorkuz [src]

      Thus suggesting that we could not confirm via basic logic that the Martin Luther King mentioned in The Age of Revolution and the figure seen in The Life of the Land were the same person, and thus that they must have different pages. Since there's no way to say that the voice heard in Remembrance is the face seen in The Lie of the Land, your logic holds one solution -- three different pages for one predominant historical figure.

      Let us note that there is a difference between saying "You aren't listening to me about this one small aspect," and you saying "You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion". One of those is a clarification, one of those is a generalization.

      Speaking of restoring missing parts of the conversation, allow me to post the rest of NateBumer's quote.

      I think this thread clarifies a valuable subtlety of the existing policy, a subtlety that affects multiple pages in meaningful ways despite not being well represented on the actual policy page (which should be edited to prevent further misunderstanding in this way).NateBumer [src]

      The point is that as Martin Luther King is such a short page, all of the information presented is not hindered in visibility. Now see a page like The Beatles. How would it help our readers to put the appearances of Beatles media in the behind-the-scenes section, so far away and in such a crowded area that it will soon be forgotten? Simple answer: it won't.

      Once again, as I have directly challenged that your interpretation of the policy is by any meany valid, I ask that you do not use language like "Perhaps, other longer-serving admins would be able to explain this policy in better ways than me," as if I'm a baby in the crib who doesn't comprehend English. I do understand the rules, I've studied the rules, there is no precedent or basis in taking the rules to such a degree.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: The contradiction I saw is evident.

      You moved Martin Luther King Jr to Martin Luther King due to an audio not mentioning the Jr, and then suggested that the picture of Martin Luther King Jr could be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr exclusively, without any reference within the article to who the person in the picture actually is.

      Could you please provide a quote where I say that the picture should be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr separately from Martin Luther King? I certainly never intended this to happen. But I'm just curious: what gave you this impression?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • NateBumber wrote:

      Amorkuz wrote:

      In the quote from CzechOut provided by OS25 upthread, it is stated: ... That is exactly what I was trying to explain.

      Am I misunderstanding the quote?

      Give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.CzechOut
      A proper name in the STU ... and a "behind the scenes" note saying it wasn't named by the story. So if this reasoning were applied to Martin Luther King, the references in Remembrance of the Daleks and The Lie of the Land would be included in the main body of the article, with a note in the Behind the Scenes saying

      "Martin Luther King was not explicitly identified in Remembrance of the Daleks or The Lie of the Land. However, it is unmistakably his voice and image."

      What am I missing here?

      Precisely. The main suggestion and descision of that thread was that it was fine to use Star Trek terms, even if they weren't mentioned in the comic. I believe there's a sequence where we see a dozen-or-so species converted into Cybermen, and I'm not sure it's ever said "Oh, look, it's the GLGLGL from Season 4 episode 3." But we still use the correct species titles.

      The idea is that even if a Phaser was never called a Phaser, we could still make a page called Phaser and call it a Phaser because it's a Phaser.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Could you please provide a quote where I say that the picture should be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr separately from Martin Luther King? I certainly never intended this to happen. But I'm just curious: what gave you this impression?

      Even if my end-of-the-universe hypothetical was never truly going to come to pass, there's still clearly an unruly double standard here that truly makes little sense.

      You were suggesting that when information was supplied without a name, we could use the correct out-of-universe name only for the purposes of creating a page easily (which makes sense) but you also stated that the moment said idea is also referenced from an in-universe fusion by the name, previous un-named mentions are now invalid and must go in the behind-the-scenes section.

      In other words, the real-world information is normally only allowed in BTS and, exceptionally to avoid stupid dab terms like "Female monk (The Lie of the Land)" for Mother Theresa, in the page title. However, the in-universe portion of the page should only rely on the in-universe sources. Chances are that eventually information will also be found in-universe. When that happens, then BTS content can be gradually moved into the main article.Amorkuz [src]

      The suggestion here is that Martin Luther King Jr would be used to avoid using an unruly dab, unless another source made reference towards MLK, in which case it would all be re-directed to the behind-the-scenes section. This is what has been done at Martin Luther King.

      This would be the equivalent of if we moved all of the info at Anthony Eden to the bts section because an unrelated story mentioned his full name but didn't say "It's the same Eden the Twelfth Doctor mentioned once," or if you removed all of Struwwelpeter to the behind the scenes section because another story mentioned the book without quoting the passage read by the Twelfth Doctor.

      Even if that did happen, we still need an in-universe page to link to for the book that the Twelfth Doctor reads in said story. We still need a page for the Prime Minister named Eden mentioned by the Twelfth Doctor.

      What page do we link to from an in-universe basis for the voices heard from the start of Remembrance? The voices, btw, are JFK and MLK. But since we can't confirm that all three of these stories to reference MLK are talking about the same guy, there is no in-universe page for two out of three of the examples. I can't say "As the Dalek ship approached, it heard a man giving a speech about dreams," because there is now no in-universe page that supports that information. You've essentially deemed moments in valid DWU stories invalid.

      Again, I see no practical use for this, and I find no precedent for such a thing. Nor is it truly present in our rules.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Ah, I think I'm starting to understand where this misunderstanding stems from. Suggesting to put the Monks' image on Martin Luther King Jr while keeping other appearances at Martin Luther King is indeed quite mad. If OS25 thought that I am advocating this, at least, I now understand why they were so unhappy.

      The solution to this puzzle is, however, very simple: the post suggesting to discuss MLK on Martin Luther King Jr was made at 21:19, June 8, 2017, before the page was moved at 21:28, 8 June 2017‎. I of course meant the page for MLK, whatever it was called at the time. In fact the moving of the page was based on the information provided by OS25 in the discussion.

      Ok, so at least now something starts to make sense, finally. The longest debates are often based on a misunderstanding.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I apologize for the misunderstanding that caused this debate. However, I still strongly stand by every single other impractical element of this interpretation of T:NO RW.

      Note that my very long first post made no mention of this discrepancy what-so-ever.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Ok, so at least now something starts to make sense, finally.

      Gee, thanks. I'm glad that misunderstanding has been dealt with, but could you please address my most recent post? I don't think it was total nonsense.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Now for the really subtle points raised by both OS25 and NateBumber, where we have both the full in-universe credentials and an unidentified cameo. If only we could write a general policy... Each case is different and usually there are at least some clues or connections that allow one to include such cameos into the main body of the article. I already used the example of Neil Armstrong in the same story. The amount of evidence needed strongly depends on the context. For instance, for the images present in this story:

      • One was identified as Yuri Gagarin. I have perfect vision, but I cannot make out a face, not even a gender. It could as easily be the first woman in space (or any other cosmonaut, assuming that the make of the space-suit really pins it to Communist Russia, which I'm not sure about either).
      • One was identified as Winston Churchill. But in DWU, Churchill looks differently: suspiciously like Ian McNeice, whose image was in fact considered by the production team. Does our DWU knowledge trumps RW?
      • One was identified as Mother Theresa, who is already present in DWU as Mother Teresa without a shred of context in either case.
      • Then there is a someone standing in front of a BBC microphone that I don't think anyone recognised so far. Is he a famous guy we missed? Or was he a fabrication by the Monks?

      So in this very special case, I am not prepared to accept any images at their face value precisely because they are explicitly described as being forged in-universe. This whole discussion actually originated when this picture was used as in-universe image of Gagarin. See for yourself.

      My personal behaviour in such cases is agonising over the details and trying to find some additional supporting connection somewhere in DWU. If I do, then I confidently put it in the article proper. If I don't, well, maybe I haven't looked carefully enough. In short, what I was trying to explain about Gagarin originally is that finding a small additional contextual or textual (or any really) connection, in addition to the visual/audio evidence of our senses, serves as a quality control, as a reminder of T:NO RW.

      I wrote the very first message (not quoted upthread) initially having this specific forged image of Gagarin in mind. Perhaps, my mistake was that I allowed the discussion of one forgery to get general. The need to describe the method that would apply to such falsified in-universe images led to the most conservative formulation. I myself would not formulate a general rule in a more permissive way. A real-world bleed, once introduced, is very hard to detect and remove without reading someone's mind. So for me presenting information in BTS is the least of two evils by default. But I am happy to consider each case separately.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Alright, so I'm playing into your game here... But Winston Churchill has looked like his real-world counterpart before in COMIC: Time Wake.

      While you may question if Yuri Gagarin looks like the version depicted inside the Monk's propaganda, I think it serves very few people to outright deny that Gagarin did appear in the Cathedral's illusion-thing. I think it's fine for the page Donald Trump to mention his role in The Lie of the Land, even if we don't really like out-right saying that his appearance in that story is how he regularly appeared. But I certainly came to strongly disagree with the slippery slope which lead you to deny that MLK was featured in Remembrance of the Daleks.

      Would it be too out-of-the ordinary to suggest that we forge a rule to discrepancies like this in the future? Perhaps the redirect would be T:DUH.

      The basic outline of the rule would be that if a person is pictured in a story, or if a book is quoted in a story, or a tune whistled, that we can use the real world name of said thing.

      I, for one, see no difference from naming a song and identifying the players as the Beatles and identifying Martin Luther King Jr as the speaker in the "I Have a Dream" speech. (It has a wikipedia page! It's basically just a spoken song haha)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Great that the Churchill dilemma is resolved.

      Donald Trump has serious problems. There is an image of the current US president in Extremis that looks nothing like the image of Donald Trump in The Lie of the Land, and neither of them is "orange", which is a verbal description of the current US president by Bill from The Pyramid at the End of the World.

      But if I equivocate about the other cases, Gagarin is where I draw the line. What is the identification of this astronaut as Gagarin based on? For me, this is not even RW, this is just a speculation. Please persuade me otherwise because I cannot read minds. I just don't see the resemblance.

      As for the DUH rule, it would have to be much more detailed. In particular, we already can use the name of the speech, in the title of the page and in BTS. On the other hand, there was a recent case where editors were arguing about a particular tank model used in The Runaway Bride, moving pages and all but regurgitating the specs of several real-world tanks when all that needed to be said was that it was a tank. The level of specificity necessary in identifying real-world elements in cameo-like appearances is also dependent on the context. And this is in addition to the possible uncertainty of the identification: if a character starts whistling the beginning of another song by the Beatles, "All You Need Is Love", I would strongly caution everyone against claiming that this is "La Marseillaise", for instance.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • No one is suggesting that the image of Donald Trump in the episode proves that he's the president. All we really know is that he is visible, and it is obviously him. Since Gagarin is indeed hard to identify, I would be fine with not using that on an in-universe page.

      The point is that pages like The Entertainer do not hurt the wiki, and in fact allowing real world titles for speeches, historical figures, and songs only helps our writers and readers. T:DUH would simply disallow someone to claim that an image of Trump isn't Trump, or that a song being sung by the Beatles isn't the Beatles, or that a recording of MLK isn't a recording of MLK.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • We need to make a distinction between facts from the real world and depictions from the real world. I suppose we need to ask ourselves a question: why does T:NO RW exist?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • T:NO RW serves the purpose of people not adding facts from the real world that have never been represented in any DWU story. For instance, people used to be obsessed with putting birth and death dates on every historical figure, from Albert Einstein to Elizabeth I. T:NO RW stops people from doing that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What harm, if any, would be caused if we were to allow depictions from the real world? By "depictions", I mean that if a real-world photo or recording of a recognisable person appears, and is not clearly meant to represent something or someone else, it is a depiction of that person.

      (To avoid going too far with this policy, I would propose that if depictions are allowed, in-universe articles should not be created if the only in-universe basis for article creation is a depiction.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • That proposal seems reasonable to me.

      As an aside, Martin Luther King and Donald Trump currently have a very awkwardly worded note accompanying the images from The Lie of the Land: "No connection has been made to him and his face, however." If we must split hairs about whether a real-world photo of MLK seen in the DWU is meant to depict MLK in the DWU, there's got to be a better way to word the accompanying note.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Informal revision to the policy:

      If a real-world photo, video, or audio recording of a recognisable person/thing from the real world appears, it is an admissible depiction on in-universe pages only if all of the following are true:
      1. The story in which the depiction appears is valid.
      2. The depiction exists in-universe. (Depictions presented only to the audience are not admissible, because they are irrelevant within the scope of this wiki.)
      3. The depiction is not meant to represent something or someone else.

      Obviously, this is still in need of revision, if we even go down the road of "admissible depictions" in the first place.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think I found a good example illustrating my difficulties with formulating a policy. I honestly agreed with User:Bwburke94's description above. But, as he said, item 3 may need to be refined. And here is a a good example to direct such a revision:

      GoT foolishness

      I am talking about the portraits hanging in the corridor of St Luke's University. They are, undoubtedly, of John Snow and Daenerys Targaryen. The clothes and poses match. I think it is easy to find the RW original photos. But I hope you would agree this cannot be treated as a confirmation that the GoT universe is part of the DWU or, less drastically, that John and Danny are persons from the DWU.

      Returning to my original objections (without actually reading them), what seems to be missing here is a context. Without such context, it's not clear what these depictions are meant to represent. But, on the other hand, it is hard to imagine that they are meant to represent something else.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • On the other hand, stepping away from this discussion for a couple of month allowed me to process the arguments internally. And here is what I think about it now (I hope my position has moved towards the other participants). Due to the equality of media, there should not be a difference in identifying a RW object/person by name/image/sound. A book can be identified by a passage. A song can be identified by an audio snippet. A person can be identified by an image. (However, as the image above shows, one needs some minimal amount of context for the sake of sanity.)

      I did at some point have problems with titles of songs, which may be hard to identify sometimes from audio only (I blame my musical upbringing). But in the presence of a shred of context the problem of identification should be resolvable. My second problem was that a title of a book or a title of a music piece can actually contain some information, unlike most proper names. The proper way of looking at it, I now believe, is to treat the page name as a variable name in a programming language. We give it a meaningful name for our convenience, but this should not give us license to extract information from the name. For instance, it would be improper to try connecting Marseillaise with the city of Marseille, unless its name is actually pronounced in-universe. As Josiah Rowe said, this is a bit of hair-splitting. But it was one of my worries, and one can find much more informative titles.

      However, my main problem was the ability to connect different descriptions of the same object/person, to connect an image with the name, the text of a book with the title of the book, etc. I think BWBurke94 meant something similar when he talked about distinguishing between facts and depictions from the RW. For me the connection stating that, say, the man who gave the human rights speech has this particular face was more of a fact than a depiction. And this fact was, seemingly, inducted into the DWU based solely on the title of the page. That was and is my main struggle.

      In other words, I agree with most of you if a RW object/person is always identified in the same way: always by image, or always by last name, or always by voice. The question is what to do when there are two unrelated and uncorrelated descriptions. I'm afraid I have to concede here that, though no universally optimal solution exists, there is little to be done other than put all these differently identified references to the same page. Again, the principle of equality of media was decisive in persuading me. (Needless to say, I would still be providing copious explanations in the BTS section regarding what is and is not known in-universe.)

      We all agreed that having separate pages for MLK would have been madness. What I realised recently was that it is hard to provide a principled rule regarding which representations of MLK are to be primary and which are to be relegated to the BTS. After internal deliberations, I concede this point.

      Having said that, my problems with the Monks and people they put into their propaganda are not resolved. For the simple reason that the context suggests those images to be doctored. However, my proposal to an admin who would want to close this debate some day is to remove the whole Monk situation from the general consideration. It is pretty unique, I believe, to deserve a separate, more pointed discussion what to do with in-universe sources that are known to be falsified.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Due to the equality of media, there should not be a difference in identifying a RW object/person by name/image/sound. A book can be identified by a passage. A song can be identified by an audio snippet. A person can be identified by an image. (However, as the image above shows, one needs some minimal amount of context for the sake of sanity.)

      Prose stories are different because, in most cases, the only way objects/people can be identified is by name.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'll throw in another example from my recent edits. In The Shining Man, Bill Potts remembered one of the most famous Humphrey Bogart's lines, "Play it again, Sam." (As most famous lines, it is typically misquoted, here and elsewhere.)

      All the novel states is that it is a movie with Bogart. In effect, the movie here is "identified" (or not?) by a popular quote rather than by name. I was not ready to put this info anywhere outside the BTS section.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: I'll throw in another example from my recent edits. In The Shining Man, Bill Potts remembered one of the most famous Humphrey Bogart's lines, "Play it again, Sam." (As most famous lines, it is typically misquoted, here and elsewhere.)

      All the novel states is that it is a movie with Bogart. In effect, the movie here is "identified" (or not?) by a popular quote rather than by name. I was not ready to put this info anywhere outside the BTS section.

      That would remain off limits in my current proposal, because it is a fact, not a depiction.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Finally, on a clear head, time to reply. I'm glad we agree on the outcome: this does not warrant identification of the movie. But this means that your proposal is more subtle than I thought.

      Is "depiction" an exact copy then, like a clip from a film, a piece of melody performed, a book read out, a person shown? As opposed to Bill remembering a movie rather than seeing the movie. Is that what you meant?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I wouldn't say "exact copy", because of the Monks situation, but Bill remembering a movie wouldn't qualify as a depiction.

      This is why prose stories are so hard to handle. We can't use equality of media as rationale to call it a depiction, because it would not qualify as a depiction if the story were in a performed format.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would really leave Monks out of it. They're not a standard case.

      I think I understand what you're saying about the prose. To depict on Video/audio/comics, one really has to show it. Want to depict a movie in a video? Show the screen. Want to depict a song on audio?Include it in the soundtrack (diegetically). Want to depict a person in comics? Include his/her face.

      In the prose, on the other hand, everything is a description, which can be more or less precise. One can claim there is a movie playing without giving a clue which movie. One can mention a pop melody dropping tantalising but insufficient hints which one it is. I see the problem.

      But I guess the same problem occurs if one tries to "depict" a face on audio.

      Perhaps, the rule-of-thumb should be that it can only be a "depiction" if it matches the medium. Visual depictions require a visual medium, audio depictions require sound to be present. Then we still have equality of media. And even prose can have its depictions if they are of narrative kind. For instance, a poem can be depicted in a novel if somebody recites it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Perhaps, the rule-of-thumb should be that it can only be a "depiction" if it matches the medium. Visual depictions require a visual medium, audio depictions require sound to be present. Then we still have equality of media. And even prose can have its depictions if they are of narrative kind. For instance, a poem can be depicted in a novel if somebody recites it.

      Of course, the recitation of a poem would also be a depiction even in a televised story.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Absolutely. Text can be equally well represented on video, audio or in pure text. I did not mean the media to be separate. Clearly, audio media are contained in video ones (unless it's a silent movie but I don't think we have those), but not in comics ones. So a pop song can be depicted in a comic strip by its text, but an instrumental piece cannot be depicted and would have to be explicitly named. (I did try to figure out the music score from the cover of The Silver Turk. It was a nightmare and never led anywhere.)

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: I did try to figure out the music score from the cover of The Silver Turk. It was a nightmare and never led anywhere.

      Of course, under my proposed rule, this would be irrelevant. The cover does not exist in-universe.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I just wanted to pop-in and say that you two have taken this thread to really great places. This is the kind of discussion that makes this site worth being on.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108
      Shambala108 removed this reply because:
      specific examples should be asked on article talk pages. this thread is for defining the policy.
      00:16, March 15, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Closing this one right now. User:OttselSpy25's claim that we are primarily a visual medium blatantly ignores Tardis:Neutral point of view. For someone who has been part of the wiki for so long, such a blatant misconception rules the whole thread invalid.

      If he wants to open a new post, keeping the policy in mind, then go for it. It will then be discussed as it should be.

        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+