Talk:Anthony Williams

Summer Falls

The foreword for the newly released version of Summer Falls gives a brief bio of Amelia Williams as an author, mentioning that she lives in New York with her husband Rory and her son Anthony. Would this affect whether or not Anthony Williams is considered a canonical part of the DW universe? TARDIStraveler ☎ 17:23, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case, he's now been mentioned in WC: Rory's Story as well, so this page will need to be reworked to have a focus on the information from valid sources. Danochy ☎ 23:48, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why the afterword in Summer Falls shouldn't be valid. We already treat the contents of the book as the in-universe work of fiction that it is, so why not include the information about its in-universe author also? WaltK ☎ 01:18, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've been trying to get Summer Falls as the story in the 'First Mentioned In:' part of the infobox. I'm not even sure why this warrants a discussion. New Series Adventures are a valid source, and the 'about the author' segment is within the front and back cover, so surely it's on the same level as the rest of the stories within that anthology. Heck, I'd try and get the 'about the author' section it's own wiki entry.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 00:18, April 14, 2020 (BST)

You see, there is a bit of a procedural question. It is my understanding (though I have not read the book yet) that the Introduction of Summer Falls constitutes a full-on story. If this is so, the precedent would be for covering the About the Authors section as a brief "foreword" to that story, rather than a story in its own right. On its own merits, it's not really a story, and though that is a policy which I do not personally condone, only narrative sources are allowed. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:44, April 13, 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think anything intended to be in-universe, narrative or not, should be included. Otherwise, where would Liberty Hall stand? It's a mini-sode, but it's an in-universe interview with the Brigadier. But as that doesn't have a narrative, by the wiki's standards it shouldn't be included, yet it is.

But even if the afterword in "Summer Falls" is ignored as part of the Whoniverse, it should still be referred as the story Anthony was first mentioned in. Actually, why isn't "P.S" considered valid? I know the BBC weren't anle to film it due to lack of actors, but it not only got made into a video, it had linking narration by Arthur Darvill, and now, since Rory's Story has acknowledged Anthony, shouldn't both P.S. and the afterword from Summer Falls be considered valid? Both now have a valid confirmation to Anthony, so why not include them?

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 01:18, April 14, 2020 (BST)

I also think anything in-universe should be valid, but you and I are both bound by current policy until a thread in the forums successfully overturns the old rule. Though for the record, "a man interviews the Brigadier" is a narrative; it's a series of events happening within the DWU, even if it doesn't have a conventional narrative structure.

For some reason (but again, you and I can't just decide to change this because we don't like it), it was decided that invalid stories wouldn't appear in infoboxes about valid characters; hence The Curse of Fatal Death isn't mentioned as an appearance of Tersurus in that page's infobox, and things like that.

But again, while this About the Authors section can't really be called a narrative, it may be valid as part of a (valid) narrative. So we need some hard facts to pinpoint precisely what narrative that is, to know which title to put as the actual first mention in the infobox. Introduction seems like a likely candidate. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:27, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think that we do ourselves and our readers a bit of a disservice by disregarding publications with information about the DWU intended as 100% factual and official by the BBC and their licencees simply out of a preference for how it's written. Regardless, all a "narrative" really is is telling a story. A few sentences about Amy's life is hardly the most sophisticated story, but it is a story. My question is, what we consider it part of: Summer Falls, Summer Falls: Introduction or its own separate thing? Toqgers ☎ 01:28, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Rather infuriatingly, I've checked both versions of the book on Google Books, and I've found no mention of Anthony. I'm not sure if it's me missing it somehow, or if it's not actually in there, so we need somebody with a physical copy to check. Hopefully it won't just invalidate this whole discussion....

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 02:15, April 14, 2020 (BST)

It's there alright, as can be seen in just the Amazon preview. Be sure you were checking the anthology Summer Falls and Other Stories, not the earlier "solo release" of Summer Falls as a novel. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:23, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

@ Episilon the Eternal, in the Amazon listing here click "Look Inside"—that will bring you to the first page of the Introduction. Click the blue triangle shaped arrow to the left of the page a few times to get to the page with About the Author. Toqgers ☎ 01:33, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

@Toqgers: Definitely not Summer Falls the novel, in my opinion. The novel was released long before this addition, and if we pegged it down as Anthony's first (valid) story, that would seemingly make him debut in the wrong year. Personally I'm leaning towards lumping it in with Introduction rather than a separate page. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:31, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

So I've read it, and this is what it says: Amelia Williams is the editor of the famous Melody Malone series of crime novels, and a bestselling author of several books for children. She lives in New York with her husband Rory and their young son, Anthony. They have a grown-up daughter, Melody, who works as an archaeologist. So it's safe to say that Anthony was at least first mentioned here. (I still think P.S. should be valid now).

Personally, I think that this should be part of the page for Summer Falls and Other Stories, possibly in BTS or References.

Humorously, Justin Richards is mentioned as being an author in the Whoniverse, who wrote various stories about a man known as the Doctor who travels through space and time. So now, in the Whoniverse, I believe Doctor Who was a book series, which got adapted into a TV show (Remembrance of the Daleks has a brief scene where a TV presenter announces a new show called "Doctor Who"), and in the novelization of Day of the Doctor there are the two Dr. Who films on VHS.

I'm getting off topic, so I'll be quiet about that for now.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 02:46, April 14, 2020 (BST)

I am definitely of the opinion that P.S should be valid. It may have originally been a scrapped scene that never made it into an episode, but it was later released as an official webcast clip - how is that any different to the 'Rory's story' webcast? Xx-connor-xX ☎ 01:59, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I understand the original reasoning behind disregarding it, but now due to Rory's Story, it's been brought into continuity.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 03:02, April 14, 2020 (BST)

@Xx-connor-xX: I think P.S. would be better off valid too, but that's something only a proper inclusion debate in the forums could decide. Anyway, Connor, you have your facts wrong. As Chibnall revealed, P.S. was never intended to be part of the episode. Rather, it was planned as a DVD minisode, and that fell through, resulting in the release of the storyboard-with-voiceover as a webcast. It's, as such, invalid for being "unfinished", rather than a whole, released story.

And @Epsilon, with all due respect, if you think its invalidity (or invalidity in general) has anything whatsoever to do with whether it's "in continuity", I don't think you do understand the original reasoning. Validity isn't canonicity. Invalid material is referenced by later works all the time, but if we have unrelated reasons to consider the original story invalid, that doesn't change anything. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:06, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Unfinished by what standard? It was changed and animated into a webcast, doesn't that "finish" it? Similar to "Doctor Who and the Time War" - the story was scrapped when it conflicted with Moffat's plans for the 50th anniversary, but it was eventually reworked and rereleased and now is considered canon. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 02:10, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, it's three am for me, so sorry if I'm talking rubbish. I do see what you mean. By my reasoning, Curse of Fatal Death should be "canon", and just plain silly. Thanks for pointing out my rather stupid statement. :)

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 01:18, April 14, 2020 (BST)

@User:Xx-connor-xX, unfinished by Chibnall's standards. As quoted by User:CzechOut in Forum:P.S., "Chibnall's Twitter remarks sink it. It was intended to be a DVD extra, but cancelled due to the actor's unavailability. Therefore, it's just an animated storyboard of a proposed scene." Shambala108 ☎

It was reworked and released online as a webcast, with a voice over from Arthur himself. How is that any different from Rory's story? Xx-connor-xX ☎ 13:07, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, @User:Shambala108, but I still think that due to it being available to watch, it should be given the benefit of the doubt and considered canon. And besides, it's not likely it will be contradicted anytime soon.

@User:Scrooge MacDuck, where would the appropriate forum be to discuss the canonicity of P.S.?

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 03:28, April 14, 2020 (BST)

There is no appropriate forum to discuss the validity of P.S.. It is an unfinished or deleted scene, and those are not ever valid on this wiki. Shambala108 ☎ 02:45, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically, if quotes were found wherein which Chibnall said that he considers the animated version to be a finished production in its own right — the same story finished in a different medium, rather than a sketch of an incomplete live-action story — a debate could find this production valid. Though I don't believe such quotes exist at present. In general, @Epsilon, the forum for inclusion debates is, well, Board:Inclusion debates. But as Shambala has said, P.S. has already been discussed at length, and there is no need to question its status again unless new data surface. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:55, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that new data be Rory's Story? A valid story giving a tangible link to P.S. Surely that should be enough to re-evaluate P.S.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 14:35, April 14, 2020 (BST)

Not really. If P.S. were invalid on Rule 4 grounds — that is to say, because we had reason to believe that the authors didn't mean for it to be part of the wider DWU — a new story referencing its events directly might count as new evidence.

But it is my understanding that P.S. is invalid for Rule 1 reasons — as a deleted scene, it's not considered to be an actual, finished story, whatever its contents. It's invalid for the same reason that an interview with Chris Chibnall during which he'd mention this or that detail about the DWU is invalid: there is no doubt that the information is intended by its purveyor to pertain to the valid DWU, but it is not presented in a format we acknowledge as a valid source. Chibnall later incorporating a reference to his stated theory in a TV episode would not change this, and neither does a later, completed story referencing information from the "unfinished" P.S.. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:49, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so unless if the BBC decide to makeee an animated or live action version, P.S. is invalid.

But do we consider the "About the author" page (from Summer Falls and Other Stories) as a valid source? I would say yes, but that would mean Justin Richards should get a wiki entry about the DWU version of himself. Which I'm not opposed to.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 15:27, April 14, 2020 (BST)

As I said, the precedent established (for example) by the coverage of the "briefing documents" in The Book of the Peace is that such "prologue" features are lumped in with the actual short story to which they are connected, so I think the straightforward answer would be to cover it as part of Summer Falls: An Introduction rather than its own thing. The fact that this would "lead" to us having an in-universe Justin Richards page is no object — not only do we already have things like Tom Baker (TV Action!), but also, we even already have an in-universe Justin Richards page. Authors and crewmember cameo inside the DWU literally all the time. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:34, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! All I could suggest now is linking Summer Falls: An Introduction and The Girl Who Never Grew Up to Summer Falls and Other Stories

Epsilon the Eternal ☎️ 16:01, April 14, 2020 (BST)

Adopted?

I'd argue that Anthony was very much implied to have been adopted in Rory's Story. Rory described him as "coming home" in a week to "me and your new mum", which sound more like a reference to adoption than a description of birth. Danochy ☎ 00:50, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it's heavily implied, but I didn't say so in the main body because he doesn't say so explicitly. Toqgers ☎ 00:57, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

It was established in Asylum of the Daleks that Amy could no longer bear children due to what happened to her at Demon's Run, so he's definitely not biologically Amy's. I also feel it incredibly unlikely that Amy would be up and about painting rooms so soon after giving birth, or that they wouldn't have simply bought Anthony home from the hospital with them after. WaltK ☎ 01:12, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

"Your new mum" might be rather telling, though. The source does not say anything about adoption or foster care or any specific system or process by which Amy would become his new mother. But that line does, I think, tell us that (as Rory sees it, anyhow) Amy was not already Anthony's mother at the time of his birth.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:00, April 14, 2020 (UTC)