Talk:The Airzone Solution (novelisation): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:: If I am not mistaken, this novelisation is not set in the main universe or in any textual parallel universe, and it depicts ''[[P.R.O.B.E. (series)|P.R.O.B.E.]]'' existing as an in-universe series, not unlike the real world series. So while the elements in this novel are not treated as "real" ''per se'', they are still licensed, and we currently don't disallow stories that are licensed but only use said licensed elements as part of an in-universe series of books and films and stuff. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | :: If I am not mistaken, this novelisation is not set in the main universe or in any textual parallel universe, and it depicts ''[[P.R.O.B.E. (series)|P.R.O.B.E.]]'' existing as an in-universe series, not unlike the real world series. So while the elements in this novel are not treated as "real" ''per se'', they are still licensed, and we currently don't disallow stories that are licensed but only use said licensed elements as part of an in-universe series of books and films and stuff. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::Is there any way we can clear this up in the article so others don't get confused? Reading this article, I was under the impression that it was the same PROBE. But if it's an unrelated PROBE, then I agree with you Epsilon, that it should be left invalid. [[User:Thefartydoctor|<font color="blue">The</font><font color="silver">Farty</font><font color="red">Doctor</font>]] [[User talk:Thefartydoctor|<small><sup><font color="green">Talk</font></sup></small>]] 15:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 9 July 2023
Coverage
Sorry, it says that, in this story, the PROBE series existing in-universe is the only legal link to the DWU? Surely that isn't grounds for coverage? And if it is talking about PROBE existing as an organisation, something "making no attempt" to be set in the DWU isn't grounds for invalidity, surely? What on earth is going on here? Aquanafrahudy 📢 15:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, please keep this conversation reasonable and friendly. That last sentence isn't necessary. Validity debates are always open to everything and anything, as long as, as you say, there is a tenuous enough link. I agree that the link to PROBE makes it seem as though this is set within the DWU, but playing as devil's advocate here, this Wiki tends to hold the idea that if something is one step too far removed, then we don't cover it. Those aren't my rules, it's just how it goes. For example, making Dimensions in Time valid doesn't make Linda Carter and everything in EastEnders valid. It's a tough one that is definitely worth a debate.
- I also agree with you that saying that something doesn't present itself as DWU doesn't really mean it's not DWU. Just look at the Vienna audio series. That was, for a long time, not considered valid on this Wiki despite a lot of us pointing out that Vienna herself has crossed over numerous times in the main range. As a series, Vienna kept to itself, had original monsters, original storylines, and didn't want to rely heavily on the DWU. And actually, that was invalided by one quote from one person, which could be interpreted many ways. I'm happy to cover the novelisation, but not the VHS release, but it needs further discussion. Just keep language here reasonable and professional. :) TheFartyDoctor Talk 15:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- If I am not mistaken, this novelisation is not set in the main universe or in any textual parallel universe, and it depicts P.R.O.B.E. existing as an in-universe series, not unlike the real world series. So while the elements in this novel are not treated as "real" per se, they are still licensed, and we currently don't disallow stories that are licensed but only use said licensed elements as part of an in-universe series of books and films and stuff. 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any way we can clear this up in the article so others don't get confused? Reading this article, I was under the impression that it was the same PROBE. But if it's an unrelated PROBE, then I agree with you Epsilon, that it should be left invalid. TheFartyDoctor Talk 15:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
