Talk:Whoniverse

G S Palmer removes "Issues" Template

1)Original research states :

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

2)Neutrality states:

"An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources(N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public)."

3)...may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (self-explanatory).

4)This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. (again, self-explanatroy)

5)...appears to contain unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims. Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources(again self-explanatory)

6)Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.)(see WP:RS). 41.132.48.255 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would gladly explain at length why you are wrong, but since time is short and you're busy preparing for your trip to Germany, I'll keep it short and sweet: Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Read it this time. G S Palmer (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not tag bombing, because that is not a tag, it is a template. You already deleted all the tags. However, these are issues with the the article in the template. And even if you have issues with the new additions, it is obviously nothing short of disruptive vandalism and POV-pushing to delete the template as a whole. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. At the bottom of the article, it has a link that says An example of excessive tag bombing. This is tag-bombing. And it clearly states that tag-bombing is disruptive editing and may lead to a block. G S Palmer (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not tag-bombing. However, if you feel that there is overlap between any issues, then maybe someone with less personal interest than you can look in on it, and maybe it can be streamlined. However, the article still has very clear and obvious problems with multiple different issues/policies. Maybe there is a way to incorporate all that information?

Of course, it would be better if someone actually tried providing Reliable Sources, removing the unsourced rambling, and stating what the sources actually say, rather than your own personal POV. I tried that, but you and your WP:MEAT relentlessly reverted it, and falsely reported me to ANI. Again, as long as this issue is a mess of unsourced material, OR, and "References" which do falsely claim what the sources actually say, then such a template must remain. It may be possible to convey all the same concerns with fewer lines, however. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, definitely not tag-bombing - even though the official example of tag-bombing is something exactly like this... G S Palmer (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That page has 19 various issues, separated out into 5 separate boxes, as well as repetition. This is one box, with 6 separate issues. I do hope you can see the difference. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look - I'm willing to admit that we both have probably gotten a little to entrenched in the article - maybe we should file a joint WP:RFC to see if all those tags are strictly necessary. Would you agree to that? G S Palmer (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

have no problem filing an RFC. But how would a joint one work? 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I just meant we would work together to make sure it wasn't biased toward one viewpoint or the other. G S Palmer (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How's this sound for a RfC question: "Does this article contain Original Research, Bias, Improper Citations, or Synthesis?"

If we file the RfC, we'll both have to agree to not attempt to sway other editors by contributing to the discussion. We should also make note of the RfC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. Does that sound okay? G S Palmer (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

RFCs are better with the most concrete and narrow scope required. Lumping too much into a RFC could cause too wide a discussion that does not give any answers. The major issue I see between editors of this page is "Is it appropriate to discuss the features or content of the portrayed whoniverse?" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The actual problem is the excessive use of primary sources. Feel free to find secondary sources to replace them, but be aware that if you continue to edit war the article will be semi-protected, which will tend to favour the experienced users over the anonymous editor. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The actual issues are that

a) the sources do not state what the article claims they do. Read the link to Lofficier's "Foreword". Then read what the article states it says. Read the actual BBC "Who are you?" quiz link. Then read what the article states it says. Read through any of the BBC links for creatures such as Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors etc. and search for any mention that these articles are about the "Whoniverse", "fictional setting", "fictional universe" etc.

b)No sense of proportion. As stated, there is nothing prior to 1992 and Lofficier's Foreword. There are also at least 2 RS earlier on this talk page stating that the Doctor comes from our universe. And there are at least 2 RS stating that Doctor Who takes place across several universes. And one short criticism by Tat Wood about the usage of the term "Whoniverse" and what it means. All of this gets deleted and/or ignored, and it is stated as plain fact that "Whoniverse" is and always has been THE(one and only) setting of Doctor Who. With nothing to the contrary allowed.

c)Unreliable Sources such as BleedingCool. Irrelevant material such as RTD's "canon" quote. And several sentences of totally unsourced material.

d)Demoting the original and still most widely-used definition to "Alternate usage" status, making it appear that it is somehow lesser to "fictional setting". Including repeatedly removing a valid link to a BBC America website that uses "Whoniverse" in the original Haining definition.

This article doesn't have one or two issues. It has multiple issues. Anyone actually reading through the page, and going to all the "references"/"sources" would discover a very different picture painted by what the sources do and do not say compared to what they have been used to "verify" on this article. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

All these problems exist in your head only, as has been explained to you repeatedly on this page. If you still don't get it, why not simply stop torturing yourself, and leave this article alone? Putting all the tags in the world won't make any difference. Mezigue (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

They are real problems that exist in this article. The most fundamental Wikipedia Policies are that Wikipedia content must be Verified by Reliable Sources, and that editors/articles actually state what the Reliable Sources state, not what the editors want the article to say. If the Reliable Source says one thing, then you can't write something different very different, and use the Reliable Source to "verify" something it does not say. In addition, entire paragraphs with no sources at all can be removed, and only reinstated when they are properly sourced. And of course, Wikipedia must maintain a Neutral Point Of View, and give equal weight to all Reliably Sourced positions on a particular issue.

Yet, you have persistently disregarded all of those Policies. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes when everybody else tells you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong. This appears to be one of those times. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How is adding unsourced information, deliberately lying about what a Reliable Source states(adding information that is almost the exact opposite of what the source actually says), using SYNTHESIS, and ruthlessly deleting anything that may suggest an alternative and provide a NPOV not WP:OR? 41.132.48.255 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most of the sources you have provided for the alternate usage have been questionable at best. And none of us have attempted to remove the alternate usage section - in fact, when I rewrote the article, I actually expanded it a bit. G S Palmer (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You reworded it to make it appear as though the Haining definition is the lesser, largely unused definition, which is nonsense. You also persistently deleted a link to an official BBC website using the term in the Haining definition.(It's bizarre how you repeatedly delete an official BBC link, yet keep reinserting Bleedingcool as a RS to back up your mess of a POV.) You also removed the NPOV tag from the top of the article(which is related), and deceptively removed sources using the term in the Haining sense to and placed them under the "fictional setting" sense! And of course you repeatedly removed the Tat Wood comment, even going so far as to nominate Tat Wood for AfD just to try and make a point here. The article is still pushing your POV. And does not provide a fair, balanced NPOV position. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC America guide

I was looking through Your Guide to the Whoniverse and came across:

"Five Whovian Things That Exist In Real Life

These five things exist as fanciful astonishments in the Whoniverse, but could also easily (and in some cases DO easily) exist in the real world."

The full article is is promoting is ‘Doctor Who’ Science Fact: Five Whovian Things That Exist In Real Life

Which seems to suggest that the Whoniverse is not "the real world". In this article the "Your Guide to the Whoniverse" is used to support the "alternate usage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First, as a link I provided a while back shows how Science fiction must be set in the real world, and show possibilities(mostly for the near future). This link could be seen in that sense.

However, if we do accept it is GraemeLegget presents it here, then it is both ironic that this is the one link that G S Palmer kept relentlessly deleting....but more than that is the fact that the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) is not uniformly accepted as fact. AGAIN, there is nothing from before 1992 putting forward this idea(and Lofficier himself states that it's just his personal take)...and there are RS stating that Doctor Who takes place "in our universe", and then there are RS stating that Doctor Who takes place in multiple universes. And then there's the Tat Wood(and no doubt others) RS criticising the whole idea of so-called fans trying to construct this concept, and then use terms like "Whoniverse".

So even if we accept that there are sufficient RS to back up "Whoniverse"(fictional setting), it is important to remember that it's just the idea of some people, and far from accepted/agreed upon. This article needs to maintain a NPOV. Oh yeah, and the origin of "Whoniverse"(fictional setting), ie. Lofficier, describes the Whoniverse very differently to the way this article does. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this discussion keep popping up here again and again? Isn't it accepted by all that the word has been used in both senses? However this article is about only one of the uses. Mezigue (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually read anything you would understand. This article is about only one of the uses, but a)you can't use the word when it is being used in the other sense to "verify" this use, b)this article's use is the less used version, and c)this article's very concept is not agreed upon as being generally accepted. And of course, this article is almost entirely OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you actually provide sources to support those claims? G S Palmer (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I have already. But you kept reverting them, and even nominated the author of one of the cites for deletion. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Kistler (2013) Page 224

Has been tagged "Failed verification", been un-tagged, and tagged again. There is obviously a difference as what people think Kistler says about "Whoniverse" in his work. So let's work through that. I don't have that book, but that enables me to try and mediate without being influenced by what I think the text says. If we could start with some things that should be largely devoid of nuance of interpretation.

1. I'm told that page 224 has a section entitled "Expanding Whoniverse". Is this agreed by all or is this disputed?
2. And that the section mentions (among others) Doctor Who Magazine comic stories, tie-in novels and Big Finish audios. Is this correct? (and what BBC and licenced - or even unlicenced - media is mentioned by name?)
3. Does the text, as opposed to the heading, use the word "Whoniverse"?

As these ought to be simple matters-of-fact, can we keep the responses brief. I wouldn't want the next stage to be either clouded by getting ahead of ourselves or by not having found the footings first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection for ongoing disputes

I have semi-protected the article for a week due to ongoing edit warring. This is not to endorse either side in the content to dispute, but to protect the article from disruption as the dispute is resolved. The last several times revert wars have flared up, they have been one person reverting two others. While not a strong consensus, this is a showing of consensus, which is the reason the page is not fully protected. If revert wars resume, the protection may be extended or blocks may be issued to reduce collateral damage to uninvolved unregistered editors.

Apologies to any uninvolved unregistered editors for the complication. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is endorsing one side. The article does, and always has, contained Original Research. In fact, the article is mostly Original Research. If you go to WP:OR, and read what it says there, that's about as good a description of this article as you are likely to find. And a majority of one can never be considered "consensus". If Admins actually looked at the disagreement, rather than protecting one version without any analysis, than maybe this could have been solved peacefully long ago. The article as it stands now is not only almost entirely WP:OR, but now it is protected with the "Original Research" tag removed! So, that clearly is endorsing one position. And as long as Admins would rather simply protect articles, without actually analysing the dispute, then the majority of one will persist, and this article will always be a hopeless mess of WP:OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Archives

This talk page has grown large, making it slow and unwieldy to load. General talk page guidelines suggest setting up archiving when a page “exceeds 75 kb or has more than 10 main topics”; this page is now about 217 kb and has almost 40 main topics. Would there be any objection to setting up automatic archiving here, so that some of the older and inactive discussion topics can migrate to the archives?  Unician ∇  08:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

By all means, archive this headache-inducing monstrosity! Mezigue (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. (Also, if you look, its actually all one long debate!) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done  Unician ∇  02:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whoniverse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/23/anglophenia.jsp?bc_id=76

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)