Talk:Christopher Eccleston (in-universe): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't see why we should assume this alleged character is called Christopher Eccleston? Yes, obviously the post is, from the real world, a reference to Eccleston's actual upbringing in Salford, but it contains no actual mention of his name, nor is there any other in-universe reason I can think of to surmise it. If there are other references anywhere to a Christopher Eccleston of this description existing in universe, I would suggest adding them ASAP; otherwise I don't know that this page serves much of a purpose. [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | I don't see why we should assume this alleged character is called Christopher Eccleston? Yes, obviously the post is, from the real world, a reference to Eccleston's actual upbringing in Salford, but it contains no actual mention of his name, nor is there any other in-universe reason I can think of to surmise it. If there are other references anywhere to a Christopher Eccleston of this description existing in universe, I would suggest adding them ASAP; otherwise I don't know that this page serves much of a purpose. [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
: I mean we should. A boy who grew up in Salford in the 1970s who looks like the Ninth Doctor.... ''of course'' that is a reference to Eccelston. Is him name mentioned? No, but neither are a bunch of characters in {{tlx|Doctor Who individuals}}; a lack of a given name is not just reason not to have a page. An "in-universe reason [...] | : I mean we should. A boy who grew up in Salford in the 1970s who looks like the Ninth Doctor.... ''of course'' that is a reference to Eccelston. Is him name mentioned? No, but neither are a bunch of characters in {{tlx|Doctor Who individuals}}; a lack of a given name is not just reason not to have a page. An "in-universe reason [...] to surmise it"? It is current practise to say "does this character exist in a source we deem valid or invalid? Yes? Then they get a page." Characters with a lack of notability doesn't mean we don't have pages for them. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: But what plausible in-universe reason is there for him to be ''called'' "Christopher Eccleston" (a name which otherwise has no known significance within the world of Doctor Who), rather than Joe Bloggs – or, for that matter, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(TV_serial) Steven Baxter]? Given this article only exists because we're maintaining the fiction that the post in question ''didn't'' originate in our world, I'm not sure why we should be bringing in real-world knowledge here. [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: This is an issue that has remained contentious on this Wiki for years. But in-line with [[Talk:Hatbox]], I think a conjectural name here is fine, though it should use the {{tlx|conjecture}} tag. Think about it like this: suppose that no story in the DWU had ever given us the name of [[Benjamin Franklin]] or something, but one story features a brief cameo by "a portly man in 18th century dress playing with a kite during a storm". Would it ''really'' be helpful to anybody to pretend that this is "[[American gentleman (Example Story)]]? | |||
::: To elaborate: generally speaking, [[T:NO RW]] should prevent the creep of ''arbitrary'' real-world information into the DWU — things like [[Marco Polo]]'s historical date of birth. But our coverage should track with what the story expects the [https://www-archiv.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/node/59.html implied reader] to know. We can put hatboxes at the page [[hatbox]], because that is a word the implied-viewer is ''expected'' to know; we gain nothing by putting the page at [[Unnamed container for hats (Partners in Crime)]] even if the syllables "hatbox" have never been pronounced in the DWU. | |||
::: I believe this sensibly applies to cases like this as well. You're ''supposed'' to recognise Christopher Eccleston; it's part of the non-verbal storytelling of the piece, as much as TV stories expecting us to ''know'' what a hatbox is by default. If you haven't made the connection to the historical/real-world figure that the text is pointing at, then you haven't fully experienced the story. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:33, 10 June 2023
I don't see why we should assume this alleged character is called Christopher Eccleston? Yes, obviously the post is, from the real world, a reference to Eccleston's actual upbringing in Salford, but it contains no actual mention of his name, nor is there any other in-universe reason I can think of to surmise it. If there are other references anywhere to a Christopher Eccleston of this description existing in universe, I would suggest adding them ASAP; otherwise I don't know that this page serves much of a purpose. Starkidsoph ☎ 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I mean we should. A boy who grew up in Salford in the 1970s who looks like the Ninth Doctor.... of course that is a reference to Eccelston. Is him name mentioned? No, but neither are a bunch of characters in {{Doctor Who individuals}}; a lack of a given name is not just reason not to have a page. An "in-universe reason [...] to surmise it"? It is current practise to say "does this character exist in a source we deem valid or invalid? Yes? Then they get a page." Characters with a lack of notability doesn't mean we don't have pages for them. 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- But what plausible in-universe reason is there for him to be called "Christopher Eccleston" (a name which otherwise has no known significance within the world of Doctor Who), rather than Joe Bloggs – or, for that matter, Steven Baxter? Given this article only exists because we're maintaining the fiction that the post in question didn't originate in our world, I'm not sure why we should be bringing in real-world knowledge here. Starkidsoph ☎ 13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is an issue that has remained contentious on this Wiki for years. But in-line with Talk:Hatbox, I think a conjectural name here is fine, though it should use the {{conjecture}} tag. Think about it like this: suppose that no story in the DWU had ever given us the name of Benjamin Franklin or something, but one story features a brief cameo by "a portly man in 18th century dress playing with a kite during a storm". Would it really be helpful to anybody to pretend that this is "American gentleman (Example Story)?
- To elaborate: generally speaking, T:NO RW should prevent the creep of arbitrary real-world information into the DWU — things like Marco Polo's historical date of birth. But our coverage should track with what the story expects the implied reader to know. We can put hatboxes at the page hatbox, because that is a word the implied-viewer is expected to know; we gain nothing by putting the page at Unnamed container for hats (Partners in Crime) even if the syllables "hatbox" have never been pronounced in the DWU.
- I believe this sensibly applies to cases like this as well. You're supposed to recognise Christopher Eccleston; it's part of the non-verbal storytelling of the piece, as much as TV stories expecting us to know what a hatbox is by default. If you haven't made the connection to the historical/real-world figure that the text is pointing at, then you haven't fully experienced the story. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
