Talk:Gay Dads Organisation: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
In [[2010]], [[Santiago Jones' father]] went hiking across [[Antarctica]] with the '''Gay Dads Organisation'''. ([[TV]]: ''[[Death of the Doctor (TV story)|Death of the Doctor]]'')
In [[2010]], [[Santiago Jones' father]] went hiking across [[Antarctica]] with the '''Gay Dads Organisation'''. ([[TV]]: ''[[Death of the Doctor (TV story)|Death of the Doctor]]'')
:[[User:Epsilon the Eternal|Epsilon the Eternal]] [[User talk:Epsilon the Eternal|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:12, August 19, 2020 (UTC)
:[[User:Epsilon the Eternal|Epsilon the Eternal]] [[User talk:Epsilon the Eternal|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:12, August 19, 2020 (UTC)
:::Thank you, good idea,  that would seem better to me. Since this is speculation by the strictest definition, and is a rather a "Captain Obvious" statement if one considers the self-evident nature of the name to be enough. Hi. [[User:NightmareofEden|NightmareofEden]] [[User talk:NightmareofEden|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:34, August 19, 2020 (UTC)
::::Arguably it's a violation of [[T:NO RW]] as we have no reason to believe that an organization like this in the DWU would be named in a way that corresponds to the actual content of the group. Yeah. Annoying. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:39, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:39, 19 August 2020

> The Gay Dads Organisation was an organisation for gay dads.

Is this actually stated on screen, or this speculation? And if the line is that it’s self-evident from the name, isn’t having this statement a bit redundant? NightmareofEden

Could do this:

In 2010, Santiago Jones' father went hiking across Antarctica with the Gay Dads Organisation. (TV: Death of the Doctor)

Epsilon the Eternal 19:12, August 19, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, good idea, that would seem better to me. Since this is speculation by the strictest definition, and is a rather a "Captain Obvious" statement if one considers the self-evident nature of the name to be enough. Hi. NightmareofEden 19:34, August 19, 2020 (UTC)
Arguably it's a violation of T:NO RW as we have no reason to believe that an organization like this in the DWU would be named in a way that corresponds to the actual content of the group. Yeah. Annoying. Najawin 19:39, August 19, 2020 (UTC)