Talk:Warp Hustler (series): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::I thought the question was "small DWU Easter eggs in a story that ''does'' pass rule 4"? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|๐ข]]ย 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | ::I thought the question was "small DWU Easter eggs in a story that ''does'' pass rule 4"? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|๐ข]]ย 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: If this Janice character actually appeared in a story contained within ''Wildtymes on the 22'' I would be in full support covering any subsequent spin-off she appeared in. However, she literally just had an unnamed cameo on the front cover of the book (was her name even created then or has Paul Hanley just reused a random character design?). [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">โ</span>]] 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:12, 2 August 2023
I'm genuinely gobsmacked at this. Are we seriously considering illustrations as an appearance? Have I missed the thread that approved this? How utterly bizarre and detrimental to this Wiki. DrWHOCorrieFan โ 17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many illustrations constitute a work of fiction unto themselves โ something I completely agree with โ which was established at Forum:Temporary forums/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1#Illustrations & artwork. I suggest you read through that closing post. 17:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot get behind this. Such lack of thought went into this decision. How does a small cameo appearance, in this case Paul Hanley's character Janice, on an Iris Wildthyme book cover suddenly validate an entire series that has nothing to do with Doctor Who? DrWHOCorrieFan โ 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- The series has something to do with Doctor Who in that it's a Doctor Who spin off. The character Janice, who debuted on the cover of a Doctor Who anthology, is getting a spin off, therefore we cover it. Aquanafrahudy ๐ข 17:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Eh... There's no precedent for this, and hence no practice, and policy is also interpretable to a degree, so there's no absolutes here, as far as I can tell. But I agree that this series doesn't really deserve coverage for the character appearing on a cover alone. Saying that, I feel this discussion should be moved over to Talk:Warp Hustler (series). And I mean literally move-the-page, as this discussion will make as much, nay more, sense there. Cousin Ettolrahc โ 17:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, there's precedent of characters debuting in covered sources going on to have spinoffs and being covered, it just hasn't happened with an illustration before. Cookieboy 2005 โ 17:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- To my mind, valid coverage would be perfectly fair to suggest if authorial intent were clear that this is "an Iris spin-off" (or better yet explicitly DWU), even if the original appearance of the spun-off character is minor. But the BTS quotes here just don't seem to support this. Hanley explicitly doesn't consider the cover to have been Janice's debut โ just a time-displaced crossover. The relevant precedent here would thus seem to be the original decision on the Sleeze Brothers. (And granted that's since been partially overturned, but due to factors specific to that series; I think the basic proposition does make some sense.)
- I think any discussion of this is premature, anyway. Even if the illustrations can be considered works of fiction in their own right, I would feel much better discussing this with the actual Warp Hustler #1 in hand. If Iris makes a cameo in turn, for example, or some other indicator of intended DWUness, that would change things. But the current state of the evidence is just too little for me. I propose that we move all the pages created thus far to a sandbox-namespace, sit on it, and then hold a proper inclusion/exclusion debate after the actual first issue of the comic comes out and some of us actually read it. Right now we're just reading tea leaves. Scrooge MacDuck โ 17:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose they did say there'd be cameos iirc, not sure what cameos, though. Could feasibly be something to provide a stronger link. Cookieboy 2005 โ 17:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- In principle we ought to at least cover it, as it is technically a Doctor Who spin off. If we don't think that Hanley intends it to be a Doctor Who spin off, then it ought to at least be covered, if as invalid. It does, after all, pass the first three rules (albeit by a hair's breadth). Aquanafrahudy ๐ข 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. (This isn't a euphemism for "I don't think so", I mean I'm genuinely unsure.) This is sort of the mirror situation to the "small DWU easter eggs in a story that doesn't pass Rule 4" question alluded to at Talk:Guinevere One. And again I think this sort ofโฆ "doesn't pass Rule 2 by authorial intent", if that's a coherent concept? Insofar as the purported debut is not held to have been a debut by its creator. But this is all very untested ground. As I said, I think it's best to hold everything for now, and have a proper thread hashing it out once we have more facts in hand. Scrooge MacDuck โ 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the question was "small DWU Easter eggs in a story that does pass rule 4"? Aquanafrahudy ๐ข 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- If this Janice character actually appeared in a story contained within Wildtymes on the 22 I would be in full support covering any subsequent spin-off she appeared in. However, she literally just had an unnamed cameo on the front cover of the book (was her name even created then or has Paul Hanley just reused a random character design?). DrWHOCorrieFan โ 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the question was "small DWU Easter eggs in a story that does pass rule 4"? Aquanafrahudy ๐ข 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)