Forum:Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks

Index → Inclusion debates → Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

This write up on the back of the playset's packaging clearly shows that it is trying to tell a specific story.

I've got something a little unusual that I think might be eligible for coverage by this wiki. A playset produced by Bluebird Toys in 1997 called In the Domain of the Daleks. The playset appears to be trying to tell a specific story, so I think it should be a source on this wiki. The problem is, I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies as a work of fiction. This might be a case of something passing the old version of Rule 1, but not the current version of it. If this is the case, I think coverage as invalid might be an option, as this wiki covers several things that aren't quite works of fiction as invalid. Cgl1999 ☎ 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Yeah, I think this'd definitely qualify for valid coverage. I'm not quite sure how it where you'd cover it, though. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's a work of fiction. Why wouldn't it be? It's… rather more difficult to figure out what the medium is, which would be rather necessary whether it's valid or invalid. "(game)"? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Merchandise) would be a closer fit, I think, and it's a sensible dab term to have (as an extension of this I would suggest either MERCHANDISE or MERCH for a new prefix). (Game) is also fairly close, but it's hard to pin down quite what it is. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I had been thinking of making a thread to add (merchandise) or something similar as a type of source (with the same prefix ("MERCH")). Whether it should really be done in a forum about a specific source is something else, though, might be a bit tricky to find down the line if it causes a major change like that. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that part 4 follows from parts 1-3, as depicted in the image. That would be the one issue? And, well, since we don't have a well thought out policy for covering merch as sources and that's a big can of worms, we might want to call it a sculpture instead? Najawin ☎ 20:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I grasp how that would help — we don't have a framework for covering/citing "sculptures" any more than general "merchandise". I truly think game is the closest fit as it stands. You play (with) it; it's not a thousand miles off from something like War of the Daleks.

I actually wonder if Part 3 and Part 4 aren't meant to be two possible outcomes, but you're right that it's a bit fuzzy. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not the only piece of merch that I think could have an argument for coverage (the "Temporal Blast Combat Set" from Character Building comes to mind, only because I happen to own it, but there are others that I don't own) and I think the topic would benefit from a dedicated thread to decide on a "theory of coverage". The medium of merch is a plentiful one that I don't think we do enough to cover, but suffers from many of the same issues as multi-path fiction and so I feel another thread would be beneficial to get all of the details straightened out. Outside of those with "stories" or flavour text, some merch could be covered effectively as 3D illustrations, so that's another angle to consider. Bongo50 ☎ 21:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I brought up sculpture in analogue with poems and illustrations, though we don't explicitly cover them in any way. Merch in general is a much larger discussion. Najawin ☎ 21:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with coverage and validity. To me it seems that panel 4 shows a different Dalek and the big eyestork gun thing (which in the actual play set is red and can fire a plunger) start attacking the Doctor. I belive a nice solid Mech category could work. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 08:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Najawin: But is it? I don't think I know of very many other Rule 1-passing items of merchandise that couldn't be construed as "sculptures" in the basic sense of a three-dimensional depiction of an in-universe element… What else is there that could imaginably be validated? Trading cards were often cited, but really that falls either under the "(feature)" or "(game)" umbrella or something… "Sculptures" seem like the main type of merchandise which there'd be an argument to validate, but which we don't have a live theory of coverage for. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, that prefix was for coverage as invalid. I think we should just put this off entirely until the larger march discussion if it's to be covered as valid. Najawin ☎ 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I do actually own this toy if anyone needs photos/pictures. OttselSpy25 ☎ 22:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)